Spindasis lohita senama is now called Cigaritis lohita senama (Long-Banded Silverline)
Spindasis syama terana is now called Cigaritis syama terana (Club Silverline )
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindasis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigaritis
Printable View
Spindasis lohita senama is now called Cigaritis lohita senama (Long-Banded Silverline)
Spindasis syama terana is now called Cigaritis syama terana (Club Silverline )
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindasis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigaritis
All the references quoted are from early 90s and 2003 in posted Wikipedia. I don't read any information about the changes from ICZN or any systematic journals. Eliot (2006) also not mention in his C&P 4 update.
Why it switch from Spindasis to Cigaritis?
Teo T P
Thiam Peng,
Khew and myself were pointed to these reference on Butterflies of Singapore Facebook by Keith or Roger ----- my memory is failing me .;P
The more recent references are these:
Bouyer, T., 2011: Description de nouveaux Cigaritis (Spindasis) congolais et tanzaniens (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Étude sur les Lycaenidae: note no. 9. Entomologia Africana 16 (1): 35-38.
Bouyer, T., 2012: Description d'une nouvelle espèce africaine de Cigaritis Donzel, 1847 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomologia Africana 17 (1): 2-4.
From:
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cigaritis
I seem to recall asking about this change back to Cigaritis (previously used only for African species) a while back (some time after 2008), though a search of this name on this site did not bring up my question. Anyhow, I changed all my species names at least 3 years ago.
:grin2: It was Roger Kendrick who mentioned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverstreak
Acceptance of changes in the scientific world depends a lot on the main community in the area of specialisation. Unlike common English names, which can be coined by amateurs and laymen like us, the taxonomic name changes are usually via a refereed journal paper and tabled at major scientific conventions for acceptance.
In the past, the British used to be at the epicentre of such things, but in recent years, their influence is less obvious.
The two recent papers that Sunny referred to, feature South African fauna. I believe the author is French and the paper is presented in French from the looks of the synopsis.
Perhaps Teo can share with us his experience as to what constitutes acceptance of Lepidoptera name changes. The Natural History Museum site also lists quite a few like the change from Pathysa back to Graphium for the Five Bar Swordtail. But elsewhere, changes are still not made.
It would also appear that authors of books tend to get a slight priority in terms of acceptance and being quoted, but again, acceptance by the specialist community also depends on the country of origin and the authors themselves.
Digital resources do have some level of acceptance as it is the norm for such searches these days, but these tend to get a slightly lower level of credibility as far as the purist scientific community is concerned.
Even in recent years, different authors are divided when it comes to the high-level family/subfamily naming convention. There are authors who still stand by the old 9-family naming for our local butts, whilst others are using the 5-family convention.
And this will go on and on...
The silver lining about Leps is that changes are less frequent compared to the botanical world. ;P
Cigaritis seems to be the accepted name at the moment, at least from 2008, see K Saito & Y Seki (2008), Nakamura & Wakahara (2008) and Yutaka's website.
Spindasis is shown as a junior synonym of Cigaritis. Nevertheless, the final word should be down, as Teo says, to ICZN.
Similar case with Deudorix and Virachola
I feel that they should still be kept separate due to anatomical differences.
Please take a look under the website of International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (iczn.org) and their online publications - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (BZN). You will understand why I said I didn't encountered any changes from Spindasis to Cigaritis. Apprently Cigaritis was used for the African species and the Oriental species under the genus Spindasis although they are synonym* (D'Abrera, 2005).
Any conservation of animal scientific name will have to propose to ICZN, members of the commission have to comment on the case and give a final approval to the case submitted regardless of any proposed scientific name by anybody and publications from any country. An example is the application by Yokochi to conserve the name coelebs (e.g. Tanaecia coelebs) but was rejected by ICZN, and the species name remained as T. heringi (please refer to Eliot's C&P 4 update page 11, para 5 or MNJ volume 59: 11, para 5, 2006). You will also see many cases are rejected by the ICZN on BZN when you log onto the website.
May be I overlooked during my screening of the BZN. Please point that to me if I missed the case.
Teo T P
*Note: Information from the website: Weidenhoffer & Bozano (2007) treated Spindasis as subgenus of Cigaritis, this may be the reason Bouyer (2011) stated in the Entomologia Africana as Cigaritis(Spindasis) congolais.
ICZN mainly governs the valid name of a taxon irrespective of where it is placed in a genus, family, etc.
In the case of T. heringi, it is a matter of the taxonomic name(taxon) heringi having priority over taxon coelebs.
ICZN refrains from infringing on taxonomic judgements.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/
Every taxonomist have the liberty & the right to revise or reclassify any taxa as they see fit , but whether this is accepted by his peers is another thing.
If accepted they will include the new classification in their future publications. Otherwise it will die a natural death.
For example, Tsukada 1991 have separated the Malayan Lexias cyanipardus sandakana as Lexias bangkana johorensis, with a new sp. & ssp names, but Eliot feels there is little justification for this. (MNJ vol54 June 2000 Pt 2)
Yutaka have of course follows his compatriot & his list include both L.cyanipardus & bangkana as separate species.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/lyci.html
TL Seow:cheers:
It is a good practice to use the first published name as a valid name of a species and others being regarded as synonyms. Otherwise different authors from countries proposed and published their own names for a same species will be a big mess for researchers and taxonomists.
Teo T P
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:
According to Andrew V. Z. Brower (2008), it was Heath (1997)* included the Spindasis into the Cigaritis but I cann't get a copy of the article to find out why it include that into genus Cigaritis. Apprently A.V.Z. Brower did not followed the changes and still used Spindasis in his website? But Bouyer (2011 & 2012) and some Japanese used Cigaritis. As Seow mentioned Cigaritis Donzel 1847 is the priority one (Spindasis Wallengren 1857). It will be interesting to find out what and why Heath had proposed (I can only read the abstract from website).
*The reference from Alan Heath entitled: "A review of the African genera of the tribe Aphnaeni (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Metamorphosis, Supplement 2: 1-60, 1997.".
Teo T P
Oh, so this is the page.:bsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyche
Was trying to look for it.
Despite the new name, i still think abnormis is a very apt name to describe the butterfly.
I'll send Dr Kirton an email to ask what he thinks about this Cigaritis vs Spindasis debate. As far as our own regional experts and researchers go, I would prefer to take reference from local sources first, unless there are compelling evidence that a paper presented halfway around the world would also affect our taxonomic nomenclature.
Until then, the local checklist remains as Spindasis.
Although I have not read Alan Heath's revision paper (1997). As far as C&P 4 and it's "update" have not replaced Spindasis by Cigaritis.. Most of the books and articles of South East Asian butterflies still use Spindasis. I will remain on Spindasis, unless there are research works and publications from taxonomists of renowned organisations (e.g. Natural History Museum - London, National Museum of Natural History - Leiden, Florida Museum of Natural History - Gainesville, American Museum of Natural History - New York ...etc) revised the two genera.
Teo T P
Thiam Peng ,
Thank you for the Paper "A review of the African genera of the tribe Aphnaeni (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Metamorphosis, Supplement 2: 1-60, 1997.".
I have read through the paper 3 times and just cannot find in anyway had Dr. Alan Heath suggested that Spindasis be subsumed into Cigaritis.
..... am I missing something !!??
It is not the 1997 paper but a later one in 2002 according to wilkepedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverstreak
TL Seow:cheers:
So Andrew V. Z. Brower is wrong in quoting " Heath (1997) included Spindasis within Cigaritis." !
http://tolweb.org/Spindasis/106387
If 2002 then I guess it had to be this one :
HEATH, A., NEWPORT, M.A., & HANCOCK, D. 2002. The butterflies of Zambia. African Butterfly Research Institute and The Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa. i-xvii, 1-137.
All his Afrotropical works:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ogram-0198.jpg
According to Wikipedia, there are eleven species of Cigaritis listed in Butterflies of Zambia:
1. C. brunnea (Jackson, 1966).
2. C. cynica (Riley, 1921.)
3. C. ella (Hewitson, 1865).
4. C. homeyeri (Dewitz, 1887).
5. C. modestus heathi (D'Abrera, 1980).
6. C. mozambica (Bertoloni, 1850).
7. C. natalensis (Westwood, 1851).
8. C. overlaeti (Bouyer, 1998).
9. C. phanes (Trimen, 1873).
10. C. pinheyi (Heath, 1983).
11. C. trimeni (Neave, 1910).
Teo T P
An update
Roger Kendrick>> Sunny Chir
Sunny, the nomaclature was proposed by Heath et al...
Heath, A., Newport, M.A., & Hancock, D., 2002. The butterflies of Zambia. African Butterfly Research Institute and The Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa. i-xvii, 1-137.
see also http://tolweb.org/Cigaritis/106379 for further views...
Cigaritis
tolweb.org
The cricumscription follows Larsen (2005), who believes that Cigaritis, Apharitis and Spindasis are ecologically and biogeographically distinct although closely-related genera. Other authors lump all three genera into Cigaritis (e. g., Heath, 1997).
and
http://tolweb.org/Spindasis/106387
for references on Spindasis, which is still valid in the views of some taxonomists. Don't think stability has been reached yet....
Spindasis
tolweb.org
Corbet, A. S., Pendlebury, H. M. & Eliot, J. N. 1992 The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Nature Society.
also
Both genera appear to be in use at the BMNH index of Lepidoptera genera
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research.../res...jects/butmoth/
Les, this is for you. Dr Kirton explained why he decided to use Spindasis instead of Cigaritis during his talk at his book launch last month.
Attachment 22632
Thanks. I am just fed up with having to change at least 30 pages on my website every time someone proposes the change one way or another. The same goes for Riodinidae (family) and Riodininae (subfamily of Lycaenidae)!
Which is one reason I usually don't react when someone "publishes" something new or claims to have new information. ICZN and IUCN, unfortunately, do not really coordinate the taxonomic naming convention, nor is the authority to vet and approve papers. So there are publications and papers that are used to change this and that, but then you find other scientists blasting the credibility or challenging the conclusions at the same time.
Sunny quoted a case where a group of "experts" keep quoting a "forthcoming" book, which gives them the authority to make changes to species/subspecies levels of butterflies, but that forthcoming book has been in the oven for the past 3 years already and hasn't seen the light of day yet. But the "experts" are already making changes to the taxonomic nomenclature as though the entire scientific world has endorsed their invisible book.
I think the whole argument here is somewhat like that for Polyura & Charaxes.
DNA & cladistic studies have shown Polyura belongs to a group in the African Charaxes.
If Polyura is to be retained as a separate genus, than the African members of this group (currently in Charaxes) must likewise be placed in Polyura.
This will certainly not be to the liking of many who viewed them (the African species) as closely related to the others.
DNA studies should help in deciding whether these three genera be united.
TL Seow ::cheers:
Just to update this thread again, we have decided to retain the genus name Spindasis for the Silverlines in our Asian region. Based on Dr Kirton's book from pages 164 - 170, we will retain this as the latest relevant taxonomic classification for butterflies until some new published papers indicate otherwise.