Genus Parnassius

But "according to the law". Better late than never. If we preserve such gross mistakes to please the "crowd", then there is no point in scientific taxonomy.

This question is purely nomenclatural; taxonomy is still somewhat different. And the nomenclature should be as stable as possible. The Commission has the power to make decisions "against the law" in order, among other things, to promote the stability of the nomenclature.

However, there has been no request to the Phoebus Commission yet...

The nomenclature is not separable from the taxonomy and can be stable only as long as the achievements of the taxonomy do not require its changes. Otherwise, we will get bogged down in the swamp of profanatory "stability", which is fully observed in the example of the same daily ones performed by Western European "stabilizers".

The nomenclature is not separable from the taxonomy and can be stable only as long as the achievements of the taxonomy do not require its changes. Otherwise, we will get bogged down in the swamp of profanatory "stability", which is fully observed in the example of the same daily ones performed by Western European "stabilizers".

Of course, advances in taxonomy may require changes in nomenclature. But this particular case has nothing to do with taxonomy, IMHO.

And what does it have to do with? There is a long-term erroneous interpretation of the species - it was taken for the wrong reason. It's one thing to preserve a well-established name and reject a forgotten oldest name, but it's another when a species has been misinterpreted for a long time. In addition, it is not so "economically important" or" popular " as to violate the "law"because of it. There would be a "pest" mentioned in a lot of applied works, and then - just a commercial object.

The neotype was not identified in year 11. A problem was identified - a view incorrectly identified by followers. That the taxonomists of the past misunderstood Fabricius is understandable. At that time, they did not really delve into the differences - only three Parnassus species were known (and one - papilio).


Neotype - a strict assignment of the name to the standard. Now, no matter how you get out of it, you can't call Phoebe Ariadne in any way.

And what does it have to do with? There is a long-term erroneous interpretation of the species - it was taken for the wrong reason. It's one thing to preserve a well-established name and reject a forgotten oldest name, but it's another when a species has been misinterpreted for a long time. In addition, it is not so "economically important" or" popular " as to violate the "law"because of it. There would be a "pest" mentioned in a lot of applied works, and then - just a commercial object.

I thought taxonomy was about building a system. This question is more related to taxonomy. But in the end, it's a matter of word usage. What's worse is that there will now be confusion. When reading works, you will need to think about whether they were written "before" or" after", and if" after", then whether the author was sufficiently advanced to take into account the new rules for naming these types. (Of course, an advanced author who respects his readers will indicate in what sense he understands " P. phoebus", but it is unlikely to count on this in all cases.)

Well, anyway, I don't really care: I don't work with these types, and I don't think I will. I'm more interested in the situation with Maculinea/Phengaris: the Commission won't vote in any way...

The neotype was not identified in year 11. A problem was identified - a view incorrectly identified by followers. That the taxonomists of the past misunderstood Fabricius is understandable. At that time, they did not really delve into the differences - only three Parnassus species were known (and one - papilio).
Neotype - a strict assignment of the name to the standard. Now, no matter how you get out of it, Phoebe isn't exactly Ariadne.

The neotype was identified in 2011. See the authors 'work Supplements to" Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793), a misidentified species" (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae), Nachr. entomol. Ver. Apollo, N. F. 32 (1/2): 25–27 (2011). Actually, the photo from the article in Alexanor contains a link to this work. What is the scientific novelty of this last article is not clear to me (at least, this is not visible from the attached three pages, and I did not see the entire article).

As for Maculinea-Phengaris, it is still clear that their genitalia do not bear noticeable differences, therefore it is 1 genus, but the name Phengaris is older, so it is the name of the genus. And this name is not "forgotten". Unfortunately, the genitals were published late, and it was necessary to start the revision from there - then everything would have become clear right away and there would have been less controversy. But Maculinea probably has the right to exist as a subgenus. You don't need a commission here.

As for Maculinea-Phengaris, it is still clear that their genitalia do not bear noticeable differences, therefore it is 1 genus, but the name Phengaris is older, so it is the name of the genus. And this name is not "forgotten". Unfortunately, the genitals were published late, and it was necessary to start the revision from there - then everything would have become clear right away and there would have been less controversy. But Maculinea probably has the right to exist as a subgenus. You don't need a commission here.

That's all very clear. Nevertheless, the Commission has registered the following::

http://iczn.org/content/case-3508-maculine...-over-phengaris

There is also an "opposition": http://iczn.org/content/comment-proposed-p...891-lepidoptera

So we must wait for the decision. Here, of course, the opinion of the Chinese comrades is ignored, but they do not really express it.

And if you use Maculinea as a subgenus, then, if you follow Fritz et al., it will be a subgenus from a single species alcon. For the rest of Maculinea in the" classic " sense, you need to start a separate subgenus.

I feel that we will be banned for offtop.

The neotype was identified in 2011. See the authors 'work Supplements to" Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793), a misidentified species" (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae), Nachr. entomol. Ver. Apollo, N. F. 32 (1/2): 25–27 (2011). Actually, the photo from the article in Alexanor contains a link to this work. What is the scientific novelty of this last article is not clear to me (at least, this is not visible from the attached three pages, and I did not see the entire article).

I'm sorry, I overlooked it.
It should be taken into account that the situation with the publication of manuscripts in Aleksanor is very difficult. Some of my articles have been hanging for 6 years. The magazine has not been published for a long time, and now its publishers are intensively raking the Augean stables. The problem was that Gerard Louquet, the magazine's president and editor - in-chief, was involved in an accident with very serious consequences-and the work stopped. It is quite possible that Hanus and Tei's manuscript was published in the magazine a long time ago, but only recently. So the neotype could have been indicated in this manuscript, but in fact it was published earlier in the Germans.

That's all very clear. Nevertheless, the Commission has registered the following::

http://iczn.org/content/case-3508-maculine...-over-phengaris

There is also an "opposition": http://iczn.org/content/comment-proposed-p...891-lepidoptera

So we must wait for the decision. Here, of course, the opinion of the Chinese comrades is ignored, but they do not really express it.

And if you use Maculinea as a subgenus, then, if you follow Fritz et al., it will be a subgenus from a single species alcon. For the rest of Maculinea in the" classic " sense, you need to start a separate subgenus.

I feel that we will be banned for being offline.  

The problem with maculineaand fengaris is sucked out of the finger.
Both names are heavily used. The fact that one turned out to be synonymous with the other is commonplace in the nomenclature. If we write to the Commission about each synonym , no paper will be enough.

It is quite possible that Hanus and Tei's manuscript was published in the magazine a long time ago, but only recently. So the neotype could have been indicated in this manuscript, but in fact it was published earlier in the Germans.

Maybe so.

Only the authors, since they are French, are called Ana and Teye.

PS: There, by the way, somewhere (at the end?) In theory, it should be written when the manuscript was submitted to the journal and when it was accepted for publication.

The problem with maculineaand fengaris is sucked out of the finger.
Both names are heavily used. The fact that one turned out to be synonymous with the other is commonplace in the nomenclature. If we write to the Commission about each synonym , no paper will be enough.

That's right, inadequate philatelists create problems. But even worse, the commission sometimes accepts the opinion of the person who screams the loudest and makes a big deal out of a molehill. There are probably not enough specialists there, especially on butterflies.

The issue with Driopa phoebus is finally resolved nomenclaturally in the latest issue of Alexanor by designating the neotype. I fasten 3 pages from the article.

What a fine example of nomenclatural wrecking that has nothing to do with taxonomy! An adequate taxonomist, having discovered this, should not single out the neotype (and for those who do not understand-already twice), but open a case with the Commission to preserve the names used, so as not to plunge the "world" into chaos. But these figures decided to turn on its head the nomenclature adopted for more than 200 years and make thousands of publications that clearly use the names phoebus and ariadne difficult to understand. This only indicates their low sanity and no professional aptitude. Yes, in jo such "historical authenticity" along with what Fabre described there - you need to open the case in order to leave the names for those taxa to which they were assigned throughout history.

And again: such a publication is possible only in such an uncensored garbage dump, in which any schizophrenic is free to do whatever comes into his sick head. From Zookeys or Zootaxa, the authors of such an article would be sent to heal.

In this regard, everything is done in full compliance with the ICZN. And I support the authors. If the taxa were initially misinterpreted. and we blindly follow the one who made the first mistake-this is not science. and some kind of crap. I am now very actively checking and rechecking the original descriptions. There are many mistakes in subsequent interpretations. What, open a case for each case? IMHO, idiocy. It's easier and more correct to stick your face in these poop of those who made them. Dixi

You won't be able to poke your face: those who made mistakes in the original descriptions of 100 - 150 years ago are long gone. What will happen? Utter confusion. Hundreds of scientific articles published over the past years will remain with the same, unchanged taxa. Most likely, no one will change the specific labels in academic and private collections after the next article like Anu and Teya is published. It's hard for me to imagine that Lvovsky in Zina would immediately jump up and replace ariadne with Phoebe.

In this regard, everything is done in full compliance with the ICZN. And I support the authors. If the taxa were initially misinterpreted. and we blindly follow the one who made the first mistake-this is not science. and some kind of crap. I am now very actively checking and rechecking the original descriptions. There are many mistakes in subsequent interpretations. What, open a case for each case? IMHO, idiocy. It's easier and more correct to stick your face in these poop of those who made them. Dixi

The point is that taxonomy is a practice, a tradition, but not a science. The goal of this practice is to provide humanity with a stable and usable nomenclature. You're advocating an unstable and unusable taxonomy. But it is enough to make a few changes to the ICZN (which is not a law of nature, but an attemptpeople to learn how to correctly give names), and all these efforts will turn to dust! And changes to the ICZN will be made - possibly up to its cancellation and replacement with something new. And it is naive to believe that this will not happen within 100-200-300 years.

No, I'm not against taxonomy - it's a useful thing when used wisely. If one species has been called by different names for 2-10-100-200 years, then it is necessary to stop at something. And if the view falls apart into several, you should also name your daughters correctly. But if for 200 years everyone called a cow without exception, then renaming it a hermit crab will do nothing but harm.

Three unshakable rules.

Priority
principle Typification
principle Coordination principle

If you manage to replace them with something , please use them with interest.
If not, use what you have.

This argument is tantamount to arguing that I have potatoes in my plate, but I want chicken. No matter how much I argue that chicken is much tastier than potatoes, the latter will not be the first.

No, I'm not against taxonomy - it's a useful thing when used wisely. If one species has been called by different names for 2-10-100-200 years, then it is necessary to stop at something. And if the view falls apart into several, you should also name your daughters correctly. But if for 200 years everyone called a cow without exception, then renaming it a hermit crab will do nothing but harm.

What if a 200-year-old butterfly's name is Vasya, but these days a type study says it's another well-known species? What to do? Describe it again, find a different historical name, or save Vasya because everyone is used to it?

What if a 200-year-old butterfly's name is Vasya, but these days a type study says it's another well-known species? What to do? Describe it again, find a different historical name, or save Vasya because everyone is used to it?

The quote itself asks for language: "Of course, Vasya! "Who doesn't know him!?"

The quote itself asks for language: "Of course, Vasya! "Who doesn't know him!?"

First of all. And everyone keeps telling me about the need to save Vasya. But what about the type? And it is recommended to declare it spurios, dubios, etc.

What if a 200-year-old butterfly's name is Vasya, but these days a type study says it's another well-known species? What to do? Describe it again, find a different historical name, or save Vasya because everyone is used to it?

Submit the results of the study with the found error to the Commission and wait for a decision. And do not rely on the fact that an article published in the first edition with an indication of an error should receive "legal force".

Submit the results of the study with the found error to the Commission and wait for a decision. And do not rely on the fact that an article published in the first edition with an indication of an error should receive "legal force".

It automatically receives this very power. According to the Code.
Until the Commission decides otherwise.

Submit the results of the study with the found error to the Commission and wait for a decision. And do not rely on the fact that an article published in the first edition with an indication of an error should receive "legal force".

It automatically receives this very power. According to the Code.
Until the Commission decides otherwise.

Thank you. I don't really expect an answer. Preparing a publication.

Thank you. I don't really expect an answer. Preparing a publication.

Can I tell you more about the publication?

Three unshakable rules.

Priority
principle Typification
principle Coordination principle

If you manage to replace them with something , please use them with interest.
If not, use what you have.

This argument is tantamount to arguing that I have potatoes in my plate, but I want chicken. No matter how much I argue that chicken is much tastier than potatoes, the latter will not be the first.

The practice of the Commission's decisions shows that these rules are quite unstable. They are beautiful if the species was first described and known as Vasya, and then began to be called Petya. Or some called it that, others called it that. Here, the rules of the Code will judge everyone, and everyone will benefit from this - as the confusion will stop.

But in this case, Fabre blurted out about Petya, he was misunderstood and everyone, without exception, repeatedly began to call him Vasya and only Vasya. And here, of course, we must do everything we can to save Vasya! And there are a lot of similar decisions about saving Vasya.

If Fabre is in the sense of F., then Fabritius is. Let's not engage in demagoguery. Priority, even in terms of scientific ethics, should remain a priority.

Isn't that this way?"

Most likely, no one will change the specific labels in academic and private collections after the next article like Anu and Teya is published. I find it hard to imagine that Lvovsky in Zina would immediately jump up and replace Ariadne with Phoebus.

He won't jump up and change it. There are still labels from the time of Grand Duke N. M., and not everywhere the "auditors" have added new labels. The point is not at all in the labels in the collections, but in the correct interpretation of what was not only described, but also recognizably DEPICTED. This is done not for philatelists, but for specialists. And to have a clear conscience.

And again: such a publication is possible only in such an uncensored garbage dump, in which any schizophrenic is free to do whatever comes into his sick head. From Zookeys or Zootaxa, the authors of such an article would be sent to heal.

God be with you, it's hard to imagine a worse dump than Zookeys and Zootaxa in general. There seems to be basically no scientific editing involved.

But in this case, Fabre blurted out about Petya, he was misunderstood and everyone, without exception, repeatedly began to call him Vasya and only Vasya. And here, of course, we must do everything we can to save Vasya! And there are many similar decisions about saving Vasya.

In this case, "Vasya" was used by a narrow circle of specialists. Philatelists don't count. Now, if this "Vasya" would be a famous "pest", who is inclined in thousands of applied works, then yes! He would have been saved. But here they didn't consider it necessary. For whom?

God be with you, it's hard to imagine a worse dump than Zookeys and Zootaxa in general. There seems to be basically no scientific editing involved.

Why indiscriminately ohaivat? I won't say anything about zootaxa, I didn't publish it there, but zookiz is very good for sovochniki. The editor is Don Lafontaine, who at various times invited such reviewers as Vladimir Kononenko, Laszlo Ronkai, Jerome Halloway, and Alberto Zilli for my work. Why do you insult these worthy people? Why do you insult my work?

If Fabre is in the sense of F., then Fabritius is. Let's not engage in demagoguery. Priority, even in terms of scientific ethics, should remain a priority.

[[[[[Here I argued a frank nonsense - I apologize. It's a shame to leave such a thing... deleted ]]]]

In terms of scientific ethics, let it remain. But it is not necessary in the nomenclature. And as a historical fact as a curiosity - very instructive.

This post was edited by ayc - 15.11.2013 08: 27

Isn't that this way?"
[attachmentid()=187354]

Right here. I doubt that anyone has ever called Ariadne Phoebus since 1889. But since the names of two taxa are involved, it would be better to decide everything through a commission to save both of them.

In terms of scientific correctness, distinguish Latin from Russian. Fabre was never called Fubricius. It is a fad of those years to romanize their names in publications, no more.

In terms of scientific ethics, let it remain. But it is not necessary in the nomenclature. And as a historical fact as a curiosity - very instructive.

Ignoramus or troll?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Christian_Fabricius

Ignoramus or troll?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Christian_Fabricius

No, I just got two people mixed up. To that husband both namesakes. I repent. Shamefully.

But your boorish intolerance of other people's mistakes is a clear sign of professional infantilism.

Kapets.
Friends, of course you are sorry, I fully support the need to understand, BUT:

this theme was like for images. (this time)
why go on a personal grudge? (that's two)

I would move this discussion to the section "Classification of Insects" as a separate topic. As well as questions on the taxonomy of colias.

Sorry if I'm wrong.

  

Only the authors, since they are French, are called Ana and Teye.

Not Ana, to be precise, but Anya . Jean Anyu.