|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 4, 2016 16:07:33 GMT
For me personally the one obvious reason for naming Intraspecific taxa is that in referring to a particular specimen you do not need to write a lengthy description. Not only is the original article excellent but so is this post. However, at the risk of being pedantic I would like to point out for educational purposes that the usual term for names applicable below subspecific status is "Infrasubspecific" (with abbreviation IFS). 'Intraspecific' is not incorrect, meaning "within a species", but it does include taxa at subspecies level as well as those below subspecies (forms, varieties, aberrations etc). No offence meant, and I certainly don't want to detract from your excellent work. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Nov 4, 2016 17:59:10 GMT
Wild specimens are even more beautiful.
You can easily find many on them via a search on the web :
and even some video :
I guess they are not so rare in the wild but I never had the chance to meet them.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 4, 2016 18:41:53 GMT
For me personally the one obvious reason for naming Intraspecific taxa is that in referring to a particular specimen you do not need to write a lengthy description. Not only is the original article excellent but so is this post. However, at the risk of being pedantic I would like to point out for educational purposes that the usual term for names applicable below subspecific status is "Infrasubspecific" (with abbreviation IFS). 'Intraspecific' is not incorrect, meaning "within a species", but it does include taxa at subspecies level as well as those below subspecies (forms, varieties, aberrations etc). No offence meant, and I certainly don't want to detract from your excellent work. Adam. I have been reading J.C. Weir (2016) that is why I used that term. To quote " Both terms infraspecific and intraspecific, have been widely used variously throughtout literature (eg Kloet and Hincks, 1972; Underwood 2008) and, while both are acceptable, it is always describle to have a single term which is universally applied. It is my opinion that intraspecific is preferable given that the Latin prefix intra means within while infra means below, the former more accurately reflects the diverse nature of the forms of variation which the different named groups, represent; not merely a single, lower rung on a classificatory hierarchy".
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 4, 2016 18:47:05 GMT
Yes Olivier. Even more stunning live. Being ever so precise I expect the aberrations in your images are ab. lugenda Cabeau 1910 and ab. beroe Fabricius 1793.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 4, 2016 22:03:06 GMT
"I have been reading J.C. Weir (2016) that is why I used that term. To quote " Both terms infraspecific and intraspecific, have been widely used variously throughtout literature (eg Kloet and Hincks, 1972; Underwood 2008) and, while both are acceptable, it is always describle to have a single term which is universally applied. It is my opinion that intraspecific is preferable given that the Latin prefix intra means within while infra means below, the former more accurately reflects the diverse nature of the forms of variation which the different named groups, represent; not merely a single, lower rung on a classificatory hierarchy"."
Weir compares infra- and intra- specific, and doesn't mention 'infrasubspecific'. While intraspecific includes the subspecies taxa, infrasubspecific does not, and indeed specifically refers to everything below subspecies. Weir is not wrong, he is just using the words in a somewhat different context.
I would like to point out that 'intraspecific' is not found anywhere in the text of the ICZN Code, whereas 'infrasubspecific' occurs many times and even has an entry in the Glossary.
Adam.
|
|