|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 4, 2015 7:15:03 GMT -8
In 1895, the German entomologist Alexander Heyne from Berlin, named an all black specimen of Papilio machaon, aberration niger. This was the real thing and quite unlike those later fraudulent dyed blue black butterflies and those that have been recently injected with chemicals, where in the latter full yellow patches still are present on the forewings. The real ab niger is an extreme smokey Black insect darker than ab obscura ( Frohawk 1938) and is Very Rare.
Few examples are known and most are in the BMNH.
Does anyone here know the whereabouts of type specimen of aberration niger. It should be in a German Museum. I know, the term type only applies to the first specimen of a species but the BMNH have placed a type label by all their original British aberrations and perhaps even by their worldwide aberration specimens and if it is good enough for the National collection, it is OK by me.
So if you do know where the Heyne specimen of Papilio machaon aberration niger is, do please let me know here. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 4, 2015 8:02:33 GMT -8
Aberrations do not have types. The rules are clearly stated in The Code and only available names can have type specimens. Only taxa down to subspecific level are available and aberrations are by definition infrasubspecific. Obviously, being ignorant of the provisions of The Code, some people have described types of aberrations; these could be described as "name-bearing" specimens but cannot be types.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 4, 2015 8:53:35 GMT -8
I quite agree and know this. However, specimens the BMNH collections of the original aberrations have type labels, I saw them myself even if they are not valid, they do point out the original named aberration, so are of some use.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 4, 2015 8:59:28 GMT -8
I have edited the subject title, so there is no confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Apr 4, 2015 10:10:55 GMT -8
I quite agree and know this. However, specimens the BMNH collections of the original aberrations have type labels, I saw them myself even if they are not valid, they do point out the original named aberration, so are of some use. Yes, I've told the staff at BMNH about this several times, and whilst they agree they seem disinclined to do anything about it. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 4, 2015 10:12:47 GMT -8
There is one specimen, which was figued in Verity's Rhopalocera Palaearctica, in the BMNH with a paratype label. Here are the labels from this specimen:  I am not sure how many specimens Heyne had as I have not seen the description, but if he only had a single specimen then this is the 'type'. While Bob is correct it is at least technically useful to treat the original specimen of an infrasubspecific name as a type, although it and the name have no status under the ICZN Code. However, Bridges says that the name ab. niger is actually attributable to Reutti (1853) in Uebersicht der Lepidopteren-Fauna des Grossherzogthum's Baden, but was attributed to Heyne in Seitz. Adam. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 4, 2015 10:14:34 GMT -8
I quite agree and know this. However, specimens the BMNH collections of the original aberrations have type labels, I saw them myself even if they are not valid, they do point out the original named aberration, so are of some use. Yes, I've told the staff at BMNH about this several times, and whilst they agree they seem disinclined to do anything about it. Bob This is probably because once a label of any description is added to a specimen it should not be removed. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 4, 2015 10:52:04 GMT -8
Adam. Many thanks for the information, the BMNH has one of the original specimens of ab niger that Heyne named. If this specimen is regarded as the paratype, I wonder where the type is. Of course meaning aberration types in regard to data labels and not the international code. As far as aberrations are concerned, I am now in favour of such type labels, as those that study these varieties, can see the original named specimen. Or perhaps there was only one original specimen of aberration niger and this is the type, although the label would suggest, that the person who added it knew of a further specimen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 4, 2015 11:35:23 GMT -8
If Bridges was right (sometimes he wasn't) then Heyne wasn't the original author of this name, it was Reutti (1853). However Lamas lists Reutti, 1898. Verh. naturf. Ver. Karlsruhe, 12: 16 as the original description. I note that this is 3 years after the 1895 cited on the specimen label for the Heyne publication. Unfortunately I don't have access to any of these publications.
Adam.
|
|
