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.