midea

[Ron Gatrelle]

Chris,

The deal with anickae vs taxana according to Klots and dosPassos is not a
matter of what we see with our eye, but what we don't see - which is their
evolution. Klots said the following about the Texas material. "The great
phenetic similarity of the populations in Texas and in the northeast
(annickae) is by no means evidence that they are genetically so similar
that they should be considered subspecifically congruent. To do so would,
in fact, contravene everything that is now known about the evolutionary
differentiation of populations on the specific and subspecific level during
periods of spatial isolation from each other."

Because these two visually similar pops are separated by a thousand miles
of two totally different subspecific/evolutionary units occupying this
space interval they can not be consubspecific. In my paper I only briefly
mentioned a few of the key points from dosPassos and Klots. Yet, my paper
is indeed what its titles says, An Addendum to ... dosPassos and Klots
1969. Both they and I determined that the mass of populations from Alabama
north, and west to TX and Missouri were in such a state of flux that they
are not assignable to any subspecies - this is one giant genetic blend zone
where any and all phenotypes may be found at just about any given location.

There are only three genetically stable pops that have achieved subspecific
stability. 1) Annickae from central sandhills of GA north (except the coast
of GA, SC, and s NC). 2) Midea on the islands and immediate coast of GA,
SC, and s NC possibly to s. VA in isolation). 3) Texana from Texas (except
e corner) north through Kansas. This was not my conclusion. It was dos
Passos and Klots conclusion. I simply verified and concurred with this in
my paper. I did however go one step further and gave the Texas segregate
official subspecific status and a name.

Visually, texana can only be told from annickae by the reduced amount of
black scales at the base of the dorsal wings. This is an accepted taxonomic
character with other species in this clade (see bflys of Can.on sara vs.
flora). (It should be remembered here that a texana with atypical heavy
basal black will look like an annickae with atypical sparse basal black.)
When a series of 40 or 50 specimens from TX and NJ a series of like number
are put side by side this difference is very obvious. YET, as Klots said,
even if they looked identical they are not the same subspecies.

I will try to remember an send you a copy of my 1998 Anthocharis paper. But
the dosPassos and Klots 1969 Entomologica America Vol. 45 paper must be
consulted also as mine is just an addendum to it. I am going to also post
this on Leps-l as my opinion is that few of today's workers are familiar
with dosPassos and Klots paper (and even less aware of mine) as what is
written in various places - esp. field reposts is more often than not way
off from the published scientific record.
With my very best wishes for you,
Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
To: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Arizona field report


> Ron,
snip--
Charles Bourdelon showed me your paper on *Anthocharis* from Texas. A quick
reading without specimens at hand did not convince me but I need to take
another careful look at your data. The *Anthocharis* I am familiar with
from Texas come from West Central, East Central and South Texas. I have not
examined specimens from East Texas. I have looked at long series from
Travis, Bastrop and Llano Counties and specimens from adjacent counties and
I have not yet convinced myself that these insects can be separated from
the *A. midea annickae* I am familiar with from Connecticut and Maryland.
snip---
> ..............Chris Durden



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl