Boloria frigga or friggin bologna

[Ron Gatrelle]

James Kruse wrote:
I'm going to play a little, no offense in particular to Ron, but I'd like
him to clarify the first part.

on 11/20/01 1:44 PM, Ron Gatrelle at gatrelle at tils-ttr.org wrote:
>For example, let's say for argument's sake that most North American Colias
>just happened to look alike to humans in natural light.  (snip) We would
be
>lumping several species under one name.

Ron: This was a _big_ hypothetical to make the point of how too little
information will yield a skewed result.  So leaving that... and going to an
actual.  Assessing Lepidoptera just on the surface (at both the specific
and subspecific levels) is a disservice to science.  The NA Celastrina
(Azure Blues) for a century were just one (seasonally and regionally)
variable species.   Today, we known that just looking at them with the
human eye not only did not tell us what they are, but it actually led us to
consider them something they were not - just "variations" of the old world
argiolus.   The work of Pavulaan,Wright, Scott and others has fully
demonstrated the multiple _cryptic-to-human-vision_ species within this
genus in North America.  This is evidenced by their life history, larval
morphology, male genitalia, and androconia.  It will be interesting to see
how DNA studies will fit into this mix.

>Let's also say that Pterourus eurymedon was yellow and black not white and
>black. (again basing "species" on human visual perception).  Now that
mtDNA
>studies have shown them to "be the same" (and if only knowing the dna and
>visual factors) we would now say these were the same species.

Ron: Here I omitted (duh) mentioning the other taxon - rutulus (Western
Tiger).  The point here is that genetic evidence alone is not always
definitive either.  It is the life history of eurymedon and rutulus that
establish them as sympatric (co-occurring) species.  What "we" see as
yellow and white just makes this visually easy.

James: Yes, true for both of these in spirit, but I am not sure what you
are
suggesting. Name them on a hunch without any human perceived evidence and
hope someone finds a solidly dependable character to separate them? Sounds
kinda candle-lit and mystical.

Ron: My point is that too much of a %  of what we have presented to us in
some of the literature _is_  just candle-lit human perception and not fully
researched science.  For example, the numerous cases brought up here by
Norbert and Ken and the systematics of the Butterflies of BC, Canada by
Guppy and Shepard  shows that much of what is presented elsewhere re
species is just "tradition" and needs to be reexamined and adjusted
(formally published).

> Since so many have abandoned subspecies, it is no
> wonder that they now seem to be lumping the species too.
Ron:  I said this meaning that those who have widened the boundaries of
species can be counted upon to have put subspecies  - out of sight and out
of mind.


James:  I think that in most cases subspecies probably represent clinal
variation.
Individuals within a population are sometimes more variable than
individuals
between populations in several accepted subspecies. Additionally the
"boundary lines" between subspecies often lay in uncollected territory. In
the rest of the cases that do not lend themselves to the above, I ask, if
it
is so distinct why not name it a new species?  Indeed, workers in
butterflies
stand in stark contrast against the rest of systematic zoology on the point
of subspecies.

Ron: We are in agreement.  People might be surprised at the subspecies I
think are not such.  Traditionally, American butterfly subspecies have been
based almost entirely on regional phenotypic differences.  My gripe is that
the problem lies not with the potential or actual validity of a given
subspecies, but with those who have so poorly described (delineated) them
evolutionally.

James: To my mind, _more_ evidence is needed to name a subspecies than a
species,

Ron: A thousand amens!  In my paper (TTR 2:2) in which I described Poanes
aaroni bordeloni the first several pages were devoted to this subject.  The
main heading is:
"Some Mechanics of Lepidopteran Taxonomy"
The sub-headings are:
"Species and Subspecies are Evaluated Differently"
"Evolutionary Function of Subspeciation (Variation)"
"Phenosyncronic Subspeciation"
-The latter is a type of parallel evolution, where the appearence (to our
eye) is much the same but the ecological and/or biological (biogeographic)
evolution is very very different.

James: ...but to many workers the opposite seems true. No morphology, no
ecology, no rearing, no biogeography, no populational/comparative anything.
It just has
that extra special kind of sheen. A little habitat destruction here, a
little global warming there, a little more or less habitat where there
wasn't before or breeding due to increased ease of breeder movement, and
poof! The reddish-orange speck on the wings of one, and the
yellowish-orange
speck on the other, become an orangish speck and the cline breaks down.
Because I think that subspecies are (generally) not very useful, since you
typically need to know where they are from to know what they are, does not
mean that I want to lump species. In fact, I wouldn't lump a subspecies
unless I had the kind of evidence that I think is necessary to make the
decision to raise it in the first place.

Ron:  I think that subspecies are "where it is at".  Where evolution is
closest to our ability to observe.   They do not fit into an objective
box - species do that (more than less).  Subspecies are the species
functioning outside "our" box.   These "steps" need to be documented into
the future.  By the ICZN code "subspecies" is the only term available for
usage at this base level.  I don't mind "lumpers" and "splitters".
Taxonomists have a right to their personal bents.  (I don't mind Jame's
perspective at all.)   What I mind is oversimplification - dumbing down -
at any taxonomic level.   Broad assumptions are easier to put in print than
systematic analysis - which is why I have such a problem with the never
ending flood of "basic" butterfly books.  This type of book is needed - but
that seems to be about all we get anymore.

Lastly, there is nothing sub (below) about subspecies in nature - relative
to "species".  The term subspecies is only sub (below) on paper for the
puropose of zoological ranking in print.   In nature they are the base
manifestation (concept on paper) of a species - a mono species is also a
mono subspecies.  A new binomial (species concept on paper) is
automatically also the nominate trinomial (subspecies concept on paper).
Where two or more "subspecies" exist in nature, each is fully the species
as much the other(s), yet at the same time neither is the species exclusive
of the other(s).  One population/segregate just happens to have been
recognized and named by humans (on paper) before the other(s) - but each is
an equal basic evolutionary unit (slice of the same living species pie)
with is sisters in nature.

Ron Gatrelle



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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