Post by nomad on Jan 19, 2013 13:31:48 GMT -8
Butterfly nomenclature the naming of species, subspecies and forms is a subject that has always fascinated me. The disagreement in the valid naming of butterfly species and subspecies is considerable. What Some regard as a true species others might believe they are subspecies and vice versa. Entomologists might regard some butterflies as good subspecies whereas some might consider them to be infrasubspecific geographical forms. This difference of opinion seems to be universal among Lepidopterists. There are, as many people know, those that regard certain species of butterfly as having many subspecies, the 'splitters' or just a few, the 'lumpers'.
If a new subspecies of butterfly is published a collector might regard it as valid or not as the case may be. As it greatly enhances the butterfly collection to have a species of butterfly from various geographical localities, a collector may not care if that insect is regarded as a subspecies or a form local. The names we put on our butterfly labels is up to the individual collector. This naming problem even applies to well known groups such as Ornithoptera. Although these have been much studied and collected there is still differences of opinion concerning this group. One good example is O. paradisea.
Various authors have listed a number of subspecies of O. paradisea from New Guinea. Even the genus O. paradisea should be placed in is open to doubt. Most Entomologists place O. paradisea in the genus Ornithoptera [1832] while others place it in the genus Schoenbergia [1893]. Tony Nagpals website lists 12 probable subspecies of paradisea with three possible others [no names]. In a last revision of O. paradisea, Gilles Deslisle [2004] lists only three subspecies= paradisea, arfakensis and chrysanthemum. However a growing number of Entomologists now regard O. p. arfakensis as a full species with one or two subspecies of its own.
Although O. paradisea is well known to native and Indonesian breeders, perhaps only a few Entomologists have seen this species in the wild. One member who has I believe experienced seeing this magnificent species in the wild is Krupten [Greg Watson] although he unfortunately does not now post on the forum. Many fabulous specimens of O. paradisea have been shown on the forum, some quite recently. This helps to better understand the various subspecies. Even today nobody seems to know the current status and range of the nominate paradisea. All the latter known examples of the nominate seem to come from the Finisterre Mountains and were collected during the 1970s. What is its current status in that locality?. The Insect Trading Company in Papua advertised O. paradisea. Where did they obtain their specimens?, did anybody buy these from them. Nobody seems to know.
Giving much thought recently to the postings of the superb specimens of O.p paradisea and O. borchi, I now believe the latter should be included with the nominate. This is only my opinion although it may be telling that the late Harry Borch considered Haugham and Low naming of the subspecies borchi invalid believing it to be a local form of the nominate race. This must have surprised Haugham and Low who named the species in Harry's honour.
I find all these complexities of O. paradisea quite remarkable and fascinating. I suppose in the end it is up to the individual Entomologist.
The story does not quite end there. I have been informed that O. paradisea has been found in a new locality and this is worthy of subspecies status. The locality is the very remote Bokondini in Central New Guinea. What is very noteworthy about this discovery is the O. paradisea is supposed to inhabit forest at high elevation.
I should be interested to know other peoples thoughts on O. paradisea and the naming of butterflies in general
nomad
If a new subspecies of butterfly is published a collector might regard it as valid or not as the case may be. As it greatly enhances the butterfly collection to have a species of butterfly from various geographical localities, a collector may not care if that insect is regarded as a subspecies or a form local. The names we put on our butterfly labels is up to the individual collector. This naming problem even applies to well known groups such as Ornithoptera. Although these have been much studied and collected there is still differences of opinion concerning this group. One good example is O. paradisea.
Various authors have listed a number of subspecies of O. paradisea from New Guinea. Even the genus O. paradisea should be placed in is open to doubt. Most Entomologists place O. paradisea in the genus Ornithoptera [1832] while others place it in the genus Schoenbergia [1893]. Tony Nagpals website lists 12 probable subspecies of paradisea with three possible others [no names]. In a last revision of O. paradisea, Gilles Deslisle [2004] lists only three subspecies= paradisea, arfakensis and chrysanthemum. However a growing number of Entomologists now regard O. p. arfakensis as a full species with one or two subspecies of its own.
Although O. paradisea is well known to native and Indonesian breeders, perhaps only a few Entomologists have seen this species in the wild. One member who has I believe experienced seeing this magnificent species in the wild is Krupten [Greg Watson] although he unfortunately does not now post on the forum. Many fabulous specimens of O. paradisea have been shown on the forum, some quite recently. This helps to better understand the various subspecies. Even today nobody seems to know the current status and range of the nominate paradisea. All the latter known examples of the nominate seem to come from the Finisterre Mountains and were collected during the 1970s. What is its current status in that locality?. The Insect Trading Company in Papua advertised O. paradisea. Where did they obtain their specimens?, did anybody buy these from them. Nobody seems to know.
Giving much thought recently to the postings of the superb specimens of O.p paradisea and O. borchi, I now believe the latter should be included with the nominate. This is only my opinion although it may be telling that the late Harry Borch considered Haugham and Low naming of the subspecies borchi invalid believing it to be a local form of the nominate race. This must have surprised Haugham and Low who named the species in Harry's honour.
I find all these complexities of O. paradisea quite remarkable and fascinating. I suppose in the end it is up to the individual Entomologist.
The story does not quite end there. I have been informed that O. paradisea has been found in a new locality and this is worthy of subspecies status. The locality is the very remote Bokondini in Central New Guinea. What is very noteworthy about this discovery is the O. paradisea is supposed to inhabit forest at high elevation.
I should be interested to know other peoples thoughts on O. paradisea and the naming of butterflies in general
nomad
