|
Post by africaone on Mar 13, 2017 15:58:22 GMT
of course, it is a lapsus calami
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 13, 2017 20:35:51 GMT
Don't worry, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of the error, otherwise people will think it was correct.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Oct 29, 2017 8:13:30 GMT
No, P. rex is not related to demodocus, it is part of the dardanus lineage. The demodocus group is more closely related to the Asian Papilio species. Adam. a recent barcode of antimachus placed it near rex. Not so surpising then zalmoxis and antimachus are not related and seem to belong to two different lineages, may some kind of "jurrasic" remainings in the African fauna.
|
|
|
Post by mothylator on Dec 24, 2019 23:10:15 GMT
Just resurrecting this thread, and because I have a serious interest in progressing research in the nireus group: 1. P antimachus almost certainly feeds on aristolochiae, notwithstanding the extreme distant relatedness from Troidini inferred from morphology. Miriam Rothschild unequivocally demonstrated the presence of high levels of cardiolides in the imago. AFAIK nobody has published more recent research using more modern separation methods for identifying sources of cardiolides eg applied by a Texan lab tasked with investigating cardiac glycosides in a series of deaths at Sick Kids Hospital Toronto in the 1980s. I suspect that studies of Liberian Aristolochia species and Liberian antimachus specimens would narrow down the foodplant or even uniquely identify it. Telemetry research into the flight paths of male antimachus is fascinating, and I’m led to understand the range of candidate Aristoochiae spp is fewer than Congo basin. 2. Re: lifecycle of zalmoxis: Does anyone know of any similar published or unpublished research on zalmoxis to explain it’s relative immunity from predation? This would seem a useful project to determine if it also possesses sequestered cardiolides and narrow down the search. Btw has anyone noticed that 3 perfect and 1 near-perfect female zalmoxis recently hit the market all allegedly captured in a small locality this year? ( I am not certain of the provenance of the source of locality information). Does this mean that someone has worked out how to find females, and if so have there been any attempts at ovipositing?? 3. I would like to see several barcodes from antimachus and zalmoxis. 4. P. chitondensis - Thierry and Steve between them have neotype, several males and a couple of female(s). Barcoding would be really helpful here. 5. In a later post, Cabintom referred to possible flight zone preferences for nireus lyaeus phenotype vs nireus nominate phenotypes. If this could allow a first pass at barcoding could this allow further hypotheses to be raised to identify morphological separation criteria, and then re-tested for predictive value on a second set of specimens separated purely morphologically, and barcoded to confirm? There is a statistical model for this approach (receiver-operator curve (ROC)) testing the predictive value of a set of diagnostic criteria, when compared with a second criterion. (For example Morphology vs Barcode in areas of possible species sympatry). 6. If the null hypothesis is that nireus nominate, nireus lyaeus (East and/or south of CAR), and nireus lyaeus (south africa) are all the same taxon, how do we disprove this? DNA alone simply assesses how long it has been since the separate populations were interbreeding. There is a strong need for morphology to identify a Phenotypic disjunct, to wxclude a cline, and this should be confirmed by a separation seen in DNA studies. 7. Breeding experiments examining fertility to F3, and larval morphology & behaviour, between nireus from west of the Dahomey Gap, and South African nireus “lyaeus”, would be helpful. Any takers for any part of this project?
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 25, 2019 8:59:06 GMT
4. P. chitondensis - Thierry and Steve between them have neotype, several males and a couple of female(s). Barcoding would be really helpful here. The HOLOTYPE of Papilio chitondensis, originally described as a subspecies of P. bromius, is housed in Museu Bocage, Portugal. Thierry Bouyer "designated" a "neallotype" from a female collected in 1998, but that has absolutely no type status whatsoever. I assume that the above comment "neotype" actually refers to the "neallotype". Adam.
|
|
|
Post by mothylator on Dec 26, 2019 12:00:09 GMT
Thanks Adam, I didn't know that's where the holotype is located. Re: neotype [not], Yes you're right of course. My mistake. Anyway...
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 2, 2020 12:40:56 GMT
4. P. chitondensis - Thierry and Steve between them have neotype, several males and a couple of female(s). Barcoding would be really helpful here. The HOLOTYPE of Papilio chitondensis, originally described as a subspecies of P. bromius, is housed in Museu Bocage, Portugal. Thierry Bouyer "designated" a "neallotype" from a female collected in 1998, but that has absolutely no type status whatsoever. I assume that the above comment "neotype" actually refers to the "neallotype". Adam. here is the exact text I wrote in the paper (p. 13) "BIVAR DE SOUSA et FERNANDES l’avaient d’abord signalée en 1964 sous le nom de bromius en s’interrogeant sur sa parenté avec chrapkowskii Suffert, 1904. Ensuite, elle a été décrite par BIVAR DE SOUSA et FERNANDES en 1966 comme sous-espèce de bromius. Enfin, BIVAR DE SOUSA l’a finalement élevée au rang d’espèce en 1983. La série typique comportait 6 mâles, l’holotype et deux paratypes dans le collection du Museu Bocage et trois mâles dans la collection Bivar de Sousa. Suite à la destruction de la collection du Museu Bocage, BIVAR DE SOUSA a désigné en 1983 un lectotype choisi parmi les paratypes de sa collection et signale la présence de 3 paratypes dans sa collection (?). Il aurait dû en fait nommer un néotype et non un lectotype puisque l’holotype était détruit. " In fact Bivar de Souza designed a lectotype in place of a neotype (as the holotype was detroyed), this must be corrected officially if there is a need of a neotype. On the type series (6 males), it seems that only the 3 paratypes males in Bivar de Souza's collection exist today. Ironic to see that this time a private collection helped to preserve types of a rare sp (holotype housed and destroyed in an official Museum) I designed a female neallotype that has no nomenclatural value (even the term neallotype has no value).
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 2, 2020 22:41:25 GMT
In fact Bivar de Souza designed a lectotype in place of a neotype (as the holotype was detroyed), this must be corrected officially if there is a need of a neotype. On the type series (6 males), it seems that only the 3 paratypes males in Bivar de Souza's collection exist today. Ironic to see that this time a private collection helped to preserve types of a rare sp (holotype housed and destroyed in an official Museum) I designed a female neallotype that has no nomenclatural value (even the term neallotype has no value). Thank you for the additional text. I didn't realise that the holotype was lost. What happened to the Museu Bocage? If Bivar de Souza designated a "lectotype" from one of the paratypes in his collection after the loss of the holotype, that specimen is indeed the neotype. A lectotype can only be designated from a specimen belonging to the syntypic series, i.e. a holotype was not designated in the original description. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 3, 2020 8:49:04 GMT
The museum burned ...
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 3, 2020 18:24:22 GMT
Oh dear, very sad.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 3, 2020 20:05:43 GMT
Just receiving the book "Butterflies of Angola vol 1". Interesting despite "old school" and strange distribution maps. The treatment of nireus group of Angola is included in.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 5, 2020 13:21:21 GMT
If Bivar de Souza designated a "lectotype" from one of the paratypes in his collection after the loss of the holotype, that specimen is indeed the neotype. Adam. wrong designation of a lectotype interpreted as the designation of a neotype. Is that a rule of the Code ?
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 5, 2020 13:56:27 GMT
wrong designation of a lectotype interpreted as the designation of a neotype. Is that a rule of the Code ? It wouldn't be a valid neotype designation if it was made under the current Code, but it was made in 1983 before the 3rd edition was published. When I have more time I will check to see whether the designation is valid or not, I cannot remember off the top of my head. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 5, 2020 20:14:53 GMT
I just had a quick look at the Code (articles 74 and 75) and there is no clause in the Code that covers this case. Also there are only time related clauses for neotype designations made before 1961. I will seek further advice and report here when I have more information.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Jan 7, 2020 8:17:17 GMT
I just had a quick look at the Code (articles 74 and 75) and there is no clause in the Code that covers this case. Also there are only time related clauses for neotype designations made before 1961. I will seek further advice and report here when I have more information. Adam. that waht I believed .. thanks for verification Adam. Like I said, a neotype is to be designated in case of necessity. Thierry
|
|