another trash name

Jaakko Kullberg jaakko.kullberg at
Mon Sep 10 17:21:28 EDT 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" <Norbert.Kondla at>
To: <jaakko.kullberg at>; <leps-l at>; "'altabugs'"
<albertabugs at>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: another trash name

> Excellent point. Some people think that more data and better
> will put to bed the differing interpretations about where to draw the
> genus/subgenus and species/subspecies line. Here we have a case where
> have excellent data and what looks to me like a pretty darn good
> BUT we can all still examine this information and draw completely
> taxonomic rank interpretations. By way of example we can treat these
as one
> genus as outlined below. We can also have numerous finely divided
> Thirdly we can use the subgenus category and for example treat Aglais
as a
> subgenus of Nymphalis. Probably one can construct even other rank
> interpretations. I for one prefer to keep genus names to a minimum
> they are an obligatory category. This still leaves the subgenus rank
> available for those who wish to communicate finer distinctions that
> majority of people probably do not care about. Natural groups are a
> concept but there certainly is no requirement that all natural groups
have a
> formal name in the name heirarchy. The eternal question in all these
> is: How big (or small) do we build that corral before we put the
> into it :-) and regardless of the size, do we need to put a formal
name on
> the corral ??

Hi again Norbert!

What I can say? You just read my mind. If we have an excellent work we
have free choice to decide and discuss. And with that kind of data
everybody will CITE the original publication and that is very (too)
important today and quite rare in our field.

My personal opinion is that the term genus should tell us something
"more what is obvious". So, everybody can understand that all the
Polygonia (even vaualbum) and Aglais are very related to each other. To
lump them into the genus Nymphalis means that the word "genus" is not so
synonymic to a species group. Splitting genera in Papilionoidea has been
disasterous and a lot of cheap easy information have been lost because
everything is splitted. Unfortunately people often forgot that genera
were made to unite species which have common features.

> I agree that the work of Hylin et al. is excellent. However I feel
that it

I am AMAZED how I again managed to hit wrong letter it should NYLIN of
course and greetings to Sweden for good work...



   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list