Papilio bjorkae (Pavulaan, 2024) Tiger Swallowtail

[Chuck]

The name was unavailable from the original paper because it did not comply with article 16.4.2 (no stated location of the holotype),

But the description of bjorkae reads:

"The type locality is Great Swamp Management Area, West Kingston, Washington County, Rhode Island, May 15, 1990. "

and under the photo

" Holotype, female, P. bjorkae. May
15, 1990. Great Swamp Management Area,
West Kingston, Washington Co., R.I. "

???

[adamcotton]

" Holotype, female, P. bjorkae. May
15, 1990. Great Swamp Management Area,
West Kingston, Washington Co., R.I. "

Chuck, that's the LOCALITY of the holotype. The LOCATION is where it is currently or will be housed. In the original description of a new species group taxon (species or subspecies) it is mandatory to state where the holotype is currently housed OR the name of an institution where it will be deposited in future*, so that researchers can access the name-bearing type specimen if necessary.

Bear in mind that illustrations are not mandatory so there is often only a description, and subsequent researchers may want to access the holotype for study purposes.

* Note that failure to deposit the holotype in the stated institution does not affect the availability of the name, unlike failure to include a statement of location in the original description. The location of the holotype can be a private collection, but it is recommended that holotypes be deposited in an institution.

Adam.

[adamcotton]

Whether rule of law via the Code or not, I want to follow convention. I did not know this, so may have some work to do.

So next question then- what color for the "look at this one in the future"? I have a number of specimens with yellow or red labels that, to me, mean they need further investigation.

This convention only applies to type specimens, particularly the label denominating the status of the specimen rather than the data label. There is no actual issue with using coloured data labels for specimens in a collection although normally data labels are on white paper or card. I would recommend that such data labels be carefully copied onto a white label for specimens that will be designated as types of new taxa.

It would actually be better to use a white data label and add a second blank coloured label that can be discarded/reused for personal use.

Adam.

[Chuck]

It would actually be better to use a white data label and add a second blank coloured label that can be discarded/reused for personal use.

Adam.

That's what I currently do. But if I'm going to swap out the yellow and red labels on "look at this one" specimens, is there any convention or preference? It's not just for my personal use, there's a number of specimens that I think should be flagged to the new owner when I surrender my collection.

[Chuck]

Bear in mind that illustrations are not mandatory so there is often only a description, and subsequent researchers may want to access the holotype for study purposes.

This strikes me as odd, given the ubiquitous nature of cameras, software, and publishing software that accommodates photos. It strikes me as ironic that The Code is so picky about small details, yet doesn't demand something that's significantly useful. But it is what it is.

[bobw]

So next question then- what color for the "look at this one in the future"? I have a number of specimens with yellow or red labels that, to me, mean they need further investigation.

That's entirely up to you. These colour codings only concern types.

[eurytides]

The Code needs updating, which is apparently being done as Adam pointed out earlier.

[adamcotton]

I think the problem with mandating illustrations in the Code would be a 'quality control' issue. An illustration may in some cases be absolutely useless to show the characters of the new taxon, particularly if the resolution is not very good.

Bear in mind also that the Code has to cover the myriad of different organisms in Zoology, some of which may for whatever reason be difficult to illustrate or photograph.

Adam.

[JVCalhoun]

I'm new to this group, but I've been following the discussion about P. bjorkae with great interest.

Adam noted is that the name only became a validly published available name after Harry issued the addendum on 2 November, because the location of the holotype was not stated, and the name was not explicitly indicated as intentionally new. Although I agree that the location of the holotype was omitted (Art. 16.4.2), I'm a little confused about the perceived lack of any mention that the name is "new."

It is clearly stated several times in the paper that bjorkae is a new name, including directly under the proposed name as "(new species)." It is even given in the title: "Determination of a new spring-flying species of the Pterourus glaucus complex (Papilionidae) in southern New England." This seems to be enough to satisfy Art. 16.1.

Maybe I am misinterpreting Adam's comment.

John

[adamcotton]

John,

Good to see you contributing here; sorry if you were confused by my posts. Indeed, the original description stated that the name was 'new'. I was just pointing out that the Addendum only mentioned 'new' in the subject line, rather than in the text of that publication. I was, possibly not very clearly, pointing out that if that word had been omitted completely the Addendum would have failed article 16.1.

This may seem overly fussy to many readers, but historically the various editions of the Code were drawn up meticulously in order to avoid repetition of serious problems that had occurred previously. It is in that context that readers should understand why certain aspects of the Code appear rather 'fussy' and highly legalistic.

The next edition of the Code will apparently be very different in approach. I understand that much more emphasis will be placed on registration rather than publication of the description conferring availability of a new taxon, which should avoid a lot of these sorts of issues in future. That does not mean that a description will not be needed. Currently I do not have much information about the contents of the new Code edition, but the draft will be made available for public consultation for a year before the final version is drawn up and it is actually published.

Adam.

[JVCalhoun]

Thanks, Adam, for the clarification.

I now get what you're saying. In other words, if the addendum did not state that the name was new, then the addition of the information about the location of the holotype would still not validate the name. The addendum technically serves as the "description," as it satisfies the Code and refers to the first paper where the taxon is defined.

John

[adamcotton]

I split the subsequent posts into a new thread 'Florida collecting issues', which is in the 'Legal issues' topic here:

viewtopic.php?t=1838

Adam.

[JVCalhoun]

Thanks, Adam.

[Chuck]

Thanks guys for the rules on the type labels. I used yellow for the paratypes. Finding them was a bit of a challenge.

[eurytides]

I did the same. I found some yellow printer paper at Staples. Not sure if you have that in the US. Had to buy a whole stack just to use one sheet haha.

[Chuck]

I did the same. I found some yellow printer paper at Staples. Not sure if you have that in the US. Had to buy a whole stack just to use one sheet haha.

Would you believe we do have yellow paper in USA? I had some in various colors, which got donated while packing to move. So I printed them in yellow. May not last 100 years, but good enough for now.

[adamcotton]

Thanks guys for the rules on the type labels.

Just to clarify, there are no 'rules' about the correct colour paper for type specimen labels, only a convention that red is used for holotypes, yellow for paratypes and purple for lectotypes. The real purpose is in order to make the type labels stand out from data, accession etc labels under the specimen pin.

Adam.

[Chuck]

Thanks guys for the rules on the type labels.

Just to clarify, there are no 'rules' about the correct colour paper for type specimen labels, only a convention that red is used for holotypes, yellow for paratypes and purple for lectotypes. The real purpose is in order to make the type labels stand out from data, accession etc labels under the specimen pin.

Adam.

Adam, understood. "Convention" is good enough for me.

FYI, back on topic, Harry P reports that "Pelham that he is including P. solstitus and P. bjorkae in the next Catalogue update"

[adamcotton]

"Pelham that he is including P. solstitus and P. bjorkae in the next Catalogue update"

That's good news, but I expected he would. Jonathan Pelham's catalogue on the American butterflies is really impressive.

Adam.