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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 10, 2011 11:35:52 GMT -8
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.