Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Page 2 of 2: 12
|
 Tachinidae - Ernestia puparum > Panzeria puparum. Ernestia will be synonymized with Panzeria.
|
|
| Zeegers |
Posted on 03-03-2011 20:54
|
|
Member Location: Soest, NL Posts: 19325 Joined: 21.07.04 |
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 |
|
|
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:03
|
 Super Administrator Location: Reading, England Posts: 7706 Joined: 12.07.04 |
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, était la Femelle" and he lists Ernestia microcera R.D. (= type species of Ernestia R.D.) as a synonym of Tachina rudis Fallén 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). Manager of the UK Species Inventory in the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum, London. |
 |
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:18
|
|
Super Administrator Location: Reading, England Posts: 7706 Joined: 12.07.04 |
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 
Manager of the UK Species Inventory in the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum, London. |
|
|
|
| Zeegers |
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:30
|
|
Member Location: Soest, NL Posts: 19325 Joined: 21.07.04 |
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 never liked the taxonomic police (to paraphrase Cow and Chicken). But, you are right, it seems the Americans applied the rules correctly. Theo |
|
|
|
| Zeegers |
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:33
|
|
Member Location: Soest, NL Posts: 19325 Joined: 21.07.04 |
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 |
|
|
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:39
|
|
Super Administrator Location: Reading, England Posts: 7706 Joined: 12.07.04 |
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  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 Manager of the UK Species Inventory in the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum, London. |
|
|
|
| jorgemotalmeida |
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:47
|
 Member Location: Viseu - PORTUGAL Posts: 9296 Joined: 05.06.06 |
Also I have learnt a lot with both of you! Thanks for the excellent feedback! Surely we will have more and more interesting threads on Tachinidae. 
Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 03-03-2011 21:49 |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 30-08-2019 09:36
|
 Member Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
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 Kahis |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2: 12
| Jump to Forum: |