SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES

Mon Feb 5 10:26:20 EST 2001

The (newest edition of the) code (effective 01 January 2000) reads in
article 6.2.:
[start of quotation]
Names of aggregates of species or subspecies.
A specific name may be added in parentheses after the genus-group name, or
be interpolated in parentheses between the genus-group name and the specific
name, to denote an aggregate of species within a genus-group taxon;
and a subspecific name may be interpolated in parentheses between the
specific and subspecific names to denote an aggregate of subspecies within a
species;
such names, which must always begin with a lowercase letter and be written
in full, are not counted in the number of words in a binomen or trinomen.
The Principle of Priority applies to such names [Art. 23.3.3]; for their
availability see Article 11.9.3.5.

Recommendation 6B. Taxonomic meaning of interpolated names.
An author who wishes to denote an aggregate at either of the additional
taxonomic levels mentioned in  Article 6.2 should place a term to indicate
the taxonomic meaning of the aggregate in the same parentheses as its
interpolated species-group name on the first occasion that the notation is
used in any work.

Example.
In the butterfly genus Ornithoptera Boisduval, 1832 the species O. priamus
(Linnaeus, 1758) is the earliest-named member of an aggregate of vicarious
species that includes also O. lydius Felder, 1865 and O. croesus Wallace,
1865. The taxonomic meaning accorded to the O. priamus aggregate may be
expressed in the notation "Ornithoptera (superspecies priamus)", and the
members of the aggregate by the notations "O. (priamus) priamus (Linnaeus,
1758)", O. (priamus) lydius Felder, 1865", and "O. (priamus) croesus
Wallace, 1865".
[end of quotation]

However, the example fails to give a name for the 'aggregate of subspecies',
which leaves us with an incomplete Code.
Proposals for this super-subspecies ? (intraspecies ?)

Guy.

Guy Van de Poel
Guy_VdP at t-online.de

Royal Entomological Society of Antwerp
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/fransjanssens/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Michel MAES <jmmaes at ibw.com.ni>
To: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>; Leps-l at lists.yale.edu
<Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Date: maandag 5 februari 2001 15:12
Subject: SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES

>Dear Ron Gatrelle,
>
>I am still using subspecies, but only in the sense of populations
>geographically (and morphologically) distincts inside a species. I use the
>species as the linnean definition, as a group of individuals who can
>reproduce between then and give fertile progeny.
>
>In which sense can we use super-species ? Is this accepted by the code ?
>Is it a promotion of the species - subspecies to super species - species ?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jean-Michel MAES
>MUSEO ENTOMOLOGICO
>AP 527
>LEON
>NICARAGUA
>tel 505-3116586
>jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
>www.insectariumvirtual.com/termitero/termitero.htm#nicaragua
>www.insectariumvirtual.com/lasmariposasdenicaragua.htm
>www-museum.unl.edu/research/entomology/workers/JMaes.htm
>www-museum.unl.edu/research/entomology/database2/honduintro.htm
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
>To: Leps-l <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 4:39 AM
>Subject: one lump or two?
>
>
>> The term "super-species" is becoming the lumpers way of splitting without
>> stooping, or switching, or admitting that subspecies is what these things
>> are. So instead of a lump of subspecies, we just invent a new
>> rank -Superspecies - and now have a lump of species.
>>
>> By the way, this is not an original thought of mine. This was told to me
>> just last year at the Lep. Soc. meeting by one of the Big Name people.
>> Everybody probably has a book with his name on it. I doubt if this
>> individual has ever been thought of as a splitter either.
>> _____________________
>> I wonder if 300 years from now (after the term subspecies has long been
>> eliminated and forgotten) if the splitters will be those who still
persist
>> in believing in species? After all, species are just minor transitional
>> forms that come and go between glaciations. Remember, dinosaurs did not
go
>> extinct, they just grew feathers. Parts is parts.
>>
>> The lumbers will be those who believe that SuberSpecies are really best
>> understood when viewed as segments of the GiantGenera. Of course by this
>> time the term subfamily will have vanished also and the families that
>> remain will be few having been lumped into three possibly only two (for
>> butterflies) and a whopping six for moths. Hey could happen, as the
>> definite trend the last decade is toward bigger umbrellas.
>>
>> On the other hand, common names will have exploded, due to the Great Feud
>> of 2230. NABA had gotten so big, that each state chapter decided to form
>> their own common names committee and once that happened all hell broke
>> loose, counties, cites. Males and females of the same GiantGenera even
had
>> there own names. Then there was the creation of NAB EM in 2269 as the
>> cocaine drug lords had armed the poachers and collectors to... Oh, I
>forgot
>> to tell you why. As it turned out it was discovered that mtDNA in Monarch
>> legs was a powerful human aphrodisiac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No need to say more
>on
>> that.
>>
>> Sincerely, Msacras Evoli
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>    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 