multicaudata ( try IV )

[Ron Gatrelle]

First part of this transmission can be foung in part I. Part of the second
part in Brodkin's reply. Now (hopefully) to what has not yet made it
through to Leps L.

...Next, in the above, only popular (informal or semi-scientific)
literature was cited. There is no mention of the most recent lists (dos
Passos, Miller/Brown /Ferris, or MONA) - which are the latest in a long
line of American taxonomic lists which have been (and ARE) The Standards.
    There is no mention of the latest scientific literature dealing with
the taxonomy of multicaudata (us). That being, the 100% scientific
publication: Systematics of Western North American Butterflies, Thomas C.
Emmel editor. I will come back to this later.
    What we are after here is not "just" an understanding of Latin gender
suffixes. We are after the correct spelling of a butterfly's "name"
(scientific identity) according to the latest rules of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In other words, what is the correct
latinization under the rules of the ICZN.
    So here is the deal. Kirby (1844) described it as -a. Dos Passos (1964)
listed it as -a. Miler/Brown list it as -a. When under the genus Papilio,
by the rules of the ICZN, the name should be multicaudata - with an -a.
    Next, we have the genus Pterourus, which some only see as a subgenus.
Ferris (correctly) amended the spelling to multicaudatus to comply with the
spelling under the genus Pterourus.
    Bottom line. With Papilio it is multicaudata, But with Pterourus AND
with Papilio (Pterourus) it is multicaudatus. Now, Opler's use of both is
just a publication error. Scott is technically correct. I don't have
Tilden/Smith - if they use -us under Pterourus they are correct - if they
use -us under Papilio they are incorrect ( I don't have their book).  Some
other references. In Btflys of Can. it is incorrect as the genus is Papilio
and the spelling is -us. Same for the new Btflys of BC Can - Papilio is the
genus and multicaudatus (should be -a).  Most amazingly is the use by Emmel
and Austin in W. Systematics. There they describe two new subspecies under
Papilio multicaudatus - they are, grandiosus and pusillus. Two new
erroneous -us endings. (Can I here amend this to the correct spellings? No
the code does not allow internet science.)
    REPHRASE. The spelling was amended by Ferris (correctly) to fit
Pterourus. Those who are using multicaudatus are NOT following Ferris (or
the rules) if they are also not using the corresponding genus that (by the
code) necessitates the  -us spelling. NOW, if there is some rule I am
unaware of that even though "Papilio" is used yet somehow Pterourus is
understood - then I guess it is OK to use multicaudatus with Papilio.

Ron

PS.  Scientific names are about a whole lot more than Latin (and Greek).
They are about technical taxonomic delimitations of observable evolutionary
developments. Common names aren't about anything other than what makes
amateurs - in their country's language - feel good. (Please note that I do
fairly frequently use (and "like") common names - I just know their place.


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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