Dynastes Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 In Trypoxylus dichotomus... This species was given it's old (correct) name back: http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/273928 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucanus Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 This species was given it's old (correct) name back: http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/273928 Last time my friend checked, author of "Dynastini of the world" disagreed with you (and Dr. Ratcliffe also). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynastes Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Last time my friend checked, author of "Dynastini of the world" disagreed with you (and Dr. Ratcliffe also). Your reference may not be wrong but is confusing and lacks basic facts: your friend who authored a book I'm not familiar with printed only in another language (?) and we don't know what year disagrees with me and Dr. Ratcliffe (I'm not sure any of us know who Dr. Ratcliffe is and there are tons of them on google that practice all different sorts of medicine as I did try to look him up). We can only go by the most recent taxonomy, agreeing doesn't make a name right or wrong unless you publish a paper in the proper format to support your position. If you know a good taxonomic site supporting your position feel free to edit your post to add in the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Minard Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 As for Trypoxylus? http://eol.org/pages/17257/names Look here. Allomyrina does not include dichotoma. It is moved to Trypoxylus and as "T dichotomus". Look at the Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: May 2012 one. EOL is pretty well known. Also... one thing to think about is how Taxanomy is quite relative as of now. People are still not 100% about some things. I once tried to build a taxanomic library with a few biologists and we ran into various walls... such as the many different ways to classify things. There are like a million "valid" ways to set things up. So I don't think you should be so set on Allomyrina. There is much confusion in other genera. Why not this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynastes Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 As for Trypoxylus? http://eol.org/pages/17257/names Look here. Allomyrina does not include dichotoma. It is moved to Trypoxylus and as "T dichotomus". Look at the Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: May 2012 one. Your single link for Trypoxylus cites zero references, says it was reviewed by 0 curators, and uses only the Wikipedia page as an information source and the wiki page recognizes Allomryina as the correct name. Take a closer look at your link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucanus Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/273928 This is a link you gave. It's funny how it sites NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?lvl=0&id=273928) which states that Trypoxylus is the correct name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynastes Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/273928 This is a link you gave. It's funny how it sites NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?lvl=0&id=273928) which states that Trypoxylus is the correct name. If you look you'll see Allomyrina is a reviewed entry. It does include see also sites that use Allomyrhina or Trypoxylus but those aren't labeled as citations. Some of the older sources you're referencing were right at the time because they were made before the name was changed back. If someone wants to provide valid taxonomic sources or links instead of personal opinion send them by PM and I'll post, otherwise the topic is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts