Chlosyne vs Charidryas

[Niklas Wahlberg]

Hi,
    My recent work on the molecular phylogeny of the tribe Melitaeini (see 
Cladistics 16:347-363), shows that there is something funny going on in the 
Chlosyne-group of butterflies. I had 6 species of Charidryas, 4 species of 
Thessalia and 5 species of Chlosyne s.s. in the analyses. The results show 
that lacinia and californica (both normally considered Chlosyne) came 
within Charidryas as the sister clade to gorgone. Thessalia also did not 
form a natural group, but theona came out as sister to the 
Charidryas/lacinia-californica clade. The three neotropical Chlosyne I had 
(janais, gaudealis and narva) formed a monophyletic group that was sister 
to all the other Chlosyne-group species. The bottom line is that most 
likely the best bet is to use Chlosyne as the genus for the whole group of 
species, especially if you want the genus name to signify that all the 
species within it have a common ancestor. The melitaeines are fascinating 
in this respect, there are lots of clear groups (such as Charidryas) that 
turn out to be in the middle of larger genera, eg Mellicta within Melitaea 
here in Europe. May be some day I'll get into those Chlosynes in more detail!

Cheers,
Niklas

At 07:08 2001.03.22 -0800, Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX 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.

Niklas Wahlberg
Department of Zoology
Stockholm University
S-106 91 Stockholm
SWEDEN

Phone: +46 8 164047
Fax:   +46 8 167715

http://www.zoologi.su.se/research/ihp/


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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