SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES

Jean-Michel MAES jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
Sun Feb 18 13:04:15 EST 2001


Dear Ron,

Sorry for my silence, I was in a small meeting in Sao Paulo.

I agree fully with you and I use species and subspecies. The interpolated
names (under brackets) are just useful to give a phylogenetic or taxonomical
position but are not recognized.

For the superspecies, I do not know exactly how to proceed. I think the more
legal way would be consider superspecies as a species group with no mane,
just the more logical or older name between (xxx).

The proposal to put figures is also attractive, but in my idea giveing
something like :
Papilio machaon LINNAEUS, 1758 [65454565458956]
Papilio hospiton GENE, 1839 [65454565458957]
just as an example, I do not know the exact position of both species but the
idea is something like an expression of phylogeny in nummers. A name with
only figures will of course be very dangerous, you make a print error of 5
in state of 9 and a butterfly becames automatically a slug or crab. If you
wrote Papulio machain someone can understand what you try to tell.

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: <Guy_VdP at t-online.de>
Cc: Jean-Michel MAES <jmmaes at ibw.com.ni>; Leps-l <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: SUPERSPECIES - SPECIES - SUBSPECIES


> 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 
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list