Question about O. priamus ssp. from Salawati

[myko61]

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.

[bobw]

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]

Norm, there is nothing wrong with a bit of humour, dont take it so seriously.

[panzerman]

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

[nomihoudai]

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

[africaone]

Mar 9, 2011 11:22:45 GMT -8 nomihoudai said:

in a magazine that gets disposed in at least 5 major museums.

where did you find this rule ?

[nomihoudai]

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

[Adam Cotton]

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.

[panzerman]

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

[Adam Cotton]

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.

[krupten]

Hello Norm - here is the same argument again about subspecies and for the most part I am a clumper only in the fact that I have collected Indonesia and PNG etc for about 40 years. Lowland priamus easily can cross distances across water and do - FREQUENTLY - now here is the point - they do it BOTH WAYS - thus you have a bilateral exchange of genes - so now i ask with this statement where does anyone have the nerve to say it is a subspecies when there is NO isolation and the gene pool is homogenous to the mainland and the satellite insular population? I personally do not care and it is MY OPINION ONLY if the Japanese name each individual butterfly from every part of indonesia - it does not make them right - it just means someone is putting a bunch of names into the literature and for what ? the name of science? or to say they named a new Ornithoptera? I have seen a goliath specimen illustrated here from Sayang Island - wonderful - too bad the species does not occur on the Island! NOR does the hostplant. O.p.poseidon may sure - it is lowland -but goliath does not come to the lowlands to breed -so I would say it should be labelled as a scamotype by some fast talking Indon who wanted more money for a pair of joiceyii. I know many here may not agree with my opinion but to me there is too much naming of material for pecuniary gain and NOT SCIENTIFIC gain and it is done by many who have no idea of what a mess they are creating. I am not pointing fingers at the Japanese - as there are many Japanese who have done marvellous work like Suguru Igarashi - and outstanding man and dear friend. But there have been some who dropped the ball too - like T.oblongomaculatus ohzui from Buru - Kobayashi and Koiwaya who named a melanic form as a subspecies - and it also occured on Ceram and Ambon. It is also known in papuensis.
O.p.poseidon is on Sulawaty - and you can buy it sure - but it is up to you if you wish to allocate the name it has been given - or just say it is poseidon from Sulawaty - the choice is yours.
We all can jest about all the different kinds of types and Jan Haugum even did an article with many kinds of types - confusatype - etc and he did so with tongue in cheek - but I believe that much of what is being done now - is creative marketing by the Indonesians for ONE REASON - to make more money from the unsuspecting collector. IT IS WRONG yes - but if one has the "ADDICTION" then they will be the VICTIM. Like paradisea from WAIGEU! (actually from pupae from Sorong - sold by the collector for ONE REASON - make money) There is too much excitement to name an Ornithoptera or Troides or Agrias or Morpho or Charaxes so they are the carrot - to have ONES NAME attached to a new discovery but when the truth does come out it is often a case of not doing the homework - such as O.croesus sananensis. Described from an abberative female sold from a dealer in Labuha name Ismid Bahmed to a dealer in Jakarta and then to a very eager Japanese collector who did not look at Webers and Wallaces lines. Cheers Greg