Read THIS version instead: Comments on subspecies, names, P. joanae, USGS, etc.

[HpAzures at aol.com]

(I have corrected the spacing errors in the previous post of this message. 
 How annoying!  This version reads much more smoothly.  I don't know what 
happened!)
 
I’m enjoying the current thread, which has branched out to include discussion 
of Papilio joanae, subspecies, taxonomy and the USGS website.  Finally there 
is some really substantive 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 “bathroom reading material”.
 
Several years ago, I volunteered to take on the massive task of coordinating 
new county records of eastern United States butterflies for USGS.  The new 
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center’s website started out relatively 
small and blossomed out into the mega-site of biological information that it 
now is.  I’m happy to report that the site has received considerable praise, 
press coverage and countless congratulatory emails.  When one visits the site 
and checks out all the links (not just butterflies), you can appreciate the 
sheer enormity of the information presented. The website, notably the 
butterfly atlas pages, is not perfect, but despite 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 broad audience (many of whom know 
little about butterflies or other organisms), and others looking for links to 
more detailed information.  So those of us with more “advanced” interests, 
might not get the satisfaction of obtaining the latest detailed information 
on butterflies, though I’m pretty happy with the way the distributional 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 to see all butterfly subspecies listed on the site, but I’m not sure how 
such a task could be accomplished.  Though Ihave not discussed the issue with 
Paul Opler and Ray Stanford, I can only imagine that including subspecies 
would eventually become a taxonomic nightmare, though not an 
impossiblity. However, I have specifically proposed the inclusion of Papilio 
joanae either as a species or as a subspecies of machaon, with treatment 
similar to the way arthemis is listed.  No decision has been made yet, but I 
suppose there will be some resolution in the near future.  The final solution 
of the Papilio joanae taxonomic situation awaits the geneticists.  Felix 
Sperling has done a considerable amount of work on the Papilio machaon group, 
an enormous undertaking in itself.  I agree with Felix that, while joanae and 
brevicauda are very close to machaon (perhaps even technically subspecies by 
some interpretations), they should remain recognized as separate species.  
 
One disturbing trend that I see developing in recent years is the suppression 
of subspecies in literature, for whatever reason.  Geographical variation is 
seldom mentioned.  Most guides and organizational lists no longer treat 
subspecies, or selectively list only a few.  Publishers may be pushing this, 
some authors may feel that subspecies confuse readers, other authors may have 
strong opinions.  Perhaps the lists are just growing too big, or the endless 
stream of revisions or opinions is too much to absorb.  This goes contrary to 
what I see happening in the field of genetics. Just when we have developed 
tools for unmasking the enormous diversity in living beings, many people are 
saying we ought not categorize diversity below “species” level unless 
compelling evidence proves that taxa are sufficiently “different”, 
genetically.  
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the definition of subspecies was: 
GEOGRAPHICAL RACE, something less than a species.  A geographical race is a 
population that can be distinguished from another by one or more constant 
morphological traits (not necessarily some DNA distance).  If a 
morphologically-differentiated population can breed freely (usually in a lab) 
with other morphologically-differentiated populations and produce fertile 
offspring and subsequent generations, they are subspecies.  Some have argued 
that if there are no appreciable differences between the DNA of two 
“subspecies”, then they should not be considered subspecies, definitely not 
named.  However, in many cases, subspecific rank, based on even the most 
minimal traits, may be the only means by which small populations of 
butterflies receive any recognition for protection. Just remember that 
today’s weakly-differentiated subspecies may yet be tomorrow’s endangered 
species.  If this view 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, then obviously reason stands that DNA plays a part in this, 
however insignificant it may be in a mathematical analysis.  I believe that, 
the view that subspecies ought not be labeled, does disservice to people 
interested in butterfly diversity and ultimately counterproductive to 
conservation efforts (conservation starts with public awareness of issues).  
Yes, I realize that theinformation is out there and that anyone can find it, 
but it is almost amusing when some of my “watcher” friends suddenly note 
that their local variety doesn’t match the picture in their field guide.  
Often, these people don’t even have a clue that there is such thing as 
regional variation, and that these things actually have been researched and 
even have names!  
 
In light of recent advances in DNA research, I hope that we move away from 
the traditional use of the catch-all term “subspecies”.  Instead of arguing 
over whether entity A or entity B are subspecies, very specific, descriptive 
terms ought to be applied from existing terminology, which more adequately 
describe the diversity of life and what an organism exactly is.  So that we 
each know exactly WHICH entities we are referring to, and what type they are, 
these need to be labeled (yes: named).  Following this approach, we might 
refer to designations such as Papilio glaucus “geographical race maynardi”, 
Deciduphagus irus “ecotype lupinus”, Colias interior “geographical isolate 
appalachia”, Euchloe olympia “local race duneus”, and the recognition of 
Pieris virginiensis’ “clinal extremes nordicus and sudicus”.  This may be 
too much for some folks to accept, but we apply names to everything in life, 
so why not butterflies.  The indigenous peoples of the arctic north 
reportedly have different names for snow, which are very important for 
communicating information.  In more temperate regions, we call it 
“hard-pack” or “powder”.  Folks from the tropics might just know it as 
snow.  We each need very specific names for communicating information about 
things that interest us or affect our lives.  If people do not want to use 
these names, then fine, just ignore them.  However, when certain governmental 
bodies wish to find a name for a portion of a population to protect, then a 
name is available.
 
All this comes down to the question: Is either side right or wrong?  While it 
might seem clear that the answer is “neither”, it boils down to who’s 
opinion carries more weight.  In my view, the most recent published opinion, 
in the form of a journal paper or chapter in a major revision work, carries 
more weight.  Everyone has opinions and anyone can either accept or reject 
those opinions.  Much of taxonomy actually is published “opinion” and facts 
are presented to support a particular view.  However, I feel that when 
opinions in the guise of revision are presented as fact without explanation 
(as in a names-list or butterfly guide), opposing opinions or alternate 
arrangements ought to be acknowledged.  
 
I have become increasingly frustrated with the preponderance of names lists, 
each following some differing philosophy, opinion, guidelines or set of 
facts.  The old standards, Miller & Brown. Ferris and Hodges, have become 
outdated to considerable degree.  Thus, several years ago, I adopted a unique 
concept for listing, following the philosophy that the original 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 publish their own opinion on taxonomy in the form of a simple 
list.  I recently presented this concept to Ron Gatrelle, 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 being a lister myself, thus refer to it 
as an “index”.  It will be the reference index used by TILS (presently under 
construction, but we expect it to be online by spring).  We lay no claim that 
the TC-ISBN is the ultimate authority on butterfly names, nor insist that 
anyone use it, but we hope to refine it to the point where it will be 
regarded as a useful tool for anyone interested in a more serious level of 
taxonomy.  
 
Some features of the TC-ISBN will be: It will be available on the internet 
via the TILS website (www.tils-ttr.org); An easy-to-use scolling feature, 
which will be considered, will allow rapid access to information; Taxonomy 
will be updated as soon as research is published and brought to our attention 
(or we find out about it); Every effort will be made to treat taxa as the 
original authors or publishing, researching revisers intended, within ICZN 
rules (thus, no new taxa, such as Celastrina idella, or revisions 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 us on a 
constructive level;  A separate “notes” section will cite pertinent 
references and clearly explain the most recent changes and any differing, 
published treatments;  Finally, subspecies are included!
 
This has raised the eyebrows of some folks who insist that any “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 foster research, not 
suppress it.  And yes, the ICZN recognizes “non-peer reviewed” work just as 
valid as any peer-reviewed work, as long as it meets publication criteria.  
This allows researchers to publish their work in an environment where 
information is otherwise controlled by governments, organizations, or even 
editorial boards!  However, if anyone disagrees, they can present their case 
and publish in a journal of their chosing.  
 
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/20010131/081d83fc/attachment.html