Papilio joanae

[Doug Yanega]

>I may be being heretically unscientific, but I if the reasons for lumping
>are truly based solely on science, then I suggest that additional literature
>be published that provides description and distribution of creatures based
>on variation - regardless of currently accepted taxonomic classification.
 
In the case of P. joanae, the problem seems to be that Heitzman named it as
a species right from the start, rather than proposing it as a subspecies of
machaon - implying a level of confidence about the taxon's evolutionary
independence that was NOT shared by the rest of the lepidopterological
community. Had it been proposed as a subspecies originally, we probably
wouldn't be having this debate.
 
As a taxonomist, I suggest to you the root of the scientific perspective
boils down largely to this:
 
Is there any legitimate need or value to placing a FORMAL NAME on every
geographic variant of a species?
 
We all recognize that such variation exists, we all recognize that it has
ecological and evolutionary significance, and we all recognize that - in
some cases - this variation is visibly expressed and can be characterized
(to various degrees of clarity or ambiguity). But we can discuss and study
this variation without putting names on each variant, as Mark (I think)
implies above. Aside from butterflies, we usually do, in fact. If they're
separate species, then give them names; if they're NOT, and not
evolutionarily independent, then what purpose does a separate name serve?
Why should anyone recognize formal designations of subspecies? Some people
will say we should, others will say we shouldn't.
 
Aside from not really *needing* names, I can think of two reasons why we
shouldn't assign them on a regular basis:
(1) imprecise knowledge of extant variation, mostly based on sampling error
- essentially, formally describing a subspecies implies that you KNOW the
limits of the taxon's biogeography and phenotype (in fact, more precise
knowledge than is required for species designation). To assign names
without this knowledge is presumptuous. Sometimes we have this knowledge,
true, but most of the time we don't.
(2) there is a methodological inconsistency - a double standard, if you
will. If you happily accept and promote subspecies designations based on
visible characters, would you be equally enthusiastic if people gave names
to all the geographic variants whose diagnostic features are solely
biochemical? I think not. Many of us, butterfly enthusiasts included, would
raise a stink if (for example) someone were to describe, say, 15 different
subspecies of the Luna Moth or Buckeye based purely on genetics. Creating
new names for totally cryptic taxa would be a nightmare, but it has exactly
the same conceptual validity as designating subspecies based any *other*
kind of characters. If one is a bad/good idea, then so is the other.
 
We've been over this ground before on Leps-L and elsewhere, and the same
basic arguments crop up each time, both pro and con. For my money, I still
think the only practical use for subspecies is when you have taxa that you
strongly suspect are evolutionarily independent, and therefore valid
species, but you can't prove it, and you wish to be conservative pending
further evidence (in ther words, a subspecies designation is ONLY a
temporary measure, and should ultimately either be synonymized or
elevated). That covers a much narrower subset of our flora and fauna than
is presently accommodated for by the "subspecies = morphologically
diagnosable geographic variant" concept of subspecies.
 
My two cents,
 
 
Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
           http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl