Papilio joanae

[Ron Gatrelle]

Well, my Papilio joanae post didn't stir up much response. So I'll respond
myself. Taxa should be elevated or lowered only upon formal scientific
publication dealing specifically with the change in status. I know of
nowhere where this has been done with P. joanae. I received three off line
suggestions to consult the work of Felix Sperling, and also Tyler et al in
Swallowtails of the Americas. I do not own the latter. I have examined the
Book at the FSCA library in Gainesville (this was in regard to my
description of Pterourus troilus fakahatcheensis). I personally found this
book inaccurate in various taxonomic areas.
 
One off line post (a fourth) echoed this same sentiment. The individual
relayed their puzzlement at the books lumping of brevicauda and joanae
under machaon, canadensis under galucus, and zelicaon under polyexenes. Not
having this handy I can neither confirm or deny these taxonomic
misalignments. (Someone else can jump in and state how these are treated
for sure in the book.)
 
On Dr. Sperling's position/research. I have in my hand as I write this a
manuscript copy of an article (dated 5/12/00) Sperling had in press at the
time he sent it to me. (It is on molecular systematics.) This looks to be
the latest thing he has done on the subject. (Since Dr. Sperling is a
Leps-l subscriber, and thus privy to these post, he can surely correct me
if any of my interpretations of this paper are incorrect.)
 
He has joanae and brevicauda in a tenuous alignment. (I hesitate to give
too many specifics and will give no direct quotes, as this paper may not be
published as yet -- this is his thunder.) I think it is safe to say that
while he sees certain clear genetic influences and affinities, he does not
call these two taxa official subspecies of machaon or factual species. (I
will not state how he refers to them in the paper as  _____ or _____ ______
under Papilio.) My own conclusion from his mtDNA assessment of joanae and
brevicauda is that they are evolving away from machaon and polyexenes. So
that if they are not yet full species they are certainly very close (in
eonic time) to this status.
He retains glaucus, canadensis, rutulus, and multicaudata as clear species.
Zelicaon and polyxenes are likewise addressed as species. This is probably
all I should relay.
 
There certainly is no valid reason for the USGS listing to omit P. joanae
because there is no published scientific paper that sinks it and delineates
why -including the in press Sperling paper.
 
I have not used one of my favorite subject terms lately - dumbing down. It
exists here in my opinion.  "The money" that is buying the butterfly books
and the butterfly gardner-watcher-house industry right now is largely that
of amateurs and new-comers. I believe they are being  grossly short changed
by the mention-no-subspecies policy of the current Powers That Be. Perhaps
this is because the Powers know that there are thousands of undescribed
butterflies and moths in the world and this "knowledge" might instigate a
whole new generation of scientific collectors. I'll quit here.
Ron
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl