The Double synonymy

This is one of the very situations I have been waiting for many years. It’s called a “double synonymy” and it causes serious taxonomic confusion within species concepts. In 1974 Lewis synonymized varium to rubrum, Bednarik and McCafferty 1979 synonymized rubrum to modestum. Why is that a problem. Their “NEW” description is based more on true modestum. True modestum has spiracular spot from 3-6 as per Biosystematic figure 95. So far that is not a problem. However when we see a sample that has spiracular spots on the 2-7 we can not consider it as the modestum concept according their publication. We then are obligated to view it as the nearest concepts being mediopunctatum or meririvulanum. If you look at this photo it is clearly not M mediopunctatum or meririvulanum.

So what is it ? it not; vicarium, pudicum, ithaca, pulchellum, modestum, meririvulanum, terminatum, intergrum, luteum, smithae, carlsoni, mediopunctatum, rubromaculatum, rubrum, appaloosa, bednariki, lenati, exiguum, mexicanum, wudigeum, sinclairi, or Stenonema femoratum.

so what is it ? Is it a new species cause it fits nowhere.

“Its called a lost form”. When we synonymize species and rewrite the profile and over broaden the variability of the profile we loose view of all the forms individual concepts. This is actually the reason I deal in form not species. According to all papers this sample doesn’t exist but yet here it is. In order to say it so its is correct and gets to the form, the name becomes.

(Maccaffertium modestum / rubrum / varium). If you read in the Biology of a Mayfly page 333 for Traver varium you will see this is in fact that former species. This is why my books are done by form not species. Form is species. Spieth destroyed Stenacron in 1947 with this double synonymy problem.

So technically this is a M modestum, but not according to Bednarik and McCafferty. Because this is unquestionably “varium” it must be placed under M modestum. But if we do that that causes confusion within their paper. So what do we do ?

We make a comment like this for the future, and leave it at genus leave. What a shame we can’t place it where it belongs.


Mack.

Moved from Mayflies.

Hi Even,

Yes, I believe this male imago to be of genus Maccaffertium.