|
|
Post by birdwings123 on Feb 28, 2014 7:47:37 GMT -8
Hello all, Just see a specimen of priamus labelled as miokensis, whenever I can't really find the real difference between miokensis and urvillianus. Please advice what does the specimen likely to be. Any help will be very appreciated  . Thank you.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Feb 28, 2014 8:20:21 GMT -8
Can you either post a clear photo of the label, or tell us the data written on it. Locality is important in determining the identity.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Feb 28, 2014 8:33:20 GMT -8
As far as I know, a characteristic feature of the miokensis appearance is its distinct blue-green color in contrast to that of the urvilleanus, which is mostly blue-dark blue.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Feb 28, 2014 9:28:36 GMT -8
I have seen green, blue green- blue miokensis male specimens from the Duke of York island - Mioko where it is supposed to be very rare. The O. priamus subspecies bornemanni from New Britain and the ssp urvillianus from New Ireland meet on this island and breed, resulting in specimens that may resemble either subspecies or a mixture of both. Peter.
|
|
cyane
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by cyane on Feb 28, 2014 13:35:10 GMT -8
As Peter said, miokensis is very variable. I have seen a series of netted specimens that varied from almost as green as poseidon to as blue as urvillianus.
David Hall
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbodnar1 on Feb 28, 2014 16:16:08 GMT -8
So the question would remain, what is the distinguishing characteristic of this subspecies if locality data were not provided?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by birdwings123 on Feb 28, 2014 17:23:32 GMT -8
Dear all, many thanks for your helps and opinion.
The data is:
22.3.1971
Mioko Island
Which state it's a miokensis. But sometimes data can be mixed up with other specimens.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Feb 28, 2014 18:33:58 GMT -8
So, the question lies in the plane of data authenticity, just as in the case of, say, Aeth. victoriae...
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Feb 28, 2014 22:40:30 GMT -8
So the question would remain, what is the distinguishing characteristic of this subspecies if locality data were not provided? If there is a slight overlap between bornemanni and urvillianus and they breed on the Duke of York, can miokensis be considered a good subspecies??. |
|
|
|
Post by krupten on Mar 1, 2014 3:47:27 GMT -8
O.p.miokensis is a naturally occurring hybrid - albeit there were some substitutions of urvilleana some years back. Morphologically urvilleana PURE gene poolcan be identified by a simple morphological pattern on the HW. miokensis - can and does go from the Chrome Green of bornemanni - to the BLUE of urvilleana - but when you get the Chrome Green with the HW pattern of urvilleana that generally is a strong indicator of the hybrid origin of the specimen in question. In 1971 - there were a couple of people who took miokensis - and these were sold by Ray - Richard and Harry for that matter. In the mid to late 70's there was another Australian collector in the area (working for ROTHMANS) and he managed to breed out a number of them. True subspecies - and Adam do correct me if I am wrong - should be genetically isolated or insulated from another population that conforms to a specific morphological pattern or "form". If you do DNA on the priamus - there are some points of difference but I think - from conversations that to characterize to the subspecific level is not easily or reliably done. Have a good look at the HW - if there is a secondary black scaling that seems to break the HW blue pattern into a dual border - THEN YOU HAVE urvilleana - if it is totally blue - with subdistals - likely it is miokensis. Not sure if this ramble makes much sense but this is just a break between emails. Duke of York by the way now has FEW if any miokensis - and sporadic would be close to say the least. Most come from Ugi. Additionally - the label seems to have a collectors name - Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by birdwings123 on Mar 1, 2014 23:21:32 GMT -8
O.p.miokensis is a naturally occurring hybrid - albeit there were some substitutions of urvilleana some years back. Morphologically urvilleana PURE gene poolcan be identified by a simple morphological pattern on the HW. miokensis - can and does go from the Chrome Green of bornemanni - to the BLUE of urvilleana - but when you get the Chrome Green with the HW pattern of urvilleana that generally is a strong indicator of the hybrid origin of the specimen in question. In 1971 - there were a couple of people who took miokensis - and these were sold by Ray - Richard and Harry for that matter. In the mid to late 70's there was another Australian collector in the area (working for ROTHMANS) and he managed to breed out a number of them. True subspecies - and Adam do correct me if I am wrong - should be genetically isolated or insulated from another population that conforms to a specific morphological pattern or "form". If you do DNA on the priamus - there are some points of difference but I think - from conversations that to characterize to the subspecific level is not easily or reliably done. Have a good look at the HW - if there is a secondary black scaling that seems to break the HW blue pattern into a dual border - THEN YOU HAVE urvilleana - if it is totally blue - with subdistals - likely it is miokensis. Not sure if this ramble makes much sense but this is just a break between emails. Duke of York by the way now has FEW if any miokensis - and sporadic would be close to say the least. Most come from Ugi. Additionally - the label seems to have a collectors name - Cheers Hello Sir, Thank you very much for your explanation, yes, there is a collector name on the label. Just take a better photo of it. As the photo before is quite dark. There is no secondary black scaling that break the HW pattern into dual border in my opinion, but your comments will be very much helps. Thank you. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 2, 2014 8:28:42 GMT -8
That's from Kurt Rumbucher, so the data should be reliable.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurie1 on Mar 2, 2014 15:41:58 GMT -8
That is without doubt a genuine miokensis. I am one of the few privileged to have seen miokensis in the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdwings123 on Mar 3, 2014 1:05:38 GMT -8
Hello, thank you for the info. It shall be a great experience to see miokensis in field anyway . |
|
|
|
Post by marcingajewski on Mar 3, 2014 2:07:18 GMT -8
O.p.miokensis is a naturally occurring hybrid - albeit there were some substitutions of urvilleana some years back. Morphologically urvilleana PURE gene poolcan be identified by a simple morphological pattern on the HW. miokensis - can and does go from the Chrome Green of bornemanni - to the BLUE of urvilleana - but when you get the Chrome Green with the HW pattern of urvilleana that generally is a strong indicator of the hybrid origin of the specimen in question. In 1971 - there were a couple of people who took miokensis - and these were sold by Ray - Richard and Harry for that matter. In the mid to late 70's there was another Australian collector in the area (working for ROTHMANS) and he managed to breed out a number of them. True subspecies - and Adam do correct me if I am wrong - should be genetically isolated or insulated from another population that conforms to a specific morphological pattern or "form". If you do DNA on the priamus - there are some points of difference but I think - from conversations that to characterize to the subspecific level is not easily or reliably done. Have a good look at the HW - if there is a secondary black scaling that seems to break the HW blue pattern into a dual border - THEN YOU HAVE urvilleana - if it is totally blue - with subdistals - likely it is miokensis. Not sure if this ramble makes much sense but this is just a break between emails. Duke of York by the way now has FEW if any miokensis - and sporadic would be close to say the least. Most come from Ugi. Additionally - the label seems to have a collectors name - Cheers Hi also Mr.Archer took some in 1974 . Thanks |
|
. Thank you.
