Butterfly Identification info

[roon]

Hello!

I was given this site by a friend and told you could help me. I'm confused about the naming of this butterfly:



This is what I know:

Photo was taken in Colombia, and the photographer says it's a Blue-and-orange Eighty-eight (Callicore tolima) while my copyeditor says it's a Tolima Numberwing (Callicore tolima).
I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if these are different butterflies or just different names for the same butterfly. Could you guys help me out?

Thank you!

[wollastoni]

It is a Callicore tolima.

"Blue and orange Eighty-eight" and "Tolima Numberwing" are common names that shouldn't be used in entomology. Only latin names are stable and understandable worldwide.
Several species have a lot of "common names", some don't have any. Each language have different common names, so it is a total mess. 
Only the latin name should be used for insects. That's what serious entomologists are using. 

Splendid picture ! Splendid butterfly !

[roon]

This is going to go into a calendar so the common name is absolutely necessary and I'd like it to be accurate. Is one of those more accurate or are both acceptable?

[Adam Cotton]

There isn't a "correct" English name for any organism, animal, plant or microbe. However, the number one website for 'American' butterflies calls it Blue-and-orange Eighty-eight so I would go with that name and also include the scientific name as well:

www.butterfliesofamerica.com/L/t/Callicore_tolima_a.htm

Adam.

[nomad]

In my articles on British species, I will also often use English names together with their Latin names. English names of British species are important to us here because they have been used throughout our long history of entomological literature. 

[Adam Cotton]

Oct 7, 2017 9:09:42 GMT nomad said:

In my articles on British species, I will also often use English names together with their Latin names. English names of British species are important to us here because they have been used throughout our long history of entomological literature. 

Yes, I agree that English names of British butterflies are important for British butterfly enthusaists, but it is important to point out that the same species in other countries can have a different English name, or the same English name can be used for more than one species. In the USA different organisations have different English names for the same butterflies, which can be rather confusing. English names are often also known as 'common names'.

That is why roon didn't know which of the two options for English names of Callicore tolima to use. In reality both are 'right' depending on which list of English names you use, but there is only one valid scientific name for each species. I won't go into problems deciding which Latin name is the correct one, as that can be quite complex. Generally once a scientific name has been assigned to a species it never changes unless scientists have a really good reason to do so, and this change needs to be properly published before it will become valid. This only actually happens in a small percentage of species, and the main aim of the rules governing scientific names of animals (The ICZN Code) is precisely to enable stability of the correct names.

Adam.

[nomad]

I quite agree the correct usage on the forum should be scientific names. However, I believe the genus names of many species change on such a regular basis that it must be quite daunting to some of which one to use. For instance because an author changes one genus names to another, such as Phengaris arion for Maculinea arion, Polyommatus bellargus for Lysandra bellargus and Aglais io for Inachis io, just a few examples, what makes the author right, and which do you use. The constant changing of genus names causes widespread confusion as far as I am concerned. 

[Adam Cotton]

The problem with genus names is that they are often completely subjective. For example some people believe that all Papilio species around the world belong in the same genus, whereas others split Papilio into several different genera such as Pterourus for the glaucus group and Heraclides for the thoas group. Since all species in the wide interpretation of genus Papilio are derived from a single common ancestor there is no "correct" treatment, lumping or splitting is purely a matter of personal preference. I prefer to lump the species within genus Papilio and treat the other names as subgenera. The advantage of this is that non-experts in the group immediately know that two species are related to each other if they are placed in the same genus, whereas if they are placed in different genera this useful information is lost.

Sometimes it is necessary to split a genus into several other genera because the different species groups in a previously recognised genus are shown not to have the same original common ancestor. All species in a genus must have arisen from a single common ancestor, and a genus cannot contain species which are not directly related to each other.

Sometimes genus names are changed because one group previously treated as a separate genus is found to have arisen within a larger group treated as a single genus. A good example of this is Polyura which is actually just a small species group branching off from within the tree of genus Charaxes. In such a case taxonomists really have two choices: either change the names of the Polyura species to Charaxes, or treat each separate branch of Charaxes as a different genus thus keeping the name Polyura for the species known under this genus and split genus Charaxes into a large number of different genera, one for each branch equivalent to the Polyura branch.

If possible taxonomists prefer to choose the classification which results in the least number of changes to names, but sometimes there are other reasons why it is necessary to split a large genus into several or many smaller ones. Confusion often occurs because some authors continue to follow the old classification, whereas others switch to the newer names.

There is a big difference between "personal opinion" in a case such as Papilio, whether to lump or split, and examples where a genus is shown to comprise several different lineages without a common ancestor, or as in the case of Polyura where the group arose within a single larger genus.

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

I should add that the aim of taxonomists is to end up with a stable and unchanging classification, but as new tools become available (such as DNA analysis) it is necessary to make changes as new evidence comes to light. The problem is that classifications are really just hypotheses (ideas based on evidence), and these can change. It is not possible to conclusively draw a completely accurate tree which reflects millions of years of evolution based only on the species currently present on our Earth. All classifications are at best an approximation.

Adam.

[wollastoni]

Oct 7, 2017 9:09:42 GMT nomad said:

English names of British species are important to us here because they have been used throughout our long history of entomological literature. 

True but it is exactly the same for German names, French names and so on... and if all of us keep them, then we won't have a common understanding anymore.
If I told you I have seen a nice Aurore you won't know what I am talking about.

Oct 7, 2017 13:33:06 GMT nomad said:

I quite agree the correct usage on the forum should be scientific names

Yes !

[Adam Cotton]

Oct 7, 2017 16:38:02 GMT wollastoni said:

nomad said:

I quite agree the correct usage on the forum should be scientific names

Yes !

I agree entirely. The best way to get young visitors used to scientific names is by using them as the standard. This is particularly important in a forum such as this where members from all round the world instantly know exactly what is being discussed if the scientific name is used. For example, "Red Admiral" in the UK is very different to the butterfly of the same name in New Zealand.

Adam.

[deliasfanatic]

I'm certainly in agreement as well. I'd suggest that one of a good forum's goals is to promote better understanding and knowledge among its members, and the use of proper (scientific) names is high on the list of important topics.