parides coelus M+F

[bobw]

Dec 9, 2011 7:52:57 GMT -8 Adam Cotton said:

Bob,

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that is the correct terminology. Yes coelus Boisduval is a senior synonym of vercingetorix Oberthur, 1888, but once it is ruled unavailable it becomes a junior synonym of the available name, and is listed in synonymy of that name. The ICZN Code is unclear about this issue simply because it is entering the realms of taxonomy. The Code stops regulating precisely once the name has been shown to be unavailable. How we list names in synonymy is a taxonomic rather than pure nomenclatorial issue and thus not governed by the ICZN Code.

Adam.

Adam

Actually, I think we're agreed on the use of synonym and homonym; it's "senior" and "junior" that we're discussing.

If a taxon is found to be a synonym or a homonym it has no effect on availability; once a name is available it is always available unless specifically ruled otherwise by The Commission (Art. 10.6). I therefore don't think this affects its senior/junior status. It's only a matter of semantics and probably not important as we're all agreed that the valid name for the species is vercingetorix. I still think I'll ask Gerardo's opinion as it would be good to know for sure.

Bob

[Adam Cotton]

Indeed we do agree, and also the discussion is about senior vs junior, and whether an older name is always regarded as a senior synonym regardless of availability or becomes a junior synonym of the valid name. It is really about the definition of the word 'senior', as the older name is always senior in age, but not necessarily senior in validity. I will be very interested to hear Gerardo's opinion, and will let you ask him (better than both of us bombarding him with e-mails).

Of course during the discussion I have been trying to explain things in a way that helps the average reader here understand the issues, as most of them will not be as familiar with the Code or basic taxonomic principles as you or I.

Adam.

[lordpandarus]

To me even if the "correct" name if vercingetorix , it's called coelus in every book so that's what I'll continue to call it

I hate all this name changing from what were all used too , like Asterope for Callithea

[panzerman]

It seems that most specimens that are in collections were captured before 1930. Anyone know of recent catures?


John

[bobw]

Dec 9, 2011 17:00:56 GMT -8 lordpandarus said:

To me even if the "correct" name if vercingetorix , it's called coelus in every book so that's what I'll continue to call it

I hate all this name changing from what were all used too , like Asterope for Callithea

The only book I have that calls it coelus is D'Abrera, and that's just copied from the drawers of BMNH. The two books that deal in detail with Parides, Tyler et al (1994) and Racheli (2006), both call it vercingetorix.

Very few people are likely to have it in their collections anyway.

Bob

[Adam Cotton]

Dec 10, 2011 5:22:07 GMT -8 bobw said:

The only book I have that calls it coelus is D'Abrera, and that's just copied from the drawers of BMNH. The two books that deal in detail with Parides, Tyler et al (1994) and Racheli (2006), both call it vercingetorix.

Very few people are likely to have it in their collections anyway.

Bob

Yes, and d'Abrera deliberately ignores MANY correct names in favour of the names he prefers to use, eg Meandrusa gyas and hercules, Papilio lycophron, Eurytides harmodius, Atrophaneura polyeuctes philoxenus (here he uses the correct species name with an older invalid subspecies name - what a joke!). That's just a few of the Papilionidae errors, never mind those in other families. He even wrote in one of his books that they were used deliberately, as he didn't like the 'correct' names.

Adam.

[lordpandarus]

Paul Smart calls it coelus too. It's the book I learned all my names from too

[Adam Cotton]

Paul Smart's book was also one of the books I used as a young man. It was the most impressive volume when it was published, with really nice photos, but it's rather old now, and contained errors back when it was written in 1976.

I think you have a choice, either learn the correct names or continue using the old ones. It's really up to you and most people will know what you mean even if you do use invalid names, but it is worth knowing what the correct names are.

Adam.

[bobw]

I think we can all agree about D'Abrera! However, I do use his books for groups I don't know very well. They're quite useful for identifications as long as you realise that his use of names is rather inconsistent and if you can ignore his proselytising.

I never found books such as Smart or Lewis very useful. as they tried to cover so much there was inevitably too much left out for them to be much use for identification. I also knew Paul Smart and don't want to comment about him either.

Bob

[bobw]

Adam

I have a reply from Gerardo (reproduced below). It seems I was right about the use of seniority.

Bob


Dear Bob

Papilio coelus Boisduval, 1836 is a senior subjective synonym of Papilio vercingetorix Oberthür, 1888, but it cannot be used as the valid name of the taxon because it is a junior primary homonym of Papilio coelus Stoll, 1781 (i.e., it is permanently invalid). Therefore, the name to be adopted as valid for the taxon is the oldest available one, i.e. P. vercingetorix, which is a junior subjective synonym of coelus Boisduval. Being accepted as the valid or "correct" name of a taxon does not make vercingetorix a senior subjective synonym of coelus Boisduval, as seniority is determined by the Principle of Priority (Art. 23.1).

A valid name is an available name that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code, and which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgement. Thus, the decision about the taxonomic validity of a name is a subjective one made by an author.

For instance, some author may consider that, in his/her opinion, Papilio vercingetorix is a junior subjective synonym of, say, Papilio tros Fabricius, 1793. If tros were to be accepted as the "correct" (valid) name for this particular Parides species, then both coelus Stoll and vercingetorix Oberthür would be regarded as junior subjective synonyms, but coelus would still be senior over vercingetorix.

I know of no Code provision supporting Adam's interpretation that a "valid" name acquires seniority by being (subjectively) accepted as the "correct" one. I think he is confusing nomenclature and taxonomy.

All the best,
Gerardo

[Adam Cotton]

Bob,

Thanks for the interesting clarification through Gerardo. I seem to have been overruled, which is fine by me, we all learn something every day. I would like to say that I was not confusing nomenclature and taxonomy, just that I was treating the status after application of the Code (which IS taxonomy, not nomenclature). It seems that it would be better just not to refer to the older invalid name as 'junior' to the younger valid name.

I just checked article 23.1, and it does not actually clarify the junior/senior issue after a name has been declared invalid, the words 'senior' and 'junior' do not actually appear until articles 23.2 and 23.3.6 respectively.

Adam.

[bobw]

Adam

It seems that the words senior and junior apply purely to age, just like us. I certainly wish I were a bit more "junior" than I am!.

Bob

[Adam Cotton]

me too ;-(

[timmsyrj]

Firstly, very nice specimens John, but what followed was some very heavy reading for a sunday morning, i will leave all the research to you experts and i'll continue to collect. One thing is for sure, what ever you want to call them i still call it " Missing from my collection" and will probably remain so

Rich ;D

[panzerman]

Rich: One must always have "hope". I waited long time for that pair, now Iam waiting for AI pair of klagesi klagesi, or nssp. that some say exists in Amapa region. Quadratus quadratus is another "hope"

John