P. glaucus and P. canadensis

[Chris J. Durden]

I think introgression is a very useful test of congenery and a good tool 
for evaluating past generic assignments like *Bos taurus* and *Bison bison*.
    I am still puzzling over a VHW green scaled *Deciduphagus solatus* and 
if it could possibly have acquired this trait through introgression with 
*Mitoura siva* which would suggest back to square one on the *Callophrys* 
monstrosity. I like to think that *solatus* was just reinventing the 
(green) wheel.
..................Chris Durden

At 02:06 PM 6/7/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Yes, for sure. There is nothing in the biological species concept as I
>understand it that prohibits some hybridization and exchange of genetic
>material in contact areas of mostly allopatric taxa.  If we used the
>criteria of any hybridization/genetic exchange as proof of conspecific
>status then we would need to treat L. lorquini and L. weydemeyerii as
>conspecific with L. arthemis. and worse yet we would need to throw Papilio
>zelicaon in the large 'machaon' species pot, and also throw P. rutulus in
>with canadensis etc etc.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris J. Durden [mailto:drdn at mail.utexas.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:58 PM
>To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: P. glaucus and P. canadensis
>
>
>Look for introgression in *P. p. asterius* and *P. brevicauda* in the
>marshes along the St. Lawrence. My clue is in minor variation that I found
>in *asterius* on Ile Perrot QU.
>    The Lyman Collection (formerly at Redpath Museum, McGill U., now at
>Macdonald College) had/has? a Labrador specimen that looks like a good
>*brevicauda* X *aliaska* mix!
>    Just because species can introgress does not mean that they are not good
>functioning species.
>..............Chris Durden
>
>At 07:12 AM 6/7/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >Re. the question about P. machaon and P. brevicauda. Yes, apparently some
> >people think that these are the same species.  What little I know about
>this
> >one is that the rational for this interpretation is the level of chemical
> >similarity in the gene segments that have been sequenced to date. Other
> >people of course hold a different view. To me they are such grossly
> >different looking insects that I see absolutely no reason to treat them as
> >one species.  Using chemical similarity to lump these species is akin to
> >using genitalic similarity to to lump different species (eg. boloria
> >distincta and B. astarte). I would want to see evidence of a fairly broad
> >zone of character intergradation between machaon and brevicauda before
> >viewing same species status as a reasonable interpretation. Interestingly,
> >another researcher has published his reasons for the interpretation that we
> >do not even have P. machaon in North America. A structural difference in
>the
> >egg micropyle was one of the criteria for that interpretation.  There are
>no
> >simple answers to these kind of taxonomic issues of what is a subspecies
> >versus a species. different people have different definitions and criteria.
> >different people will interpret the same data in different ways.  One can
> >chose to simple accept the latest published rationale for a particular
> >interpretation or one can chose to examine the available evidence and form
> >ones own interpretation. I use the latter approach as much as possible -
>but
> >it is time consuming to use this approach.
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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
>



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl