delete button, skippers and hedylids
warrena at bcc.orst.edu
warrena at bcc.orst.edu
Tue Oct 23 14:33:04 EDT 2001
Hello,
In my first week on leps-l I have been surprised to see
how the bad feelings are being thrown around. I have
had my own problems with Ron Gatrelle, and my own nasty
on-line disputes with him. I bring this up only to
point out that very little of the discussion on leps-l
that I have seen has anything to do with Lepidoptera.
It seems that just about every one of Ron's messages
generates some heated dispute. And the resulting
discussions, straying further away from Lepidoptera,
continue to be offensive to some. While I know it can
be hard, almost impossible at times, I suggest that the
best thing to do with unwanted Gatrelle messages is to
delete them, unread. I will try to take my own advice
from now on and just HIT THE DELETE BUTTON. Otherwise I
fear this list will be of little use during winter
months (when fewer reports of lepidoptera occur), other
than to attack each other.
A few comments on Lepidoptera-related topics brought up
this week:
"The separation of butterflies, skippers and moths IMHO
is arbitrary and
aesthetic in nature, rather than having any
entomological validity. We
class skippers with butterflies because folks that like
butterflies also
often like skippers, not because they are particularly
butterfly-ish.
Anne Kilmer
South Florida"
The latest detailed morphological study published
dealing with the classification of butterflies vs.
skippers vs. moths is by de Jong, R., R. I. Vane-Wright
and P. R. Ackery in 1996. The higher classification of
butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects.
Entomologiva Scandinavica. 27(1):65-101. They studied
103 morphological characters in 59 butterfly and 15 moth
species (butterflies included 10 species of skippers).
The results of this study, along with the elaboration of
some of the useful morphological characters used were
presented by Ackery, P. R., R. de Jong & R. I
Vane-Wright in 1999. The butterflies: hedyloidea,
Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. Pp. 263-300, In:
Kristensen, N. P. (ed.), Lepidoptera, Moths and
Butterflies. 1. Evolution, Systematics and
Biogeography. Handbook of Zoology. 4(35), Lepidoptera.
Berlin: de Gruyter. x + 491 pp. These two studies, in
my opinion, are considered to be the latest "word" on
butterfly relationships (molecular studies have not yet
directly addressed the relationships of skippers and
butterflies).
The 1999 paper discusses in detail the morphological
characters that support the grouping of Papilionoidea
and Hesperioidea (p. 267: six characters suggested).
Anyone seriously interested should see the paper because
it is a complex discussion of morphological characters.
This is to say that there is some validity of the
grouping of skippers with butterflies as a monophyletic
group (as opposed to recognizing them as their own group
or with moths). The 1999 paper lists at least five
morphological characters that appear to be unique and
universal (synapomorphies) among the Hesperioidea. (for
comparison, the authors of the 1999 paper present five
synapomorphies supporting the monophyly of Papilionidae,
so skippers are not apparently any more distinctive than
other butterfly families like Papilionidae).
Of course, these papers are FAR from the final word on
this subject.
These papers also relate to the Hedylid discussion:
"The superfamily Hedyloidea, containing the single
family Hedylidae,
with 35 species in a single genus _Macrosoma_, was added
to the Rhopalocera
by Scoble in 1986. The species are restricted to
tropical America. The
antennae are not knobbed, and the adults have a
moth-like appearance.
Taxonomy is a fuzzy discipline--things are often not
what they look like.
Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu"
"Older books place this family in its own superfamily
near the geometrid moths. Newer works place the family
as butterflies or butterfy-moths, close to the Pieridae.
Do a web search on Scoble and you will find much of the
definitive published work on these interesting insects.
..............Chris Durden"
Scoble first published the idea that Hedylids are
butterflies in 1986 (see Scoble, M. J. 1986. The
structure and affinities of the Hedyloidea: a new
concept of the butterflies. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist.
(Ent.) 53:251-286. The idea that hedylids are related
to butterflies was quickly refuted in 1987 in a review
by Weintraub and Miller (see Weintraub, J. D. & J. S.
Miller. 1987. [Review.] The structure and affinities
of the Hedyloidea: a new concept of the butterflies.
Cladistics 3: 299-304. I can say for the sake of
simplicity that Weintraub and Miller are far less than
convinced about Scoble's claims, and point out many
errors and problems with Scoble's study. Scoble has
defended his study (in 1988, 1990 with A. Aiello and in
1992, refs. available upon request), but no thorough
response to all of Weintraub & Miller's points has been
published, and no formal re-analysis of the data has
been made.
The 1996 de Jong et al. paper concludes that the most
likely candidates for a sister group to butterflies are
the Uraniidae or Hedyloidea. The authors admit that
their results are not particularly convincing and many
more taxa should be studied to improve the robustness of
their data. They did not lend particulrly strong
support to the idea that Hedylids should be considered
to be butterflies.
The 1999 paper does not mention the Uraniidae as a
possible sister group to the Papilionidae + Hesperiidae,
for unknown reasons. They do tentatively consider
Hedylids to be butterflies (obvious from the title), but
admit that they do so only "following Scoble's
suggestion," and not based on the results of the 1996
study (upon which the 1999 chapter was based).
So while there is a body of literature that says
Hedylids are sister to butterflies and skippers, this
has not been demonstrated by any rigorous study since
Scoble (1986). I am personally not convinced by
Scoble's study (or subsequent defense), and do not
tentatively consider Hedylids as butterflies. I think
the butterfly-like characters seen in Hedylids are most
likely the result of homoplasy
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
More information about the Leps-l
mailing list