|
Post by panzerman on Feb 13, 2011 14:30:36 GMT -8
archon apollinus nikodemusi M+F (Turkey) John Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Feb 13, 2011 14:38:08 GMT -8
Does anyone know how many paratypes have been described ? Because I know 2 dealers that offer it and I got it offered from a third source.
|
|
|
Post by panzerman on Feb 13, 2011 15:29:27 GMT -8
I am not sure. I have seen parnassius specimens, where there were 24 paratype specimens! I am not sure what the rules are about paratypes in relation to numbers allowed to be designated as paratypus. John
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Feb 13, 2011 15:31:53 GMT -8
I think there is no rule, and I think the paratype number of that species might exceed 100 when not even reach 300. Hopefully someone got the original description, I will google now and see if I can find myself.
Edit: Archon apollinus nikodemusi Stüning & Wagener, 1989: NF 10 (2): 135.
Someone can take a quick look into that NEVA number ? I am certain someone in here must have got it.
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 13, 2011 15:37:15 GMT -8
Holotype, allotype and 376 paratypes were included in the type series, and preserved in ZFMK, Wagener collection, Nikodemus collection and Hampel collection. Code of nomenclature does not impose any limit in relation to numbers of paratypes.
I am describing a new Leodonta species based on more than 450 paratypes, and described Catasticta coerulescens intimpa on 273 paratypes plus the Holotype.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Feb 13, 2011 16:02:32 GMT -8
Yes, I was not far away with my 300 specimen guess, thx Maurizio... oh all the money, the paratypes average 80 €... makes 30000€
|
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 13, 2011 16:06:08 GMT -8
I am just wondering from which collection they come.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2011 1:35:22 GMT -8
paratyping must have a sense ... not a $en$e. (as for exemple to be from same biotope, season or locality, ....) The aim is to label some exemplars designated by the author as to be a kind of copy of the holotype. Love for red label is like an ob$e$$ion. One must know that only the Holotype as a real nomenclatural value ! Thierry
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 14, 2011 1:37:14 GMT -8
True ... but red labels are so chic ! :-)
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 14, 2011 4:46:44 GMT -8
paratyping must have a sense ... not a $en$e. (as for exemple to be from same biotope, season or locality, ....) The aim is to label some exemplars designated by the author as to be a kind of copy of the holotype. Love for red label is like an ob$e$$ion. One must know that only the Holotype as a real nomenclatural value ! Thierry Thierry, what you say is partly true, but not totally so. Obviously Holotypes is what the Code defines as "the name-bearing specimen of a nominal species or subspecies when the nominal taxon is established", so being THE specimen with a nomenclatorial value, but paratypes (as part of the type series) have sense because they allowed the author(s) to study the variability of the new taxon. The Holotype has to show the "average" pattern of the new taxon; selection of holotype within specimens with extreme pattern would be avoided. As I wrote, I am describing a new Leodonta species based on more than 450 specimens: they will all belong to the type series, because the examination of such long series was a great help to verify the correctness of my conclusions about a new taxon with a wide range (from Northern Peru to Northern Bolivia). Even if I have hundreds of paratypes in my own collection, I will never sell a single specimen! I only deposited some Holotypes (cacicus mendozaensis, zagreus nigroapicalis, coon sangkapurae) in the BMNH. What I really disagree is that some authors, instead of giving a detailed list of paratypes with their data and collections where they are preserved, simply state "more paratypes in coll. X, Y and Z". So nobody will ever know how many paratypes really exist, and, what is worst, no data are know for them. So every dishonest dealer could put a red label under a specimen, and sell it as paratype, no matter the fact that it does not belong to the type series. And I really suspect that .... those paratypes will increase in number in coll. X, Y and /or Z, too!
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2011 5:18:12 GMT -8
Maurizzio, I have a point of disagrement ! The paratype series doesn't must reflect the variability ! Recent barcode program proove that many descriptions based on variable paratype series (and/or PT coming from different sources), in fact involve more than one species.
Add a more future vision ... With the barcode (or something similar that will be created !), the Paratype concept will be without contents. The genetic profile (probably the next step in nomenclature !) will becom sufficient to have a more reliable information than examining PT. The information coming directly from the HT specimen will be available universally (via any chanel of communication), rending the examination of PT obsolete.
PT, that is clearly a nomenclatural concept was created in another time when channel of communication doesn't allow the easy access to the HT. In the nomenclatural POV, this is no more necessar as the name is stricly attached to the HT.
Thierry
|
|
|
Post by maurizio on Feb 14, 2011 5:49:30 GMT -8
Maurizzio, I have a point of disagrement ! The paratype series doesn't must reflect the variability ! Recent barcode program proove that many descriptions based on variable paratype series (and/or PT coming from different sources), in fact involve more than one species. Add a more future vision ... With the barcode (or something similar that will be created !), the Paratype concept will be without contents. The genetic profile (probably the next step in nomenclature !) will becom sufficient to have a more reliable information than examining PT. The information coming directly from the HT specimen will be available universally (via any chanel of communication), rending the examination of PT obsolete. PT, that is clearly a nomenclatural concept was created in another time when channel of communication doesn't allow the easy access to the HT. In the nomenclatural POV, this is no more necessar as the name is stricly attached to the HT. Thierry Thierry, first of all, I am son of another time ;D ;D ;D, so I still adopt the paratypes. Anyway I never said the paratypes "must reflect the variability", but that they help the describer to understand the variability, if any. Reading your words, I imagine a future when descriptions of new taxa will be done simply depositing a molecular sequence in a "Gene Taxonomical Bank" available in the net: a miserable future for any morphologist!!
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2011 6:25:20 GMT -8
My english is too poor to correctly defend my POV, it is not my language.
I try to say that in nomenclatural POV (not the more global biologist one), the genetic profile will probably take a predominant place and the information necessar to identify a specimens (by comparasion) will be easily available via the new channel of communication (not only internet). This information will be highly reliable as being directly attached to the HT. Anf the PT concept will become obsolete. I don't think that designation of PT serves the definition of a species ("examined material" is largely sufficient). That will not stop the passion for the study of ethology, ecology, systematy, taxonomy morphology, etc, ... of our insects, not stop the pleasure to hunt, to travel, to discuss, etc....Anybody will have easy access to identification with more reliable result than those provide by "specialist " that took years and years to identify specimens, with a low success rate, without being dependant to these specialists, etc.... (it is more general debate about the hermetic language of some socio-economic categories to exclude access to their speciality !)
I love to study insect, nomenclatural work is no more a pleasure for me. It is an ungrateful tool (too mechanical) that take time and money that I prefer to spend in the study of the insects itself.
Thierry
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Feb 14, 2011 6:53:06 GMT -8
I'm sure you're probably both correct and that in future newly described taxa will be defined by the genetic profile of the type specimen. However I'm sure that time is still some way off yet; I've yet to see any papers that convince me that DNA profiling is 100% reliable.
In spite of this the work of the traditional taxonomist will still be important for a long time to come for several reasons.
a) The type material of most known taxa is probably too old to extract DNA from. b) As far as I'm aware only species could be separated by DNA, not subspecies. c) Many existing names are misunderstood or misinterpreted and need to be worked on using traditional methods. d) Many newly described names are but synonyms of existing names; these new types can only be compared to old ones where no genetic profile exists by traditional methods.
Where this sort of comparative work needs to be done the more specimens there are in the type series the better.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 14, 2011 7:06:46 GMT -8
I would add that for collectors there is also an emotional pleasure to possess a specimen which was studied for a new description. Especially when it is a totally new species for science (like Delias cumanau for example).
It is not just because a red label is chic that some of us like purchasing some PT. I have few PT in my collection (maybe 20 ...), I bought only one. Others were exchanged/given to me by describers.
I would agree with Maurizio on PT role, they are useful. + if they enable describers to make a few money, I see no problem at all.
|
|