Chlosyne vs Charidryas

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Thu Mar 22 13:02:22 EST 2001


Norbert,
    Both are correct! This depends on the choice of a lumper or a splitter.
*Melitaea palla* - is traditional and wrong as it mixes tribes.
*Chlosyne palla* - is tribally correct but confusingly conservative.
*Chlosyne (Charidryas) palla* - is correct and of most use for 
communication with dinosaurs.
*Charidryas palla* - is strictly correct.

Chlosyne janais (Drury, 1782) Butler 1870 - Type Species
Charidryas nycteis (Doubleday & Hewitson, 1847) Scudder, 1871. - Type Species.
See the series of papers by Higgins in Trans. Roy. Ent. Soc. London.

..............Chris Durden

At 07:08 AM 3/22/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Various literature places some western north american species, eg. Chlosyne
>palla, into either the genus Chlosyne or Charidryas.  I would be very
>interested in any and all views on which version of these genus names is
>deemed to be most 'correct'. Literature citations or data to support either
>view would be welcome but opinions with a rationale would be equally
>welcome. Thank you.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
>Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Ministry of Environment
>845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
>Phone 250-365-8610
>Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
>http://www.env.gov.bc.ca
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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 
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list