|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 10, 2021 20:20:00 GMT
To clarify your question further, nominate Papilio bromius is correctly known as Papilio chrapkowskoides nurettini. Adam. many thanks Adam ... |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 11, 2021 13:48:38 GMT
Thierry, The correct name for the species is Papilio chrapkowskoides. Here is the synonymy: Papilio chrapkowskoides Storace, 1952 ssp. chrapkowskoides Storace, 1952 (TL. Kalinzu Forest, Uganda occidental; Entebbe) ssp. nerminae Koçak, 1983 [Replacement Name] = furvus Joicey & Talbot, 1926 (TL. Island of Sao Thomé, West Africa) [Junior Homonym] ssp. nurettini Koçak, 1983 [Replacement Name] = bromius Doubleday, 1845 (TL. Ashanti) [Junior Homonym] TL. = Type Locality For clarification, the type locality of a replacement name for a junior homonym is the same as the name it replaces. Adam. I just checked the Storace original description of P. chrapkowskoides, and it seems that he didn't actually designate a holotype, and the type locality I stated above is actually the locality of the largest and smallest specimens. He lists many "paratypes" from various places in Uganda, but I cannot see an individual specimen designated as holotype or "the type". As a result I think his "paratypes" are all syntypes, and the type locality should be regarded as "Uganda". Perhaps africaone can read the French original description ( Lambillionea, 52(1-2): 9-11) and confirm whether or not my interpretation is correct. It is possible I have missed something due to my poor French. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 11, 2021 16:41:26 GMT
Adam, I have serious doubt about this publication
1- Storace refered clearly to chrapkowskyi (a endemic from Kenya) and to bromius (sensu auctorum) and compared it as a race of the first. I then doubt it is the same as what authors called so long time "bromius". There is a species flying in this area that fits with Storace's descriptioon and that is not "bromius sensu auctorum".
2- remain the type designation completely ambigous. He cited "paratypes 134 mm, 1 f" and the only "type" he cited from Bukussu is not relied clearly to chrapkowskoides or ab. opposita (even it seems logical relied to opposita, a doubt remains). In the beginning of the text he indicated a male from Kitale and one can interprete this as the type of the new taxon chrapkowskoides.
Without the type under hand it seems hazardous to know which specimen Storace choose as type and as he designated paratypes it is highly probable he had in mind a particular specimen for his type (may he wrote it on the label).
TL kalinzu is nowhere in the original publication then if it is really, that means someone examined the type and that it is indicated on the label. It is important as the bromius sensu auctorum probably fly together the second species in that area. A nightmare without the type.
As yet said in this forum, Papilio's study in Africa is a real mess particularly this group of Papilio. Kocak's acts, even being legal but unfair, doesn't help to clarify the situation. nerminae is a good species as probably nurettini is also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 11, 2021 19:19:03 GMT
We shall see if Hancock can shed more light on the problem. In 1984 he determined that chrapkowskoides is the valid name for the subspecies of Papilio bromius from Ituri through Uganda to Tanzania and separated chrapkowskii as a sympatric species. Since bromius is a junior homonym the next oldest available name for the same species (chrapkowskoides) became the valid species name.
Storace cited 'Kalinzu Forest, Uganda occidental' and 'Entebbe' in the 3rd paragraph of the paper immediately after the short sentence comparing the size with chrapkowskii but before a further paragraph describing the taxon. It seems that he actually meant that the smallest specimen came from Kalinzu Forest and the largest from Entebbe, rather than these two localities are the type locality. He then lists a series of 134 males and 1 female "paratypes" on the next page, without designating any one of them as the holotype, and including the Kalinzu and Entebbe specimens. According to the ICZN Code, if no holotype is designated in an original description then all the specimens listed are syntypes unless specifically excluded from the type series.
As you say there seems to be a single mention of the word "Type", but that definitely applies only to the aberration he described on p. 11, "ab. opposita". It cannot apply to the type of chrapkowskoides, if it did it should be listed after the description of that taxon, and not immediately after the sentence naming the aberration on the next page.
It is possible that the holotype designation was deleted from the manuscript before publication, either by Storace or the printers. Unless there is a corrigendum somewhere in the same volume of Lambillionea stating that the designation was erroneously omitted, then even if he intended to designate a holotype and there is a specimen somewhere labelled as such it is not the valid holotype.
It is interesting that you seem to imply that nurettini (nominate bromius from W Africa) is a separate species to chrapkowskoides as well as nerminae from Sao Thomé, but perhaps you only meant that nerminae is a distinct species?
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Apr 12, 2021 17:10:11 GMT
I look forward to the day that someone tackles this problem. From Ituri province alone I have sosia, 2 different nireus (nominate & lyaeus), and 2 in the chrapkowskoides/chrapkowskii group.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 16, 2021 0:47:53 GMT
I just want to know how Adam stays on top of African papilio while hiding in a formerly backwater town in Asia. Last week I stumbled on a discussion of a Solomon Islands graphium- a species on which I’ve been cited- and there’s Adam again, and I’m sure he’s never been to Solomon Islands! If he’s that good at memorization he should be counting cards at the casino.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 16, 2021 9:21:33 GMT
Basically by studying literature and specimens. As you say, I have never been to the Solomon Islands, nor have I ever been to Africa, but most people haven't been to the majority of the places that they study butterflies from either.
I am not that good at memorising things, but I know where to check information, mainly on my computer or if necessary in my ollection. Luckily I don't go to casinos.
Adam.
|
|
