|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 6:26:43 GMT -8
O. p chrysanthemum male. Manokwari Attachments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 6:46:04 GMT -8
Yet another male of arfakensis showing constant features of the butterfly Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 6:47:25 GMT -8
The female arfakensis. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Jan 20, 2013 6:57:00 GMT -8
Here's the link to the images I found and an image of the labels. I can't vouch for the validity of the specimens but the info looks authentic to me. I don't know any German, translation in English (or French ;D) would be much appreciated. www.globis.insects-online.de/species&s=3659Thanks, Thierry Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Jan 20, 2013 7:15:24 GMT -8
Peter,
Thanks again for all the beautiful picts. Aside from the mythical Alex, Paradisea is my favorite butterfly. What a magnificent display of Mother Nature's talent, and what a treat for the collectors of such beauties.
I note that the Sabinae female you posted is remarkably similar to the Flavescens female that Oliver posted a few days ago on the "My favorite Ornithoptera specimen" thread (that you started, thanks BTW ;D). I think it is quite possible that the range for Flavescens would reach all the way to Nabire from Etna Bay (never having visited New Guinea, this is purely a conjecture on my part, but I am very much struck by the similarities). Not sure that the differences in the males are that significant (I have seen a fair amount of variations in fore and hindwing shapes in the images of male specimen pertaining to be Flavescens/Detanii).
Cheers,
Thierry
|
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Jan 20, 2013 7:35:29 GMT -8
For the historically inclined, pictures of the O. Priamus types from 1758! Google is such an amazing resource. I am becoming an e-collector ;D Attachments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 20, 2013 9:00:59 GMT -8
Butterfly nomenclature the naming of species, subspecies and forms is a subject that has always fascinated me. The disagreement in the valid naming of butterfly species and subspecies is considerable. What Some regard as a true species others might believe they are subspecies and vice versa. Entomologists might regard some butterflies as good subspecies whereas some might consider them to be infrasubspecific geographical forms. This difference of opinion seems to be universal among Lepidopterists. There are, as many people know, those that regard certain species of butterfly as having many subspecies, the 'splitters' or just a few, the 'lumpers'. I should point out here that you are combining two different disciplines here - nomenclature and taxonomy. Nomenclature is governed by the ICZN Code, and covers naming new taxa and the status of names already published, including whether those names are available or not. Taxonomy applies the rules of nomenclature to a name or set of names, often making subjective decisions based on information available about the taxa under consideration. Thus whether a certain named population should be considered as a local form, subspecies or species is purely a taxonomic decision, not nomenclature. The rules of nomenclature, when correctly applied, are a tool for the taxonomist to decide which names are available for each population and which of the available names is the valid name of the taxon being considered. If a name was originally described as infrasubspecific (in the case of an old name by the use in the original description of the word aberration, or clear indication that the name was described as infrasubspecific (eg. stating that the name applies to a seasonal or sexual form), or in names published after 1960 by the use of the word 'form' or 'variety') then it is unavailable, and cannot be used as the species or subspecies name with original author and date. Note that many modern Ornithoptera names are infrasubspecific because they were described as 'form loc.'. A taxonomist applies the rules of nomenclature to find the oldest available name for a taxon, discarding homonyms and infrasubspecific names; and then treats the oldest of these available names as the valid name of the taxon. He/she then has to make taxonomic decisions as to whether different valid named taxa belong to the same subspecies or species, eg whether to treat arfakensis as a separate species or a subspecies of paradisea. Of course lumping vs splitting is a subjective decision made by the individual researcher based on his/her interpretation of the data available, and as such the same information can easily be treated differently by different people. One person may see a particular fact as evidence of separate species status, whereas another may regard the same evidence as not indicating more than subspecific difference. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 10:33:47 GMT -8
Thank you Adam for the principles governing the naming of species [Butterflies]. I was aware that taxonomists actually named the taxon. I would be interested to know what criteria it is that gives Entomologists the authority to name Species, subspecies or forms of butterflies.
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by simosg on Jan 20, 2013 10:48:11 GMT -8
The font at the label is hard to read and the picture is bad. I can only read the last row: caught by a boy. "Boy" does not mean a young man here, it must be a servant, as the autor of the label used the english word "Boy". In former times the young black servants have been called so.
In the second row seems to be a name, Dr. Rogger or something like this.
I think the last word in the last but one row must be the location where the Boy has caught the specimen.
Hannes
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 11:09:24 GMT -8
Hi Hannes
Very interesting to see the male Type which Thierry posted. Amazing the type came from the Finisterre mountains where most of the 1970s O. paradisea paradisea came from. I do know by courtesy of the Haugham and Low monograph that the Type was collected by the German collector Wahnes who was in the field for Von Schonberg. It is interesting the label gives the credit to a native boy collector that the pioneers always used. The specimen is important but is certainly in bad condition. I wonder what method was used to collect it.
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 11:16:50 GMT -8
Peter, Thanks again for all the beautiful picts. Aside from the mythical Alex, Paradisea is my favorite butterfly. What a magnificent display of Mother Nature's talent, and what a treat for the collectors of such beauties. I note that the Sabinae female you posted is remarkably similar to the Flavescens female that Oliver posted a few days ago on the "My favorite Ornithoptera specimen" thread (that you started, thanks BTW ;D). I think it is quite possible that the range for Flavescens would reach all the way to Nabire from Etna Bay (never having visited New Guinea, this is purely a conjecture on my part, but I am very much struck by the similarities). Not sure that the differences in the males are that significant (I have seen a fair amount of variations in fore and hindwing shapes in the images of male specimen pertaining to be Flavescens/Detanii). Cheers, Thierry Thanks Thierry. I am glad that you enjoyed the O. paradisea specimens. Amazing to see the types of Priamus. My O. sabinae female is indeed close to the flaverscens female that Oliver posted. I do not know if my female sabinae specimen is typical of those from Nabire. I believe the female specimen shown in Olivers Ornithoptera book had reduced white forewing markings. Peter. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 20, 2013 12:35:44 GMT -8
I would be interested to know what criteria it is that gives Entomologists the authority to name Species, subspecies or forms of butterflies. Peter. Peter, I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. Particularly I am unsure of your use of the words 'criteria' and 'authority'. By 'criteria' do you mean the characters used to decide whether they should be considered species/subspecies or forms, or something else? As for 'authority', perhaps you can explain what you are trying to ask. Do you mean authority 'bestowed upon from above', or authority in the sense of confidence in their decision? One way I can read the sentence is "How do entomologists decide whether butterflies should be treated as species, subspecies or forms?" However, I'm not sure whether that's really what you are asking. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jan 20, 2013 12:42:55 GMT -8
Adam
I meant is it justifiable for anybody to be able to name species,subspecies or forms. By authority I meant if a new name is going to be used for a butterfly, insect, plant, or animal, to be valid would the name just have to be published or submitted to a governing body . For instance If I found what I thought was a new species or subspecies would it be enough to just to just publish the name in a scientific journal or would the find have to be verified by a specialist
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by simosg on Jan 20, 2013 12:45:48 GMT -8
The last word in the last but one row seems to be Constantinhafen, mostly written Konstantinhafen, today called Erimba in Madang Province, Astrolabe Bay. So the text at end of the label says "caught by a Boy in Constantinhafen".
Hannes
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Jan 20, 2013 13:06:29 GMT -8
Unfortunately yes as long as you follow the rules of the ICZN. This is the reason why there is so many bogus names out there made by scientifically illiterate persons. The whole naming, especially in Ornithoptera (or Troides as some call the genus  ) is a huge mess where one subjectivity tops the next subjectivity. Better not to go too much into detail, the rules of what species is and is not fade out anyway on a certain level of precision. Please note that taxa get written with lower-case letters and only genera start with capitol letters. More and more users start to forget about this very simple rule and even switch from one system to the other within a single reply which is not understandable to me. |
|
) is a huge mess where one subjectivity tops the next subjectivity. Better not to go too much into detail, the rules of what species is and is not fade out anyway on a certain level of precision.