phalaecus
New Aurelian
Posts: 28
Country: Italy
|
Post by phalaecus on May 15, 2016 14:07:22 GMT
Have any of you had the opportunity to see the second edition of the Neotropical Papilionidae and Pieridae by D'Abrera? A friend of mine* received a complimentary copy, and first reports are, to say the least, dramatic! Hundreds, if not thousands of new synonymies without a word of justification. However it seems that there are about 50 introductory pages of text in which D'Abrera explains his "philosophy" ....... I believe and I fear that much work lies ahead to tidy up the taxonomy after this nth "performance" of D'Abrera!!!! *Adam, he is Tommy
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 15, 2016 17:39:35 GMT
I will ask Tommy about it, thanks for letting us all know. I hadn't heard that there was a second edition coming out. Presumably there are no new photos in the book.
Chances are that most people will ignore synonymy without any supporting evidence.
Adam.
|
|
phalaecus
New Aurelian
Posts: 28
Country: Italy
|
Post by phalaecus on May 15, 2016 17:52:21 GMT
I will ask Tommy about it, thanks for letting us all know. I hadn't heard that there was a second edition coming out. Presumably there are no new photos in the book. Chances are that most people will ignore synonymy without any supporting evidence. Adam. As far as I know, there are almost all the pictures of the first edition, plus new photos, such as those of some species of Catasticta from my collection. It 's true that most people will ignore synonymy without any supporting evidence, but applying the Code, as you know, synonymies are still valid if validly published, and they are ....... unfortunately!!
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 15, 2016 18:20:06 GMT
In reality whether or not two taxa are synonyms is a taxonomic decision and not a nomenclatorial one, so strictly this synonymy is not governed by the Code, at least in terms of whether or not the synonymy is valid. The Code only establishes whether or not a work is validly published (obviously yes in this case), and the correct criteria to apply when deciding which is the valid name to use. Of course, if new names are proposed then the Code does apply, and they must be validly proposed in a Code compliant manner.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on May 15, 2016 18:27:03 GMT
I will ask Tommy about it, thanks for letting us all know. I hadn't heard that there was a second edition coming out. Presumably there are no new photos in the book. Chances are that most people will ignore synonymy without any supporting evidence. Adam. As far as I know, there are almost all the pictures of the first edition, plus new photos, such as those of some species of Catasticta from my collection. It 's true that most people will ignore synonymy without any supporting evidence, but applying the Code, as you know, synonymies are still valid if validly published, and they are ....... unfortunately!! just make a papedr to reinstall them .... the last is the reference
|
|
phalaecus
New Aurelian
Posts: 28
Country: Italy
|
Post by phalaecus on May 15, 2016 18:33:05 GMT
In reality whether or not two taxa are synonyms is a taxonomic decision and not a nomenclatorial one, so strictly this synonymy is not governed by the Code, at least in terms of whether or not the synonymy is valid. The Code only establishes whether or not a work is validly published (obviously yes in this case), and the correct criteria to apply when deciding which is the valid name to use. Of course, if new names are proposed then the Code does apply, and they must be validly proposed in a Code compliant manner. Adam. This is an aspect that I admit that I have never considered.
|
|
phalaecus
New Aurelian
Posts: 28
Country: Italy
|
Post by phalaecus on May 15, 2016 18:35:19 GMT
As far as I know, there are almost all the pictures of the first edition, plus new photos, such as those of some species of Catasticta from my collection. It 's true that most people will ignore synonymy without any supporting evidence, but applying the Code, as you know, synonymies are still valid if validly published, and they are ....... unfortunately!! just make a papedr to reinstall them .... the last is the reference Obvious, even if it will be a waste of time that we would have been saved, don't you think so?
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 15, 2016 19:07:41 GMT
Yes, it would take time to compile a list of all the new synonyms, write a paper and have it peer reviewed before publication. It would also technically be necessary to give reasons for reversing all D'Abrera's synonymy individually in order not to be accused of stooping to the same level.
Adam.
PS. Thierry, the word you were looking for is 'reinstate', not 'reinstall'. I'm not criticising your English, just clarifying the terminology.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on May 16, 2016 13:48:52 GMT
Many of Mr. d'Abrera's errors would have been caught if the publications had been subjected to peer review.
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on May 17, 2016 13:03:59 GMT
Many of Mr. d'Abrera's errors would have been caught if the publications had been subjected to peer review.
Perhaps this is true for the big pretty butterflies. But two volumes stand out for errors - neotropical Lyceanidae and Riodinidae - I'd estimate there is a miss rate of between 5 - 10% in these volumes which essentially makes them useless. The common species are generally ok, but rare bugs are consistently miss-IDed in the BMNH, and hence these volumes. Seitz and the Biologia are actually better references for these groups. Actually - at an average age of 100 years old, they are better for the big pretties as well.
Plus- peer review would have eliminated all those anti-science diatribes and the flat-Earth theology the volumes are famous for. We wouldn't want that, would we?
FYI - I donated my d'Abrera volumes to a local library a few years back. They thanked me - I think they sold them for around $15 a volume! Sounds about right...
John
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on May 23, 2016 13:26:19 GMT
I think it was the noted Heliconiid expert Keith Brown who once told me that he found books like this to be indispensable to him. He said something to the effect of "The volumes are full of mis-identifications, but when I read the erroneous name, it somehow always triggers memory of the correct name I was struggling to recall"!
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on May 24, 2016 12:26:33 GMT
I think it was the noted Heliconiid expert Keith Brown who once told me that he found books like this to be indispensable to him. He said something to the effect of "The volumes are full of mis-identifications, but when I read the erroneous name, it somehow always triggers memory of the correct name I was struggling to recall"!
Now that's funny!
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 24, 2016 18:19:02 GMT
I received my copy of the new book today (thanks very much to Bd'A for sending me a complimentary copy for research purposes, I only had to pay postal charges), and must say that I do not see any "new synonymies without a word of justification" at first glance. Those synonymies that I have read so far all give at least a brief reason for d'Abrera's opinion. Whether the synonymy is justified or not is a subjective decision of the reader, since the only synonymy that is not subjective is when two names are based on the same type specimen (for species group names) and type species (for genus group names).
As well as synonymy the work also splits several species, for example Parides erithalion is divided into three traditional species polyzelus, erithalion and erlaces, reversing previous opinion, and genus Battus is divided into Battus and Battuosa. However d'Abrera does not recognise the original description of Battuosa as valid under ICZN Code article 13.1 and describes it as a new name from this work. I think that the description of Moehn is sufficient to satisfy article 13.1, since the Code does not actually specify how detailed the differential diagnosis should be, just that they must "be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon". The same reason is cited for synonymising Neographium with Eurytides, and it does seem from the English version of the text that there is no differential diagnosis for that name, but it is necessary to check the German edition, as the English version is a subsequent version, and some text may have been omitted.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 24, 2016 20:18:06 GMT
Another new genus name was proposed in the book, "Gilvicornis d'Abrera, 2016" with type species Papilio zagreus Westwood, 1847. This, however, is a junior objective synonym (same type species) of Motasiona Niculescu, 1979, and so is an unavailable name.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 25, 2016 13:42:59 GMT
I found a syn. nov. without any direct explanation in the text of that taxon, rumiko is synonymised with cresphontes. Reading other pages makes it clear that the reason must be d'Abrera's refusal to accept DNA evidence as valid.
Adam.
|
|