Butterfly naming problems. Example O. paradisea.

Anyone at all can name a new species or subspecies, as long as they do so in a way that conforms to the ICZN Code. Whether other people agree with the new names being worthy of species or subspecies status is another issue entirely. The names (assuming they were correctly published in such a way as to make them available under the Code) will subsequently be assessed by authors who work on them, and decide whether they are worthy of the status originally given to them, or synonymised with previously named taxa. Of course this is generally subjective, and subsequent authors may decide to treat them as separate taxa once more.

On the other hand naming forms really has no scientific purpose, as form names are infrasubspecific and not considered valid under the Code. The only use they have is as a label for people to use informally. In reality you may as well post a picture here on the Insectnet forum and say I want to call this form xxx. If you were to go to all the effort of publishing a paper in a Code compliant way the form names in it would have no status, so why bother?

I find it very funny that there are still well known authors publishing form names complete with 'holotype' designation etc. In fact Deslisle & Sclavo published just such a paper in Lambillionea last year, naming two new local forms and six new individual forms of O. paradisea. If someone subsequently describes the same 'local forms' as subspecies giving them new names, the Deslisle and Sclavo names would not have priority as published first, since they are not Code compliant, and so have no scientific validity. On the other hand Deslisle & Sclavo, 2012 does have scientific value in the information and illustrations which add to our knowledge of Ornithoptera paradisea. The paper is valuable in that respect, but they may as well not have bothered giving them form names.

Adam.

Hannes

I have been giving more thoughts to the O paradisea paradisea type locality, Astrolabe Bay. I believe the male type was taken by the German collector Wahnes around 1892. It is interesting to note that Meek took a specimen at Astrolabe Bay in 1913. I believe there was a good population here and many historical specimens came from that locality. It is probably extinct there now. However I see no reason why this species should not still occur in the rugged area of the Finisterre mountains. It is very surprising that there is no information on the current status of O. paradisea in Papua.

Peter.

I am not sure what the Primary or secondary forest situation is around Madang- Astrolabe bay but there has been no records of O. paradisea from that area for a very long time. I believe O. paradisea is usually found in Primary forest. The Finisterre Mountains would be a exciting area to visit, perhaps even some new Delias species there. I am going to collect common Delias species first and work up. A few on the boards soon. Looking forward to the bug fairs this year and getting some good Delias.

I believe the naming of Ornithoptera infrasubspecfic forms has some use by helping those that study or collect these insects and will help them distinguish the different geographical forms that are deemed unworthy of full species or subspecies status.

There certainly has been much disagreement by specialists and authors who have published on the Ornithoptera group. In his' Birdwing Butterflies of the world' [1975,2001] Bernard d' Abrera raised a number of Ornithoptera to specific rank. These were O. priamus caelestis, O. priamus richmondia, O. priamus euphorion and O. paradisea arfakensis. I wonder how many of you accept this revision. A number of Entomologists now believe that O. paradisea arfakensis and O. priamus richmondia are good species and in this I would agree. Do you?

Every author that has published on O. paradisea has taken a different view with which names to accept. Three major and ground-breaking publications are mentioned here. In a' Monograph of the Birdwing Butterflies'[1978] Haugum and Low show four subspecies[ paradisea, arfakensis,flavescens and a new subspecies borchi] with three possible others but then a number of subspecies are still yet to be discovered. Haugum and Low have seen photographs of the new subspecies O. paradisea chrysanthemum [Kobayashi and Koiwaya 1979] and mention the very distinct female and also refer to the male as synonymous with the male of O. p arfakensis?? and decline to show this very distinct taxon as a subspecies in their monograph. Hirotaka Matsuka in ' A Natural History of Birdwing Butterflies' [2001] shows eight subspecies [paradisea,arfakensis, flavescens,borchi, demeter, galatea,occidentalis,chrysanthemum. Bernard d, Abrera in Birdwing Butterflies of the World '[2003] shows 4 subspecies [paradisea,flavescens, demeter, chrysanthemum and raises O. paradisea arfakensis to specific rank with two subspecies occidentalis, galatea. Abrera believes subspecies borchi to be synonymous with O. paradisea paradisea.

Which of the above Birdwing books is best? In my opinion Haugum and Lows monumental monograph would be hard to beat for the very detailed and concise information contained in the text. Abrera book [the 2003 edition] has superb plates with many Types of the unparalleled collection of the BMNH. Even though they were then quite well known, colour plates of several very interesting Taxon are missing in the Abrera book probably because specimens were not held in the British Museum collections at the time when the author was producing his volume. The Matsuka book is obviously a great labour of love and my favourite book with many beautiful colour plates, beautiful images of the live butterflies which were all photographed by the Author. All the early stages are shown in glorious colour. Detailed maps showing known Birdwing localities. WOW what a book.

Peter.

Nomihoudai

I have already outlined why I believe O. paradisea arfakensis to be a good species in my answer to Thierry. Here are some of them again. For me O. arfakensis [ as I would call the butterfly] shows a distinct set of constant characters in the adult especially in the male. This together with its very different larva make O. arfakensis a strong case for this taxon being elevated to specific rank. The male of O. arfakensis has a highly modified forewing and hindwing wing shape with the complete black tail etc. Three other paradisea subspecies occur with O. arfakensis on the Doborai [ Bird's Head] Peninsular. Two of these galatea and occidentalis are clearly close affinities of O. arfakenis and in my opinion they are best regarded as probable subspecies of that species. However O. paradisea chysanthemum seems to be a very different matter and seems similar to the other O. paradisea subspecies found elsewhere in New Guinea. Earlier I stated that B. d' Abrera thought O. paradisea chrysanthemum was sympatric with O. arfakensis but I thought this might not be the case. Most of the recent specimens come from Manokwari on the North side of the Arfak mountains. However B. d. Abrera appears to be right and they do indeed fly together in the Eastern Arfak at Memti. If this is the case this would be another good reason for the separation of O. arfakensis A good question for me, is how many different reasons are there needed for O. arfakensis to be considered a bona fide species.

As you know many authors have regarded O. richmondia as a good species. some of these have seen or studied the butterfly in the wild. Gray [1853] Common, Waterhouse[1981] Hancock[1983] Parsons[1996]
Abrera [1975,2003] Jan Paternak [2000]etc.

There is much argument, which seems to be Common when discussing Ornithoptera, as to whether O. Richmondia should be consider a good species or left as a subspecies of O. priamus. I personally agree with the authors above that it is probably a good species. Even Zeuner thought that on account of its very different gentalia it might need rasing to specific rank but left it as a subspecies of O. priamus. I believe its extreme isolation [400 miles] from other priamus forms. The very different gentalia. Its constant size. Its different early stages with its remarkable green pupa unlike no other. I know there are colour variations in the pupa of other Ornithoptera but none of these seem to even remotely approach that of O. richmondia. I believe these and other factors warrant regarding O. richmondia as a good species.

I believe there has been pairing [Hand?] of O. richmondia and O. priamus euphorion and these are supposed to had a successive off spring. They however could never breed naturally in the wild.

Peter.

That is interesting Wollastoni. I know O. paradisea chrysanthemum occurs at a number of localities in the Arfak mountains. Matsuka shows five localities for O. paradisea chrysanthemum all in the southern and eastern Arfak Mountains.

There is another comment I would like to make on O. [paradisea?] arfakensis]. It appears that Gilles Deslisle and Jean Sclavo have described two geographical forms of O. paradisea that are morphologically very close to arfakensis. These new forms rather surprisingly come from the east of the Arfak mountains on Supiori Island [ North of Biak] and from Yapen Island. The specimens they figured indeed look close to arfakensis. Their specimens seem to come from dealers material and if these localities are correct, this would be a wonderful extension of the arfakensis range. However many of us will know that dealers from this region have and do falsify their data. The specimens they have figured do look very close to arfakensis from the Arfak mountains than say occidentalis from Sorong. Lets hope their data is correct and arfakensis does indeed occur on these Islands. Deslisle and Sclavo have described the Supiori and Yapen paradisea as local forms of O. paradisea arfakensis. They regard three subspecies [ now four they have occidentalis as a subspecies] of O. paradisea and all the rest as infraspecific local forms. Their new designations are described from remarkably few specimens and these are a ' form local ' from Supiori Island one pair and ' form local fernandi ' Yapen 3 specimens, two males and one female.

Peter.

Just wanted to add to the confusion. I have 2 pairs of O. paradisea sabinae that I purchased from 2 different reputable dealers here in the states. The males are the same, but the females are quite different. Female #1 looks much like the female sabinae posted by nomad, with white spotting in the forewings and white and yellow mixed hindwings. Female #2 has reduced white in the forewings and almost all yellow hindwings resembling female chrysanthemum. Is it possible that O. p sabinae females have two forms or, is this just variation in the species. I have not seen this much variation in females of any other paradisea species. Both pairs are ex-pupa from Nabire.

Norman