Taxonomic Swap 40259
(Guardado el 10/10/2018)
|
|
Reemplazado con |
|
Comentarios
sorted...
The butterfly generic name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 was given precedence over Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 when the latter was conditionally suppressed by the Commission under the plenary power (Opinion 161 (1945)). Argyreus is available for use for a genus distinct from Argynnis. It is also available for use as the valid name of a subgenus within Argynnis and distinct from the nominotypical subgenus.
The critical point is that the taxon hyperbius is related to other taxa in Argynnis, thus the combination, following the Code ruling, should be Argynnis hyperbius (see Nymphalidae Systematics Group species list - http://www.nymphalidae.net/Nymphalidae/Classification/All_species.htm -and e.g. http://tolweb.org/Argynnis/70410).
These are ample grounds to commit the taxon swap.
www.nic.funet.fi has this in Argyreus http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/nymphalidae/heliconiinae/argyreus/#hyperbius
as distinct from Argynnis http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/nymphalidae/heliconiinae/argynnis/
Are you saying that we should deviate from www.nic.funet.fi by considering Argyreus hyperbius to be lumped into Argynnis?
funet is not a primary resource. It is a generally good guide, but still contains errors. The Nymphalid systematics group is as good a resource we have - it is based directly on primary research literature.
well for our purposes we can we can deviate from funet to accomodate Nymphalid systematics group. see https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/70113/taxonomy_details
Maybe all Nymphalidae (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47922-Nymphalidae/taxonomy_details) should be covered by the NSG resource ?
I would go further for Lepidoptera, as Funet is outdated or in some cases incorrect on its taxonomy. Nor is it (unsurprisingly) comprehensive :(
the positive about funet - it is probably the single most accurate representation of the global picture for Lepidoptera. Problem is there is no one funding a well structured global overview of Lepidoptera taxonomy on the internet :(
I don't really feel strongly, but I've already done all the work to compare iNat with funet so would be slightly bummed to have to start from scratch. But I guess my bad for not asking first
hmm, the good news there is you'll not be correcting too much in Papilionoidea :)
Most of the funet errors lie in the Noctuoidea, where the changes caused by the works of Zahiri et al from 2010 through 2013 have had major repercussions . I haven't yet really gone through other superfamilies in a big way, because funet hasn't really tackled some - particularly Yponomeutoidea and Gelechioidea.
Much of the reliable literature is not yet incorporated into any online database or webpage listing for pretty much all superfamilies. Notable online exceptions (to species rank) are for:
Tortricidae (http://www.tortricidae.com/);
Hepidalidae (http://johngrehan.net/index.php/hepialidae/);
Nepticuloidea (http://nepticuloidea.info/);
Gracillariidae (http://www.gracillariidae.net/);
Pyraloidea (http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/);
Sphingidae (http://sphingidae.myspecies.info/);
Choreutidae (http://choreutidae.lifedesks.org/);
Sesiidae (http://www.sesiidae.net/sesiidae.htm) and
Erebidae, subfamily Aganainae (http://www.aganainae.nl/).
Other key recources are LepIndex (good for species names to circa 2005, but many outdated binomial combinations and many outdated higher placements - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/) and the BMNH's Lepidoptera genus index (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/butmoth/).
Data listings of Geometridae (http://www.herbulot.de/data/Geo_Checklist_Nov-18-10.xls) and all Bombycoidea (from Kitching, 2018 - https://bdj.pensoft.net/article/download/suppl/3910965/) are also online as spreadsheet format files.
hope this helps give some direction.
one further thought that the original issue highlights - that is the lack of awareness about ICZN rulings that suppress particular usage of a name or of names. The hyperbius case is but one of thousands of faunal names that have been dealt with by ICZN, but which doesn't seem to be exactly well documented by, nor incorporated into the general literature.....
publication priority issue needs resolving
Argyreus Scopoli, 1779
Argynnis Fabricius, 1807.
On publication priority, assuming the two genera are synonymous, then Argyreus takes priority. I do not know why the NSG site lists Argynnis rather than Argyreus - must be a reason, but I do not know the publication source that deals with this issue.