Subspecies and protection

[Ron Gatrelle]

>From Ron Gatrelle.
Dear Jean-Michel,
    You didn't ask me, but I'd say for now the most accurate classification
is "subspecies undetermined."  There are a number of things in the Caribbean
which are descendants of Central American taxa. This is because much of the
Indies are land masses which broke away from what is now Central America.
This means that your monarchs may be an undescribed subspecies or a
"mainland" population of one of the same named entities in the Caribbean.
Or, as stated by Brown, there may be a sibling species involved somewhere
here.
    DeVries (1987) notes that your monarch is morphologically different and
non- migratory. However, he still calls it "plexippus" which is a taxonomic
error.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Michel MAES" <jmmaes at ibw.com.ni>
To: <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
Cc: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 10:37 PM
Subject: RE: Subspecies and protection


> Dear Chris Durden,
>
> Thanks for the information about monarch names.
> What name must I use in my catalogue of Nicaraguan butterflies ?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jean-Michel MAES
> MUSEO ENTOMOLOGICO
> AP 527
> LEON
> NICARAGUA
> tel 505-3116586
> jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris J. Durden <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
> To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 11:36 PM
> Subject: RE: Subspecies and protection
>
>
> > Jean-Michel,
> >   Alas no joke.
> >   Opinion 282 (ICZN) designated a Neotype for *Papilio plexippus* Linne,
> > 1758, in 1954. This Neotype came from Kendall, New York State - clearly
> the
> > migratory monarch. Note that one original specimen of Linne is likely to
> > have come from the Swedish colony in eastern Pennsylvania, even though
the
> > other specimen came from Canton, China and was renamed *P. genutia*
later.
> >
> >   To quote F. M. Brown (1972, Jamaica and it's Butterflies) -
> >
> > "Disquieting as it may be, there is a slight possibility that migratory
> *D.
> > p. plexippus* is a sibling species of what we now consider the sedentary
> > subspecies of *D. plexippus*. There are, for example, minor but constant
> > differences in the male genitalia, and there is the marked difference in
> > the shape and proportions of the forewing and the shape of the
> > light-colored subapical spots on that wing."
> >
> >   Funny no-one has followed this suggestion yet!
> >
> > Ackery & Vane-Wright (1984, Milkweed Butterflies) can find no
autapomorphy
> > to define *D. plexippus* in relation to the trans-amazonian *D.
erippus*.
> > They do recognize them on the basis of paler forewing hindmargin and
> > possibly shorter tongue of the latter. They recognize no subspecies.
> >
> >   You are probably in a better position to characterize the tropical
> > montane monarchs, at least in Nicaragua. I have easy access to very few
> > specimens of tropical non-migrant monarchs from Mexico and Costa Rica.
> > Someone needs to study larvae as well and take samples for DNA
comparison.
> > .........Chris Durden
> >
> > At 07:19  14/10/00 -0600, you wrote:
> > >Dear Chris Durden,
> > >
> > >That's a bad joke... I have no name for MY monarchs !
> > >What's the subspecies of Nicaragua ?
> > >I was thinking it was megalippe...
> > >If you are shure of that it is new, why don't you descibe it ?
> > >
> > >Can you put your distributions on a map. You have 3 ssp. in Mexico.
> > - - - - -
> > Yes two overlap seasonally in Tamaulipas. The third seems to be uncommon
> in
> > isolated mountain ranges.
> > - - -(Chris)
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Jean-Michel MAES
> > >MUSEO ENTOMOLOGICO
> > >AP 527
> > >LEON
> > >NICARAGUA
> > >tel 505-3116586
> > >jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
> >
> >
>