Nymphalis vau-album

[Soren Nylin]

Dear list members,

I was asked to post the answers to my query about Nymphalis vau-album
taxonomy.
Here's the query again, followed by a summary of the answers:

>We are now convinced that available evidence does not support inclusion of
"vaualbum" (the correct name may be l-album) in Nymphalis, since this species
or species group is more closely related to Polygonia (in the strict sense)
according to both morphology and DNA. The similarity to Nymphalis is
ancestral.
The species has in fact been named "Polygonia l-album" for a long time by
European and Japanese authors, but lately the use of "Nymphalis vaualbum" has
been adopted by both, as well as by Americans.
>
>Even more closely related to the strict Polygonia is "Kaniska canace" or
"Polygonia canace", an Asian species which superficially looks very different
from either of the above (being black and blue or green dorsally) and larvae
eat monecyteledon plants (!), but these differences are only unique for the
species (autapomorphies) and do not bear on phylogenetic relationships. On the
underside and inside, and when considering immature stages or DNA it is
clearly
very closely related to Polygonia, albeit equally clearly outside of the
"proper" Polygonias.
>
>Nymphalis and Polygonia in the wide sense are sister taxa, which explains why
a species at the base of the Polygonia branch can be very similar to a
"proper"
Nymphalis. Aglais urticae and milberti are well outside of these species and
cannot be included in Nymphalis, as is often proposed. Inachis io is also
outside.
>
>1) I would like your opinions on whether we should propose including both
vaualbum/l-album and canace in Polygonia or whether we should propose using
Kaniska for canace and a genus of its own for vaualbum/l-album. Both are
correct cladistically.
>In favour of the former speaks: fewer generic names (Kaniska and the new
genus
would have only one species each, as currently recognized) and the fact that
this carries the information that they belong on the Polygonia branch. It is
also a usage which has previously been adopted.
>In favour of the latter scheme speaks recognition of the fact that Polygonia
excluding these two species is a very "good" genus with many species, which
are
held together by a large number of uniquely derived traits (synapomorphies),
whereas Kaniska certainly is very distinct from these species in appearence
and
habits. And if Kaniska is given a genus then so must "vaualbum", so as not to
make Polygonia paraphyletic....
>It's a matter of taste, so I ask yours!
>
>2) Can anyone more familiar with the rules than I am decide if there is an
available genus for "vaualbum"?  Scudder placed the species in Eugonia Hubner,
which is not used now that I know of, but the type species for this genus is
polychloros which of course remains in Nymphalis and is also the type for this
genus. The firsts description may have been under the genus Phalaena, but this
is one of the old genera which was used for everything.. What are the rules
regarding generic names?
>
>
>3) Similarly, should we suggest vaualbum or l-album? The former is older
(Dennis & Schiffermuller 1775) but published without description, the
latter is
from Esper 1780 who described the species. Authors like Stichel 1911 (in Seitz
vol 1) and Seitz 1914 thought the latter should be used, but recently vaualbum
has popped up again.
>


Answers:

>From Chris Guppy:

>
> In reply to your inquiry regarding the generic status of "vaualbum", the
> draft treatment we (Cris Guppy and Jon Shepard) have written for the
> Butterflies of BC book follows. The book will take another year for
> publication, and we have been anticipating being able to change the "in
> litt." reference to your work to "in press" or published. We chose to split
> vaualbum off as its own genus, but that was a matter of preference and we
> could change our minds once your data is available to look at. We had to
make
> a decision despite inadequate data, and chose to "split". I assume that you
> have compared the genetic distance between the possible genera of
"Nymphalis"
> with similar groupings in the Melitaeinae phylogeny that the
"metapopulation"
> group has produced. It would be helpful if a "genus" could be defined by a
> fairly consistent level of genetic similarity/difference. Unfortunately I
> suspect that, like everything else in nature, generic similarity/distance
> will be highly variable and the boundaries of some genera will be a
matter of
> opinion/preference. 
>
> I do not consider "fewer names" to be worth consideration as an argument for
> lumping genera, since it results from a subjective preference rather than
> objective assessment of relationships. The argument of "previous usage" also
> is not worth consideration, because just about any usage can be justified
> that way. The "carries information on relatedness to Polygonia" is a valid
> argument for lumping, because the purpose of generic names is to indicate
> relatedness between species. Similarly the differences from Polygonia are
> good reasons for splitting off vaualbum and canace as separate genera, to
> emphasise the relatedness of "true" Polygonia compared to the other 2
> species. Other than comparison with genetic distances in other "accepted"
> genera, I don't think there is any way of making the decision to split or to
> lump except through personal preference. Regardless of your decision,
someone
> will declare you wrong for both genus and species names.
>
> The rules regarding use of generic names are essentially the same for use of
> species names, "the law of priority" and a clear definition/description of
> the taxon. A "type species" defines each generic name, which in old names is
> frequently deduced through some aspect of the original usage of the genus.
> However, Roddia seems to be the only generic name available for vaualbum.



Runar Krogen also noted the existence of Roddia (but in Norwegian, so I'll
spare you a quote) and so did Guy Van de Poel and Jon Shepard.

>From Guy Van de Poel:

>
> No opinion I'm afraid, but the following may be useful:
>
> There already exists a separate genus for l-album/vau-album:
>
> Genus Roddia Korshunov, 1995.
> Original description:
> "Type species: Papilio l-album Esper, 1780.
> A monotypic Holarctic genus. The imago fore wing length is 26-32 mm. The
> wing shape and pattern resemble those of both Polygonia and Nymphalis
> genera. The wing outer margin is toothed. The wing upperside is
> reddish-fulvous with rather large black spots and a white spot at the costal
> margin of each wing. The wing bases are covered with dense soft hairs. The
> wing underside is brown, the postdiscoidal area being lighter, with dark
> strokes or reddish-brown.
>     The genus is named in the honour of a forester and entomologist Eugeniy
> Georgievich Rodd (1871-1933), an explorer of Altai and the Upper Priobye."
>
> It continues with the species, they treat vau-album as a synonym of l-album.
> The complete citation would be Roddia Korshunov, 1995 in Korshunov &
> Gorbunov, 1995.
> They also treat canace in its own genus Kaniska.
>
> This is out of the translation by Oleg Kosterin from the works of:
> Y. Korshunov & P. Gorbunov: "Dnevnye babochki aziatskoi chasti Rossii.
> Spravochnik. [Butterflies of the Asian part of Russia. A handbook]. Ural
> University Press, Ekaterinburg - 1995 - 202 p. [in Russian]"
>
> and
>
> Y. Korshunov: "Dopolneniya i ispravleniya k knige "Dnevnye babochki
> aziatskoi chasti Rossii". [Additions and corrections to the book
> "Butterflies of the Asian part of Russia."]. ETA Grp., Novosibirsk - 1996 -
> 66 p. [in Russian]".
>
> This is available on the net (English translation), though the connection is
> slow, it is worth it, look at
>
>
>
>
<http://pisum.bionet.nsc.ru/lepidoptera>http://pisum.bionet.nsc.ru/lepidopte
ra/
>
>
>
> >2) Can anyone more familiar with the rules than I am decide if there is an
> snip
> >What are the rules regarding generic names?
>
>
> Eugonia must be a synonym of Nymphalis, as the type species is in that
> genus, so it would be strictly invalid to use it for l-album/vau-album.
> Except for the above (Roddia), I'm not aware of any other genus erected for
> l-album/vau-album, and having it as the type-species (this is the basic
> rule).


>From this, and from other comments by e.g. Jon Shepard, I think we will
suggest
Roddia l-album instead of Nymphalis vau-album. "vau-album" is a "nomen nudum",
published without description, and so l-album is the correct name. Since this
name has also been used in parallell with vau-album all the time
(especially in
Europe and Asia), it cannot be argued that vau-album should be used in
order to
preserve name stability, either.
All who commented felt that Polygonia is a good genus and should not include
either canace or l-album, so both need separate genera, Kaniska and Roddia,
respectively.

Best regards

Soren




Soren Nylin
Lecturer/Associate Professor of Animal Ecology

http://www.zoologi.su.se/research/ecology.html

Coordinator of graduate courses in Ecology, Ethology and Evolution

http://www.zoologi.su.se/education/PhD-BIOLOGY/biohome.html

Department of Zoology
Stockholm University
S-106 91 Stockholm
SWEDEN

Soren.Nylin at zoologi.su.se
Tel +46-8-164033	Fax 167715