Reunion Island Cerambycid

[trehopr1]

Here is one of the more exotic locales
from which I have something. I am very
pleased to have acquired such a fine
example of a large (male).

This is Sternotomis pupieri Fleutiaux, 1905.
It was collected on Reunion Island in Jan. 1985

[Adam Cotton]

That is a superb beetle from an unusual location.

One little point for your information, and for everyone else's too - you put the author name in ( ) after the Latin name of the species. It is worth bearing in mind that those ( ) actually have a specific meaning in nomenclature. If a species is cited with "(author, year)" it indicates that the species has been moved from the genus it was originally described in to another genus. No ( ) indicates that it is currently placed in the genus it was opriginally described in, although it may have been moved out and subsequently back to the original genus.

For example (from Papilionidae, as that's easiest for me) Papilio clytia was described by Linnaeus in 1758. If it is treated as a species in genus Papilio it is cited as Papilio clytia Linnaeus, 1758; but when it is placed in genus Chilasa it is called Chilasa clytia (Linnaeus, 1758).

It is possible that you put the author name in ( ) for our information, but a quick internet search suggests that the authorship was "Fleutiaux, 1905" without ( ).

Adam.

[trehopr1]

Thank you Adam for that insight into nomenclature.

I have been honestly unaware that those parentheses (or lack of) had such meaning. I do see them used quite often but, sometimes not.

I do like the idea of the original author and year the species was described being sort of stand-alone from the species name. I know I have always tried to attribute such credit to things I've written articles about.

I assumed everyone put these parentheses around the author and year however, I have seen the " marks from (time to time) also. So, I just thought that maybe some people didn't like the idea of parentheses and preferred using " marks instead.

I will be more observant of these in the future; as I and now aware of their specific scientific meaning.

[Paul K]

I actually didn’t know what that means either but I don’t use author name on my labels although I use for labeling species in the drawer.
I tried to be specific to correctly mark them. I also have seen like this [( )] could you explain this Adam please.

[Adam Cotton]

Oct 17, 2021 8:30:44 GMT -8 trehopr1 said:

Thank you Adam for that insight into nomenclature.

I have been honestly unaware that those parentheses (or lack of) had such meaning. I do see them used quite often but, sometimes not.

I do like the idea of the original author and year the species was described being sort of stand-alone from the species name. I know I have always tried to attribute such credit to things I've written articles about.

I assumed everyone put these parentheses around the author and year however, I have seen the " marks from (time to time) also. So, I just thought that maybe some people didn't like the idea of parentheses and preferred using " marks instead.

I will be more observant of these in the future; as I and now aware of their specific scientific meaning.

Perhaps my use of " " was a little confusing, if so I apologise. They have no meaning in nomenclature, I just used them in my reply to make it clear what I was talking about. I could just as easily have written If a species is cited with (author, year) it indicates ... and at the end I could have written a quick internet search suggests that the authorship was Fleutiaux, 1905 without ( ).

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

Oct 17, 2021 8:55:05 GMT -8 Paul K said:

I actually didn’t know what that means either but I don’t use author name on my labels although I use for labeling species in the drawer.
I tried to be specific to correctly mark them. I also have seen like this [( )] could you explain this Adam please.

I have not seen "author, year" inside double brackets [( )], but there is a meaning for author, [year] and (author, [year]).

[ ] indicates that the actual year of publication is not the same as printed in the publication. For example Cramer published his major book in parts which were dated 1775, however, most of those parts were actually published between 1776 and 1782, only some of them were actually published in 1775.
The names of species published in 1775 are written normally. For example he described Graphium antiphates in 1775 as Papilio antiphates Cramer, 1775. However, since this species is now placed in genus Graphium it is now cited as Graphium antiphates (Cramer, 1775).
In a later part of his work he described Papilio bianor, which was actually published in 1777, so that species is correctly cited as Papilio bianor Cramer, [1777]. If an author treats Achillides as a genus, then it would become Achillides bianor (Cramer, [1777]).

Similarly a publication is cited with [ ] around the year if the date stated in the printed work is different to the actual publication date. For example my paper on Laos Papilionidae was dated December 2006 but it wasn't actually published until April 2007, so the paper is cited as Cotton & Racheli, [2007]. I previously published another paper with Tommaso Racheli in mid 2006, and that paper is cited as Cotton & Racheli, 2006.

It is worth pointing out also that for scientific names "author, year" are not actually part of the name, they are a citation of the original description, and that is one reason why ( ) is added if the species has changed genus. It is not necessary to include "author, year" at the end of a species name, except that in a scientific publication it is recommended that it is included at least the first time the name is used. I normally do not include "author, year" in a forum post as it is not obligatory and I feel it may make the post a bit stodgy, so to speak.

Adam.

[prioninae]

There must be something wrong with the data, Sternotomis pupieri is an endemic of Moheli Island in the Comores as far as I know, Réunion is 1500km away.

[panacanthus]

I just checked my Pair and their data says Moheli Island.

[trehopr1]

Thank you very much (prioninae) for that correction to this beetles whereabouts !

It was recently mentioned by another member (exoticimports) that in some cases the location is not always exacting because the "hub" or location where some insects are sent to dealers (from out of the way places) are given instead.

I received my specimen many years ago from a collection belonging to a beetle enthusiast. The man passed away but, was very avid and enthusiastic about his hobby so I have to presume that whatever data his specimens have are what he took off of the envelopes or packaging that the specimens arrived in.

I will still retain the label that the specimen has however, I will print up another label indicating an improper locality of origin...

I thank you again for this keen observation and your obvious expertise.