| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Xavier |
Posted - 21/08/2018 : 08:38:58
268.61 KB
6 mm. Laos (Houaphan): Exocentrus (Pseudocentrus) diversiceps Pic, 1931 |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 24/08/2018 : 12:11:39
Acc the publ date diversiceps is the first name, and can be used, of course !
But I have a problem with Pic' variations
Francesco you are right acc Art. 45.6.4 ICZN generally a variation is of a subspecific range, there are different reasons sometimes a bit obscure for Pic:
- in many cases he described var. for one species at the same Location
(this is not allowed for ssp.)
- in very rare cases he used also "ssp." for his subspecific
arrangements and therefore his var. are aberration only
- in one of his first papers (with longer essay's) he mentioned also
that his var. should be used for Aberration !!
Unfortunately this problem is discussed very contrarely by different specialist ! |
| Francesco |
Posted - 24/08/2018 : 09:46:53
Ok. Hubweber was right. |
| Xavier |
Posted - 24/08/2018 : 08:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by Francesco
1) Exocentrus testaceus Fisher was described in 1931 or in 1932?
In the second case, it is necessary to confront the month of publication.
191.45 KB
It is 1932. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 24/08/2018 : 06:54:20
I have read this long discussion and there are several things that I cannot understand.
1) Exocentrus testaceus Fisher was described in 1931 or in 1932?
In the second case, it is necessary to confront the month of publication.
2) For obscure reasons of the code, the varieties are not infrasubspecifical, but generally subspecifical (Art. 45.6.4).
They must be considered infrasubspecifical, if e.g. the type locality corresponds to that of other varieties (case of var. lateralis which comes from the same typical locality of bicolor).
In this case, diversiceps came from Yunnan; thus, it is possible to argue that the "the content of the work unambiguously [does not] reveal(s) that the name was proposed for an infrasubspecific entity".
Actually, the case is controversial, another reason because Hubweber should have conserved testaceus as a valid name.
3) E. subbicolor from Nepal, is not a good example to validate this form (whose name is in all cases, subbicolor), since it does not come from the typical locality.
Why do you think that testaceus (= diversiceps) and subbicolor are different species? |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 24/08/2018 : 00:31:21
yes, simple a secondary homonym !
For me "diversiceps" is infrasubspecific and therefore not a available name ! |
| Xavier |
Posted - 24/08/2018 : 00:03:17
Sorry, Andreas, but it is not a matter to be "quite different" : Exocentrus (Camptomyne) bicolor (Pascoe, 1864) is an Indonesian species. Pic wasn't allowed to use the same name "bicolor" for his species !
About "diversiceps", I do not know if it is a valid name or not... Francesco, who knows very well the ICZN, will tell us. |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 23/08/2018 : 23:28:05
E. bicolor (Pascoe, 184) and E. callioides (Pascoe, 1864) (probably conspecifical) are quite different from E. bicolor Pic, 1929 (= subbicolor Breuning nom nov.),
In case of you accept Pic's variations diversiceps Pic, 1931, is really a valid name why not ? but I wonder why Löbl or Hubweber use Pic's name, this is a longtermed and boring discussion with many misunderstandings |
| Xavier |
Posted - 23/08/2018 : 20:21:36
I think Hubweber decided that Breuning had made a mistake, and that he returned his species to M. Pic because Exocentrus bicolor v. diversiceps Pic, 1931 has been described before Exocentrus testaceus Fisher, 1932.
The question is : What does the ICZN say about this? |
| Xavier |
Posted - 23/08/2018 : 16:13:20
- E. bicolor v. diversiceps Pic could not be a valid name because of Exocentrus (Camptomyne) bicolor (Pascoe, 1864), an Indonesian species.
- Breuning should have compared (??) the holotype of Exocentrus testaceus Fisher, 1932 and decided that all morpha of "Exocentrus bicolor Pic" belongs to Exocentrus testaceus. Me, I haven't seen holotypus of both species, and I do not know if it's right or wrong.
- in Titan database, it seems that Hubweber for LÖBL Ivan & SMETANA Aleš, 2010. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 6 Chrysomeloidea has used in first the name "Exocentrus diversiceps", without subgenus.
|
| Xaurus |
Posted - 23/08/2018 : 14:43:37
E. subbicolor and E. testaceus are different sps indeed, and if E. bicolor v. diversiceps Pic is a valid name (?? for me all Pic's variations are infrasubspecifical), testaceus should be a synonym of diversiceps, because Fisher's paper appeared in 1932 first, presupposed this two species are conspecifical, I don't know who checked this.
E. subbicolor Breuning, 1958 from Nepal
344.05 KB |
| Xavier |
Posted - 23/08/2018 : 08:00:31
Breuning (Revision des Exocentrus, 1958) changed Exocentrus bicolor Pic 1929 in Exocentrus testaceus var. subbicolor. E. bicolor was preoccupied for Exocentrus (Camptomyne) bicolor (Pascoe, 1864).
127.65 KB
But, by reading Pic's description 1929, E. bicolor seems to be a true species described before Exocentrus testaceus Fisher, 1932
67.29 KB
(my specimen & yours fit with that description)
- Then, Pic has decribed Exocentrus bicolor v. diversiceps Pic, 1931, etc
I understand that Breuning choose to keep E. testaceus Fisher, 1932 instead of giving a new name to Exocentrus "bicolor" Pic, 1929.
I do not know who decided to restore or design the name Exocentrus diversiceps Pic. Probably LÖBL Ivan & SMETANA Aleš, 2010 ? |
| Xavier |
Posted - 23/08/2018 : 06:38:19
quote:
Originally posted by Xaurus
same like E. testaceus Fisher, 1931, or ?
I do not know  , I have never seen the holotype of this E. testaceus Fish., and I used your ID coming from here |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 22/08/2018 : 23:58:59
same like E. testaceus Fisher, 1931, or ? |
|
|
