myko61
Junior Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by myko61 on Mar 2, 2011 9:40:45 GMT -8
I was thinking about purchasing a pair of O. priamus ssp. from Salawati. I have seen this new subspecies offered for sale for some time now. My question, Is this indeed a new subspecies or an existing priamus subspecies that dealers are trying to make more appealing? If it is a new subspecies, does anyone know if this subspecies has been named? Thanks to everyone that replies. Norm M.  |
|
|
|
Post by paulbodnar1 on Mar 2, 2011 14:36:39 GMT -8
Greetings Norm,
It is my understanding that the population found on Salawati Island is considered the SAME as the mainland West Papua subspecies (Ornithoptera priamus poseidon), form locality Salawati.
Truly,
Paul Bodnar
Crocodile Wildlife Conservationist
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 3, 2011 1:03:48 GMT -8
Yes it has been named : Ornithoptera priamus bullsh itensis ...
|
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Mar 3, 2011 1:41:00 GMT -8
Yes it has been named : Ornithoptera priamus bullsh itensis ... So where are the japanotypes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2011 2:10:06 GMT -8
its geting beyond a joke now.
|
|
|
|
Post by saturniidave on Mar 3, 2011 7:44:20 GMT -8
All the time there are people out there prepared to pay silly money for 'new' species and subspecies they will keep 'finding' them! Panzerman beware!  Dave |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 3, 2011 7:53:16 GMT -8
BTW I have Papilio machaon parisiensis PEQUIN 2011 for sale...
1000 € only per paratype (only 300 available).
Discount : 100 paratypes for only 99 000 €.
Please contact me if you are interested.
Be fast !
|
|
|
|
Post by simosg on Mar 3, 2011 10:11:56 GMT -8
"BTW I have Papilio machaon parisiensis PEQUIN 2011 for sale..."
Isn't this a synonym to P. machaon sarkozyensis?
Hannes
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 3, 2011 10:16:33 GMT -8
Not at all, P. machaon sarkozyensis is a non-viable aberration ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2011 10:36:27 GMT -8
I have for sale the almost mythically rare aglais urticae yorkshireiensis ( yes it really DOES exist), many have looked but only I have found it, if interestd prices start at only £2500, dont confuse with common stuff like v tammeamea, this is much rarer, only found in the deepest, darkest corners of Barnsley, inhabited by cannibalistic, head hunting chavs where nobody hears you scream.
No timewasters or offers please, there is a limited supply of only 1000 pairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by simosg on Mar 3, 2011 10:38:36 GMT -8
My favourite is ssp. carlabrunii anyway. Unfortunately I couldn't add it to my collection until now. Very hard to get.
Dunc: I think this would fit better in the cryptozoology thread.
Hannes
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 3, 2011 10:40:14 GMT -8
"only found in the deepest, darkest corners of Barnsley, inhabited by cannibalistic, head hunting chavs where nobody hears you scream." < the only credible part of your message!  |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 3, 2011 10:41:17 GMT -8
"My favourite is ssp. carlabrunii anyway. " < yeap but it fades very fast with time... despite many repairs...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2011 10:44:00 GMT -8
well there is no visible difference wiith yorkshireiensis is just smells differenly, a very pungentsh sh##ty smell that persists long after death.
|
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Mar 3, 2011 22:50:43 GMT -8
LOL...thanks for the laughs...keep this rolling!
|
|
myko61
Junior Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by myko61 on Mar 8, 2011 6:46:51 GMT -8
First, I would like to retract my 'Thanks to everyone that replies' as the majority (in my opinion) did not deserve it. I would however like to thank Paul Bodnar for his reply. Paul, I suspected that the so-called new subspecies was one of the known species of priamus, in this case poseidon. Again, thanks Paul. To everyone else, I will just say Wow! I didn't realize how many adolescent members we now have in this forum. Welcome. Norm M. |
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Mar 8, 2011 7:03:29 GMT -8
Piss-taking is the only possible response to the ridiculous obsession shared by most Japanese collectors and not a few others with describing new subspecies every time a specimen is taken more than a few yards away from a known population. Some of these subspecies vary as much as 0.0001% from the norm and they have even been known to describe two different subspecies from the same locality! This can happen with all bugs but seems to be a particular blight on Ornithoptera and Parnassius.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2011 13:47:20 GMT -8
Norm, there is nothing wrong with a bit of humour, dont take it so seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by panzerman on Mar 9, 2011 10:58:37 GMT -8
This may seem like a dumb question. What are the rules in having a new description validated? Lets take graphium kossii. The nominate was described from New Ireland. Now ssp. gigantor has been added from New Britain. If, I went too New Hannover, and caught a series of kosii there, decided they are distinct, who makes the final decision on whether these are a valid new ssp., thus paratypes?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Mar 9, 2011 11:22:45 GMT -8
When I understood correctly it is valid when it got "published". Published means you have to make a description of it in written form in a magazine that gets disposed in at least 5 major museums. So first thing you have to surpass is finding a magazine that publishes your decription, some are peer- reviewed. If you got enough money you can of course make your own magazine and publish it there. Then you have to surpass the second barrier, your magazine must get accepted by the museums, that is not always that easy.
I hope what I said was correct, at least I understood it to be like that.
Rgds Claude
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Mar 9, 2011 11:47:09 GMT -8
in a magazine that gets disposed in at least 5 major museums. where did you find this rule ? |
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Mar 9, 2011 12:06:14 GMT -8
I did read the code of the ICZN and there is a whole section that defines what "published" means in their eyes. What I wrote above is out of memory, I think I remember that part about the 5 major museums, but I may be wrong, I would have to reread the code to find it. Edit: I jsut reread it and did understand something wrong: 8.6. Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself. So this only holds for non written publications. Anyway, : www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/ chapter 3, there you go John ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 9, 2011 13:08:57 GMT -8
Article 8.6 refers to publications on a CD or other such non-printed medium. The regulation for acceptance of such 'publications' is quite rigid, and there are moves to change that. Some people want to ban anything other than publication on paper, others want to alter the regulations to make them more up-to-date, and others want to allow most e-publication. It remains to be seen what will happen in the near future.
If anyone wants to see the regulations covering what currently constitutes a publication read Article 8 in the link above. Also see Article 9 for what does not constitute a published work.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by panzerman on Mar 9, 2011 17:32:46 GMT -8
Thanks for that information. I seen some descriptions in FUTAO, example graphium empedovana ssp. from Subi, Belitung, Anambas, Weh, Simuk, etc., where the differences are hardly noticeable...yet these are all valid ssp.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 10, 2011 11:35:52 GMT -8
John,
They're all available names, which means they were validly described. Whether they are actually valid subspecies or not is another matter entirely. That is a subjective issue, whether you believe from the evidence (difference or not in phenotype) that they are worthy of separate subspecies status. Anyone can validly describe a new subspecies name by following the ICZN Code, but its status is another matter entirely.
The ICZN Code does not govern taxonomy (the decision process about the worthiness and application of a name is part of this), it only lays down regulations concerning the names, not how they should be used.
Adam.
|
|
