|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on May 5, 2012 0:46:43 GMT -8
Cyclommatus elaphus Gestro, 1881 (109mm max size) on left and C. truncatus Schenk, 2000 on right (82mm max size). I noted in "The Lucanid beetles of the world', a lot of the ssp or forms have became new sp now, ie with Cyclommatus elaphus, there're C. elaphus, C. truncatus and C. kirchneri now. They were just different forms before. The differences are very small between each sp. Another good example is there used to be 4 spp with C. imperator and now there're C. imperator, C. monguilloni and C. splendidus. On the other hand other sp like Rhaetulus used to be all different sp and now they're just all ssp. I want to know if you support clumbing ssp together or spliting into different sp? Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on May 5, 2012 0:52:07 GMT -8
Cyclommatus elaphus 102mm from Mt Dempo, Sumatra Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on May 5, 2012 0:53:57 GMT -8
Cyclommatus truncatus 81mm from Mt. Dempo, Sumatra Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on May 5, 2012 23:35:38 GMT -8
Should we splitting up all Prosopocoilus giraffa ssp and Dorcus titanus ssp into different sp?
I think there should be consistency with all sp, is one or the other. Not just clumbing with some and splitting with others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2012 4:13:31 GMT -8
"I think there should be consistency with all sp, is one or the other. Not just clumbing with some and splitting with others." Well said lucanidae25  Key word---- Consistency  |
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on May 6, 2012 17:39:02 GMT -8
I normally support clumbing ssp together but there're lots of sp do need to be spliting up into different sp. ie when D. grandis was discovered in Laos, I do think then D. curvidens formosanus need to change into D. grandis formosanus. Another eg when D. curvidens curvidens were found living together with D. curvidens hopei in Dayao Shan in Guangxi in China. Then D. hopei were separated from D. curvidens.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the definition of a sp is when you cross 2 sp together you can only get 1st generation but not 2rd generation? In the case of C. elaphus and C. truncatus are spp and found in the same area in Mt Dempo in Sumatra, there should be natural cross in the wild but there're none and only one or the other and there're such size differences between the the 2 sp. I would aggree they should be separated into 2 sp.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathcat on May 19, 2012 11:20:01 GMT -8
Subspecies do help differentiate disjunct populations and provide part of the model for species radiation. Modern sequencing analysis can be used to determine the percentage of variance to such-and-such quantitative limit, putting an actual measurement on whether or not something is its own species/ subspecies. But I suspect, sometimes, somebody just really, really wants to describe something, and bases a new "subspecies" on slight differences in mandible shape, or a color form from a particular mountaintop. What're you gonna do  |
|
|
|
Post by lucanidae25 on May 20, 2012 3:55:36 GMT -8
I think we should all have clear rules on when a ssp should become a new sp.
What happens when you have 2 ssp living in the same Mt range but it's not a gradual change? It's one or the other.
|
|
