Ornithoptera Richmondia - Taxonomic Status

Taxonomic Status

The taxonomic status of O. richmondia is still contested and molecular studies are required to establish its relationship with O. euphorion and O. priamus. Ornithoptera richmondia was initially described as Amphrisius australis by Swainson in 1851, and described a second time as Papilio richmondia by Gray in 1853. An application needs to be made to the ICZN to suppress A. australis, as richmondia has been the most commonly used epiphet since either publication. Since its initial descriptions, O. richmondia has commonly been treated as a subspecies of the widespread Priam's birdwing (O. priamus). Although Zeuner suggested that O. richmondia may represent a distinct species from examination of the male genitalia, he continued to regard it as a subspecies of O. priamus. Based on Zeuner's argument, D'Abrera (1975) treated O. richmondia as a full species, although this arrangement was not accepted by Haugum & Low (1971). Nonetheless, D'Abrera's treatment of O. richmondia as a distinct species has been followed by most Australian authors since (e.g. Common & Waterhouse 1981, Hancock 1983, 1991; Parsons 1996a, 1996b and Hancock & Orr 1997, Braby 2000). Interestingly, many non-Australian authors (e.g. Otani & Kimura 1998, von Knotgen 1997, Schaffler 2001, Deslisle 2004) continue to treat O. richmondia as a subspecies of O. priamus, although none cite any of the above Australian studies in their works. The most recent and robust taxonomic assessment of O. richmondia is by Edwards, Newland and Regan (2001) who afford this taxon full specific status, albeit as a species of Troides Hubner.

Read more about this topic:  Ornithoptera Richmondia

Famous quotes containing the word status:

    [In early adolescence] she becomes acutely aware of herself as a being perceived by others, judged by others, though she herself is the harshest judge, quick to list her physical flaws, quick to undervalue and under-rate herself not only in terms of physical appearance but across a wide range of talents, capacities and even social status, whereas boys of the same age will cite their abilities, their talents and their social status pretty accurately.
    Terri Apter (20th century)