midea

[Chris J. Durden]

Ron,
    I shall take another look at specimens.
    What is your type locality for *texana*? Texas is large enough to be 
able to choose to be 5 states if the legislature would ever consider it. We 
may be talking about different populations here!
    I remember pulling out specimens and the OD paper for *annickae* about 
25 years ago. I see nothing in the historical biogeography that would 
preclude full glacial survival of *annickae* in central Texas, along with 
*Mylohyus* and other components of the "shale barrens" habitat, followed by 
repopulation to the Northeast with the other "shale barrens" biota. 
Vertebrate paleontology and botany strongly suggest this scenario. However 
I shall take another look for the wing-base character, although I could not 
see a difference before. The series are larger now. The more variable 
population of the intervening area would I suspect follow the drastic 
opening up of early successional habitat by agricultural development, and 
be a very recent phenomenon. The key might be held in small populations 
along bluffs of the Mississippi where there is a chance for survival of 
relict archaic populations. There may also be relict populations on the 
shale barrens of the Ouachita Mountains. Have we adequately prospected 
these areas to be sure?
.............Chris Durden



At 02:30 PM 4/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>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