SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES

[Chris J. Durden]

Guy,
    On many Roman coins there is a portrait of the emperor with surrounding 
caption on the obverse (heads) side. There is a design - say horse and 
rider with surrounding caption. These elements are the same on all coins of 
this type that were struck anywhere in the empire. Below the design there 
is a ground-line and below this is a mint mark that is different for each 
mint. The segment below this line is called the "exerge". It is a term from 
academic latin from at least the fifteenth century, used by numismatists. 
Some examples -
   Amiens (Ambianum) = AMB (350-3 CE)
   Arles (Arelate) = A, AR, ARL, CON, CONST, KON, KONSTAN (313-475 CE)
   Barcelona (Barcino) = SMBA (409-411 CE)
   Colchester (Camulodunum) = C, CL (287-296 CE)
   London (Londinium) = L, ML, MLL, MLN, MSL, PLN, PLON, AVG, AVGOB, AVGPS 
(287-325, 383-8 CE)
   Lyon (Lugdunum) = LG, LVG, LVGD, LVGPS, PLG (to 423 CE)
   Milan (Mediolanum) = MD, MDOB, MDPS, MED (364-475 CE)
   Ostia = MOST (308-313 CE)
   Ravenna = RV, RVPS (to 475 CE)
   Roma = R, RM, ROMA, ROMOB, SMR, VRB, ROM (to 476 CE)
   Sofia (Serdica) = SMSD, SER (303-8, 313-14 CE)
   Sremska Mitrovica (Sirmium) = SM, SIRM, SIROB (320-6, 351-64, 379, 393-5 CE)
   Sisak (Siscia) = SIS, SISC, SISCPS (to 387 CE)
   Pavia (Ticinum) = T (to 326 CE)
   Trier (Treveri) = SMTR, TR, TRE, TROB, TRPS (291-430 CE)

      By looking at the details in the "exerge" it is possible to determine 
the place of issue of the coin. I think that Verity took this concept to 
claim that by looking at details of morphology or pattern of a butterfly 
one could determine the locality it came from - its biological mint mark.
This is how I interpret his use of the term "exerge". I first encountered 
Verity's terms about 1957 and obviously misinterpreted them as follows-

We would now interpret this as a minor subspecies - say *Lycaena dispar 
dispar* Haworth 1803 compared with *Lycaena dispar batava* Oberthuer 1920 
rather than with *L. dispar rutila* Werneburg 1864, an apparently well 
differentiated subspecies.

Here is my present reading of the definitions given in Verity 1940 (Le 
farfalle Diurne D'Italia, I) [Unfortunately I do not speak Italian and my 
reading of Italian is very poor. Please check the original]:
ABERRAZIONE: A form, abnormal with respect to the regular variation of the 
species, perhaps only the expression of disequlibrium of organic function 
during development by pathological or accidental cause. In special cases 
when teratologically derived from heredity these are *monstruosita*.
FORME: A form produced in all populations in any individual. It may be 
somatic or hereditary. As in the female forms of *Colias* and *Argynnis* or 
the summer form of *Lycaena phlaeas*.
RAZZE: A local recognizably different population which may be somatically 
or genetically determined.
ESERGI: [Proposed by Verity 1925, Entomologist's Record: 103]  [From greek 
*esergu* = an exclusion] For a group of races with the same aspect of 
shared characters found in a distinct range, separated from orher races by 
a zone in which individuals with mixed characters may be found.
SPECIE: Separated by inability to produce offspring or with sterile offspring.

Seems like the ESERGI of Verity is equivalent to our major SUBSPECIES, 
geographically confined and usually given names today. From my example 
above *L. dispar dispar* and *L. dispar batava* would belong in the same 
exerge or subspecies "dispar" but in a different exerge or subspecies from 
"rutila".

Seems like the RAZZE of Verity is equivalent to minor but recognizable 
subspecies that today are only given names for purposes of repeated study 
or legal protection. Example - the Mission Blue or the Grayling of Great 
Ormes Head.  *L. dispar dispar* and *L. dispar batava* would be different 
razza or infrasubspecies.

    Unfortunately much of the publisher's stock of Verity's Farfalle Diurne 
D'Italia was lost in the flood of Florence in the 1960's so the the books 
are not in many libraries. I bought volumes I and II before that flood.
...............Chris Durden

At 02:23 PM 2/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Chris,
>
>I re-read Verity's 1911 excerpt (is this the correct word, I mean a part of
>...) of some parts of Rhop. Pal., published separately: "L'Evolution et les
>Lépidoptères".
>
>It contains most of the more important items out of Rhop. Pal. (Systematic
>list; species, subspecies, race, form and aberration definitions; ...), but
>nothing on 'exerges'.
>
>In the other books I have from Verity ("Les Variations géographiques et
>saisonnières des Papillons diurnes en France", parts II and  III, 1952 and
>1957 resp.), he uses the term 'exerge'. I was always under the impression
>that he had read something about the Refuge (Ice Age) theories, and that his
>'exerges' were the product hereof.

    I see no evidence of this in the definition given in 1940 but he may 
well have used the term in that way, just as some of us use subspecies the 
same way today.....Chris

>Could you tell me where he coined the term, and if I was correct that these
>exerges had something to do with the Ice Ages' Refuges?
>
>By the way, I had 2 colleagues (I am Flemish, and as such not an expert in
>French) check for the word 'exerge', neither of them knew it. One of them
>checked in the Larousse (my own -small- dictionary does not list it), where
>he found it as 'exergue'. Larousse says (it 's Latinized, only the first
>part is really Latin: ex) it comes out of ancient Greek: ex ergon, where
>ergon means work (as in work of art). Furthermore, it gives the same
>explanation you gave (the coin part), and more: 'mettre en exergue' would
>mean the same as 'mettre en évidence': accentuate it, put it in the
>spotlight, ...
>
>So he probably saw his exerges as the 'most important parts of (the) work'.
>
>Guy.



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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