Jaundice (Colias)

is there a commission decision? and in general-is the lectotype of sareptensis designated?

There are:

Grieshuber, J., Worthy, B. & Lamas, G., 2006. Case 3334. Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae): proposed conservation of the specific name by giving precedence over three senior subjective synonyms. // Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2): 106-113.

http://museohn.unmsm.edu.pe/divisiones/zoo...eshuber2006.pdf

And it was accepted:

http://iczn.org/content/opinion-2180-case-...eridae-given-pr

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 11/23/2012 09: 56

There are:

Grieshuber, J., Worthy, B. & Lamas, G., 2006. Case 3334. Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae): proposed conservation of the specific name by giving precedence over three senior subjective synonyms. // Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2): 106-113.

http://museohn.unmsm.edu.pe/divisiones/zoo...eshuber2006.pdf

And it was accepted:

http://iczn.org/content/opinion-2180-case-...eridae-given-pr

The first - God forbid to call it a decision of the Commission. This is a proposal to solve a nomenclature "problem" sucked out of your finger.

Here is the second-Opinion-real Solution. Lavr Valeryevich wrote that it can be canceled by order; he is not quite right. It can be challenged if someone's copyright is violated. According to modern international laws, works that are not protected by copyright are protected by copyright for 70 years , so in this case it is impossible to talk about any cancellation of the Decision.

In pursuit. I saw the types of sareptensis in Berlin. Unfortunately, I didn't shoot it (I'm not particularly interested in this region), but I can say for sure that the butterflies are exceptionally similar to alfakariensis (I can't confirm their conspecificity, since I didn't specifically study it). On my next trip to Berlin (due in January), I can look at it, take pictures and cook it.

Here is the second-Opinion-real Solution. Lavr Valeryevich wrote that it can be canceled by order; he is not quite right. It can be challenged if someone's copyright is violated. According to modern international laws, works that are not protected by copyright are protected by copyright for 70 years , so in this case it is impossible to talk about any cancellation of the Decision.

The Commission is not a parliament - in general, it is not a state law-making body. This is just a highly specialized sandbox, and apparently on a voluntary basis. Therefore, its decision can be canceled by the court of first instance. In the same way, for example, as an illegal internal decision of the management of an enterprise, and even more so, a public organization. But it's another matter - is it worth contacting, and for what? But you can probably write about its complete incompetence and insolvency, as well as demand a reduction in its powers in things that it cannot and does not want to objectively understand. And finally, mistakes also need to be corrected, and this can be required. Even Governments sometimes publicly admit and correct their mistakes.

Lavr, this is all theory. But in practice, we have a description of Alferaki by quantitative characteristics ("longer", "wider"," more intense"...), which are not clear from what degree of "length", "width" , etc. to count, so they are purely estimated. Any egg yolk from the Alferaki collection, which resembles hiale and erate, can be designated as a lectotype of saretensis, which, apparently, was done. Contacting the Commission will not help here - it will not be able to solve anything in principle. If the sareptensis lectotype is conspecific to alfacariensis, then no commission is required - alfacariensis has gone into synonyms. If the lectotype of saraptensis is of a different species, then this is the end of the story, and alfacariensis is the correct name.

Lavr, this is all theory. But in practice, we have a description of Alferaki by quantitative characteristics ("longer", "wider"," more intense"...), which are not clear from what degree of "length", "width" , etc. to count, so they are purely estimated. Any egg yolk from the Alferaki collection, which resembles hiale and erate, can be designated as a lectotype of saretensis, which, apparently, was done. Contacting the Commission will not help here - it will not be able to solve anything in principle. If the sareptensis lectotype is conspecific to alfacariensis, then no commission is required - alfacariensis has gone into synonyms. If the lectotype of saraptensis is of a different species, then this is the end of the story, and alfacariensis is the correct name.

The description of Alferaka is not important for us - the taxon is described by Staudinger in the Catalog of Butterflies of the European Faunal Region, and very specifically.

[attachmentid()=159174]

In practice, we have the standard for that century short list of the main differences: "alis anterioris margino postici lato nigro; saturatus flavus" - within the hyale species, and this is extremely important to understand. The features listed by Staudinger (a wide dark border on the forewing (meaning wider than in hyale) and yellow (usually greenish in hyale) wing coloration illustrate the butterfly as alfacariensis. It is very important to understand that at that time Staudinger was comparing the new material mostly with the European one; Northern European hyalas are characterized by a narrower marginal border on the forewing and a greenish (up to yellow-greenish) color of the wings.

I should add that the sareptensis lectotype can only be validly identified from the Staudinger collection - the Alferaki collection has nothing to do with it. We need copies that Otto clearly worked with, and which served as material for the description, and no others.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 23.11.2012 23: 07

The description of Alferaka is not important for us - the taxon is described by Staudinger in the Catalog of Butterflies of the European Faunal Region, and very specifically.

[attachmentid()=159174]

In practice, we have the standard for that century short list of the main differences: "alis anterioris margino postici lato nigro; saturatus flavus" - within the hyale species, and this is extremely important to understand. The features listed by Staudinger (a wide dark border on the forewing (meaning wider than in hyale) and yellow (usually greenish in hyale) wing coloration illustrate the butterfly as alfacariensis. It is very important to understand that at that time Staudinger was comparing the new material mostly with the European one; Northern European hyalas are characterized by a narrower marginal border on the forewing and a greenish (up to yellow-greenish) color of the wings.

I should add that the sareptensis lectotype can only be validly identified from the Staudinger collection - the Alferaki collection has nothing to do with it. We need copies that Otto clearly worked with, and which served as material for the description, and no others.

so please answer my question, which has been going on for 2 days (although it was not asked to you!) - is the sareptensis lectotype indicated or not? if not, then there will be no problem to drive alfacariensis into synonyms. if it exists and is identified with another type, then au

Guys, what's the point of this argument? Of course, the question of the sareptensis lectotype is of interest in itself (although the question of absolutely reliable differentiation of hyale/alfacariensis by morphological features of imago is IMHO open, so it is not entirely clear how this issue can be solved in this situation)... But the Commission's decision is still valid. Why challenge it? IMHO, the stability of the nomenclature is essential - that's why the Commission is here to make a strong-willed decision in controversial cases. I am prepared to assume that this case will be less controversial in the course of investigation than it seems at first glance, but - the train has left. The nomenclature is fixed. The Commission's decision was made precisely for this purpose. What else is needed?

No one is against the stability of the nomenclature. What matters is how well this stability is ensured. Today, they gave out one wrong decision at the suggestion of one amateur, and tomorrow, at the suggestion of other similar ones from the Pepsi generation, they will start giving them out monthly, weekly. If a gross mistake is made that violates the Code and common sense, then please correct it. This commission is not the UN, or even the Vatican Patriarchate, and its mistakes are purely technical in nature and should be corrected by a new decision. But it must be initiated in the same way as the error itself was initiated.

[quote=гук,24.11.2012 09:32]

Friends, a small clarification. The name Colias sareptensis Staudinger, 1871 is considered an infraspecific or unsuitable name according to Article 45.6.2 of the ICZN. Please look for the author who made it suitable, if any, but it's definitely not Staudinger.

Friends, a small clarification. The name Colias sareptensis Staudinger, 1871 is considered an infraspecific or unsuitable name according to Article 45.6.2 of the ICZN. Please look for the author who made it suitable, if any, but it's definitely not Staudinger.

Alferaki, 1875 (Lepidoptera of Taganrog's environs) has already been cited above.

 
at the time of Staudinger, there were virgin steppes in Sarepta and hundreds of kilometers around it, and what was flying there then has now become local, along intact trees, and in Krasnoarmeysk may no longer be.

According to my observations, in the Crimea, alfacariensis inhabits any steppe (or more or less open) localities with the presence of a forage plant - whether it is virgin land, ruderal or anthropogenic stations.

This post was edited by okoem - 11/24/2012 10: 46

  
Staudinger's description has nothing to do with alfacariensis.

This can be confirmed only after studying the Staudinger types.

Alferaki, 1875 (Lepidoptera of Taganrog's environs) has already been cited above.

Yes, judging by the last part of the last sentence of the essay on C. hyale, the name Colias sareptensis was made suitable by S. Alferaki. Therefore, this name should be used as Colias saretensis Alpheraky, 1875, and not Colias saretensi s Staudinger, 1871.

Yes, judging by the last part of the last sentence of the essay on C. hyale, the name Colias sareptensis was made suitable by S. Alferaki. Therefore, this name should be used as Colias saretensis Alpheraky, 1875, and not Colias saretensi s Staudinger, 1871.

I agree. the description of Staudtnger was "pulled out" only to show that it is quite specific and was not made by alpheraki

It's amazing - how much you can discuss the taxon of the yolk (let it be conditionally-zh. yuzhnaya)!?? Guys, get together in a group of authors and describe this taxon ONCE and FOR ALL!!! With priorities, series and CLEAR DEFINING FEATURES (with material from different places - I think no one will refuse to share the actual material for a common cause!) of this type. And we will all follow this interpretation (even in the post-Soviet space) in defining and fixing the species. Write an article in which all these intricacies of Western casuists will be analyzed... otherwise, it will never end.
There are many other interesting problems with the bulavousykh, for example, yesterday at bedtime I reread an old work by A. Krulikovsky (1890).
Experience of the catalog of lepidoptera of the Kazan province. Part I. Rhopalocera.
See pages 214-215. taxon C. chrysotheme
... " The observation of S. N. Alferaki and G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo concerning the strange absence of C. chrysotheme during the breeding years of other Colliadae (Mem. sur les Lepid., I, p. 166) (in Kazan - C. myrmidone) is also confirmed in the Kazan province."

Let's see what Grieshuber writes about it all:

[attachmentid()=159200]

[attachmentid()=159201]

The most important thing that is very important to us from this text is that the lectotype of sareptensis is the Alferaki specimen, not the Staudinger one. This designation of the lectotype can be safely rejected: the lectotype indicates an instance with which Staudinger definitely did not work. Grieshuber went a strange way: he suddenly decided that Alferaki had described something else under the same name as Staudinger (while-oh, strangeness! - indicating the authorship of Otto). In this vein, you can call many re-descriptions independent descriptions and start producing "lectotypes". Unfortunately, such liberties with the use of the Code have a very negative impact on the nomenclature. On the shelves:

1. The name of the taxon, albeit an infraspecific one, was given by O. Staudinger in 1871.
2. Alferaki in 1875 raised the status of the name to subspecies (directly using the term "variation") and described the features that make it possible to believe that the taxon is not a hybrid, as suggested by Staudinger (in fact, he gave a redescription).
3. The fact that the taxon status has been raised to subspecies does not deprive the Staudinger specimens of the type status.
4. The fact that Alferaki used his own material to justify his reinterpretation does not make this material typical.

And as for the images of types-they are in the latest volume from Grieshuber so tovarashchi:

[attachmentid()=159202]

So, what remains in the output.
Staudinger's description based on the material from Sarepta, Seitz's picture, which very accurately corresponds to the description (Seitz did not draw all this from the ceiling), Alferaki's description, then Korshunov, Korb-saretensis. Yes, you're welcome.
But none of this has anything to do with alfacariensis. These are different things!

But what about the alfacariensis type and sareptensis topotype images above? the butterflies are clearly from the same species. The subspecies may be different , but there is no doubt about it.

Number 21 is a lectotype from Alferaki, maybe I looked it up, but where is the topotype?

They are the topotype. Only the Staudinger type can be designated as a lectotype, as I wrote above.

Good! This was dealt with.
Now help me to understand what is written.
After all, in your works, in addition to photographing the type, you make its description, and it would be somehow not quite if the description, to put it mildly, did not correspond.

I didn't understand the question.
For a description of the Staudinger taxon, see Staudinger. Raising the status is another nomenclature act that has nothing to do with the description. Whether it is accompanied by a diagnosis or not is really a matter of the author's taste. So Alferaki wanted to express his thoughts at the time - he expressed them. But no more than that. Here's a chain like this:

1.The nominal taxon of the species group is established, and the status is infraspecific. The establishment is accompanied by a brief diagnosis based on the material collected in Sarepta by the Herrich-Schaffer collectors.

2.The taxon status has been upgraded to subspecies. Additional comparative material was used.

3. From this additional comparative material, the "lectotype"is distinguished.

4. Based on manipulations with this "lectotype", far-reaching conclusions are drawn.


How it should be after point 2:

3. A lectotype was isolated from the Staudinger material.

4. Based on this lectotype, correct conclusions are drawn.

grieshuber singled out the "lectotype" in order to finally bury saretensis - this is absolutely obvious. Unfortunately, it caused even more problems than it was.

grieshuber singled out the "lectotype" in order to finally bury saretensis - this is absolutely obvious. Unfortunately, it has created even more problems than it was.

The Commission voted 22 votes in favor of his proposal and four against. 2 years passed between the proposal and the vote, during which anyone could speak and it would be published in the same bulletin.

The issue was raised specifically to avoid further discussion on this issue - that's what the Commission is for-and discussion of it is now possible only in village clubs, like this forum.

And the species is now called Colias alfacariensis.

The Commission voted 22 votes in favor of his proposal and four against. 2 years passed between the proposal and the vote, during which anyone could speak and it would be published in the same bulletin.

The issue was raised specifically to avoid further discussion on this issue - that's what the Commission is for-and discussion of it is now possible only in village clubs, like this forum.

And the species is now called Colias alfacariensis.

Vlad, any village auditor will bury the sareptensis lectotype and on this basis will demand that the Commission review the decision, since the principle of typification is one of the pillars of zoological nomenclature.

Vlad, any village auditor will bury the sareptensis lectotype and on this basis will demand that the Commission review the decision, since the principle of typification is one of the pillars of zoological nomenclature.

And it will fail, because the Commission is needed and exists - to stabilize the nomenclature, primarily in non-obvious cases, as here (and in obvious cases there is no need).

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 11/24/2012 22: 57

And it will fail, because the Commission is needed and exists - to stabilize the nomenclature, primarily in non-obvious cases, as here (and in obvious cases there is no need).

Maybe he'll lose it, maybe he won't. It all depends on the argument.

Maybe he'll lose it, maybe he won't. It all depends on the argument.

Prosret-prosret

 

The issue was raised specifically to avoid further discussion on this issue - this is what the Commission exists for - and discussion of it is now possible only in village clubs, like this forum
[/i].

- it would be interesting to look at the Moscow Entomological Forum in the Russian Federation-they probably sit in stone chambers there...

Maybe he'll lose it, maybe he won't. It all depends on the argument.

I read both" first descriptions " (by Staudinger and Alferaki), compare them with the Grieshuber lectotype - it fits the description, albeit with a creak! Yellowish, "border wider" (what is there wider, from what latitude to count). Even if the lectotype is chosen on the verge of a foul , I don't see any way to prove that it is marked incorrectly.

I read both" first descriptions " (by Staudinger and Alferaki), compare them with the Grieshuber lectotype - it fits the description, albeit with a creak! Yellowish, "border wider" (what is there wider, from what latitude to count). Even if the lectotype is chosen on the verge of a foul , I don't see any way to prove that it is marked incorrectly.

This option is available only when you directly study the specimen and view the genitals. But even if it is selected incorrectly, you must see in the standard series, there may be a correct one. In addition, the ZIN has a type series of the next in line - meridionalis Krulikovsky, 1903.
And who will refresh your memory, was there a hint for this group? (Maybe there's nothing to "worry"about?)

This option is available only when you directly study the specimen and view the genitals. But even if it is selected incorrectly, you must see in the standard series, there may be a correct one. In addition, the ZIN has a type series of the next in line - meridionalis Krulikovsky, 1903.
And who will refresh your memory, was there a hint for this group? (Maybe there's nothing to "worry"about?)

on alfakariensis there is, and it has a significant distance from hyale on cytochrome oxidase-see above on the forum. but whether sareptensis was studied, you should read Grieshuber, it is unlikely that he did not mention it

I read both" first descriptions " (by Staudinger and Alferaki), compare them with the Grieshuber lectotype - it fits the description, albeit with a creak! Yellowish, "border wider" (what is there wider, from what latitude to count). Even if the lectotype is chosen on the verge of a foul , I don't see any way to prove that it is marked incorrectly.

it's exceptionally simple.
The lectotype must be from the Staudinger collection.
and it's from the Alferaki collection.
finish

it's exceptionally simple.
The lectotype must be from the Staudinger collection.
and it's from the Alferaki collection.
finish line

In Staudinger, it is " aberration or hybrid?", in Alferaki, variation=subspecies. Maybe that's why the lectotype was chosen in the "subspecies" series? Maybe there's some hidden rule? It's just strange that Gr. so frankly fucked up.

In Staudinger, it is " aberration or hybrid?", in Alferaki, variation=subspecies. Maybe that's why the lectotype was chosen in the "subspecies" series? Maybe there's some hidden rule? It's just strange that Gr. so frankly fucked up.

read the code... I am tired of repeating that the types of the Staudinger taxon, even if they are raised in rank by other authors, can only be instances with which Staudinger himself worked.

and Gr. screwed up many times and continues to do so. he's not a biologist, he's a tax inspector. therefore, many things are perceived incorrectly.

read the code... I am tired of repeating that the types of the Staudinger taxon, even if they are raised in rank by other authors, can only be instances with which Staudinger himself worked.

and Gr. screwed up many times and continues to do so. he's not a biologist, he's a tax inspector. therefore, many things are not perceived as they should be.

I was reading the codex, so I didn't understand why Gr. took the butterflies from the Alferaki series. if someone wants to, then submit a protest to the commission, etc. but it is unlikely that it will be reviewed, especially since the situation is semi-anecdotal.

I was reading the codex, so I didn't understand why Gr. took the butterflies from the Alferaki series. if someone wants to, then submit a protest to the commission, etc. but it is unlikely that it will be reviewed, especially since the situation is semi-anecdotal.

the commission will easily agree to review if it is shown that the final decision was made on incorrect postulates.

.. The dispute concerns the status of alfacariensis and khiale in the Black Earth steppes. Externally, butterflies collected in one place differ by 2/3, and the rest combine signs. It is said that alfakariensis differs from hiale in its caterpillars, food plant (monophage on vyazel-hiale eats any legumes) and is a bit eco-friendly. However, in the Crimea, where only one alfakariensis is found from the pair, its caterpillars include those that are considered khiale caterpillars near Kharkiv and Voronezh. In Europe, this pair is similar to the "nedovids" - the ranges are separate; chyale is a butterfly of temperate latitudes, alfakariensis is a Mediterranean one. Where the ranges overlap, the distribution of butterflies is ecological: in the former Czechoslovakia - anthropogenic landscapes in hiale and game in alfakariensis. The DNA distance between remote European populations on the "species" edge is 1.9%. That's all, the problem is waiting to be solved.

And what regions did this DNA analysis cover? And by what genes - just by CO1, or by what other genes? What is observed in our south is in favor of the fact that they are completely mixed up there. And maybe sareptensis is just a trophic race from vyazel?

And what regions did this DNA analysis cover? And by what genes - just by CO1, or by what other genes? What is observed in our south is in favor of the fact that they are completely mixed up there. And maybe sareptensis is just a trophic race from vyazel?

I took the figure from a well-known English article about the" cryptotaxons " of butterflies (alas, I don't remember the authors, there is a link to it above on the forum, and more than once). I didn't specifically deal with yolks, so I don't seem to have the right to have my own opinion, but when Korshunov wrote his determinant, in which he reluctantly included "sareptensis", I helped him search for a letter and identify collector butterflies. Naturally, I saw alfakariensis from the Crimea, from somewhere else, so I know how to distinguish it from hiale by its appearance. There doesn't seem to be any alfakariensis in Southern Siberia. As far as I know, the analysis was performed only by bar code. However, it is a characteristic feature, but not universal. For example, there are some minimal numbers between euryale and ligea (less than the standard "species" numbers), but they are undoubtedly different species and do not form fertile hybrids. Edusa and daplidice from Germany and Southern Italy, respectively, show a huge discrepancy in mtDNA, but in the North. All of them behave like classic subspecies. So far, the only argument that hyale and alfakariensis are good species is a report about their cohabitation in the Volga steppes, but I do not know how much they behave as species there, and not as ecological subspecies (as, for example, in Slovakia). During the entire long discussion here on the forum, I never saw any evidence.

And maybe sareptensis is just a trophic race from vyazel?

But why doesn't this race want to eat alfalfa?

I took the figure from a well-known English article about the" cryptotaxons " of butterflies (alas, I don't remember the authors, there is a link to it above on the forum, and more than once). I didn't specifically deal with yolks, so I don't seem to have the right to have my own opinion, but when Korshunov wrote his determinant, in which he reluctantly included "sareptensis", I helped him search for a letter and identify collector butterflies. Naturally, I saw alfakariensis from the Crimea, from somewhere else, so I know how to distinguish it from hiale by its appearance. There doesn't seem to be any alfakariensis in Southern Siberia. As far as I know, the analysis was performed only by bar code. However, it is a characteristic feature, but not universal. For example, there are some minimal numbers between euryale and ligea (less than the standard "species" numbers), but they are undoubtedly different species and do not form fertile hybrids. Edusa and daplidice from Germany and Southern Italy, respectively, show a huge discrepancy in mtDNA, but in the North. All of them behave like classic subspecies. So far, the only argument that hyale and alfakariensis are good species is a report about their cohabitation in the Volga steppes, but I do not know how much they behave as species there, and not as ecological subspecies (as, for example, in Slovakia). During the entire long discussion here on the forum, I never saw any evidence.

PS Here, I found the software "bad views", Henri Descimon & James Mallet 2010. В частности по нашей проблеме: "Other repeated patterns in contact zones suggest 'suture zones' (Remington 1957) caused by secondary contact of whole faunas from different Pleistocene or earlier refuges, especially the Iberian ("Atlanto-Mediterranean"), and Italian + Balkans refuges ("Ponto-Mediterranean", de Lattin, 1957). Iphiclides podalirius and feisthameli, Pontia edusa and daplidice, Colias hyale and alfacariensis, Lycaena alciphron and gordius, Melitaea athalia and celadussa, and Melanargia galathea and lachesis, appear to belong to this сategory."