This is not just a species or subspecies change of name , it is a generic revision.......
Printable View
This is not just a species or subspecies change of name , it is a generic revision.......
Sorry Sunny. The above posted reply is referred to Seow's reply: The example Lexias cyanipardus sandakana and L. bangkana johorensis. I should have quoted Seow's write up in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by teotp
Although we are discussing the revision of genus-group name, but it also have to do with the type species. Under ICZN Chapter 9: Genus-group nominal taxa and their names; article 42 states: "The application of each genus-group name is determined by reference to the type species of the nominal taxon that it denotes." All the code articles of ICZN are related and complicated.
If there is a revision paper of the genera Spindasis and Cigaritis published in journal like Entomologia Africana I will not be able to see it or not understand it if publication is in French, Spanish...etc and without English summary.
Teo T P
Teo T P
I think while waiting for the "haze" to clear , the best course of action is to stick with ICZN , the recognized authority.:)
What I want to state clearly is that ICZN have no say or jurisdiction over matters of taxonomical jugdements (eg revisions , classifications).
In the ICZN code under Introduction (click) here, it is stated
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/
(2) The code refrains from infringing on taxonomical judgement which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint.
The code deals with taxon names, priority rights, spelling changes, inappopriate names,type specimens, old names, etc.
It can not interfere with the work of a taxonomist, whether he group Spindasis & Cigaritis together as one genus or otherwise.
Likewise whether a taxonomist have elevated a subspecies to full species.
It is the very reason why there are so many different classifications, each according to expert opinion, eg Papilio ( Chilasa, Princeps, Achillides, Menelaides, etc)
In case of Tanaecia coelebs Yokoichi have found an earlier name heringi in an obscure publication which refers to the same butterfly, he thus apply to conserve the name coelebs over a prior name heringi which was hardly known and probably poorly described at that time.
The ICZN ruled otherwise, and so coelebs falls as a junior synonym of heringi.
In such cases the ICZN have full authority.(Note its judgement is 'an opinion' .)
Because of the tremendous amount of overlapping names, synonyms, homonyms, ambiguous names the ICZN was set up to arbiter & clear up the confusion.
TL Seow:cheers:
At the right beginning I mentioned I did not noticed any case of Spindasis and Cigaritis in BZN. Bouyer (2011 & 2012) applied the genus Cigaritis for the African species but Eliot (2006) and D'Abrera (2005) used Spindasis for the Oriental (including SEA) "Silverlines". If there is no application to ICZN I remain to the Spindasis as C&P 4 and its updates, unless I missed the "opinion".
Teo T P
There is no application to ICZN for taxonomic works, whether it is lumping or splitting of genera, or creation of new genera or species or family.Quote:
Originally Posted by teotp
ICZN deals with nomemclatural issues (the names themselves ) not the taxonomic (classification) issues.
In the case of coelebs vs. heringi, the code clearly states the earlier name heringi would have precedence over coelebs, but Yokoichi applied hoping ICZN would rule in favour of a long established name (coelebs) against an unknown name (heringi) that have been discovered.
Other examples are homonyms, the same name given to 2 different species & so an application is made to upgrade a junior synonym to prevent confusion.
TL Seow:cheers:
Clarification: There is no issue with the generic names Spindasis & Cigaritis, just that most taxonomists feel there are too little differences between the species formerly under the two genera. If all the species are placed under one genus, Cigaritis is the older name.
One can draw a parallel with Rapala domitia & abnormis with the rest of the Rapala species.
Thank you Seow for the clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyche
If a group of taxonimists used morphological differences to classify species and placed them under a genus (e.g. Cigaritis), another group used the morphology as well as early stages to classify them and put them under another genus (e.g. Spindasis), the third group found that there are only slight morphological differences and used molecular techniques in combination with morphology and proposed they should placed under one genus (e.g. "Cigaritis" or "Spindasis") only or proposed a new genus (for instance: Cigarpindasis). Then which one should be the final generic name for these species? There are differences in methods and materials (e.g. dissecting, SEM, DNA extraction and sequencing, PCR and the primers) and specimens (e.g. wing, scales, legs or tissue from thorax or andomen, genitalia...) used for the classification work, and that may varies from time to time, number of specimens examined and also countries (e.g. specimens from Europe, Asia, Africa..). Is there an organisation to resolve the dissatisfaction otherwise we will be changing the names from one to another, based on the latest research work and their published document? So many museums with their huge collection over the world. Don't tell me they have to re-examine thier specimens after every new classification scheme proposed, that will be time consumming and also costly.
Teo T P
Every one is at liberty not to accept the changes if they find the arguments weak and unconvincing.
If the article is well-researched and the reasons strong, most if not all entomologists will soon incorporate the new changes in their future works, otherwise they will be the odd one out.
As regards name ICZN code holds & the oldest (ie Cigaritis here) have priority, followed by Spindasis & a few others.(Actually another generic name Zerythis have priority over Spindasis.)
Any new generic name proposed will be well down the pecking order, and likely totally ignored.
TL Seow:cheers:
Rapala abnormis should rightfully be called Rapala duma, coz Hewitson descibed it earlier from a specimen mistakenly labelled "Colombia".Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyche
Obviously they couldn't find more specimens from there and it was presumed an aberration of some other Neotropical species.
But now, we know that Hewitson's type matches the Oriental ones, and abnormis sinks as a synonym, unless the ICZN retained it.
Sry for digressing:/
You are absolutely right Aaron.Quote:
Originally Posted by atronox
I was trying to find the piece about Rapala duma, & only managed to after I posted my comment.
It is page 511 C&P4.
This bit of information is not widely known.
Funet list ?Thecla duma under Rapala abnormis.
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/index/Tree_of_lif...ala/index.html
TL Seow:cheers: