BUGS: FW: Holarcticus mythica

[Cannings, Rob]

And for most insect groups, ya always, always gotta look at genitalia!!
Also, a word of caution about type material -- there are a lot af sloppy
taxonomists out there -- paratype series frequently contain more than a
single species. And in more than one case, I've seen more than one genus in
a paratype series! Horrors!

R

Dr. Robert A. Cannings
Curator of Entomology
Royal British Columbia Museum
675 Belleville Street
Victoria, B. C. Canada  V8W 9W2
Phone: (250)356-8242; Fax: (250)356-8197
rcannings at royalbcmuseum.bc.ca


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX [SMTP:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:10 PM
> To:	Cannings, Rob RBCM:EX; 'altaleps'; 'altabugs'
> Cc:	'lepsl'
> Subject:	RE: BUGS: FW: Holarcticus mythica
> 
> Precisely. In many cases this has not been done but even when it is done;
> there is no guarantee that doing so will settle the matter and there is
> still room for differing interpretations.  An example is the issue of
> Oeneis philipi which has recently been treated as conspecific with Oeneis
> rosovi by some authors.  After looking at an excellent color image of a
> rosovi syntype and comparing it to my reference specimens of O. philipi; I
> see no reason why I should think of the two as being the same species.  In
> this case I have another observation by an experienced Russian
> lepidopterist who vehemently disagreed with lumping the two taxa. I am not
> picking any sides on this particular example; just noting that additional
> work and a more rigorous rationale would seem to be in order. hells bells,
> in this example I have even had other knowledgable lepidopterists express
> the view that philipi is not even a different species from polixenes;
> regardless of what name one wants to hang on it.  On that point I have
> done enough independent field work and ogling of specimens that my present
> opinion is that they are distinct species. -- remaining open to opinion
> reassessment when confonted with new information :-)
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	Cannings, Rob [mailto:RCannings at royalbcmuseum.bc.ca]
> 	Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:48 AM
> 	To:	Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX; 'altaleps'; 'altabugs'
> 	Subject:	RE: BUGS: FW: Holarcticus mythica
> 
> 	I certainly agree with Norbert's comments that taxonomic decisions
> must be supported by facts. However, I remind you that although many
> "holarctic" species could be split into North American and Eurasian taxa
> after proper research, there are plenty of taxonomic problems that are
> resolved in the reverse way, too. Many species of plants and animals
> described as separate in North America and Eurasia ARE the same species,
> and it's an ongoing process to straighten out these mistakes. The
> important point is that material (including the type specimens of the
> species in question) from both continents must be examined before a
> conclusion is reached.
> 
> 	Rob
> 
> 	Dr. Robert A. Cannings
> 	Curator of Entomology
> 	Royal British Columbia Museum
> 	675 Belleville Street
> 	Victoria, B. C. Canada  V8W 9W2
> 	Phone: (250)356-8242; Fax: (250)356-8197
> 	rcannings at royalbcmuseum.bc.ca
> 
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From:	Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
> [SMTP:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca]
> 		Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:16 AM
> 		To:	'altaleps'; 'altabugs'
> 		Subject:	BUGS: FW: Holarcticus mythica
> 
> 
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
> [mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca] 
> 		Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:09 AM
> 		To: 'lepsl'
> 		Subject: Holarcticus mythica
> 
> 
> 		Naturally there are other opinions which hold that the
> correct name is
> 		actually Holarcticus speculatus. And then there is the
> matter of deciding on
> 		the correct ending of the species epithet so that we can be
> compliant with
> 		the gender-congruence provisions of the rules.  Don't know
> what I am
> 		blathering about ?? It has to do with one of the enduring
> mysteries of
> 		butterfly taxonomy as it relates to the Eur-Asian and North
> American
> 		continents. I quote from page 201 of Hollands 1931 butterfly
> book: "...the
> 		nomenclature has been somewhat confused by the fact that the
> older authors
> 		persisted in trying to fit to American forms the names given
> to insects of
> 		European origin...The nomenclature is still badly messed
> up". With great
> 		sadness I must report that although there has been a bit of
> progress over
> 		the past 70 years; Hollands astute observation still holds
> true. We continue
> 		to see names attached to our North American butterflies that
> are unfounded
> 		in any fact, data or even logical reasoning that I am aware
> of.  Modern
> 		authors are still presenting this assumption-based taxonomy
> as factual in
> 		far too many cases.  So my response to those who want to
> cloak this mythical
> 		nomenclature/taxonomy in "officialdom" is: Don't waste your
> time; treat it
> 		as the unsubstantiated opinion that it is. Eventually more
> people will get
> 		interested, do some detective work and present some views
> with supporting
> 		information.
> 		~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 		Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
> 		Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Ministry of Environment
> 		845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
> 		Phone 250-365-8610
> 		Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca       
> 		http://www.env.gov.bc.ca
> 
> 
> 		 
> 	
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
> 		   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