Papilio weymeri

[Trehopr1]

Only recently I finally got hold of one of the Indo-Australian
papilio species. Long time in coming....

However, I'm not certain of the species. Is this P, woodfordi (male) ?

[daveuk]

Only recently I finally got hold of one of the Indo-Australian
papilio species. Long time in coming....

However, I'm not certain of the species. Is this P, woodfordi (male) ?

It's a male Papilio weymeri Trehopr. Very fine specimen too. Endemic to Manus Island.

[Trehopr1]

A hearty thank you dave for your help.
I now recall the females being quite nice but, this
fine male was all that was available.

[eurytides]

The label says P. cartereti, which is a syn of weymeri.

[daveuk]

A hearty thank you dave for your help.
I now recall the females being quite nice but, this
fine male was all that was available.

You are welcome Trehopr.
Here is my pair. The female dates from 1974.

[adamcotton]

The label says P. cartereti, which is a syn of weymeri.

Unfortunately it's the other way round. Meanwhile, everyone uses Papilio weymeri, so let's continue using that for now. This will be published some time in future among other nomenclatural issues in Papilionidae.

Adam.

[Chuck]

The label says P. cartereti, which is a syn of weymeri.

Unfortunately it's the other way round. Meanwhile, everyone uses Papilio weymeri, so let's continue using that for now. This will be published some time in future among other nomenclatural issues in Papilionidae.

Adam.

Ugh, not another renaming. I wish this would stop unless there's a useful reason.

I was going through 25 YO photos of my collection and son of a gun, I used to have a pair of P weymeri. I must have sold them in the commercial buy selloff; they are spectacular.

[eurytides]

The label says P. cartereti, which is a syn of weymeri.

Unfortunately it's the other way round. Meanwhile, everyone uses Papilio weymeri, so let's continue using that for now. This will be published some time in future among other nomenclatural issues in Papilionidae.

Adam.

Thanks Adam. I was unclear in my statement. Was trying to say that both names refer to the same biological entity (so the label is not wrong per se) rather than implying one is more correct than the other. I did not have time to investigate which name came first.

[adamcotton]

Ugh, not another renaming. I wish this would stop unless there's a useful reason.

There are two reasons for name changes - those as a result of taxonomic hypotheses and those due to the rules of nomenclature (the ICZN Code). Reasons for the latter are fixed and clearly governed (occasionally someone finds a valid reason for such a change - see below), but most name changes are due to new opinions on taxonomic (not nomenclatural) issues, and these can change back and forth based on opinion (mainly generic level subjectivity).

In this case, the issue is pure nomenclature - which name was published first.

Papilio cartereti Oberthür, 1914 was published on 8 April, but Papilio weymeri Niepelt, 1914 was published in May, so as was pointed out back in the 1970s in a Papilionidae group 1968 newsletter (not a widely distributed publication) Papilio cartereti has priority. Because the Oberthür publication was less well know than that of Niepelt (the large book, Lepidoptera Niepeltana) and the date of publication was contested by Niepelt, most people have used Papilio weymeri since then.

Unfortunately, unlike many provisions in the ICZN Code, there are NO prevailing usage clauses in the articles governing priority of names. The first name published in a Code compliant manner is the valid taxon name. Thus in this particular case it will be necessary to declare the name Papilio weymeri Niepelt, 1914 to be a junior synonym.

The whole point of all these changes is to eventually get to a point where names do not change for nomenclatorial reasons. It can be annoying, but if we learn the correct name we will get used to it.

Adam.