subspecies - wing trates?

[Ron Gatrelle]

The most evolutionarily interesting subspecies I have described is Poanes
aaroni bordeloni from east coastal Texas. In fact I coined a word and
term -phenosyncronic subspeciation - in that research. In wing pattern it
differs only slightly from Floridian P. a. howardi. In wing shape it is
very different. But the most important factor is the biogeographical path
this taxon IS on.

I generally see very little attention given to the question of how a
species has been moving in relation to the last period of glaciation to
today - in species or subspecies papers. Populations in refuga are isolated
from other populations of the same species for a long time "in bug years".
Bordeloni's ancestor is hypothesized to have been riding out the cold a
Texas/Mexican refugum while howardi's ancestor was trying to keep warm in a
Florida refugum.  While they have evolved pretty much in-sync
phenotypically, their wing shape reveals that a divergent genetic evolution
has and is taking place. Bordeloni and howardi are surely still the came
species - but they are not the same thing. Sub-specifically (outside their
shared gene pool) they have evolved apart so much so that it is evident to
the naked eye. When you can see what the genes have done (are doing) who
needs an electron microscope! These are just the genetic changes we can
see - know one knows what has and is changing that we can not see. These
two sub-species have been separated for a few thousand years. Don't be
deceived by our human eye - they are not the same thing -though they are
still the same species. This is how we get sibling species.

We now know that Celastrina is composed of several look alike species! You
don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that long ago there was only
one species - the common ancestor. Throughout thousands of years its
progeny kept looking basically alike TO HUMANS - but not to each other! Are
today's lumpers not intelligent enough to know that at some point in the
distant past (between the single species ancestor and the now multiple
species descendants) that ALL these species were ALL sub-species first!

Stanley, I have diverged into my editorial mode to the masses. Beauty is
not skin deep and neither is taxonomy - at the specific or subspecific
rung. If today's taxonomists are so inept that they can't even discern
objectively discernable sibling species like C. idella / ladon or N.
areolata / N. helicta, it is no wonder they can't grasp the various types
and degrees of subjectively delineated subspecies. Its all about evolution
not wing patterns. It is our faulty nose to detect their pheromones that
forces us to rely on our eyes. So when their wing patterns are distinct in
conjunction with their speciation or sub- speciation it just makes the
taxonomists job easier.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stanlep at extremezone.com>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Beauty etc/Re: lep names


-- snip--

> Could it be that it is because of the large variability in wing
> patterns, and that perhaps lepidoptera taxonomists are queing in on
> these as the wrong traits to place populations in subspecific status?  I
> don't know since I am not a taxonomist.  Just a thought.
>
> Stan
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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