Subspecies

[Doug Yanega]

>Hi y'all,
>Over the years, I've noticed that most butterflies are divided up into
>quite a few subspecies, while most moths have no such division.  So, is
>the reason for this lack of subspecification due to the fact that
>butterflies are studied more than moths, or is there an actual
>biological/evolutionary reason?
>
>TIA,
>Xi Wang

This is what is known as a "Can of Worms". Nonetheless, there is a good
correlation between the ratio of taxonomists to species, and how many
subspecies are described. I think the Tiger Beetles hold the honors of
having the highest average number of named subspecies - and, naturally, the
highest taxonomist/species ratio.
        This should come as no surprise, of course, since most folks use
subspecies to designate geographic variation, and the only taxa for which
we can accurately document geographic variation are taxa for which there
are many, many data points - i.e., popular enough with collectors that we
can more safely assume that places with no collection records actually do
not harbor the target taxon. So it's not JUST that there are too many
competing taxonomists jockeying for new names, even if that does figure in.

Peace,


Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
                http://insects.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82