|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 20, 2018 18:31:10 GMT
Charaxes (Euxanthe) doubledayi Aurivillius, 1899  
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Aug 20, 2018 19:27:25 GMT
Charaxes ?
|
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 20, 2018 19:47:25 GMT
Aduse-Poku et al, 2009 placed Euxanthe as a subgenera of Charaxes. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Aug 21, 2018 7:00:56 GMT
Why Euxanthe ? I didn't write that 
What I doubt is about the correct generic systematic of Charaxes (and allied) in Old World (those of Neotropic seems more reliable, espacially after last papers  ).
Wahlberg's team (then including Aduse-Poku) made a real wonderful work on the genetic of Nymphalidae including old world Charaxinae (Charaxini ?) . Despite that, it seems clear (following their job) that they didn't make any logical conclusion in the POV of systematic. Aduse-Poku et al, 2009 paper clearly gave some crucial keys to trace the route but none take the road, including themselves  . Probably because Charaxes, Euxanthe, Palla, Polyura, … are sanctified names and nobody want to take the risk to change this prehistoric arrangement. Of course limits of genera are something not well defined but monophyly must be respected, what is not the case in OW Charaxinae.
Systematic is a conservative world and changes are not well accepted even they are scientific. Collectors and curators of Collections don't like to change the arrangement and labels of the collections  . During the learning of our passion, we learn the names from our elders ... without asking too many questions. Comes a time when you have to know how to progress and be in agreement with the foundations of our passion. Even Science is not welcome everywhere, Systematic is included in. |
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 21, 2018 7:45:35 GMT
Why Euxanthe ? I didn't write that Then, I clearly didn't understand your question: What are you suggesting the correct nomenclature would be? Personally, I'm just trying to follow the latest publications on the matter... which, as far as I'm aware, is Aduse-Poku et al, 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Aug 21, 2018 8:55:13 GMT
I just set attention to the fact that Charaxes is a bin group.
Did you really relied it to Charaxes (such as the true ones jasius, etc.) if somebody didn't tell you (book or person) it is called Charaxes ?
It is like nomenclature at the beginning when many things that looks like a little similar were put in the same general genus : Papilio, Bombyx, Saturnia, etc.
It is not a critic, just to (re)open a debate on such question (I opened it, without any result, in 2008 when I described and revised Viridixes).
Strange that a such group remains so few studied today despite it is one of the most barcoded (not only Barcode, also other genetic studies) group, the best known and published group in Africa and Asia, and the most collected one in Africa. Quite all species and populations have been barcoded, often with extremely interesting and exploitable results. Last works were of the "classic form" from Henning (an illustrated colored catalogue of the Van Someren work, unfortunetely with many errors) and from Turlin (that made a nice work, unfortunetely partitioned, an update list with nice illustrations without taking account of Barcode results).
|
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 21, 2018 13:54:10 GMT
I see now what you mean. No I probably wouldn't have tied it to Charaxes, and based on morphology I don't think I would tie it with Charaxes (Euxanthe) eurinome or similar either (but I am by no means an expert on these things). I do think though, that using subgenera can help in efficientyl demonstrating relationship of species within a genera.
For example:
Charaxes (Charaxes) pollux and Charaxes (Euxanthe) doubledayi
tells me a lot more about the relationship between those species than:
Charaxes pollux and Euxanthe doubledayi
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Aug 25, 2018 15:34:00 GMT
|
|
).
. Probably because Charaxes, Euxanthe, Palla, Polyura, … are sanctified names and nobody want to take the risk to change this prehistoric arrangement. Of course limits of genera are something not well defined but monophyly must be respected, what is not the case in OW Charaxinae.
.