Papilio or Pterourus?

[Ron at]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Papilio or Pterourus?


>     This seems to be one of those classic cases of lumpers vs. splitters
> that have see-sawed back and forth for a very long time.  But since
> butterflies are so popular, these genus vs. subgenus tugs-of-war are
> naturally more frequent.
>     Caterino and Sperling, 1999 (Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,
> 8:1-16) are among the lumpers.  Although I tend to be more of a lumper, I
> would probably be more inclined to a slightly less lumped classification,
> with Pterourus and Heraclides as separate genera (and Papilio as mostly
an
> Old World genus).
>           ---- Ken
> ******************************************

Ken has accurately stated my position here too.  We employ Pterourus in our
TILS (The International Lepidoptera Survey) http://www.tils-ttr.org web
based lists and this is what I used in the one paper I did in TTR (The
Taxonomic Report) which deal with species in this group.

Like all taxonomic ranking and systematic placements, these things are but
tools we humans use to facilitate the communications of our biotic
understandings.  Thus, the subjectivity and disagreements we have in many
areas.

Now a  more technical points.  Greg asked: Can a lep expert point me a
journal article where Pterourus was removed as a junior synonym of Papilio?

Fist, I don't do much with Swallowtail butterflies, so someone else here
will have to give the specifics but here is my comment.  One of the things
I and our organization deems to be very important is that changes to
taxonomic nomenclature made in the popular literature (on butterflies) are
automatically disqualified from technical consideration.  Why?  They are
almost always unsubstantiated personal opinion (even if by a "leading"
expert in a group).   The "official" arrangement for the Papilioninae was
put forth in the Miller & Brown/Ferris check lists.  This check list is
fully annotated and bases its nomenclature only on published scientific
works.  In this publication, Pterourus and Heraclides are at genus level
(not subgenera).   Since that publication I am not familiar with any
reversionary study expressing _why_ Pterourus and Heraclides should only be
considered subgenera.  (i.e . Did Caterino and Sperling, 1999 do this?)
Thus, the better question is when and where were these two genera sunk to
subgenera in the modern _scientific_ literature?  A modern publication that
simply eliminates Pterourus and Heraclides without _detailed scientific
reasons_ is nothing more than an opinion.  Bottom line.  At this point in
time, an explanation is needed for sinking them - not for why Pailio,
Heraclides, Pterourus (and many others) are valid genera within the
Papilioninae.

Now, even if someone(s) did publish a paper expressing why they consider
Pterourus and/or Heraclides only subgenera, that does not mean that anyone
else is automatically obligated to follow such a systematic arrangement.
One is free to still follow previously published delineations as better
science.

My second point (which is actually more specific to the question) is this.
In the question: Can a lep expert point me a journal article where
Pterourus [1777] was removed as a junior synonym of Papilio [1758]? -- we
need to remember that "Papilio" was the group heading in 1758 under which
butterflies in general were named.   If this broad usage of Papilio was
applied specifically, every butterfly genus name would have to be
considered a junior synonym.

In _1810_ Latreille gave us our modern and current delienation of Papilio
as a genus.  He designated Papilio machaon (the old world swallowtail) as
type of this genus.  Thus, Papilio as we _use it_ today did not exist until
1810.  Since Pterourus is a 1777 name by authorship and today's Papilio an
1810 name by usage why not consider Papilio as synonym of Pterourus?
Well, Pterourus as it stands in _usage_ today is based on Scudder's 1871
delineation by type species.

What we have is authorship (priority) vs. delineation (usage).   By
authorship: Papilio 1758 and Pterourus 1777.  By usage Papilio 1810 and
Pterourus 1871.    By authorship there is no synonymy as there was no
delineation - Papilio just referred to = any type of butterfly.  Once these
terms were delineated via typification we can assess synonymy.   Thus, is
Pterourus (per 1871) a synonym of Papilio (per 1810)?  Only if one
considers them the same same genus.  I think most swallowtail specialists
acknowledge Pterourus as at least a valid subgenus.  I hold it as a good
new world genus.  Neither position is incorrect - both are subjective.

Ron Gatrelle