SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES

Mon Feb 5 14:03:44 EST 2001

Dear Jean-Michel and Guy,
    I am a HUGE proponent of the code as the only thing keeping us from
terminological and taxonomic anarchy. It is unfortunate that the term
superspecies is not found in the glossary of the 2000 code (the term
superfamily is). The quote below from article 6.2 can be misunderstood
without the proper defination of what the word interpolated means within
the meaning of the code. So I here give the codes definition from the
glossary.
I am going to take the liberty to put my take on this in {{    }}.

    Interpolated name. A name placed within parentheses (1) after a generic
name to denote a subgenus, {{ used in this manner, the interpolation simply
is to let the reader know that the next name or names in a list are also
components of a subgenus. Thus interpolated here only means -subgenus.
Example: Papilio (Pterourus).}}
(2) after a genus-group name to denote an aggregate of species, {{ here the
interpolation is again only a type of shorthand to let the reader know that
the list of names to follow are all closely related - but not
interbreeding - sister species. Example: Papilio (Pterourus) (troilus)
palamedes. Or. Papilio (machaon) polyxenes. }},
or (3) after a specific name to denote an aggregate of subspecies [Art. 6]
{{ At this point the code continues with the same relational meaning of
interpolated. Thus, Papilio (Pterourus) (troilus) troilus - now lets say
there were 20 subspecies of troilus and that ten were groupabel as light
spots on black and 10 were groupable as black spots on white - we would
then have
Papilio (Pterourus) (troilus) troilus (blackus) fakahatcheensis. This looks
bulky, but it is a good shorthand way for the reader to understand the
evolutional relation of the genus - species- subspecies: Papilio troilus
fakahatcheensis. Thats all it is.

    The  code allows for our utilization of interpolation only with the
codes defination and meaning - which is the same at all levels. The term
superspecies is allowable only in the meaning of the code, i.e
interpolation. Those who would use the term to denote some type of
reproductively compatable "species" aggregates are creating a maverick
taxonomic rank. I quote some other pertenent parts of the codes

In glossary, under species: "The rank next below the genus group; the basic
rank of zoological classification. (2) A taxon at the rank of species."

In glossary, under subspecies: (1) "The species-group rank below species;
the lowest rank at which names are regulated by the Code. (2) A taxon at
the rank of subspecies."

There is no rank of superspecies -period. And the only rank below species
is subspecies. Europeans became notorious for not knowing what a subspecies
is as evidenced by giving every Apollo a subspecific "name" at every 1000
feet (oops) meters of elevation. Now I guess we want to err in the opposite
dirrection.

Genus - species - subspecies. These are the ranks. Now stay in the rules or
your not in the game. And in case anyone missed it, this is how and where
the zoological world SPLITS.

Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus" <Guy_VdP at t-online.de>
To: <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES

> 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
>
>

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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