P. joanae, Name Committees misconceptions

[Felix Sperling]

Great discussion on systematics. I just want to make some quick 
comments on joane and then correct some misconceptions on that 
horrible Names Committee.

Ron Gatrelle's speculations on the origin of the black wing pattern 
were unfortunately based on incomplete information. As Neil Jones 
pointed out, Eurasia is without black morphs and yet clearly has 
several basal lineages within and below the machaon group. Even 
within North America, the closest relative of P. polyxenes is P. 
zelicaon, which only has black morph individuals on the eastern edge 
of its range where it is most simply explained by introgression from 
P. polyxenes. In fact, many populations within P. polyxenes are 
closer to the yellow morph, including P. polyxenes coloro, and then 
the geographic races in Latin America. In fact, Ecuador samples of P. 
p. americus had more mtDNA diversity than all the rest of the range 
of P. polyxenes put together, suggesting that those populations may 
be older. This information and logic train, by the way, is in my 
paper in the 1994 issue of Evolution 48: 408-422.

In general, speculation is good for the soul. It lets the imagination 
soar and helps people to come to new ways of understanding our world. 
But it is helpful when the speculation attempts to include the 
available information.

As for subspecies names, I suggest that one reason why they are 
declining in use in many research circles is actually related to the 
power of DNA to give new information about the relationships of 
populations. In the work that I am familiar with, mtDNA more often 
than not fails to support traditional geographic races even when they 
have a distinct wing pattern. This is true for P. polyxenes coloro, 
as well as many of the P. machaon subspecies across the Holarctic 
region. This does not mean that DNA is right and wing pattern is 
wrong. Rather it shows that there is a clear conflict between them in 
many cases, and raises the possibility that wing pattern differences 
are not a fail safe indicator of underlying genetic differences at 
the level of geographic races.

Finally, as much as I am reluctant to re-enter the fray on the Names 
Committee, I do need to say a few things.  [you wouldn't believe how 
much abuse was flung around on this subject, including phone calls 
haranguing me for hours, and in diametrically opposite directions] 
First, I was one of the 5 members of that "self appointed" committee 
which was originally put together by Jeff Glassberg, but I do not 
speak for the whole group. After meeting for 3 years in a row, the 
group did not meet again last fall and there is no plan for it to do 
so in future. I see, however, that the widely perceived need for some 
form of evaluation and condensation of the taxonomic chaos out there 
is already taking another course. I wish Harry Pavulaan and the 
supporters of the TC-ISBN well (even though I have no desire to be in 
their shoes).

Our committee didn't include subspecies names simply because they 
represented an overwhelming amount of work and a real quagmire of 
what Norbert calls unsupported opinion. When there is no or very 
little supporting evidence for conflicting names, what do you do? So 
we concentrated on the species level. Choosing to deal with a level 
that is manageable is *not* the same as what John Shuey describes as 
intentionally "burying" names. I can state one thing categorically. 
We did *not* have any intention of suppressing taxonomic research. 
Instead, we hoped to stimulate publication of papers that were more 
clearly *evidence-based*. We also wanted to help to filter the 
taxonomic confusion that so many butterfly watchers complained about 
so vociferously. We hoped to do this primarily by raising the bar on 
the amount of evidence that is expected before taxonomic changes are 
accepted in field guides. Such guides are used by an overwhelming 
majority of people who really don't care about the nuances of the 
taxonomy. Based on my experience in butterfly counts and with general 
naturalists, I'm betting that the majority are irritated by or even 
hostile toward the confusion between current guides.

Finally, and still keeping to the theme of actually considering the 
available evidence, what is the evidence for John Shuey's statements 
that:

"If the Committee has its way, these names would be quickly buried 
for all time, and no one would ever dare dig them up or investigate 
them in the field.  The Committee does a disservice to curious minds 
- many of us actually have thought processes of our own. Look at what 
might have (and in fact briefly did) happen with Papilio joanae. 
Despite the fact that Hietzman actually presented a very convincing 
case supporting a biological species concept in the original 
description, "better scientific minds" knew better, and immediately 
sunk it.  If it weren't such a distinctive species (it really isn't 
that similar looking to P polyxenes if you have a feel for machaon 
phenotypes) it may still be lost today.  But despite the 
proclamations of "better minds" they simply could not make this 
inconvenient butterfly go away."

So what did this dread committee actually do? Is there any indication 
that John Shuey took a few minutes to examine the report of the 
committee, as published in News of the Lepidopterists' Society 42(1) 
page 9 and 13? [the spring 2000 issue]. In the first column of page 
9, it says that:

"3. Felix Sperling explained the evidence for including Papilio joane 
on the list of North American butterflies. The evidence is that it is 
more allied to the machaon complex than to Papilio polyxenes, but is 
sufficiently distinct to merit species-level treatment. For Papilio 
joanae, the key point was not that it was "sufficiently distinct to 
merit species-level treatment", but rather that we should err on the 
side of taxonomic stability by continuing with the most common 
treatment. New evidence, although indicating that mtDNA shares close 
ancestry with Papilio machaon, is insufficient by itself to justify 
synonymy. The committee agreed unanimously."

Note that the report says that the committee agreed unanimously. This 
is distinct from some of the other cases where it refers to a 
"committee consensus", which is a polite, bureaucratic way of saying 
that the vote was 4:1 or 3:2.

So why does the USGS website not include P. joanae? I really don't 
know. My sincere guess is that it is a bureaucratic mistake by 
someone that didn't know what they were doing - perhaps even a matter 
of using the old working list that we started with but moved 
immediately to make "corrections" on. Why doesn't someone just ask 
the USGS people directly?!

More importantly, I think it is time to consider carrying out this 
discussion based on evidence, not on the supposition of sinister 
conspiracies by powerful and faceless committees. John Shuey gives 
our committee far too much credit. He assumes a malevolent 
intelligence that just ain't there. The five of us on the committee 
all have PhD's, that's true. But so does Dr. Shuey, and he has just 
demonstrated that mistakes can be made if you read too much into a 
situation. Those who make stupid mistakes include John Shuey, who is 
actually paid to examine evidence carefully, as he pointed out in the 
discussion of data verification for Nature Conservancy decisions.

I think that a few less conspiracy assumptions might help the clarity 
of thinking here. We who are taxonomists (paid or not) are people 
just like John Shuey, whether he finds it convenient to use his 
"John" or his "Dr. Shuey" persona.


Felix Sperling


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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