| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gontran |
Posted - 21/11/2019 : 20:38:35
457.68 KB
A nice couple Batocera laena sapho Thomson (sappho?) from Cape york Pen. N. Queensland.
The male almost 60 mm.
|
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gontran |
Posted - 24/11/2019 : 19:41:15
quote:
Originally posted by Gontran
Especially among that group of beetles, the interpretations seem to vary a lot.
I keep my labels Batocera laena sapho Thomson, 1878. Thank you for your interesting comments |
| Gontran |
Posted - 24/11/2019 : 19:31:13
Especially among that group of beetles, the interpretations seem to vary a lot. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 24/11/2019 : 16:13:11
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius
But...
"V." stands for varieties, and sapho is listed in the variety section. So, I interpret Rigout's work to mean that he considers sapho not as a subspecies. And as I said also, Slipinski did not list sapho as a valid subspecies.
Yes, it is true... but ssp. sapho means subspecies...
I completely agree with other part of your topic...  |
| dryobius |
Posted - 24/11/2019 : 13:07:43
But...
"V." stands for varieties, and sapho is listed in the variety section. So, I interpret Rigout's work to mean that he considers sapho not as a subspecies. And as I said also, Slipinski did not list sapho as a valid subspecies.
I find it amusing that we taxonomists from the other side of the planet will always try to determine the correct names for beetles that we only rarely see. I have many examples (other genera) in my collection where I see subspecies that are not good, subspecies that I think are actually species, and species that should be subspecies, and intermediate forms of species and subspecies. Evolution is ongoing so sometimes you can not be precise with a name, because we all see things a little differently. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 24/11/2019 : 07:28:21
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius
Rigout's revision in 1981 lists all of the "forms" of B. laena as varieties, not subspecies. I believe that is Titan's basis.
Rigout, 1988 - Batocerini 1: 38
That is Roigout's revision (1988).
Tavakailian should begin updating his basis...
recently, he proposed me a synonymy inside Acalolepta that was considered as outdated still in 1943.. Hypoeschrus simplex G & R was trasferred to Japonopsimus since 2014, but this update was overlooked... etc.
Here, you can remark that the specimens without marks are only in Queensland and the Key, while those with spots are in New Guinea and the Bismark.
The situation in the Key is variable, but it is necessary to notice that Key are an archipelago, not en island... |
| Gontran |
Posted - 23/11/2019 : 16:28:40
483.49 KB
Another male Batocera laena sapho Thomson, 1878.
Same data. Cape York, 9-VI-1973. |
| Gontran |
Posted - 23/11/2019 : 16:00:04
Thanks to both of you.
Is there any B. laena without white spots outside Australia?
Well, my female was tempted to show small ones. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 23/11/2019 : 15:02:40
Rigout's revision in 1981 lists all of the "forms" of B. laena as varieties, not subspecies. I believe that is Titan's basis.
Likewise, Slipinski and Escalona (2013) list B. laena from Australia without subspecies. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 23/11/2019 : 07:52:12
Indeed.
The correct name is Batocera laena sapho Thomson, 1878; sappho is only a misspelling introduced in the revision by Gilmour & Dibb in 1948.
Without any reason, Titan base considers all subspecies as synonyms.  |
