BUGS: FW: Holarcticus mythica

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

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