|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Mar 8, 2016 21:04:45 GMT
I strongly disagree with it - "forms" and other quadrinomials have no taxonomic value and are considered synonyms. Of course, birdwings in general are the victims of too much taxonomy anyway, and the fact that everyone and his brother have a different opinion doesn't help matters!
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Mar 9, 2016 7:01:56 GMT
There seems to be a fine line between so called geographical forms and subspecies. After all, are not all subspecies geographical races which do not overlap and show at least some morphological differences.
Many subspecies arise on Islands and since victoriae occurs on separate islands, that is why I believe they are given subspecies status. You would have to admit that even on the different islands, victoriae is highly variable within each population.
It does mean that since infraspecific races are not recognized by the International Code, then according to the code, all the forms named by Deslisle and Sclavo (2015) would be invalid synonyms of the nominate with just one subspecies rubianus.
It is quite obvious that where Birdwings are concerned, whether there is a code or not, these names will always be in use by lepidopterists and collectors.
It may be a similar situation within New Guinea Delias, there is a vast array of subspecies that show comparatively little difference to the nominate race and are in reality probably just infraspecific geographical forms.
It all boils down to the different authors and how they see things, to them they have no doubt they are right.
You are either a Splitter or Lumper.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 9, 2016 9:13:43 GMT
It may be a similar situation within New Guinea Delias, there is a vast array of subspecies that show comparatively little difference to the nominate race and are in reality probably just infraspecific geographical forms. It all boils down to the different authors and how they see things, to them they have no doubt they are right. You are either a Splitter or Lumper. Well, not really. Some wrong Delias ssp have been named in the past but many of them has been then synonimized by Henk in his last years.
NG Delias being alpine species. subspeciation is really easy, and the taxonomic situation of Delias genus is far more complex than on Ornithoptera genus.
Forms are interesting if they are recurrent due to genetic or environmental event. If they are just a variation among species, then they are less interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 10, 2016 15:29:11 GMT
Nomad said:
"It does mean that since infraspecific races are not recognized by the International Code, then according to the code, all the forms named by Deslisle and Sclavo (2015) would be invalid synonyms of the nominate with just one subspecies rubianus.
It is quite obvious that where Birdwings are concerned, whether there is a code or not, these names will always be in use by lepidopterists and collectors."
It all depends on how the names were originally described. If they were described as clearly infrasubspecific forms or aberrations of subspecies then they will always be unavailable under the ICZN Code. If the names under consideration were originally described as species or subspecies or described before 1961 as geographical varieties or forms, but are treated by Deslisle & Sclavo as forms, the names are still available and can be used as valid subspecies names if other authors treat them as separate subspecies. New names described as forms by Deslisle & Sclavo in this publication would indeed be infrasubspecific, and unavailable at subspecies level.
There is no problem with people using infrasubspecific names whatsoever, as they are names that impart meaning to people about the specimens' appearance. It is just necessary to realise that these names can never be used as subspecies or species.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Mar 10, 2016 15:50:34 GMT
Well, not really. Some wrong Delias ssp have been named in the past but many of them has been then synonimized by Henk in his last years. If you mixed the nominate D. Wollastoni with its ssp bryophila or the nominate of carstensziana with its ssp alcicornis, without labels who could tell them apart? |
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Mar 10, 2016 17:34:50 GMT
I have some w. wolllastoni that are indistinguishable from bryophila, but I also have very light bryophila of a type that doesn't seem to occur in the nominate. (I've not seen any, anyway.) The nominate carstensziana that I have, vs alcicornis, are easily distinguishable in every case: the yellow patch of the nominate is more orange than in alcicornis. It's variable, but always more orange, sometimes intensely so. Henk doubtless had a larger series and perhaps he found some that were not distinguishable, or perhaps he had seen specimens from intermediate locations. (I have his paper but don't remember the details without finding and rereading it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 10, 2016 18:56:00 GMT
I don't have enough of these ssp to give you a definitive opinion, Peter.
In one of his last Sugapa article about Delias, Henk let us some taxonomic projects including some synonymisation issue to be checked.
|
|
