Best regards, Hannes

Yeah, we do need help.

Best regards, Hannes

Unfortunetaly, there is no good book.

Care to take a guess on this one?

Best regards, Hannes

It arrived to me in pieces 5 years ago as a 'bonus'. I was amazed to see all parts were present, so I reconstructed it with all original parts and it looks quasi-A1.

It becomes clearer when you meet his big(ger) brother pictured here.

On another note; Has anyone got a 52mm Goliathus? I have 3 specimens of 53mm but none smaller. When my 53.12mm G. cacicus is done acetone-bathing, I plan on posting a picture besides my 93.2mm G. cacicus.

In the meanwhile, here is 2 Goliathus orientalis orientalis (conspersus?) from Congo. One of 101mm and one of 53mm. Note that it's the one on top which is 101mm.

Am I right, that if undulatus, pustulatus and conspersus are no subspecies, preissi is the only subspecies of the species orientalis?

Best regards, Hannes

One would have to know what a ssp is to answer this question.
I have no clue what a ssp is.

What makes sp & ssp is defined(or argued) by a bunch of 'specialists' which sometimes base their conclusions on fragile basis.

I know that it's not the sexual compatibility or the ADN or the pherormones or the graphical location or the patterns but it could be a combination of the previous. Structural differences, seems to help, notoriety even more.

I see more differences between TZ and CG orientalis ssp than other sp. Why is'nt preussi a sp instead of ssp?

Lachaume admits that the difference between orientalis and goliatus sp are not clear!

Goliathus regius is define as sp strictly because of its elytral pattern.

Maybe someone else has a more intelligent answer.

BTW: It's Goliathus orientalis undulatus and Goliathus goliatus undulus.

Goliathus orientalis pustulatus(Lachaume): in which the white elytral marks are big and round. And the samples do not look at all like Hanne's specimen.

A species is a group of creatures wich shares so much unmistakable and hereditary morphological and physiological criterias, that you can differentiate them with this criterias from any other creatures. Different species can not propagate among each other (the offspring is infertile).

Subspecies are groups of similar creatures, which can propagate among each other (the several subspecies) and can be differentiated (passably) by morphological and physiological from other groups (of subspecies). Because the different subspecies of a species CAN propagate among each other, they cannot be discrete species. This is the main key to differentiate a species from a subspecies.

Important: Supspecies are always isolated from each other geographical or chronological. That means, that you can't find two subspecies of a species at the same place (especially strayed exemplars, but no fixed populations).

However several varities could be found at the same place, there special look is not transfused on their offspring, so you can't differentiate them from other groups.

I hope I've translated and explained this passably understandable into English. Hard stuff for the late time.

Best regards, Hannes

1) TZ & CG are far apart
2) Patterns have nothing in common.
3) Length of specimens are systematically differents.
4) Width of specimens are systematically differents.
5) Interbreeding is unknown but can not happen naturally.

So, are we dealing with a ssp?

Have you seen specimens which have a look between preissi and the other orientalis? Would be interesting if there is a population between the others.

Best regards, Hannes

Thanks for your posts. I am happy to see folks finally getting down to what a subspecies really is. I have come to the conclusion that most subspecies in the cetoniinae (and dynastinae for that matter)are in fact morphological variants only - NOT true subspecies. In order to legitimately prove subspecies status, there has to be some sort of restriction in gene flow - and in many of the so-called cetoniinae subspecies there are several "subspecies" from the same general locale - hence they are simply morpho-variants - showing perhaps clinal variation, or perhaps simple normal genetic variation. Most of the Goliathus subspecies are along those lines I suspect. I have also come to the conclusion that a fair # of subspecies have been designated to guarantee insect dealers another row on their price lists and yet another "rare" insect to overcharge for, with not necessarily having any scientific validity in natural history or biology.

So, are we dealing with a ssp?

Michel Lauzon/Montreal, Canada
Michel.Lauzon@Gmail.com"

Actually you have a valid question - how far do they have to be geographically isolated? No one can answer this question. To be a true subspecies there needs to be a restriction in gene flow - it doesn't have to be completely stopped. Nature is never as neat and clean as we would like it to be....There are many valid subspecies that have very restricted gene flow over the majority of their populations while at the same maintaining a solid "zone of hybridization". Depending on where evolution is taking the two groups in question, the zone of hybridization may eventually break down and we may soon see subspecies become true species - in insects and plants this can be fairly rapid. In other instances we may see the disparate populations wither away and eventually see the zone of hybrids become the norm for the species...of course other scenarios are equally plausible.

to start---in appearance,
'conspersus' has a darkened area on the elytra with with smaller complete white spots--smaller white blotches with very heavy edging/blackness around them.

'pustulatus' is with larger white spots with thick solid black edgings---bigger white blotches with heavy black edging/surroundings.

'undulatus' is like a "weak" form of pustulatus---it has broken black edging around a mix of large and smaller white blotches. This is not scientific, but the way I generally tell them apart. And....yes, there are the ones that are in-between. I am merely addressing the way I go about generally telling them apart.

Several sources even vary in the interpretations of the 'looks' of these.

Best regards, Hannes

Just to name a few, here you go. Remember also, that learning about these insects does indeed come from a multitude of sources including sellers, dealers, serious collectors, and not just a few books. Before I bought my pair of G. goliatus striatus.....I checked out this variety carefully and then proceeded to actually learn about it----which is among many varieties in this genus. You'll actually find out that some dealers are even wrong with their listings and you'll develop your own skills and opinions based on what you've picked up. A thread like this, even, is educational and would assist many who would wish to learn about this genus.

The books cited (Lachaume,and Cetoniinae of the World)

www.naturalworlds.org/beetlering/index.htm

http://www.insect-sale.com/

http://www.insect-sale.com/shop/store.asp?Item=Cetoniidae&Code=Cet45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliathus

http://www.goliathus.com/en/en-text.html?txtlink=cetonidae

http://www.flower-beetles.com/goliathus.html

http://forum.insecthobbyist.com/beetles/index_a.html

http://www2.nrm.se/en/col_preface.html

http://search.ebay.com/goliathus_W0QQfclZ4QQfnuZ1QQfsopZ1 ----** yes, even Ebay can be a source if the person doing the selling is a knowlegable trusted seller. When I buy from Brett Howton, for example, I take him at what he says because he does know his stuff.

http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/G/Goliathus_orientalis_preissi.asp

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/taxonomy/taxEtym.html

http://www.butterfliesandthings.com/full_famcom.asp?FamilyCommentaryID=8&stid=3&rp=main_catalog

http://www.insects.demon.co.uk/cm.html

Is this a striatus & if not, why not & what is it?
Would you also call the specimen in