Subspecies and protection

[Jean-Michel MAES]

Dear Pierre Zagatti,

Right, no migrants Danaus plexippus in Central America.
If migrant is Danaus plexippus plexippus and goes to Mexico.
If Danaus plexippus megalippe is Antillean subspecies.
The problem is unsolved : who are the Central American sedentary populations
?

Sincerely,

Jean-Michel MAES
MUSEO ENTOMOLOGICO
AP 527
LEON
NICARAGUA
tel 505-3116586
jmmaes at ibw.com.ni
----- Original Message -----
From: Pierre Zagatti <zagatti at versailles.inra.fr>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: Subspecies and protection


> Dear all,
>
> According to Smith, Miller and Miller (Butterflies of the West Indies and
South
> Florida, 1994) the only valid subspecies in Central America is D. p.
megalippe
> (Huebner, 1826), which lives in the Greater Antilles (not in Cuba) and the
> Lesser Antilles.
> The other described subspecies are based on subjective phenotypic
characters and
> are still waiting for a strong genetic analysis...
>
> Yes, all monarch populations in the tropics are 'non-migrant'.
Nevertheless, in
> the Antilles at least, individuals from migrant northern populations are
> frequently observed and _probably_ mate with indigeneous butterflies.
>
> There are images of Danaus plexippus megalippe (adults and larva) at :
>
>
http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Produits/PAPILLON/papilion/nymphali/texteng/d_pl
exip.htm
>
> By the way, Danaus cleophile Godart (which name was cited in a previous
message)
> is a good species, found only in Jamaica and Haiti although it is possibly
> extinct in Jamaica and still common in Haiti (due to the huge Papilio
homerus,
> the butterfly survey of Jamaica is rather good).
>
> Ron Gatrelle wrote :
>
> > >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.
> >
>
> --
> Pierre ZAGATTI
> INRA Unite de Phytopharmacie et Mediateurs Chimiques
> 78026 Versailles Cedex
> FRANCE
> Tel: (33) 1 30 83 31 18
> e-mail zagatti at versailles.inra.fr
> http://www.jouy.inra.fr/papillon/
> http://www.jouy.inra.fr/papillon/arct_guy/arct_guy.htm
>
>