|
|
Post by collector on Apr 30, 2016 18:11:47 GMT -8
Is the correct ID Pathysa nomius or Graphium nomius.
Also, for Pazala specimens, should it say Pazala or Graphium??
Thanks![]() 
|
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Apr 30, 2016 23:57:10 GMT -8
"Pathysa nomius or Graphium nomius" or even Arisbe nomius?. Who knows anymore, next year they'll probably be something else anyway so call them what ever you want, mine are Graphiums and will remain so on the data labels.
Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 3, 2016 6:32:24 GMT -8
As far as I am concerned they are all Graphium species, with Pathysa, Pazala and Arisbe among the subgenera.
Rich is right, next year we should know more as we are starting a large scale DNA study on Graphium now.
Bear in mind that generic classification is really a somewhat artificial and certainly subjective issue. If you prefer to lump related species in a monophyletic (all members share a single common ancestor) unit together, then call them all Graphium, but splitters prefer to treat the branches of this group as separate genera. To be blunt, that is fine for people who know the group but in reality the end users of taxonomic classifications are mostly non-experts (ecologists, collectors etc) who want to identify the species and at the same time want to know which species are related to each other. This is exactly what the genus name conveys, and excessive splitting just hides important information from these non-expert users of the names.
It is perfectly acceptable to use both names together, thus Graphium (Pathysa) nomius clearly indicates that the species is a member of genus Graphium and subgenus Pathysa. The subgenus name is placed in parenthesis between the genus and species name to add further information.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by collector on May 10, 2016 15:12:06 GMT -8
Thanks Rich and Adam.
I did label them Graphium (Pathysa)...as you suggested.
Bedros
|
|
