Name Stability

[Doug Yanega]

Norbert Kondla wrote:

>Certainly I value and prefer the traditional ranks - even tho I may strongly
>disagree with some published rank assignments, eg. the notorious genus
>Loranthomitoura , with 2 or 3 constituent species, based on the arrangement
>of hairs on the caterpillar and specious host plant affiliation. I can buy
>this as a natural group but have difficulty ingesting it as a subgenus,
>never mind a full genus rank.  Seems that some people feel that all 'natural
>groups' (however one defines them) need to have a rank name of some kind
>associated with it.

In a way, this is a better example of the confusion surrounding natural
classifications than people may realize. The "Loranthomitoura" species are
distantly related to Mitoura species (they are closer to Incisalia), so if
one considers Mitoura to be a valid genus, NO ONE can consider it
appropriate to include Loranthomitoura within it - L. either stands alone
or gets lumped with another genus like Incisalia, but definitely *cannot*
be lumped in with Mitoura, since that creates an unnatural grouping of
unrelated taxa. On the other hand, lots of folks don't consider Mitoura to
be a genus, nor Incisalia, and lump the whole mess in under Callophrys, and
from that point of view (apparently Norbert's), Loranthomitoura is just
another name to be sunk. That may be just as valid an opinion, if not more
so, depending on how trustworthy a phylogeny we're dealing with. When we
have no solid phylogeny, then lumping is preferred; the better the
phylogeny, the more confidently we can assign divisions without fearing
they'll collapse into chaos under further scrutiny. It *is* possible to
treat these things a bit more objectively than people are suggesting.
        However, there seem to be many more lepidopterists playing around
with classification per se than are working seriously to define
phylogenies, and that's effectively putting the cart before the horse - if
you want name stability, then establish some stable idea of relationships
FIRST. Sure, we had classifications established LONG before phylogenetic
theory was conceived of, but it's amazing how long it's taking people to
rework their old classifications using some *objective* criteria for a
change. Anyone care to explain why Argynnis and Speyeria are unambiguously
different genera, for example? ;-)

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://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82