Comments on subspecies, names, P. joanae, USGS, etc.

[HpAzures at aol.com]

I’m enjoying the current thread, which has branched out toinclude discussion 
of Papilio joanae, subspecies, taxonomy and the USGSwebsite.  Finally there 
is some reallysubstantive discussion going on over leps-l. Sorry about the 
length of this posting.  You might want to print it and read it later, 
perhaps as “bathroomreading material”.
 
Several years ago, I volunteered to take on the massive taskof coordinating 
new county records of eastern United States butterflies forUSGS.  The new 
Northern Prairie WildlifeResearch Center’s website started out relatively 
small and blossomed out intothe mega-site of biological information that it 
now is.  I’m happy to report that the site hasreceived considerable praise, 
press coverage and countless congratulatoryemails.  When one visits the site 
andchecks out all the links (not just butterflies), you can appreciate the 
sheerenormity of the information presented. The website, notably the 
butterfly atlas pages, is not perfect, butdespite its flaws, is continually 
improving. Among the problems the website faces is keeping up with the flood 
of newcounty records, and keeping up with taxonomy. The website is primarily 
intended as an educational tool for a broadaudience (many of whom know little 
about butterflies or other organisms), andothers looking for links to more 
detailed information.  So those of us with more “advanced”interests, might 
not get the satisfaction of obtaining the latest detailedinformation on 
butterflies, though I’m pretty happy with the way thedistributional maps are 
shaping up.
 
Unfortunately, the USGS website does not address subspecies,with a very few 
exceptions such as Basilarchia arthemis’ blue-banded (astyanax& arizonensis) 
and white-banded (arthemis & rubrofasciata)subspecies.  Personally, I would 
love tosee all butterfly subspecies listed on the site, but I’m not sure how 
such atask could be accomplished.  Though Ihave not discussed the issue with 
Paul Opler and Ray Stanford, I can onlyimagine that including subspecies 
would eventually become a taxonomicnightmare, though not an 
impossiblity. However, I have specifically proposed the inclusion of Papilio 
joanaeeither as a species or as a subspecies of machaon, with treatment 
similar tothe way arthemis is listed.  No decisionhas been made yet, but I 
suppose there will be some resolution in the nearfuture.  The final solution 
of thePapilio joanae taxonomic situation awaits the geneticists.  Felix 
Sperling has done a considerableamount of work on the Papilio machaon group, 
an enormous undertaking initself.  I agree with Felix that, whilejoanae and 
brevicauda are very close to machaon (perhaps even technicallysubspecies by 
some interpretations), they should remain recognized as separatespecies.  
 
One disturbing trend that I see developing in recent yearsis the suppression 
of subspecies in literature, for whatever reason.  Geographical variation is 
seldommentioned.  Most guides and organizationallists no longer treat 
subspecies, or selectively list only a few.  Publishers may be pushing this, 
some authorsmay feel that subspecies confuse readers, other authors may have 
strongopinions.  Perhaps the lists are justgrowing too big, or the endless 
stream of revisions or opinions is too much toabsorb.  This goes contrary to 
what Isee happening in the field of genetics. Just when we have developed 
tools for unmasking the enormous diversityin living beings, many people are 
saying we ought not categorize diversitybelow “species” level unless 
compelling evidence proves that taxa aresufficiently “different”, 
genetically.  
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the definition ofsubspecies was: 
GEOGRAPHICAL RACE, something less than a species.  A geographical race is a 
population that canbe distinguished from another by one or more constant 
morphological traits (notnecessarily some DNA distance).  If 
amorphologically-differentiated population can breed freely (usually in a 
lab)with other morphologically-differentiated populations and produce 
fertileoffspring and subsequent generations, they are subspecies.  Some have 
argued that if there are noappreciable differences between the DNA of two 
“subspecies”, then they shouldnot be considered subspecies, definitely not 
named.  However, in many cases, subspecific rank, based on even the 
mostminimal traits, may be the only means by which small populations of 
butterfliesreceive any recognition for protection. Just remember that today’s 
weakly-differentiated subspecies may yet betomorrow’s endangered species.  If 
thisview is wrong, or too simplified, please enlighten me.  
 
Maybe there is too much reliance on detailed DNA analysis(my apologies to the 
geneticists), and the obvious gets overlooked.  If two populations look 
different, thenobviously reason stands that DNA plays a part in this, however 
insignificant itmay be in a mathematical analysis.  Ibelieve that, the view 
that subspecies ought not be labeled, does disservice topeople interested in 
butterfly diversity and ultimately counterproductive toconservation efforts 
(conservation starts with public awareness ofissues).  Yes, I realize that 
theinformation is out there and that anyone can find it, but it is almost 
amusingwhen some of my “watcher” friends suddenly note that their local 
varietydoesn’t match the picture in their field guide.  Often, these people 
don’t even have a clue that there is suchthing as regional variation, and 
that these things actually have beenresearched and even have names!  
 
In light of recent advances in DNA research, I hope that wemove away from the 
traditional use of the catch-all term “subspecies”.  Instead of arguing over 
whether entity A orentity B are subspecies, very specific, descriptive terms 
ought to be appliedfrom existing terminology, which more adequately describe 
the diversity of lifeand what an organism exactly is.  Sothat we each know 
exactly WHICH entities we are referring to, and what typethey are, these need 
to be labeled (yes: named).  Following this approach, we might refer to 
designations such asPapilio glaucus “geographical race maynardi”, 
Deciduphagus irus “ecotypelupinus”, Colias interior “geographical isolate 
appalachia”, Euchloe olympia“local race duneus”, and the recognition of 
Pieris virginiensis’ “clinalextremes nordicus and sudicus”.  Thismay be too 
much for some folks to accept, but we apply names to everything inlife, so 
why not butterflies.  Theindigenous peoples of the arctic north reportedly 
have different names forsnow, which are very important for communicating 
information.  In more temperate regions, we call it“hard-pack” or 
“powder”.  Folks from thetropics might just know it as snow.  Weeach need 
very specific names for communicating information about things thatinterest 
or affect our lives.  If peopledo not want to use these names, then fine, 
just ignore them.  However, when certain governmental bodieswish to find a 
name for a portion of a population to protect, then a name isavailable.
 
All this comes down to the question: Is either side right orwrong?  While it 
might seem clear thatthe answer is “neither”, it boils down to who’s opinion 
carries moreweight.  In my view, the most recentpublished opinion, in the 
form of a journal paper or chapter in a majorrevision work, carries more 
weight. Everyone has opinions and anyone can either accept or reject 
thoseopinions.  Much of taxonomy actually ispublished “opinion” and facts 
are presented to support a particular view.  However, I feel that when 
opinions in theguise of revision are presented as fact without explanation 
(as in a names-listor butterfly guide), opposing opinions or alternate 
arrangements ought to beacknowledged.  
 
I have become increasingly frustrated with the preponderanceof names lists, 
each following some differing philosophy, opinion, guidelinesor set of 
facts.  The old standards,Miller & Brown. Ferris and Hodges, have become 
outdated to considerabledegree.  Thus, several years ago, Iadopted a unique 
concept for listing, following the philosophy that theoriginal authors and 
publishing “revisers” (who specialize in a certain group)be fully 
acknowledged as the true experts on their study groups.  Not committees, nor 
authors who publishtheir own opinion on taxonomy in the form of a simple 
list.  I recently presented this concept to RonGatrelle, who offered to host 
such a list on the TILS website.  The name of this list is 
entitled“Taxonomically Correct – Index of Scientific Butterfly Names” 
(TC-ISBN).  I even want to avoid being accused of beinga lister myself, thus 
refer to it as an “index”.  It will be the reference index used by TILS 
(presently underconstruction, but we expect it to be online by spring).  We 
lay no claim that the TC-ISBN is theultimate authority on butterfly names, 
nor insist that anyone use it, but wehope to refine it to the point where it 
will be regarded as a useful tool foranyone interested in a more serious 
level of taxonomy.  
 
Some features of the TC-ISBN will be: It will be availableon the internet via 
the TILS website (www.tils-ttr.org); An easy-to-usescolling feature, which 
will be considered, will allow rapid access toinformation; Taxonomy will be 
updated as soon as research is published andbrought to our attention (or we 
find out about it); Every effort will be madeto treat taxa as the original 
authors or publishing, researching revisersintended, within ICZN rules (thus, 
no new taxa, such as Celastrina idella, orrevisions introduced in the 
Taxonomic Report or Systematics of Western U.S.Butterflies will be suppressed 
until authoritative work to the contrary is published);Comment and input is 
open to all, (there is no formal committee) just email uson a constructive 
level;  A separate“notes” section will cite pertinent references and clearly 
explain the mostrecent changes and any differing, published treatments; 
 Finally, subspecies are included!
 
This has raised the eyebrows of some folks who insist thatany “junk” science 
can then be considered. I would be careful when applying that term.  We need 
to be reminded that the spirit of the ICZN is to fosterresearch, not suppress 
it.  And yes, theICZN recognizes “non-peer reviewed” work just as valid as 
any peer-reviewedwork, as long as it meets publication criteria.  This allows 
researchers to publish their work in an environmentwhere information is 
otherwise controlled by governments, organizations, oreven editorial boards!  
However, ifanyone disagrees, they can present their case and publish in a 
journal of theirchosing.  
 
I’ve made my case, I’m open to criticism.  Fire away! 
 
Harry Pavulaan
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20010131/bf38fe1e/attachment.html