Post by nomihoudai on Dec 14, 2011 10:38:37 GMT -8
Seems like we have invented hot water right now ( finding knowledge already known)
Take a look at Gerardo Lamnas opinion (who is for sure qualified to speakin this matter) on Agrias classification and then you simply see that the above specimen is a regular Agrias amydon phalcidon gynandromorph,... only that male part belonged to orange form and female to the blue form.
I see a lot of photos of many nice variations of Agrias amydon there,most of which already known to me,but I don't see a proof that the specimen of this thread is a gynandromorph. Where is his opinion about this written ? Also,I'm confused by things like these: He names as f.rebillardi, a male phalcidon fournierae with orange basal forewing patches, while this form is known to have these patches red. Also,he names as f.viridiflavus a male phalcidon fournierae ,which has no subapical green stripes.. Confusing.
ps: I don't care about this,africaone. I told you what I had about this. Also others,like Perger, told you these in the old forum,and that is not a good thing to be ironic for the work of other entomologists, with your usual 'ritoric ironic questions' and your self-impression that you are 'THE scientist' .
Also,I'm confused by things like these: He names as f.rebillardi, a male phalcidon fournierae with orange basal forewing patches, while this form is known to have these patches red. Also,he names as f.viridiflavus a male phalcidon fournierae ,which has no subapical green stripes.. Confusing.
These specimen are the holotypes, maybe, but only MAYBE a single time YOUR opinion has been wrong mr. smartypants and the forms actually do look different of what YOU imagine them to look like.
Everytime I think we have seen your self-belief to its fullest you know how to top it (questioning the look of a holotype, PPPFFFFFFFFFF ).
Last Edit: Dec 14, 2011 11:29:33 GMT -8 by nomihoudai
You are a great rubbish(this,as you edited the nonsense you wrote about me in your above post) nomihoudai . Post here the opinion of Lamas (and not Lamnas as you wrote) and stop your nonsense.Where is it proved that this is a gynandromorph ? Just from a series of photos of amydon phalcidon and amydon pericles ? Sorry,I didn't know that a holotype can luck absolutely any morphological characteristic of the form it refers to. These 'rebillardi' and 'viridiflavus' there,look like typical phalcidon fournierae. Oh,I loose my time again with you. I will contact him if need his opinion.
Post by nomihoudai on Dec 14, 2011 11:43:26 GMT -8
Anybody can see it is a gynandromorph considering that there is two phenotypes expressed and taking into account that these forms belong to the same species, in accordance of a fields leading authority's opinion who based this conclusion probably on more specimen and field experience...
...but you always had problems to reckognize gynandromorphism.
'Anybody can see it is a gynandromorph considering that there is two phenotypes expressed and taking into account that these forms belong to the same species'
- No,it's not obvious,it can be also perfectly a male mosaic between the 2 phenotypes. Anyway,anyone can keep his own opinion, and I can contact him to explain me why,if he indeed thinks is a gynandromorph, is sure about this.