Papilio joanae

[Felix Sperling]

With all this good discussion about the rigorous methods and
excellent observations of Richard Heitzman, it is a real pity that
these data are not fully published. I know there is some early
information in the original description of P. joanae, but I keep
seeing indications of considerable subsequent work. It isn't really
science unless it has been made open to public scrutiny (=published).
Nor is it nearly as valuable for informed conservation efforts. One
of the people who knew Richard Heitzman personally, or even better
has worked with him on P. joanae, should consider working to get
these rearing studies published (perhaps in TILS?). It would be a
really nice legacy for Heitzman and could only help joanae's survival.
 
        Felix Sperling
 
 
>Hey Felix and Listers,
>
>       I agree with the approach that both Doug and Felix suggest
>about subspecies.  I'm not entirely against their use, however, you
>better have a damn good reason to use a subspecific name.  You
>who have been on this list for a while know how opinionated I am
>on this topic.
>
>       As for P. joannae.  I grew up in the Kansas City area, and John
>Richard Heitzman was my lep mentor.  He took a very methodical
>approach in naming P. joannae.  He reared it several times, and
>discovered larval morphs (just *some* mind you) that were always
>assignable as P. joannae and never show up in P. polyxenes.  He
>found different larval *preferences* (different growth
>rates/survivorship on different foodplants), though he could usually
>get some of each "species" through on acceptable plants.  He also
>did crosses and backcrosses from offspring.  Although most F1's
>were apparently completely fertile, some significant hybrid
>breakdown occurred in both F2's and backcrosses, and he was
>never able to get beyond an F3.  So he *didn't* name this species
>haphazardly.  Habitat choice is also a bit different, though you can
>find both species feeding at flowers on a roadside in the woods.
>Having had personal experience with this "species", you can tell
>virtually all individuals apart solely on appearance, so at least
>"subspecific status" would seem reasonable -- certainly this falls
>withing Felix's criteria for subspecies.  Full specific status is
>certainly not out of the question, as Felix suggests.
>
>       My two cents.
>
>               James
>
>Dr. James K. Adams
>Dept. of Natural Science and Math
>Dalton State College
>213 N. College Drive
>Dalton, GA  30720
>Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
>U of Michigan's President James Angell's
>   Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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