|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Oct 12, 2012 8:49:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 12, 2012 13:16:13 GMT -8
Are you sure the last photo in the Papilionidae series is Eurytides (Protesilaus) protesilaus nigricornis? It has brown antennae. I think it is a very old E. telesilaus telesilaus. Note also the abbreviated 4th discal black bar in the fw cell.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Oct 12, 2012 14:38:49 GMT -8
Eurytides telesilaus telesilaus (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1864) or E. ( Protesilaus) telesilaus salobrensis (R.F. d'Almeida, 1941) ? First ssp : Amazonas Second : Mato Grosso This one comes from Minas Gerais, not so far from Mato Grosso. On most of the photos, difficult to check the antennae colour. Finally, I got this telesilaus dolius picture showing the reddish antennae. On nigricornis, the 4th bar is also very short, but, you're right, shorter in telesilaus. Many thanks ! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 13, 2012 0:00:55 GMT -8
Actually many of the protesilaus group have brown or reddish antennae, including some subspecies of E. protesilaus, but the antennae of nigricornis are black.
The telesilaus in the photo could be salobrensis, but it is impossible to be sure with a specimen of this poor quality.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Oct 13, 2012 5:31:58 GMT -8
Again (and again !), many thanks. One more question. I can't understand (from my sources : books and websites) why Papilio lycophron lycophron (HÃœBNER, 1818) is now called Heraclides astyalus astyalus (GODART, 1819). Since the species name ( astalyus) was given in 1819, the 1818 name ( lycophron) would have the anteriority and priority ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 15, 2012 8:50:15 GMT -8
There is actually a simple reason for astyalus being the correct name for the species, the name lycophron Hübner is dated 1823 (22 December to be precise), not 1818. Papilio astyalus Godart was described before 13 February 1819, so it is the senior name. Hübner's Zutrage zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmettlinge was published in 5 volumes each of which consisted of several parts, hence there was some confusion about the publication date of each page.
I note that Bridges (1988) lists the correct publication date. Checking Rothschild & Jordan (1906) (A Revision of the American Papilios, Novitates Zoologicae, 13: 573), they list lycophron as (1818 --?) and state "We are not sure that Hübner's name has priority over that of Godart." Presumably many authors unquestioningly used lycophron as the species name following R & J.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Oct 15, 2012 9:47:30 GMT -8
Such synonym stories are always interesting !
I have just learnt that the splendid Delias shunichii from New Ireland (my avatar on this forum) described by Morita in 1996 and included on all scientific checklists... was in fact described in 1939 by Bang-Haas as Delias mayrhoferi !!!
Everybody overlooked Bang-Haas publication in German. Some German researchers refound Bang-Haas type specimens in 2009, 70 years after their publication, and 13 years after the species "re-publication" by Morita !!!
A crazy story !
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 15, 2012 10:24:07 GMT -8
(from my sources : books and websites) If your sources are D'Abrera and the funet website I am not surprised. D'Abrera deliberately used lycophron over astyalus despite knowing that it was a junior synonym. He did the same with many other names that he "liked" such as harmodius, gyas and hercules. Funet is an excellent effort at cataloguing the life on our planet, but it is full of errors as it is too large a project for one person to accurately complete. It is great that it is there, but you must be aware that there are numerous errors, both in nomenclature and in taxonomy. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Oct 15, 2012 13:47:32 GMT -8
Of course, I use frequently d'Abrera and the funet web site. Non speaking about d'Abrera (the matter is so huge and well known  ), I confirm that, with a so ambitious task, funet shows errors and lacking points. How it could be different ?  Anyway, it's very useful.  |
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Oct 15, 2012 13:51:53 GMT -8
"was in fact described in 1939 by Bang-Haas as Delias mayrhoferi !!!
Everybody overlooked Bang-Haas publication in German."
There are some historical features explaining that a German issue in 1939 was vanishing ... even in academic circles !
|
|
