|
|
Post by dynastinae on Mar 28, 2013 20:52:09 GMT -8
With the help of an entomologist in the US, I was able to take a look at the publication that described Goliathus orientalis in 1909. Upon looking at the picture of the holotype, it appears to be what we TODAY call Goliathus orientalis preissi. (see picture below) img822.imageshack.us/img822/6777/paperb.jpgThen I checked for the location of the holotype and found the following information: Goliathus giganteus orientalis M o s e r , 1909, Deutsche ent. Zeitschr., 1909: 238, f i g . (type l o c , env. L i n d i , T a n g a n y i k a ) . The holotype was from Tanganyika, the former name of Tanzania. This confirms the holotype is really what we TODAY call G. o. preissi. Does this mean a mistake had been made for over a centruy??? The polulation in Tanzania should REALLY be the nominate variety, NOT the Congo population??? If the above is true, TODAY's G. o. preissi should be renamed G. o. orientalis and today's Congo population should be renamed to be something like G. o. meleagris? In other words, the term "G. o. preissi" wouldn't exist anymore. Besides, "orientalis" means "east." Only the Tanzanian population qualifies for "east." What I think had happened was that later entomologists mistook Moser's holotype for an individual from the Congo area (because it has multiple rings on the elytra, a less common aberration in the Tanzanian population). Then in 1933, Preiss took a stripped specimen (the most common form in the Tanzanian population) from Tanzania and described it as Goliathus goliathus usambarensis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Mar 28, 2013 23:37:26 GMT -8
that makes dozen years that the Congo population is called meleagris by local hunters and many specialist  what is true is that the nomenclature of the group needs to be clarified there is something economic in the naming of Goliathus ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dynastinae on Mar 29, 2013 1:06:12 GMT -8
There has been three major publications about Goliathus orientalis:
1. Goliathus giganteus orientalis Moser, 1909, Deutsche ent. Zeitschr., 1909: 238, fig . (type loc, env. Lindi, Tanganyika).
2. Goliathus meleagris Sjostedt, 1927, Ent. Tidskr., 48: 127 (type loc., Katinda, Katanga merid., Congo-Kinshasa; ct. Sjostedt, 1927: 9).
3. Goliathus goliathus usambarensis Preiss, 1933, Verh. naturhist. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. u. Westfalens, 90: 89, pl. I fig. 3 (type loc., Usambara, Tanganyika).
1 and 3 are based on the Tanzanian population.
2 is based on Katanga, Congo population.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Mar 29, 2013 4:30:35 GMT -8
usambarensis is a different species than those from katanga (meleagris) !
I am not sure about the status of the Lindi population ...
I am waiting a paper that clarify the situation (that can be published in EA or lambillionea :-) ) !
|
|
|
|
Post by albatus on Mar 29, 2013 10:34:36 GMT -8
Jonathan, thanks very much for the link of publication. I'm absolutely agree with your opinion, Moser's specimen belong to Tanzanian population, so it should be nominate.
Situation with Congo and Tanzanian orientalis should be clarified.
|
|
|
|
Post by depalma on Mar 30, 2013 12:20:57 GMT -8
Hi all - I believe that Africaone has to study the holotype of G. g. orientalis, and possibly obtain other specimens from the type loc. Lindi Province, before embarking on a revision of the orientalis/usambarensis group. Indeed, the specimen from SE Tanzania illustrated by Moser (orientalis Moser, nec auctorum) looks like a transition between meleagris (Katanga) and usambarensis (Tanga), possibly being closer to usambarensis. If so, there are 3 distinct populations, and usambarensis Preiss could be a subspecies of orientalis Moser, while meleagris be a good species!
After Eudicella, Dicronorhina and Mecynorhina, it appears that nomenclatural problems also affect the largest species in the group.
Best Regards,
Michele De Palma
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Mar 30, 2013 13:35:07 GMT -8
Hi all - I believe that Africaone has to study the holotype of G. g. orientalis, and possibly obtain other specimens from the type loc. Lindi Province, before embarking on a revision of the orientalis/usambarensis group. Indeed, the specimen from SE Tanzania illustrated by Moser ( orientalis Moser, nec auctorum) looks like a transition between meleagris (Katanga) and usambarensis (Tanga), possibly being closer to usambarensis. If so, there are 3 distinct populations, and usambarensis Preiss could be a subspecies of orientalis Moser, while meleagris be a good species! After Eudicella, Dicronorhina and Mecynorhina, it appears that nomenclatural problems also affect the largest species in the group. Best Regards, Michele De Palma Michele, You know that I don't want to do the job. I am just interested by a revision of this genus as it seems ovbious that nomenclature of this group need to be precised. As you done with the Eudicella and others (for which your work is very well appreciated) ... We expect that you will find time to do it !  Also to precise status of the different genera that occur in the big goliathini (Goliatus, Fornasinius, Hegemus, Argyropheges, ....) |
|
|
|
Post by depalma on Mar 30, 2013 13:50:19 GMT -8
Hi Thierry - I am currently too busy with my real job in Lausanne! Perhaps in 1 year or so I will have a chance to look at the group more globally.
Will you be in Lyon next week? I hope to see you there on Saturday!
Miki
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 8, 2013 1:25:11 GMT -8
just in hand a very recent paper on the subject Taxonomy of the Goliath beetle Goliathus orientalis Moser, 1909 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) by Jonathan R. Mawdsley in Journal of Natural History, 2013 the paper is quite supercial (no list of studied material, no datas of the specimens figured, etc....) and unprecise. question remains after this .... another more paper on the question usambaresis is treated as ssp of orientalis (itself synonymised with meleagris), not clear ! Seems to be based espacially on litterature and few material.  |
|
|
|
Post by dynastinae on Apr 8, 2013 10:24:29 GMT -8
Here is a color plate from Taxonomy of the Goliath beetle Goliathus orientalis Moser, 1909 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) by Jonathan R. Mawdsley in Journal of Natural History, 2013 The two specimens circled in red seem very improbable from Usambara, Tanzania. Possibility of mislabelling by insect dealers or museum staff?? Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by depalma on Apr 9, 2013 13:17:21 GMT -8
Right, unfortunately this paper is not useful. The author did not study critical specimens from South Tanzania, nor did he study the type material that should be available in European collections. I also agree with you on the dubious origin of some of the specimens alleged from Usambara.
So, being the identity of G. orientalis not addressed, the status of usambarensis and meleagris remains uncertain. The synonymy is completely unresolved...
Best wishes,
Miki
|
|
|
|
Post by dynastinae on Apr 9, 2013 21:56:44 GMT -8
As highly traded and as popular as the Goliath beetles are, I have never heard of Goliathus orientalis from "Lindi" in my two decades of breeding and collecting beetles.
Since it was more than a century ago, a time when geography and locations weren't mapped with technology and precision, could an error or miscommunication have been made?? That Moser's holotype was not really from "Lindi"?
Moser's holotype looks like an individual from Usambara to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 9, 2013 22:23:18 GMT -8
In my experience of catching meleagris, this species is found quite every where in Katanga and then it seems obvious that his distribution must be quite larger in the South and east than Katanga itself. This seems not abnormal that it can reach the southern Tanzania despite Lindi seems quite far. As Lindi was an important locality on the coast for travellers, hunters and traders, it may be possible that the specimens came from more inland.
tanzania is very well collected but it seems that Lindi region is not so.
I have yet heard of "usambarensis" from Uluguru or Nguru but I don't know if they are reliable ?
The situation is the same as for many "popular" and "expensive" groups, datas are frequently not reliable
|
|
|
|
Post by veto82 on Apr 11, 2013 8:35:26 GMT -8
The situation is the same as for many "popular" and "expensive" groups, datas are frequently not reliable These words are full of wisdom... the southern part of Tanzania is a very interresant aera (and Mocambique too) but not very well know... Some "hard to find" taxa, witch are reported from others aera (e.g. from Uluguru) came from littles aera in southern Tanzania S. Frantz |
|
|
|
Post by depalma on Apr 12, 2013 9:34:23 GMT -8
Hi Sylvain - Do you know if there are reliable records of G. orientalis from Southern Tanzania, in particular from South-East?
This would be important to know.
Best,
Miki
|
|
