Kallima albofasciatus continentalis - SYNONYM!

[Adam Cotton]

This new taxon was described by Kurt Rumbucher in
Notes on Butterflies 7.: Schäffler: Neue Unterart von Archaeoprepona camilla / Ornithoptera paradisea - Rumbucher: Neue Unterart von Kallima albofasciata / Ornithoptera goliath. 4 Arbeiten. 8 S., davon 5 Farbtaf. 2014.

This was just published a few days ago by Goecke & Evers.

However I must point out, after e-mails with the author, that in reality the specimens were not collected in the type locality (Sai Yok, Kanchanaburi, W Thailand) but were bought as PUPAE from Stratford-on-Avon Butterfly Farm with this locality data.

I know the breeder (his name is Sudjai Ruangrit), who breeds butterflies in Kanchanaburi and sends pupae to Stratford. He sent papered specimens of this butterfly to me last year to send on to a dealer in Australia. He breeds them in Kanchanaburi, but the parent stock came from Tambon Makdong, Kunharn District, Srisaket Province, E Thailand not Kanchanaburi at all. I was told this is correct "one million percent" when I asked for confirmation! Of course he didn't realise it was important to tell Stratford that these pupae did not originate from Kanchanaburi. This butterfly does not occur in West Thailand at all.

Thus Kallima albofasciatus continentalis is just a synonym of Kallima inachus alboinachus Nakamura & Wakahara, 2013.

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

I should add that the E Thailand locality is the true type locality of continentalis rather than Kanchanaburi.

I should also mention that in his original description of alboinachus Nakamura checked the genitalia of all the Kallima in the group, and thus is certain that this is a subspecies of Kallima inachus. He currently has a paper in press with results of further study, and can confirm that alicia is also a separate species. I was asked to assist in checking the paper, and can confirm it is good work.

Adam.

[jshuey]

Two things worth commenting on here.

One - the quality of data on purchased specimens renders them at worst, valueless, and at best, suspect for research purposes.

Second - we have abundant peer reviewed journals across the globe - why are people publishing in an outlet called "Notes on Butterflies" anyway. Probably because they don't want the peer review.

John

[Adam Cotton]

May 28, 2014 4:54:11 GMT -8 jshuey said:

Two things worth commenting on here.

One - the quality of data on purchased specimens renders them at worst, valueless, and at best, suspect for research purposes.

Second - we have abundant peer reviewed journals across the globe - why are people publishing in an outlet called "Notes on Butterflies" anyway. Probably because they don't want the peer review.

John

I'm not sure it's really a case of they don't "want" the peer review, as much as it is the fault of the editors for not closely checking submissions and sending them for peer review. After all, it is up to the editors to decide how much scrutiny they apply to papers submitted for publication.

I notice that in general (with some exceptions) papers published in this and related publications of the same organisation are written by amateur Lepidopterists (not that I have anything against them, technically I am one too since I don't work in an institution) and many of them are not particularly worried about the scrutiny of peer review. Regardless of peer review or otherwise, whatever is validly published has to be dealt with by subsequent authors

This particular paper includes a couple of notable non-compliances of Code recommendations, firstly the holotype is housed in the author's personal collection, without any indication of intent to deposit it in an institutional collection; and secondly the author uses the term 'Allotype', which has no standing under the ICZN Code. The specimen he designated as 'Allotype' is just a paratype of the opposite sex to the Holotype.

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

The major lesson for everyone here, as John alluded to, is not to trust data at face value, especially if it comes from an unreliable source.

Pupae suppliers really aren't interested in data, as most of their specimens go into butterfly display houses, so their data should be treated as much more suspect than that from a reputable deadstock dealer. Of course, that should still be taken with a 'pinch of salt', and the most reliable data is from specimens you collect yourself, or a trustworthy friend collected for you.

Adam.

[wollastoni]

Well said !

[Adam Cotton]

I have just found out that the place name was misquoted to me. It should be Tambon Bakdong, Khun Han District, Sisaket Province, E Thailand. Note that Tambon equivalates to 'subdistrict'.

This is basically a problem of transliteration of Thai to English.

Adam.

[charlie22]

Good information Adam!

Where can I find or access the journal "Notes on Butterflies"?

[hewi]

here you can find it:

www.goeckeevers.de

it is the website of the publishing house


Manfred