Talk:Agrodiaetus fulgens ainsae

Up for deletion

The text now suggests^[1] that Agrodiaetus fulgens ainsae really isn't a valid subspecies, but rather only a variety of Agrodiaetus fulgens. If that truly is the case, the page should be deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

Agree, unless someone has other opinions, or come up with a source that claim a contrary view, I also suggest that article gets deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

[Moved from User talk:Fgt7] Hello. Do you have any reference stating whether "Agrodiaetus fulgens ainsae really is a variety or form of Agrodiaetus fulgens, or a valid subspecies? It would be helpful. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

[Moved from User talk:Fgt7]

Hello,

Yes, much time ago that it exist a molecular study: http://gil-t.comze.com/pdf/taxonomy.pdf (Lukhtanov et al.)

and this other:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerard_Talavera/publication/227514878_How_common_are_dotlike_distributions_Taxonomical_oversplitting_in_western_European_Agrodiaetus_%28Lepidoptera_Lycaenidae%29_revealed_by_chromosomal_and_molecular_markers/links/00b7d516ee18b2e2a9000000.pdf

Previously, these taxa ("ainsae" and "fulgens") thought that it existed in geographically separate areas, but it has been discovered in recent years that it is not so: it does not exist geographical separation. And it is very subjective to consider the existence of a white stripe in the underside of the wing is a reliable feature, because this band can exist in "ainsae" and in "fulgens".

Best regards,

Felipe — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.61.11.99 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2015‎

And yet Lukhtanov et al. says: "The following new combinations are suggested: A. fulgens ainsae comb. n., A. fulgens pseudovirgilius comb. n., A. fulgens leonensis comb. n. and A. fulgens magnabrillata comb. n."

They seem to have a hard time making up their minds... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

As far as I understand the abstract of the Lukhtanov paper, they combine this taxon from species rank to subspecies rank. So, according to this they regard it as a valid subspecies. In my opinion, this is no reason to delete the article. Anyway, if not valid, it should be be converted into a redirect to A. fulgens. The "note" better should be removed. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just now I have checked the original description by Forster. He had described it as Agrodiaetus dolus ainsae and listed several subspecies of A. dolus, among others also A. dolus fulgens. Moreover, I have found a PDF of the Lukhtanov paper. They seem to divide the A. dolus group into species according to chromosome number. ainsae is accepted as a taxon different from fulgens, but only slightly different. Therefore ainsae is combined as a subspecies of fulgens. (Anyway, my first interpretation of the abstract was wrong.) Someone may suspect, that differences are too small even for this, but the "official" taxonomic status based on this paper from 2006 is that of a valid subspecies. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You might very well be correct. Is the PDF of the Lukhtanov paper you have found the same PDF that I refer to above? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Hi, you cited from the abstract, but I don't know whether you had access to the full paper. Anyway, I added a link to a PDF with this paper in Template:Lukhtanov, Vila & Kandul, 2006. Moreover, I added also a link to a PDF with the original diagnosis by Forster (1961) - see PDF. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Franz Xaver: No, I didn't have access to the full paper at the time, so thank you for updating the Lukhtanov reference. I used your excellent Forster PDF to make the reference template {{Forster, 1961}}, which I added to the page. Also, I removed the "speedy deletion" request, as per the information supplied in the differeent papers. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks! I added the rest of the PDF files to the template. The paper by Forster was published in several issues and there exists a separate PDF for each part. If you need more PDFs from this journal, they can be found here. Most biological journals published in Austria and some from neighbouring countries have been scanned and are provided at the website of the province museum of Upper Austria (Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum) - see here. The list comprises also many journals dealing with geology and regional history, but there is quite a lot that is relevant to Wikispecies. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the very useful links. Luckily I'm fairly fluent in German. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Taxonomy

• The taxon ainsae (N. Spain) were considered as a different species of Agrodiaetus fulgens (NE. Spain), but molecular studies have determined that they are the same species. In some references appear as a valid subspecies, but this is not certain, based on the following: a).- previously it is believed that these taxa (ainsae and fulgens) existed in geographically separate and distant localities. But it has been discovered that it is not so: it does not exist geographical separation. And b).- it is very subjective to consider the existence of a white stripe in underside of the hindwings as a reliable diagnosis to separate both taxa, because this white stripe can exist in ainsae and in fulgens.
• This taxon (ainsae) should be regarded as a synonym of A. fulgens.