on wing patterns

[Ron Gatrelle]

Chris,
    Absolutely. I got ahead of myself and "lumped" under the term ecotype
mutated, environmental, and normal populational variation.
Thanks, for clarifying this. However, all forms and variations which are
there simply because of X environmental factor, are not sub-species. If
simply removing the X factor renders specimens that are not separable from
another subspecies (without locality labels) they are not sub-species
(unless other biological elements distinguish them like bi-mutual toxic
larval hosts.)
Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: on wing patterns


> Ron,
>
> At 11:45 PM 2/3/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
> >The term eco-type is a term that every taxonomist becomes aware of early
> >on. Wing patterns are often the result of genetic manifestation through
> >environmental stimulation. In other words, genes don't always have free
> >will. I call this: variation due to non-genetic will. The most common
way
> >we see this is the long employed "trick" of breeders to subject about
ready
> >to emerge butterfly pupae to sudden cold. All kinds of aberrations are
> >produced this way because it alters (customizes) the genetic mapping.
> >
> >Ecotypes are not subspecies. If "subspecies" (A) from the California
> >desert, when reared in the environment and on the host of a sister
> >"subspecies" (B) from the San Francisco Bay area, produces adults whose
> >phenotype is basically identical to subspecies (B) then (A) is not a
> >subspecies. It is an ecotype - no matter how massive the range and
> >consistent the pattern of the desert population is. The same holds true
for
> >altitudinal "forms".
>
> I agree that there are forms that are influenced by masking regulator
genes
> to produce the forms you mention. These are not however the same as what
I
> learned as ecotypes. Ecotypes are the varieties that occur in balanced
> polymorphism with the "typical" genotype and can be demonstrated to be
> genetically determined. They coexist with the "typical"  genotype because
> of some bi- or polymodality of the niche. There is not enough separation
of
> the modalities of selection to disconnect the genetic exchange that keeps
> them conspecific, yet the selective peaks are strong enough to keep
pulling
> them apart. If they are pulled apart we have (horror of horrors!)
sympatric
> speciation. This has not been convincingly demonstrated to have happened
> but I can think of a number of instances where it may have happened or be
> about to happen.
>     Now where subspecies overlap it is often possible to assign syntopic
> individuals to one subspecies or the other. These are ecotypes at this
> locality. Because of slight differences of ecology we can think of all
> subspecies as ecotypes.
>     I have not yet seen a convincing example of a multi-character cline
> between subspecies. What I see in the instances I have looked at are
> multi-character steps at the meeting of subspecies and these coincide
with
> different elements of habitat.
> ...............Chris Durden
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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