Subspecies

[DR. JAMES ADAMS]

Listers and Xi,

	I was wondering when this thread would get started.  I have 
some very strong *opinions* on this subject, but will try to keep my 
own rhetoric to a minimum.

> 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 . . .

The answer to this is an absolute "yes".  All you have to do is pick 
up a copy of the recently published book, *The Systematics of the 
Butterflies of Western North America* (or something like that) to 
see that the butterflies have been subspecified to death (check out 
the genera Speyeria and Euphydryas)!!  As far as I'm concerned, 
numerous butterfly species have been *oversplit*, with little 
biological evidence presented that the different populations that 
have all been named are truly genetically differentiated to the point 
where they are truly something different.  Sure, maybe the 
maculation on the wings is a little different in this population, or the 
shading on the underside of the hindwings is a slightly different 
tone, but does this mean anything important evolutionarily?  I 
believe a lot of the splitting has to do with vanity -- people *like* 
seeing their names in print.  (Flame away!)

	I actually have a problem with the subspecies concept as a 
whole.  If something is truly isolated genetically from other 
populations so that it is on its own evolutionary path, then its only 
a matter of degree, and completely subjective, as to whether to call 
the "entity" a subspecies or a different species completely.  There 
may be a storm coming as well -- with our increasing ability to be 
able to pick populations apart at the molecular level, I can see a 
point where every little molecular difference may be used to say 
"hey, here's another subspecies (or species)."  Hopefully, 
scientists doing this work will do so with some reason, and not call 
every separate molecular entity a new name, without some 
evidence of biological meaningfulness.

, or is there an actual
> biological/evolutionary reason?

I can't believe that there would be.  The existence of subspecies (if 
they really do exist) is completely dependent on the vagility of 
popuations and whether or not gene flow can occur.  Some 
butterfly species have been split to death, whereas others have not. 
 Why?  Some species fly relatively long distances without a 
problem, whereas others are very sedentary.  The same would be 
true for different species of moths.  Moths have simply been less 
studied, and to some are less glamorous (thankfully!!), so the 
species have been split less.  And don't forget that the moths 
outnumber the butterflies by as much as 20 to 1.  We haven't 
finished naming the *species* of moths yet.  Given some time, we'll 
probably get around to splitting a bunch of the moths as well, 
whether they deserve it or not!

	James


Dr. James K. Adams
Dept. of Natural Science and Math
Dalton State College
213 N. College Drive
Dalton, GA  30720
Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"