In defense of lumping :-)

Jaakko Kullberg jaakko.kullberg at helsinki.fi
Sun Feb 4 06:43:31 EST 2001


Hi all!

Kenelm really hit the point! I have included some comments of mine in the
text.

Kenelm Philip wrote in message ...
>
>'Lumpers' have drawn a bit of flak recently on this list. It's been said
>that taxonomic splitters are people with an eye for differences, while
>lumpers are those with an eye for similarities. There is room for both
>in the system...


In practise we should unite most of the subspecies level taxa together as
much as it is reasonable and in general checklists should mention their
resources when moving taxa or changing their status. Then everybody are free
to check why.... For a biologist it is very normal that every population is
different and none of the specimens are exactly the same. In general the
subspecies level should be calibrated to mean something: I have had the
opinion that subspecies are similar separated populations of a more
widespread "species" and they should be observed as "the closest relative"
of it. If they have eg. clearly different inner genitalia eg. vesica/bursa
then they are species. Eg. the genera Holoarctia and Grammia that I have
studied are very good examples. Arctiids have very simple genitalia and it
is very easy to describe new species and subspecies for them. In the case of
Holoarctia all except one sp. (marinae) endemic to Altai mts. are relatively
the same although there is differences in colour and size. We studied all
the species and check the  inner genitalia where there is more valuable
structures to estimate. North American sordida (in Rocky mts both Canada and
USA) and cervini (endemic to Alps) dropped nicely out as there where
distinct structures in genitalia. Then we had the normal widespread
Holarctic case left and the oldest name for it is puengeleri (Mondy in
E-Sajan mts.). The case is very typical: S-Siberian big one, small
Scandinavian ssp. fridolini, S-Ural mts. undescribed, Altai mts. ssp.
perunovi and widely distributed Jakutia, N-Siberia and Alaska (of course).
All these have very small differences, but if they would occur in the same
place we coudnt be sure which is which. In my mind in this case the most
informative solution is subspecies level rank for the separate populations
that have differences. If they are different species we will descover it
during next glaciation until that we have enough work to do anyway.

In the case of Grammia quenseli. Ferguson has described a form of quenseli
as a distinct species G. philippiana (Sorry, Kenelm I think this probably
originates from your name?). This form as I think it is has very distinct
wing pattern and it is easy to recognize from other quenseli specimens (also
a holarctic sp.).  After publishing the new species it was soon found from
Magadan district in E-Siberia and another similar form was described as G.
olgae by Dubatolov from Wrangel island. I have studied some specimens of
these forms from Alaska and Magadan oblast and they do not have any
differences in the form of vesica or full blown female bursa to Finnish or
Alpine populations. They are just forms not even subspecies as "real"
quenseli occurs also in the localities.

Many Noctuid experts have such a policy nowdays that if a species has  a
separate population it is described as a subspecies + if it has differences
in genitalia or to be more exact, in vesica - it is described as a species.
Some has pointed out that it is "better" in the nature conservational point
of view. I think that's bullshit and we have enough true species to be used
for that! Also we have to understand the meaning of time in the speciation.
Thousends of years are not a long time for insect species as there is som
huge number of specimens in the populations. Different populations may stay
some thousends of years separated from each other and then unite again.

As Kenelm pointed out subspecies should be more informative in the lists.
Some of the subspecies have intermediate zones some not. These are
taxonomically more difficult to estimate are species or subspecies. One of
the best examples comes from Coleopterans and Hydrophilid genus Helophorus.
In Europe there is a close species pair which can breed and these
intermediates can be easily determined and also from subfossils. It has been
possible to find these species easily in great number as subfossils and
people have studied how the intermediate zone has moved during times
thorough Europe from east to west and back during the last 80 000 years! The
record is from Scotland and now it is in Poland as far as I remember.
>
> Meanwhile, in Europe there was _Colias nastes werdandi_, from the
>Fennoscandian arctic--which runs very close to _thula_. I and some of my
>colleagues with arctic interests had been wondering whether _werdandi_
>was really something in the _thula/boothii_ complex and not _nastes_ at
>all.
>
> So, it was interesting to find that all these taxa have now been
>lumped into _Colias tyche_ (a Eurasian species) by Europeans with Holarctic
>interests. A number of other Eurasian 'species' have also been included.
>That makes a very satisfying picture (to the mind of a lumper, at any
rate),
>and provides an underlying organization for what had been a rather messy
>situation, taxonomically.


Yes indeed! Colias tyche is actually "typical" steppe species which likes
"hot" places and flies very early. It is one of the most earliest
butterflies. Truly arctic nastes flies in the mid summer and enters from
Siberia as far south as the Jakutian mountain ridges allow not more south
where biggest tyche populations fly happily in true steppes!
>
jaska



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list