MAES Accurate vs practical

[Ron Gatrelle]

Jean-Michel MAES wrote:

Dear Ron,
    If the Central American Danaus plexippus subspecies is diffrent than the
other subspecies of the Americas, why not describe it ? It is not very
practical for me to put : Danaus plexippus ssp. "undescribe species" or
something like that.
                      ___________________________________

Ron's reply:
    Thanks for this inquiry. First, I did not say to put "undescribed"
subspecies of plexippus on your specimens. I said to put "undetermined."
The difference?  Undescribed, means that it has not been described before
and that the name would be new to science.  Undetermined, means that we are
not sure want existing name (if any) best applies to it.
    A good taxonomist is not concerned with practicality.  He is only
concerned with accuracy. Several books and authors have been mentioned in
these e-mails. The only thing they have in common is that they all say
something different.
    So what should be done? The original descriptions of all of the
published names should be examined. Next, all of the type material based on
these names should be examined, where still in existence. Next, series of
specimens should be examined from the type localities of each of these
names. Then These descriptions and specimens should be compared first of all
against each other to determine synonymy, and lastly, to specimens in your
area. Until that is done I would still say that the correct name to apply to
monarchs in you area is undetermined. Note that I said monarchs and not
plexippus. This is because there may be the possibility that what you have
is not plexippus but a sibling species -- though I surely doubt this is the
case.


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl