cyane
New Aurelian
Posts: 14 
|
Post by cyane on Aug 5, 2018 10:38:05 GMT
Charaxes inopinatus was until recently only known from the type specimen, thought to have been caught on Sulawesi and described by Röber in 1940. This specimen was lost during WW2. Chris Muller recently sent me an email with a new paper by himself and Tennent documenting Chris' rediscovery of Charaxes (now Polyura) inopinatus. It also includes some fascinating details of the loss of the type, attempts to rediscover it on Sulawesi, the possible collector of the original type etc. The paper is free to view zookeys.pensoft.net/article/26458/ |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Aug 5, 2018 17:19:49 GMT
Fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticinsects on Aug 6, 2018 5:22:16 GMT
A fantastic discovery, this species has eluded rediscovery for a very long time. Congrats to Chris!
It was one of the most mythical species in Indonesia.
,Benny
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 6, 2018 8:12:24 GMT
It was one of the most mythical species in Indonesia. And so it shall remain "in Indonesia", since it was rediscovered in New Britain, PNG. Almost certainly this species does not occur in Indonesia at all. Super discovery, great paper. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by exoticinsects on Aug 6, 2018 8:47:06 GMT
No of course not, just a case of corrupted data.
So many people have looked for this species over the years ... in completely the wrong place.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Aug 18, 2018 11:46:43 GMT
What a fabulous story! We are so often, and correctly, demanding that all specimens have data. What we forget and forgo is the story behind every specimen. In this case, I argue that the story is far more significant than the specimen itself, for not only is the background entertaining, but there are lessons to be learned as well. As always, I enjoy everything authored and co-authored by John Tennent. His penchant for opinionated and powerful language ("that are clearly nonsense") may rub some the wrong way, but I find it refreshing in a politically correct world. Whereas Tennent often writes "nonsense", in speaking he uses the less professional word "rubbish", which, when spoken with such emphasis with his British accent, elicits a round of giggles from me. Rubbish, Rubbish, Rubbish, I can hear him now and I laugh. The authors, probably correctly, claim that inopinatus cannot be present on Sulawesi. They cite previous expeditions that did not encounter the species on Sulawesi, citing that Tennent spent four months there, and "It is hard to believe that the distinctive P. inopinatus would not have been sighted at all, had it been present." I find this ironic in that Tennent also claimed Polyura jupiter was not present on Makira (San Christobal) in 2001, he having spent quite some time there, yet was presented in 2001 with a fresh specimen captured near the airport! My critique being that field researchers claim absence based on their lack of sightings, which is in fact not a reasonable evidence of absence. Attached is the photo of the female jupiter from Makira that demonstrated that the species does indeed exist on San Christobal, with which Tennent absconded; it now resides in BMNH. As an aside, I would ask all authors to push back against the politically correct trend to rename institutions and events. It's the British Museum of Natural History, dammit. Stop renaming and un-renaming stuff- it's still "Formosa", still "Amphion nessus", and still "Bud at the Glen". Thanks for posting a link to this wonderful essay! Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by depalma on Aug 22, 2018 21:32:27 GMT
Very nice and interesting paper.
I am, however, not fully confident that a neotype designation was appropriate here.
It appears that some aspects of article 75 were not entirely fulfilled in this case:
-- 75.3.1. a statement that it is designated with the express purpose of clarifying the taxonomic status [...] of a nominal taxon.
The authors state that "We also note that such a designation customarily includes a comparison with closely associated (similar) taxa; in this case, as previous authors have also noted, Polyura inopinatus has no obvious association with any other Polyura species." The fact that P. inopinatus "has no obvious association with any other Polyura species" makes the designation of a neotype superfluous, as it implies that the identity of P. inopinatus has not been, and is not, in doubt (see article 75.2).
-- 75.3.6. evidence that the neotype came as nearly as practicable from the original type locality [Art. 76.1].
The locality of the neotype is not consistent with (and in fact is far from) the precise locality of the original type.
Other aspects of article 75 may be satisfied, but in this case it cannot be excluded that the new specimens belong to a new species very close to P. inopinatus (a cryptic species, for example). If the new specimens were found at the original type locality, then there would be more confidence in their identity with P. inopinatus; yet, the qualifying conditions of article 75.3.1 would not be satisfied. In fact, the taxon P. inopinatus, as far as I understand as a non expert of this group, is not implicated in a taxonomic problem, revision, or dispute.
This is not meant to be a critique to the paper or authors, but I'd be happy to hear other opinions!
Best wishes, Miki
|
|
mokky
New Aurelian
Posts: 28
Country: Japan
|
Post by mokky on Sept 11, 2018 1:04:03 GMT
For many Japanese butterfly enthusiasts who are interested more or less in southeast Asian butteflies, this paper is definitely shocking. For past decades so many Japanese tried to find this holy grail in Sulawesi. But nobody made success. When it comes to Asian butteflies, now no other great target like inopinatus still remains. Truly a stunning rediscovery!!
|
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 11, 2018 1:31:45 GMT
Agreed, it's a fantastic rediscovery - certainly not one that I had expected to see resolved. I suppose that the greatest "mystery species" would now be Colias ponteni (aka C. imperialis).
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Sept 11, 2018 5:44:24 GMT
and Charaxes defulvata …
|
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 11, 2018 12:05:24 GMT
Yes, very strange that defulvata hasn't been rediscovered, but at least we (supposedly) know its location. The stated Colias location ("Port Famine") doesn't seem to be correct, and the species is still known only from its small type series after more than 150 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Sept 11, 2018 13:56:54 GMT
Yes, very strange that defulvata hasn't been rediscovered, but at least we (supposedly) know its location. not so sure … the location given is not so difficult to explore and nobody found it on the island. As it was during a travel by sea, it can be another island (? Annobon, etc.)
the false location of inopinatus recalled the problem of Viridixes (ex Charaxes) shultzei of which the type locality was cited as Efulen in Cameroon. It is the same kind of story as it passes from hand to hand via collector/merchants, may be an exchange made between Overleat and/or Lemoult at the origin from catching done in Southern Congo or Kwango. Described by Röber in 1936. The big diffrence being that it is known by other specimens than the types that allowed to solve the problem.
On the opposite you have case such as Charaxes taverniersi. The two first specimens were caught in Central Congo (Kisangani area, exact locality known) and has never been caught again until now in Congo despite intensive researches. The species has been rediscovered very far from there in Central Cameroon (where it is locally common).
One must know that Charaxes is not so difficult to catch. If you know the exact locality of a population, they is a great chance to catch it again by a "good" specialist that knows habits and technics (and in some cases kind of foodplant as in the case of dowsetti of some of the "black complex"). A book can be written on the subject.
|
|
