Diptera.info

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 28-02-2011 21:55

here one of the reasons I choose Ernestia puparum. shaded r-m vein. I did point so others that could not know the meaning can understand what I'm talking about. :)
Also there are crossed apical scutellar setae, that is present in puparum and not in argentifera...

NOTE: hmm... I knew a few moments ago that Ceretti uses the Panzeria instead of the Ernestia name. It seems that Mesnil refused to use Panzeria [the name is in honour to the famous Panzer --> http://en.wikiped...anz_Panzer] and it remained using the Ernestia genus. But Ceretti (2006) seems to arise the Panzeria name again. Would be this the trend for this genus?

Also: http://www.dipter...?Recn=7628
and here Ernestia is told as an invalid name: http://www.dipter...Recn=13592

Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 01-03-2011 02:26

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 01-03-2011 22:28

yeah. http://www.uoguel...s/TT09.pdf, page 3, left column, fourth paragraph (link gently suggested by Tschorsnig)

Tschorsnig wrote me a few moments ago on the names telling "I could well imagine that Mesnil's reason to decide for Ernestia, is that Ernestia Robineau-Desvoidy 1830:60 has "page priority" over Panzeria Robineau-Desvoidy 1830:68."

Tschorsnig prefers to use Ernestia as he points out that "is used as valid in the relevant catalogues of Herting 1984 and Herting & Dely-Draskovits 1993."

Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 01-03-2011 22:44

Posted by ChrisR on 01-03-2011 23:01

#10

This all seems to hang on whether you consider them to be valid separate genera (as RD did in 1860) or whether you prefer to lump them together under Panzeria (as RD did in 1863).

The Americans seem to follow Monty Wood's decision to acknowledge RD's synonomising under Panzeria ... but over here Mesnil (a man who liked to have plenty of genera) preferred to split them up into Eurithia, Ernestia, Appendicia & Fausta. To be honest I am not convinced of its necessity and it creates confusion when studying nearctic and palearctic material :S

Edited by ChrisR on 01-03-2011 23:02

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 01-03-2011 23:06

#11

Ceretti seems follow now the Panzeria name. Maybe in the next FE update it will be taken in account?
Besides, for the same flies (Ernestia here in Palearctic and Panzeria in Neartic) why not choosing the same name? Also Robineau-Desvoidy wanted to synomyze Ernestia with Panzeria...
Interesting to see which will be the fate of the genus name for this interesting case.

Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 01-03-2011 23:07

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 03-03-2011 14:41

#12

Well, it seems that Ernestia will be synonymized with
Panzeria. Joachim, Ceretti and now Tschorsnig credits finally the right name for this tachinid > Panzeria. So, soon all Ernestia names in the Tachinidae gallery should be changed to this.
Soon FE will be updated this status but it is not clear when..

Expressed by Tschorsnig > "Use Panzeria instead of Ernestia (I have just seen that Joachim Ziegler uses Panzeria too - and a splitted use in the Palearctic would make no sense). I will also use Panzeria from now on (but I currently do not know when FaunaEuropaea will be actualized)."

Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 03-03-2011 18:07

Posted by Zeegers on 03-03-2011 17:07

#13

Ernestia and Panzeria are already synonymous according to most, if not all, authors. The question you raise is whether Ernestia or Panzeria is the valid name.

I'm very curious to the arguments for Panzeria.
It seems that Ernestia (R.D 1830: pag 60) antecedents Panzeria (RD 1830: pag 68), but I will check that.

If correct, Ernestia must have preference based on anciennity.

Theo

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 03-03-2011 18:16

#14

well, not all authors had synomyzed the name. If we consult FE it is not synomyzed: http://www.faunae...?id=144788
Nevertheless, I had an idea that the in the era pre-Mesnil it was used Panzeria instead of Ernestia.
Mesnil then changed it to Ernestia, because it seems that he refused to call the tachinid as Panzeria.. (remembering to him the Nazis in the war..) or for another obscure reason.

Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 03-03-2011 18:42

Posted by ChrisR on 03-03-2011 18:31

#15

My understanding is that R-D created the names Ernestia (rudis) and Panzeria in that sequence in 1860 so page preference would normally put Ernestia as the valid name. But in 1863 he revised his opinions and placed E.rudis into Panzeria, which brought into play the principle of "first reviser", which I understand has priority over the 1860 names.

In the US Monty Wood worked this out and they have been using the name Panzeria ever since but over here Mesnil was dead against using Panzeria for some reason known best to him and we have followed Mesnil's naming ever since. Cerretti appears to have followed Monty Wood's lead and so has Ziegler so Peter decided to adopt Panzeria too.

As to the other genera (Eurithia, Appendicia & Fausta), the jury is still very out as to whether they should be lumped with Panzeria and Peter Tschorsnig says that he will wait until there is a complete and thorough revision before moving those.

Posted by Zeegers on 03-03-2011 20:50

#19

To Chris

I get lost at your RD 1860. Both Ernestia and Panzeria date back to 1830.

and if these are valid (with clear type species), they stay valid.

If RD 1983 revised his opinion and added 'rudis' (as rudis really or as microcera ?) to Panzeria, this would imply that he considered the genera Ernestia and Panzeria as synonym. That cannot change the fact that the name Panzeria should have priority simply because it is older.

Ironical, by the way, that me who has been critized for not following the Code, now insists in following the Code.

Anyway, there must be more to this than mentioned above. Based on the material present so far, Ernestia has priority, I cannot see it any other way.

Theo

Posted by Zeegers on 03-03-2011 20:54

#21

So far, this was nomenclature (and therefore, hardly of interest).

The matter whether Euritihia and so on should be lumped into Ernestia/Panzeria, is a matter with content and therefore of a totally different nature.
Several views exist, for instance Zimin had a different approach than western authors.
It seems clear (at the moment) that some groups like Appendicia are monophyletic (but this is just a hunch). Whether or not they should be considered full genera, is also partly a matter of taste (where to draw the line ?)

From a practical point of view, I'm not too eager on very large genera (but you can live with them, like Cheilosia)
, nor too small, for that matter

Theo

Posted by ChrisR on 03-03-2011 21:03

#22

Sorry Theo - I got my dates wrong I think. I am not technically minded and I am not au-fait with ICZN laws but here is what Peter told me in his emails - I hope it explains everything:

Ernestia and Panzeria are definitely the same, because they are based on the same type species (Tachina rudis); it is merely a question of the name. Mesnil obviously did not accept the "first revisor" concept in the case of Ernestia/Panzeria, so Herting, following Mesnil, used Ernestia as valid name in his relevant and widespread catalogues, and the latter is the reason why I used it too.

I fear the Americans are "in the right" because "page priority" is non-binding for nomenclatural acts (see e.g. http://mailman.nh...32895.html).

Use Panzeria instead of Ernestia (I have just seen that Joachim Ziegler uses Panzeria too - and a splitted use in the Palearctic would make no sense). I will also use Panzeria from now on (but I currently do not know when FaunaEuropaea will be actualized).

R.D. 1863: 144-146 (http://www.archiv...4/mode/2up and http://www.archiv...6/mode/2up) states "Son genre Ernestia, p. 60, �tait la Femelle" and he lists Ernestia microcera R.D. (= type species of Ernestia R.D.) as a synonym of Tachina rudis Fall�n under the genus Panzeria. This is all, but R.D. is - because of this - treated as "first revisor" in the sense of the code.

R.D.'s descriptions of Ernestia and Panzeria from 1830 are also available in the internet (http://www.archiv...0/mode/2up, http://www.archiv...8/mode/2up).

Posted by ChrisR on 03-03-2011 21:18

#23

Zeegers wrote:
From a practical point of view, I'm not too eager on very large genera (but you can live with them, like Cheilosia), nor too small, for that matter

Yes, I think the genus Sarcophaga is a bit large too but with the tachinids we have always been a little guilty of having too many genera ... the temptation has been to find not enough similarities and to suppose that we need another single-species genus, which is really confusing sometimes.

To me, as a real novice (so tredding very warily because I know I do not have the weight of experience!) the genera Ernestia, Eurithia, Fausta & Appendicia are close enough to be a single genus and it seems Cerretti agrees. But I also understand Peter's unwillingness to just hop on a band-wagon and to wait for a proper, well-reasoned revision of the genera laying out exactly why they should (or should not) be lumped.

So I am happy to stick with the status quo ... with the exception of now using Panzeria instead of Ernestia :)

Posted by Zeegers on 03-03-2011 21:33

#25

As for lumping or splitting

* it should been done consequently
* it should lead to monophyletic groups only

otherwise, it is largely a matter of taste whether to lump or split.

There is a general tendency for specialists to split and for generalists to lump. So nice to see a counterexample.

As Tschornsig, I have a tendency to be conservative: changes names if they need to be changed, but avoid changing them to and fro, everybody gets lost.

Theo

Posted by ChrisR on 03-03-2011 21:39

#26

Yes, I agree, species in the same genus must be monophyletic (otherwise the whole concept is nonsense) ... so I suppose we will have to wait until someone does their DNA :D

PS: excellent thread - I have really enjoyed our debate and the input of all the experts :)

Edited by ChrisR on 03-03-2011 21:41

Posted by Kahis on 30-08-2019 09:36

#28

Zeegers wrote:
Well, if the page-priority rule does not apply, I can add a point of my personal dislikes to the list about the Code.

I know this is an ages-old thread, but it may still be worth mentioning that there is no page-priority rule in zoology. The order in which simultaneously published names are printed does not matter. In such cases, the first reviser (or the IUZN comittee) decides the priority. There is a single exception, recommendation 69A.10, which deals with designating type species of a genus.

This rule is a bit of a pain as the "first reviser" can be quite obscure and difficult to recognise.

See https://www.iczn.org/outreach/faqs/#faq-14

Edited by Kahis on 30-08-2019 09:41