|
|
Post by obiwankenobi55555 on Jun 12, 2014 3:58:54 GMT -8
Hello friends,
I search on ebay some butterflies and saw that Oliver Schaeffler offer 4 papilio nobilis but did not recognize ssp. of decet specimens.
Please can you professionals recognize subspecies of 2 males and 2 females .
I really appreciate that
Obiwan
|
|
|
|
wil
New Member
Posts: 5 
|
Post by wil on Jun 12, 2014 5:56:31 GMT -8
The first specimen is Papilio nobilis didingensis
Second and third is Papilio nobilis crippsianus male and female respectively
Fourth is could be white form Papilio nobilis nobilis but unsure
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jun 12, 2014 6:55:33 GMT -8
Hello friends, I search on ebay some butterflies and saw that Oliver Schaeffler offer 4 papilio nobilis but did not recognize ssp. of decet specimens. Please can you professionals recognize subspecies of 2 males and 2 females . I really appreciate that Obiwan what are the datas (localities at least !) ? |
|
|
|
Post by obiwankenobi55555 on Jun 12, 2014 7:09:51 GMT -8
Only localities.
First picture from Kenya
Second Kibale forest, Uganda
Third Kibale forest, Uganda
Fourth Kibale forest, Uganda but he's mention light form
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jun 12, 2014 7:16:00 GMT -8
then first is nobilis nobilis if from central kenya (otherwise following Larsen, it can be crippsianus if from the border Uganda/ Kenya ? ) et last 3 are ssp crippsianus.
Anyway these ssp are not obvious and extremly variable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jun 12, 2014 8:22:55 GMT -8
I have some bad news for you all. Papilio nobilis Rogenhofer, 1891 is a junior homonym of Papilio nobilis Cramer, 1777 (a Hesperiid).
Under the current ICZN Code, Article 23.9.5 protects junior primary homonyms of taxa not considered congeneric after 1899 which have not previously been replaced or declared invalid as junior homonyms, subject to a ruling by the ICZN Commission when an application is made to conserve them. In this case the name was previously declared a junior homonym by Koçak (1983) and replaced by the next available name, thus rendering it permanently unavailable.
The correct name for this species is Papilio pringlei Sharpe, 1894 (type locality: "Kikuyu to Victoria Nyanza viâ Sotik").
Adam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jun 13, 2014 0:54:06 GMT -8
I have some bad news for you all. Papilio nobilis Rogenhofer, 1891 is a junior homonym of Papilio nobilis Cramer, 1777 (a Hesperiid). Under the current ICZN Code, Article 23.9.5 protects junior primary homonyms of taxa not considered congeneric after 1899 which have not previously been replaced or declared invalid as junior homonyms, subject to a ruling by the ICZN Commission when an application is made to conserve them. In this case the name was previously declared a junior homonym by Koçak (1983) and replaced by the next available name, thus rendering it permanently unavailable. The correct name for this species is Papilio pringlei Sharpe, 1894 (type locality: "Kikuyu to Victoria Nyanza viâ Sotik"). Adam. Your knowledge on Papilionidae is impressive Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jun 13, 2014 2:51:37 GMT -8
I have some bad news for you all. Papilio nobilis Rogenhofer, 1891 is a junior homonym of Papilio nobilis Cramer, 1777 (a Hesperiid). Under the current ICZN Code, Article 23.9.5 protects junior primary homonyms of taxa not considered congeneric after 1899 which have not previously been replaced or declared invalid as junior homonyms, subject to a ruling by the ICZN Commission when an application is made to conserve them. In this case the name was previously declared a junior homonym by Koçak (1983) and replaced by the next available name, thus rendering it permanently unavailable. The correct name for this species is Papilio pringlei Sharpe, 1894 (type locality: "Kikuyu to Victoria Nyanza viâ Sotik"). Adam. Is this published ? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jun 13, 2014 7:12:33 GMT -8
Yes, unfortunately as I stated above, by Koçak, 1983 (Priamus, 3(1): 38) - otherwise the name Papilio nobilis would be conserved under Article 23.9.5 of the current Code, until the Commission rules on the homonymous names after an application is made. In cases like this if no application were to be made then the junior name would continue to be conditionally valid. Just to make it clear, because Koçak (1983) already declared the name to be a homonym and replaced it with the next available name it is not possible to apply Article 23.9.5 to the name Papilio nobilis. Here is a scan of the text of Koçak (1983) on this name:  Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jun 13, 2014 7:35:26 GMT -8
I should add that most people will continue to call it Papilio nobilis, even though it is an invalid name.
Unfortunately this creates long term instability of names because some people will call it Papilio nobilis and others will call it Papilio pringlei. Although we (including myself) don't like names to change it is actually better if we all use the valid name Papilio pringlei, as after a while everyone will be using the same name and we will forget there was ever a problem. Continuing to use the invalid name just 'prolongs the agony'.
The current Code deliberately introduced Articles such as 23.9.5 in order to promote stability of names (which is the primary aim of the Code) by introducing conditions under which names do not have to be changed unless it really is necessary.
Adam.
|
|
wil
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by wil on Jun 13, 2014 7:55:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jun 13, 2014 8:41:11 GMT -8
Mark Williams, like most literature, treats Papilio nobilis as the valid species name, and Papilio pringlei as a synonym of the nominate subspecies, but he may not even know that Papilio nobilis is a junior homonym. This is a good example of why invalid names continue to be used by most people. Bernard D'Abrera's books were full of such names and in the end they cause more confusion than if we just learn the correct names and get on with it. Actually Papilio pringlei is a good name for this butterfly, as it does look rather like Pringle's crisps  Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by obiwankenobi55555 on Jun 13, 2014 9:19:02 GMT -8
Yes I must say nice knowledge Adam, you have answer for every case. But unfortunately I think lot of time needs to pass until people start use name Pringlei instad of Nobilis, and yes pringlei is quite cool name hehe  *africaone* thank you for recognize subspecies. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jun 13, 2014 13:08:08 GMT -8
Mark Williams, like most literature, treats Papilio nobilis as the valid species name, and Papilio pringlei as a synonym of the nominate subspecies, but he may not even know that Papilio nobilis is a junior homonym. This is a good example of why invalid names continue to be used by most people. Bernard D'Abrera's books were full of such names and in the end they cause more confusion than if we just learn the correct names and get on with it. Actually Papilio pringlei is a good name for this butterfly, as it does look rather like Pringle's crisps Adam. Kocak is not very much popular, espacially in RSA because he renammed local species  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jun 13, 2014 14:14:42 GMT -8
I have been working for some time on a paper with Gerardo Lamas which should clarify much of the Papilionidae nomenclature. Hopefully it can be completed in the next few months, as it's taken a couple of years already. Among a large number of problems it deals with a number of Koçak names, many of which are superfluous. Unfortunately some of them have to stand as valid names, but so-be-it.
Adam.
|
|
