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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

But that’s the fun of it - learning something new when you are in a completely different habitat!

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

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.

John,

One problem that occurs to me is that there are several ancient synonyms of Papilio glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 from eastern USA, some of which may turn out to be senior synonyms of bjorkae Pavulaan, 2024 or the new taxon, solstitius.

The only extant lectotype specimen is pictured here:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/media/linnean_ty ... efault.jpg
This is the lectotype of Papilio turnus Linnaeus, 1771, designated as lectotype by Honey & Scoble (2001, Linnaeus’s butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 132: 277–399. doi:10.1006/zjls.2001.0265).
It is a male, and appears to be a summer generation specimen of P. glaucus. I assume this is not solstitius, but no-one really knows for certain whether some of the old names were based on specimens that actually belong to bjorkae or solstitius.

Probably, valid neotype designations should be made for Papilio glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio antilochus Linnaeus, 1758 and Papilio alcidamas Cramer, 1775 in order to fix these names as synonyms of the species currently known as Papilio glaucus. An attempt to designate neotypes was made by Pavulaan & Wright (2002, The Taxonomic Report, 3(7):1-20. https://lepsurvey.carolinanature.com/ttr/ttr-3-7.pdf) when they described Papilio appalachiensis. Unfortunately the four neotype designations in this publication are all invalid under the ICZN Code, since they do not conform to article 75, governing neotypes.

Adam.

I have been chomping at the bit for this paper, and Chuck has patiently answered so many of my questions via email over the past few months. I have been withholding a paper of my own that updates the Maine state list of butterflies, suspecting that this taxon occurs in the state. I am now confident to add this species, along with three others, to the Maine list since the publication of our book, Butterflies of Maine and the Canadian Maritime Provinces, in late 2023. I have collected a dozen of these tiger swallowtails in southern Maine over the past fifteen years, and I always suspected that they were something different. I even placed a label with the series, reading "Pterourus undescribed." Thanks to these authors, it now reads "Pterourus solstitius" (and yes, I prefer the genus Pterourus for this group).

Knowing that the paper was imminent, I had been monitoring the ZooKeys website over the past week. The paper was posted at about 10:45 am (EST) Friday morning, and I alerted Chuck shortly after. I congratulate the authors on such a thorough job of supporting the recognition of solstitius as a discrete species. I look forward to studying it further in Maine.

Nice work!
John

I had a good laugh from both of these, thanks for posting.