Species vs. Subspecies

Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
Tue Aug 14 18:50:44 EDT 2001


Yes, speaking of being pig-headed (and I cheerfully admit to doing that
sometimes too). The use of Phyciodes pratensis over Phyciodes pulchellus as
done in some recent books plainly ignores the rules of zoological
nomenclature. Until someone can prove that the lectotype was not selected
from the type series(which I strongly doubt can be done); the rules make
pulchellus the correct name. At least that is my understanding at 3:46 this
afternoon :-). I take it that you would be inclined to treat different
looking butterflies with structural differences and no evidence of gene
exchange as separate species ? I would really like someone to provide a
single reason for not doing so if there is a reason - other than half-baked
opinions of course :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Gatrelle [mailto:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:33 PM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX; Leps-l
Subject: Re: Species vs. Subspecies



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" <Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
Subject: Species vs. Subspecies


> The perennial problem. I will refrain from mentioning the specifics to
 protect the innocent and also because I am more interested in reaction to
 the logic than the specifics of the case. But the case is real. Here is
the
 scenario: two taxa, allopatric by about 300 kilometres where they come
 closest; they look plainly different and they have structural differences
in
 the genitalia. Seems like the normal taxonomic practice would be to rank
 them as separate species. In fact these two taxa are treated in current
 literature as subspecies.  I am interested in any thoughts on why
different
 looking butterflies with structural differences would be treated as
 subspecies when the normal practice is to go the species route.
>

Norbert,
First,  let me say that I am glad there are now more and more state,
regional and continental butterfly books. More interest etc. it is great.
However, at the same time  I feel more and more that the "current
literature" is becoming a real counterproductive element in the area
(science) of systematic taxonomy.  When the Comstocks, Hollands, Scudders,
Edwards, Klotses put out their "popular" books they also qualified as
cutting edge sceince of their day. Today, the vast majority of authors are
no where near the "old guys" in taxonomic knowledge of leps. It seems at
times they just get on the phone with someone they know at USS Museum or
the like to get Joe-know-it-alls "opinion" and then run with that like it
is the gospel truth. Nothing in any leps. book should ever be based on
anything other than referencable scientific papers - and the references
should be there.

Let me address one positive case. When Gochfeld did the New Jersey book,
under Neonympha areolata he pointed out that the NJ septentrionalis had
been determined by Schweitzer etc as probably a distinct species. That was
mostly correct, however he just mentioned this as there had been no
published revisional paper on that matter. When I did such a paper in 1999
the "whole story" came out which is that areolata is a species and helicta
is a species WITH septentrionalis as a subspecies of helicta. Thus, had
Gochfeld went off half cocked and put septentrionalis out as a full
species - based on correct (but only half the story) information that
septentrionalis and areolata are not the same species - he would have
screwed the systematics and nomenclature up.  He did the right thing in
waiting for a published paper - which now we should all follow.

(By the way, if those of you reading will check the USGS site you will now
note that my presentation of Neonympha helicta as a species has been
embraced. This info is placed as a footnote under areolata.  According to
Opler via Pavulaan, the problem now is separating all the dots under
areolata that now belong under helicta.)

I will not mention the specific "bad" moves in the lit - there are plenty
to choose from. I will give a hint of one place to look and that is with
Celastrina. A lot of half baked opinions  out there esp. of Mr... well I
said I wouldn't mention it...  So, The Experts on this are Wright and
Pavulaan and anyone who is not following their years of detailed and
PUBLISHED research are pig headed egotists. Unfortunately, Norbert, there
seems to be a few of these around today and they have a lot of control over
the popular lit. Thus, the answer to your question. There are those who
don't know what the heck they are talking about but publish anyway - it is
not a matter of science or even rational thinking - just opinion published
as fact.

Ron

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list