Recent posts
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Tue Feb 18, 2025 3:40 am

Chuck wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 8:24 pm BTW there is a Smyrna NY, and Jamaica N.Y. is now part of queens.
Regarding the reference to "Smyrna" in Cramer's description of P. hyllus, at least eight municipalities are named Smyrna in the United States, but they were either founded during the nineteenth century (including Smyrna, NY, which was founded in 1808), and/or are located outside the range of this species. Cramer placed a number of species in "Smyrna," most of which are not North American. It is well established that many of Cramer’s localities are erroneous.

Locality labels were rarely affixed to specimens during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Cabinet labels (pinned at the head or foot of a series of specimens) were used for identification purposes, but locality data were often recorded in separate catalogs or log books. If the specimens were later sold or exchanged, locality information was frequently lost or imprecisely conveyed. The illustrated type specimen of Papilio hyllus likely passed through the hands of at least four people during its existence, thus its type locality cannot be trusted. After tracing the likely provenance of the specimen, I concluded that it was collected during the 1760s in the vicinity of Brooklyn, Long Island, NY. Hence my selection of a neotype specimen from that locality.

John
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Tue Feb 18, 2025 3:23 am

Chuck wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:58 am I do note that the illustrated specimen with that wash of yellow/ brown underside and yellow FW spots is far more common in Philly and the hills of KY now.
It must be kept in mind that old, hand-colored engravings (like those of Clerck) are not photographs. They can differ quite a bit between copies, and they often exaggerate features depending on the degree of artistic license applied during the coloring process. This is a bigger problem when plates were colored by multiple colorists during the production of these old books. A good example is the ventral figure of Oreas helicta (=Neonympha areolatus) from plate 95 of Hübner (1806-[1838]). The images below, from my 2018 paper on this taxon, show how much variation there is between copies.

Even though Clerck probably colored his own plates, I wouldn't put too much weight in the extent of yellow overscaling on the ventral hindwings of the glaucus figures, as he may have overemphasized this feature. Although my dark females from Ohio have varying amounts of this overscaling, it's not nearly as vivid as shown in Clerck's illustration. As for the yellow forewing discal scaling (which is mentioned in Linnaeus' original description of glaucus), it is irregularly present among the dark females I have from Ohio, as well as ssp. maynardi from Florida.

John

download/file.php?mode=view&id=4155&sid ... d02021af5e
Attachments
helicta figures.jpg
helicta figures.jpg (216.59 KiB) Viewed 953 times
Topic: What has changed recently with importing? | Author: daffodildeb | Replies: 28 | Views: 13232
AVATAR
x106x
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:02 am

Re: What has changed recently with importing?

by x106x » Tue Feb 18, 2025 3:12 am

I have a eDoc that's been pending for well over a month. The dropdown list is super annoying- you you put something generic like "non-cites butterflies" and then try to actually list the genus or common name or anything, it automatically removes the tag and it says that not having the code will delay the shipment. Which do they want? Generic code or the specific name without the code?

Also, how do you provide them (courier or customs) those documents? Ask the shipper to send pictures of the package before they send it and then email all those to them? Oh! And I had to "authorize a request for overtime processing and payment of overtime fees." Since it was coming into the Port of New York. The hell?

I'm an artist, not a reseller, but being able to import the popular bugs I use frequently would allow me to keep my prices reasonable (and we all need *something* reasonably priced right about now...amirite?) Any commissions or one offs I just purchase from US resellers.

jen
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by Chuck » Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:58 am

This could work for glaucus, as neither canadensis nor solstitius are known to have dark forms (though appalachiensis rarely does).

objective of any potential neotype designation would be to choose specimens that are definitely the same as currently recognised as P. glaucus



Clark and Clark reported several different flights in the DC area, including on that could have been solstitius, and another small form flight with a dark female. Given that the illustration shows a dark female, it’s not solstitius. But we know ranges have changed, so are we certain that the collected specimen from which the illustration is made is truly glaucus? Was there another polymorph in the DC area that is now, like so many others, extinct? Without the type specimen it cannot be disproven.

I do note that the illustrated specimen with that wash of yellow/ brown underside and yellow FW spots is far more common in Philly and the hills of KY now.
Topic: Packing for a trip | Author: Chuck | Replies: 13 | Views: 893
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: Packing for a trip

by Chuck » Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:41 am

We did find a great home. Wife loves it, and it backs to forever wild for MV lamps. Problem is it’s just a bit over budget.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by Chuck » Mon Feb 17, 2025 8:24 pm

BTW there is a Smyrna NY, and Jamaica N.Y. is now part of queens.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:55 pm

Adam is correct. Article 75.3.5 of the Code states, in part, that the neotype must be “consistent with what is known of the former name-bearing type from the original description and from other sources.” In addition, it must have originated “as nearly as practicable from the original type locality…” (Art. 75.3.6). Neotypes are designated only when it is necessary to define a nominal taxon objectively, such as to fix the identities of closely related taxa.

Neotype specimens for names proposed many years ago can be of more recent origin. For example, Papilio hyllus (now recognized as Tharsalea hyllus) was described and figure by Cramer in 1775 (top image, below), but I was unable to locate any extant syntypes. I designated a neotype using a specimen that was collected in 1900 (bottom image, below). The type locality was reported by Cramer to be “Smirna” or “Smirne,” implying Smyrna (now Ismir) in western Turkey, which is obviously incorrect. The specimen I chose was from Brooklyn, New York, which is the area where the syntype(s) likely originated based on available evidence.

John
download/file.php?mode=view&id=4153

download/file.php?mode=view&id=4151
Attachments
hyllus Cramer1.jpg
hyllus Cramer1.jpg (66.2 KiB) Viewed 978 times
hyllus neotype1.jpg
hyllus neotype1.jpg (93.46 KiB) Viewed 978 times
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by adamcotton » Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:45 pm

JVCalhoun wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 2:02 pm In this case, one could designate the specimen in Clerck's illustration of glaucus as the lectotype, arguing that it is likely a syntype.
Indeed, designating the specimen in Clerck's illustration as lectotype of P. glaucus is a possibility. However, Clerck's illustration, on plate 24, was only published in 1764, 6 years after Linnaeus published the name, and in order to be regarded as a syntype the specimen in the Clerck illustration would have to be assumed as present in the M.L.U. collection before 1758. Clerck's illustrations were made from the collection of Drottning (= Queen) Louisa Ulrica which is the same as the 'M.L.U.' cited by Linnaeus in 1758, so that does at least link the Clerck specimen to Linnaeus' description on the basis of housing.

Adam.
Topic: What has changed recently with importing? | Author: daffodildeb | Replies: 28 | Views: 13232
AVATAR
lepman1256
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:29 pm

Re: What has changed recently with importing?

by lepman1256 » Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:23 pm

USFW does give you hoops to jump through, but they are spelled out in your application for a import/export permit. Before a shipment hits the U.S. you need to notify the courier (FedEx or DHL) of its arrival. send them picks of documents such as declaration form, waybill number, box pic, health certificate, invoice, and possible others. Most inspections get done at or near their hubs. If you list the wrong one, a USFW representative will get back to you to change it on your Edoc (declaration form) and resubmit. I think what might slow down the clearing of a shipment is when the exact species is not listed on their dropdown list, so you have to go with a (genus name ?). Makes the officer have to check out the species as per your provided invoice. Bonding is done, with a small fee added to your custom fees. If all is done correctly, most shipments clear within 3-4 days.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by adamcotton » Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:09 pm

Chuck wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 1:14 pm The risk of a neotype is that it could be a different taxon.
I will add that the objective of any potential neotype designation would be to choose specimens that are definitely the same as currently recognised as P. glaucus and ensure that the chosen specimens do not belong to any of the other named taxa currently recognised.

Note that a neotype can be a modern specimen, but it must be housed in an institution named in the publication or be placed in the specified institution on publication (paraphrased from article 75.3.7).

Adam.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Mon Feb 17, 2025 2:02 pm

Chuck wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 1:14 pm The risk of a neotype is that it could be a different taxon.
That is a risk, especially for closely-related taxa. In this case, one could designate the specimen in Clerck's illustration of glaucus as the lectotype, arguing that it is likely a syntype. Article 74.4 of the Code states "Designation of an illustration or description of a syntype as a lectotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated or described; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation."

This could work for glaucus, as neither canadensis nor solstitius are known to have dark forms (though appalachiensis rarely does). The illustration matches Linnaeus' (brief) description, and it seems to be clearly identifiable to species. The only drawbacks are that you don't have any metrics on the missing specimen, you can't sample genetic material from it, and it's geographical origin is uncertain.

John
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by Chuck » Mon Feb 17, 2025 1:14 pm

The original type specimen is, by default, THE species it is named to be, so long as it doesn’t turn out to be synonymous

The risk of a neotype is that it could be a different taxon.

For the draft of solstitius I’d picked a very nice, expressive specimen typical of the species. My Canadian colleagues replaced it with a Canadian specimen, correctly arguing it had less risk of being hybrid or a look-alike stray glaucus.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:21 am

Unfortunately, there are numerous historical specimens, including types, missing for various reasons. This contributes to the need for neotypes. In the case of glaucus, Linnaeus did not personally collect the the specimen(s) from which he based his description of the species. In his original description, Linnaeus (1758) cited at least one specimen in "M.L.U.," which refers to Museum Ludovicae Ulricae (Queen Ludovica Ulrika's collection). Carl Clerck is believed to have illustrated one such specimen in the second part of his his Icones Insectorum Rariorum (1764). This illustration is shown below.

Linnaeus (1764) later attributed specimen(s) of glaucus to the Swedish naturalist Peter (Pehr) Kalm, one of Linnaeus' first students who traveled in North America from 1748 to 1751. The fate of the specimen(s) that Linnaeus used for his description is unknown. Honey and Scoble (2001) could not locate any type material.

download/file.php?mode=view&id=4149
Attachments
glaucus Clerck.jpg
glaucus Clerck.jpg (604.29 KiB) Viewed 1749 times
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
AVATAR
Chuck
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by Chuck » Sun Feb 16, 2025 11:30 pm

So after 250 years, there’s question about where they types of bloody Tiger Swallowtails, captured by the most famed lepidopterist, are and if they exist? I’ve misplaced stuff before, but if they exist I’d think someone would know about it. To expect someone to put in effort to locate them is beyond rediculous. They can’t even find the Holy Grail. And even if they found one it would turn into a case of Longines’ spear.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:11 pm

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in support of the validity of these designations, but I wanted to point out that there is some confusion over this issue. For example, Pelham (2023) notes that the designations by Pavulaan and Wright (2002) for turnus and alcidamas are invalid, but he does not state the same for those of glaucus and antilochus. I'm sure this is unintentional, but it can lead some researchers to believe that the latter two designations are acceptable.
adamcotton wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:10 pm This has already been published by Chainey (2005, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 145, 283–337), who stated that the neotypes are invalid
Not quite. Chainey (2005) was referring only to the neotype of alcidamas, and he stopped short of declaring that it was an invalid designation. Instead, he remarked that it "does not appear to be valid," leaving it to others to confirm. These designations really need to be more formally evaluated in a paper in which new neotypes are designated. The designation of lectotypes and neotypes is indeed serious business, and those of questionable validity need to be more formally addressed.

The "possible syntype" of alcidamas mentioned by Chainey was subsequently interpreted by Pelham (2008-2023) to be a "probable syntype." Maybe he, or another researcher, had stronger feelings about its status.

John
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by adamcotton » Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:20 pm

JVCalhoun wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2025 3:59 pm However, a probable syntype of alcidamas is deposited in NHMUK, setting up a potential lectotype designation to represent that name.
This is almost correct, Chainey (2005) listed this specimen:
Possible syntype with Felder label ‘Coll. Lenep’ [no locality] (BMNH(E)#665024), is a fair although not exact match for original plate 21, figs A, A; it has been re-pinned and the apices of the hindwings have been replaced and painted.
Note, Chainey used the word 'possible' rather than 'probable', and it would have to be confirmed as a syntype before lectotype designation, which is rather difficult. The problem is that if the specimen designated as lectotype is subsequently shown not to be a syntype after all it loses its lectotype status.

Adam.
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by adamcotton » Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:10 pm

JVCalhoun wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2025 3:59 pm if the neotypes of antilochus, alcidamas, and glaucus are deemed invalid,
This has already been published by Chainey (2005, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 145, 283–337), who stated that the neotypes are invalid because the authors did not satisfy the requirements of ICZN Code (Article 75.3.4) in that they did not state their reasons for believing the type material to be lost or cite the steps that they took to establish this. Gerardo Lamas confirmed that he also believes all 4 neotype designations are invalid, and I agree. The article governing neotype designation in the ICZN Code is very precise, and requires statements in the publication confirming the various clauses have been met. The reason for this is that neotype designation is a very serious issue for which several hoops need to be jumped through first and those jumps must be confirmed.

Adam.
Topic: Packing for a trip | Author: Chuck | Replies: 13 | Views: 893
AVATAR
eurytides
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 1:36 am

Re: Packing for a trip

by eurytides » Sun Feb 16, 2025 4:45 pm

But that’s the fun of it - learning something new when you are in a completely different habitat!
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
JVCalhoun
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:58 am

Re: New Papilio described today

by JVCalhoun » Sun Feb 16, 2025 3:59 pm

As mentioned by Adam, the four other names involved are antilochus (Linnaeus, 1758), turnus (Linnaeus, 1771), alcidamas (Cramer, 1775) (misspelled as "alcidamus" by some authors, including Pelham 2023), and glaucus (Linnaeus, 1758). A lectotype was designated for turnus by Honey and Scoble (2001), and it does appear to represent the current concept of glaucus. This leaves the neotypes of antilochus, alcidamas, and glaucus, as designated by Pavulaan and Wright (2002), in need of further assessment. Some argue that these neotypes are invalid, but the authors expressly state that "no type specimens are believed to exist," which reflects conventional wisdom, if not the conclusions of prior authors. However, a probable syntype of alcidamas is deposited in NHMUK, setting up a potential lectotype designation to represent that name. Hopefully, it's consistent with the concept of glaucus.

The type locality of antilochus was given as “America septentrionali” (North America). That of alcidamas was given as Jamaica, New York and Carolina (Jamaica is obviously in error), and that of glaucus was "America." Given the time period of these descriptions, the specimens probably originated from somewhere along the Atlantic Coast, between New York City and the Carolinas, which is outside the expected range of the genetic concept of solstitius. Of course, solstitius may be more widely distributed than currently known, but it probably doesn’t reach much farther south, given that it is more genetically aligned with P. canadensis. Its presumed range, north of the blend zone where canadensis and glaucus converge, suggests that what Pavulaan (2024) ascribes to solstitius in southern New England, south of the blend zone, is something else entirely, perhaps more akin to glaucus.

That being said, if the neotypes of antilochus, alcidamas, and glaucus are deemed invalid, and the potential syntype of alcidamas is questioned, then new neotypes should be designated to place all these names within the current concept of glaucus, and comfortably outside the concept of solstitius.

John
Topic: New Papilio described today | Author: adamcotton | Replies: 93 | Views: 5833
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: New Papilio described today

by adamcotton » Sun Feb 16, 2025 1:33 pm

Chuck wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2025 12:42 pm Interesting, and that never occurred to me, though it should have ...

To my mind though, the important outcome is that MST has been given a universally agreed name.

I think the greatest element in the paper- which was already known and published, but not common knowledge, is that solstitius is, if stuffed in pre-existing boxes- canadensis, not glaucus. If a type shows up and is solstius, and solstitius is rendered to a form, then the moniker canadensis would disappear.
Chuck,

Don't worry, types for the ancient names I mentioned won't 'show up', none of them are identifiably still in existence. That is why I recommended that at some time neotypes for these names that definitely belong to the taxon P. glaucus should be designated in order to protect all the newer names. I agree that it is very important that MST should have a scientific name.

Interesting that solstitius is shown to be close to canadensis rather than glaucus. I haven't had time to read the paper in detail yet, so hadn't noticed that, but am very impressed with work judging by the skim-through I did make.

Adam.