multicaudata ( try IV )

Wed Apr 4 21:14:49 EDT 2001

The first time I tried it, it did not come for me also.  Next time I
tried it did.  Apparently the university server must be having down
times now and then.
Stan

"Chris J. Durden" wrote:
> 
> Phylo/shmylo - who speaks it? Ecologists, biogeographers, paleontologists
> and others who work with whole (or once whole) organisms will always use
> words for their species. How many names can you remember and pot faces to?
> How many numbers can you remember and put places to?
>     By the way - the site did not come up for me.
> ................Chris Durden
> 
> At 07:06 PM 4/3/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >What in interesting and lively systematic and taxonomic discussion this
> >is.  However, the PhyloCoder's are very ambitious and are gaining
> >significant support.  They could very well succeed in replacing the
> >Linnaean system with the Phylocode system. The unfortunate fallout would
> >be that these discussions would become obsolete.  Check out
> >www.ohio.edu/phylocode.
> >
> >I am, in a sense, playing the devil's advocate, but it appears the
> >PhyloCode system could be something to reckon with.
> >
> >Stan
> >
> >Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> > >
> > > First part of this transmission can be foung in part I. Part of the second
> > > part in Brodkin's reply. Now (hopefully) to what has not yet made it
> > > through to Leps L.
> > >
> > > ...Next, in the above, only popular (informal or semi-scientific)
> > > literature was cited. There is no mention of the most recent lists (dos
> > > Passos, Miller/Brown /Ferris, or MONA) - which are the latest in a long
> > > line of American taxonomic lists which have been (and ARE) The Standards.
> > >     There is no mention of the latest scientific literature dealing with
> > > the taxonomy of multicaudata (us). That being, the 100% scientific
> > > publication: Systematics of Western North American Butterflies, Thomas C.
> > > Emmel editor. I will come back to this later.
> > >     What we are after here is not "just" an understanding of Latin gender
> > > suffixes. We are after the correct spelling of a butterfly's "name"
> > > (scientific identity) according to the latest rules of the International
> > > Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In other words, what is the correct
> > > latinization under the rules of the ICZN.
> > >     So here is the deal. Kirby (1844) described it as -a. Dos Passos (1964)
> > > listed it as -a. Miler/Brown list it as -a. When under the genus Papilio,
> > > by the rules of the ICZN, the name should be multicaudata - with an -a.
> > >     Next, we have the genus Pterourus, which some only see as a subgenus.
> > > Ferris (correctly) amended the spelling to multicaudatus to comply with the
> > > spelling under the genus Pterourus.
> > >     Bottom line. With Papilio it is multicaudata, But with Pterourus AND
> > > with Papilio (Pterourus) it is multicaudatus. Now, Opler's use of both is
> > > just a publication error. Scott is technically correct. I don't have
> > > Tilden/Smith - if they use -us under Pterourus they are correct - if they
> > > use -us under Papilio they are incorrect ( I don't have their book).  Some
> > > other references. In Btflys of Can. it is incorrect as the genus is Papilio
> > > and the spelling is -us. Same for the new Btflys of BC Can - Papilio is the
> > > genus and multicaudatus (should be -a).  Most amazingly is the use by Emmel
> > > and Austin in W. Systematics. There they describe two new subspecies under
> > > Papilio multicaudatus - they are, grandiosus and pusillus. Two new
> > > erroneous -us endings. (Can I here amend this to the correct spellings? No
> > > the code does not allow internet science.)
> > >     REPHRASE. The spelling was amended by Ferris (correctly) to fit
> > > Pterourus. Those who are using multicaudatus are NOT following Ferris (or
> > > the rules) if they are also not using the corresponding genus that (by the
> > > code) necessitates the  -us spelling. NOW, if there is some rule I am
> > > unaware of that even though "Papilio" is used yet somehow Pterourus is
> > > understood - then I guess it is OK to use multicaudatus with Papilio.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > PS.  Scientific names are about a whole lot more than Latin (and Greek).
> > > They are about technical taxonomic delimitations of observable evolutionary
> > > developments. Common names aren't about anything other than what makes
> > > amateurs - in their country's language - feel good. (Please note that I do
> > > fairly frequently use (and "like") common names - I just know their place.
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> > >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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