Originally Posted by gkbaliga
I have no knowledge of this species, but merely googled the answers from the net.
The ICZN is particularly important in the species name ie camurius.
This is the earliest name & have priority.
If there are other name given to this butterfly at a later date they are invalid.
The taxon (=taxonomic name)camurius is the valid name of this butterfly.
This name should published in a reputable or established scientific publication.
It need not be in English but nowaday it is imperative to have an English translation.
Any dispute regarding this name can be referred to ICZN.
As to change in the generic name it depends on the scientist .
Koiwaya create a new genus Fujiokaozephyrusbecause he find that camurius is diferent in many respect to other species placed in both Teratzephyrus & Esakiozephyrus.
Acceptance to the generic name change is fromm peer scientists who study his paper.
If you disagree you can continue to use Esakiozephyrus. There is no penalty.
Another case in point is Pseudoborbo bevani. Lee made the generic name change in 1966.
Many scientists felt it was unnecessary & continue with Borbo bevani.
The name Pseudoborbo have gain traction because it is widely used in east Asia by many Japanese scientists, & bloggers.
In a recent DNA study paper ,the author found there is sufficient justification for the change to Pseudoborbo.
The same author also divides Polytremis into several genera (groan!)
In another case, a DNA study have shown all the Asian Charaxes & Polura species are closely related to each other & to a group of Charaxes species in Africa.
This means that all Polyura species should be put back into Charaxes.
Butterflies of India have follow suit, but few scientists have made the change.
TL Seow: Cheers.
Reply With Quote