|
|
Post by hewi on Jul 18, 2019 21:48:52 GMT
The population of Ornithoptera goliath of Waigeo
is no longer considered to be the nominative subspecies goliath goliath.
The type specimen of goliath comes from Yapen island but not from Waigeo.
The population of Waigeo has now been named O. goliath naturalis ATTAL, 2019.
The name O. goliath ukihidei HANAFUSA, 1994 that has been applied to the population of Yapen so far, has sunken to synonymy therefore .
See:
ATTAL, Stéphane "Ornithoptera goliath Oberthür, 1894: redécouverte du type, description d'une nouvelle sous-espèce"
Antenor, pp. 7-18, 9 fig., June 2019
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 19, 2019 9:12:06 GMT
The name O. goliath ukihidei HANAFUSA, 1994 that has been applied to the population of Yapen so far, has sunken to synonymy therefore . Just to clarify without having seen the paper, what hewi means is that O. goliath ukihidei Hanafusa, 1994 becomes a synonym of the nominate subspecies. I look forward to reading the paper to understand why the nominate subspecies is considered to come from Yapen. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jul 19, 2019 10:41:31 GMT
I guess then, that they have found an earlier specimen of goliath from Yapen than the female from Waigeo than was presumed to be sent to Laglaize,and described by Oberthür in 1888. The Papuan Insect Foundation has Laglaize visiting the Aroner, Amberbaker and Kebar people at the North coast of the Birdshead Peninsula in 1877, but make no mention of him visiting Waigeo. In Outstanding Birdwing Butterflies the authors state that " The female from catcher, sent by M. Leon Laglaise to the late M.A. Depuiset, but they give no date when this was. According to Deslisle and Sclavo O. goliath's existence on Waigeo was doubtful until specimens were caught there by a insect catcher from Java in 2003? Although since the first male was taken on that Island by the Pratt brothers in 1915, I am not sure why there was any doubt it was found there. I see that the French naturalist F.H.H. Guillemard (Papuan insect Foundation) visited Waigeo, Batanta, Mysol (Misool), Jobi (Yapen) and the Birdshead Peninsula in 1883 - 1884, and then came William Doherty to Yapen in 1892. Not much seems to be known about Léon François Laglaize. I believe he was in New Guinea mainly as a trader in bird of paradise plumes. I look forward to finding out more.
F.H.H. Guillemard (1852-1933) was a British naturalist and not French as stated by the PIF.
|
|
|
|
Post by hewi on Jul 19, 2019 13:14:17 GMT
btw., he correct date of the first description of goliath is 1894, according to the research of ATTAL.
Oberthür first had described goliath in 1888 as an infra-subspecific form of O. arruana, and therefore not available after the ICZN.
In 1894 he changed his opinion about the status of goliath.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jul 19, 2019 14:02:35 GMT
Thanks Hewi. I was hoping it would be for a much more substantial reason, an earlier found specimen from Yapen etc. In reality just a case of taxonomic nitpicking to get ones name in print. I wonder how many authors will follow his lead, but I don't expect anymore books on Ornithoptera, I think they have been pretty well covered. At least some authors believe that all goliath from New Guinea, apart from procus belong to the same subspecies, so in some people's opinions the validity of giving subspecific status to local populations of such a strong flying insect is a questionable exercise. This also appears to be the case with O. paradisea to name but one among others. I might add there was no code at all in Oberthur's time.
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Jul 19, 2019 16:51:27 GMT
On a related topic: Do I remember correctly that Waigeo is the type locality of O.(S.) tithonus? Does the species still fly there? I've been told that the island is seriously deforested nowadays.
Cheers,
JH
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 19, 2019 17:09:05 GMT
Thanks Hewi. I was hoping it would be for a much more substantial reason, an earlier found specimen from Yapen etc. In reality just a case of taxonomic nitpicking to get ones name in print. I wonder how many authors will follow his lead, but I don't expect anymore books on Ornithoptera, I think they have been pretty well covered. At least some authors believe that all goliath from New Guinea, apart from procus belong to the same subspecies, so in some people's opinions the validity of giving subspecific status to local populations of such a strong flying insect is a questionable exercise. This also appears to be the case with O. paradisea to name but one among others. I might add there was no code at all in Oberthur's time. Indeed, the date of publication for the valid species name is 1894, as the 1888 name was introduced as an aberration and is thus unavailable, being infrasubspecific. That "revelation" is not actually anything new. What is new is the opinion that the phenotype of the female type is that of a specimen from Yapen. However it is unclear to me how variable females on Yapen actually are and whether this phenotype also occurs elewhere, and maybe more importantly - are there any records of collectors visiting Yapen before 1888? If no-one went there the type specimen cannot have come from there. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 19, 2019 17:24:43 GMT
I might add there was no code at all in Oberthur's time. It is important to note that the fact that there was no ICZN Code when very many butterflies were described is irrelevant. At that time there was no clear acceptance of the value of describing something as a species rather than an aberration, or even a defined type concept, although many of these ideas were gradually adopted as 'the norm'. Eventually it was decided to formalise the rules of nomenclature which led to the ICZN Code as we know it. All names must comply with the current edition (4) of the Code. The first edition was written in order to clarify and standardise the regulations that need to be followed when describing a new animal and how to interpret all previously described names. As subsequent editions were modified and new regulations brought in great care was taken to ensure that provisions of previous editions were not overturned by new articles. Thus in the current Code there are many articles with time dependent clauses, eg. what to do about names described before 1961 etc etc, and articles which apply only to names proposed after 1999. It is also worth mentioning that only the current Code is in effect. All regulations in previous editions are effectively contained in the one work, so there can be no argument that a name was described when a particular version of the Code was in effect. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jul 19, 2019 18:11:52 GMT
According to the Papuan insect Foundation F.H.H. Guillemard visited Jobi (Yapen) in 1883 - 1884, but I very much doubt he collected any O. goliath there. I thought O. goliath was a relatively recent discovery on Yapen, which makes me wonder why this is now the type locality? Doherty was collecting on Yapen island 1892-1893, but he did not collect O. goliath there.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jul 19, 2019 18:25:28 GMT
According to Jan Pasternak in his book, O. goliath was not found on Yapen until the 1990s = Ornithoptera goliath ukihidei Hanafusa, 1994, unless the author of the new paper has found a very early specimen of O. goliath from Yapen then O. goliath Oberthur 1894 from the island of Waigeo must still be correct, as the other subspecies were described later.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jul 19, 2019 18:57:29 GMT
On a related topic: Do I remember correctly that Waigeo is the type locality of O.(S.) tithonus? Does the species still fly there? I've been told that the island is seriously deforested nowadays. Cheers, JH I believe the type locality of O. tithonus was Kapaur on the Onin Peninsula. The specimen was taken by Dr S. Muller and described by De Hann in 1840. According to the authors of Outstanding Birdwing Butterflies there are recent tithonus specimens from Waigeo which they regard as belonging to the nominate race. Throughout their book they ascribe form local names (not covered by the code) thus the population on Waigeo to them is O. tithonus tithonus f. local waigeuensis. The authors also ascribed holotypes to infraspecific taxa. It was appear that to some extent the authors do not follow the ICZN Code, and have made up their own for Ornithoptera, which has never really been discussed for such a major work on butterflies. However, there is a long history of naming aberrations, forms etc, so its nothing new, and it does have some value in my opinion. What is different is that everything in their book is a form, including aberrations. It is a sad part of modern New Guinea that many of their forests have been and continue to be destroyed. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 19, 2019 20:29:17 GMT
According to the Papuan insect Foundation F.H.H. Guillemard visited Jobi (Yapen) in 1883 - 1884, but I very much doubt he collected any O. goliath there. I thought O. goliath was a relatively recent discovery on Yapen, which makes me wonder why this is now the type locality? Doherty was collecting on Yapen island 1892-1893, but he did not collect O. goliath there. If the Oberthür type came from Yapen, then it must have been collected some time before 1888. Just to clarify, Atal is not suggesting that there was a different specimen which came from Yapen and should be treated as the type of O. goliath he is saying that he believes the original specimen described by Oberthür (first in 1888 as an aberration, and then as a species in 1894) actually came from Yapen based on the wing pattern, particularly the FW cell and discal region. I do not know how variable this is and whether the reduced pattern of the type occurs everywhere or only on Yapen. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 19, 2019 20:45:06 GMT
Reading the 1894 description reproduced in Atal's paper (I assume it must be a correct copy) Oberthür discusses the origin of the type specimen, saying that it came from the Leon Laglaize expedition and (supplied by?) Depuiset. He also states that it must have come from somewhere in the NW region, between Waigeo and Dorei (= Manokwari), which was the area Laglaize and his local catchers explored.
If that is true then the specimen cannot possibly have come from Yapen which is much further east.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Jul 19, 2019 20:59:05 GMT
Thank you for the clarification Adam, I misunderstood not having seen the new paper. What I do understand is that with such a variable species as goliath, especially in the females, surely the new type locality is based on the morphology of just a single specimen, and it is to me circumstantial evidence at best, unless Laglaize actually stated that his collectors caught the male O. goliath there, which he did not as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 19, 2019 21:42:41 GMT
surely the new type locality is based on the morphology of just a single specimen, and it is to me circumstantial evidence at best, unless Laglaize actually stated that his collectors caught the male O. goliath there, which he did not as far as I know. I agree entirely. That is the problem, the new origin is based on the phenotype of the single female, and as I pointed out above Yapen is not in the range indicated for the expedition. Adam. |
|
