Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 19:48:33 GMT
All 3 specimens look risky to me, and the money being offered for what could quite easily turn out to be bog standard urvillianus is absurd, without a cast iron insurance that they are miokensis for certain then all bidders are taking a massive gamble, one of the easiest things in the world is to swap a label, it goes on all the time by the crooks that infest our hobby, I'm not saying that has happened here by any means but still.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 8, 2016 22:48:48 GMT
Paul K, your urvillianus example is quite light in color. It very much reminds me of the subspecies "flavomaculata" which I have seen it called. The locality information is "Maramasike Island". I do not know personally how legitimate that subspecies name is but, that is the location data given on my photos off the internet.
Papalidar, outstanding example ! Now that's what I'm talking about. That's the kind of miokensis I'd put money on. Anything looking a little too much like urvillianus would be passed up !
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Oct 9, 2016 5:26:55 GMT
All 3 specimens look risky to me, and the money being offered for what could quite easily turn out to be bog standard urvillianus is absurd, without a cast iron insurance that they are miokensis for certain then all bidders are taking a massive gamble, one of the easiest things in the world is to swap a label, it goes on all the time by the crooks that infest our hobby, I'm not saying that has happened here by any means but still. pay $50.00 for specimen and $460.00 for label which is worth $0.05
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 9, 2016 5:37:00 GMT
Paul, your kill'in me -- my sides hurt ! But, you are absolutely right ! !
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Oct 9, 2016 12:46:52 GMT
Paul K, your urvillianus example is quite light in color. It very much reminds me of the subspecies "flavomaculata" which I have seen it called. The locality information is "Maramasike Island". I do not know personally how legitimate that subspecies name is but, that is the location data given on my photos off the internet. Papalidar, outstanding example ! Now that's what I'm talking about. That's the kind of miokensis I'd put money on. Anything looking a little too much like urvillianus would be passed up ! flavomaculata is a common form of the male of urvillianus not an actual sub species, it refers to males with the large gold spot on the hindwing, found in all the islands urvillianus occurs, not restricted to any one island. Rich
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 9, 2016 13:57:05 GMT
This particular flavomaculata (there are many in Papilionidae) was described by Ribbe on 15 January 1898 (Soc. ent., 12(20): 153) as "ab. flavomaculata", and as such is infrasubspecific and can never be used as a subspecies unless someone subsequently used it as a subspecies in a Code compliant manner, but the name would take author and year of the act that makes the name available and not Ribbe, 1898.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 10, 2016 1:41:23 GMT
Thank you Rich and Adam for your helpful insights. I really was not certain as to the validity of "flavomaculata" being a subspecies or form of urvillianus but, with both your help I now know. My birdwing holdings are rather minimal at only 14 items; because I'm picky about their condition. So my knowledge about them is only average as compared with those who have delved into them to a much greater extent than me.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 10, 2016 12:36:06 GMT
The locality information is "Maramasike Island".
AKA Small Malaita, this island is well into the eastern side of Solomon Islands. FWIW neither urvillianus nor victoriae from Maramasike are any different than those found on Malaita proper.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 10, 2016 13:07:53 GMT
In case anyone is wondering why I have edited so many posts in this thread over the past couple of days, it is because nearly everyone has been spelling urvillianus incorrectly. This is not really the fault of the members who post here, because a number of publications similarly spell the taxon name incorrectly, and in more than one way. Hopefully our forum can help educate people about the correct spelling of this and other names.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Oct 10, 2016 13:38:48 GMT
Sorry Adam, predictive text! Make the mistake once it does it all the time.
Just throwing a quick thought out, is miokensis technically a "hybrid" which is defined as a cross of 2 different species, the parents of this are both of the same "species"
Rich
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 10, 2016 18:27:38 GMT
No, technically miokensis is not a true hybrid, but it is a population formed from hybridisation between two subspecies of the same species. Obviously it has formed a breeding colony with intermediate characters, and presumably individuals of both 'parent' subspecies do every so often fly over to add to the gene pool. In fact, many species have intermediate populations between two subspecies in the zone where they meet, unless of course they are so isolated that they can never meet.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Oct 11, 2016 12:40:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Oct 11, 2016 16:54:37 GMT
And there's a bidder, obviously not a genius. I have noticed a 4th miokensis has appeared on eBay, prices should drop now they are becoming so common, also a male urvillianus from New Ireland which has a green tinge to it, which is quite common on this island. Rich
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Oct 11, 2016 17:03:24 GMT
No, technically miokensis is not a true hybrid, but it is a population formed from hybridisation between two subspecies of the same species. Obviously it has formed a breeding colony with intermediate characters, and presumably individuals of both 'parent' subspecies do every so often fly over to add to the gene pool. In fact, many species have intermediate populations between two subspecies in the zone where they meet, unless of course they are so isolated that they can never meet. Adam. Are true hybrids (between 2 different species) sterile? i have heard that some regard urvillianus as a separate species to priamus, but if it produces viable offspring when it pairs with bornemanni this should prove it's a priamus sub species, unless of course my first part is wrong. Rich
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 17:10:48 GMT
I have a hundred flies from that very debate, I'm a millionaire
|
|