origenes , themistocles variation

[Ron Gatrelle]

Mike Gochfeld asked:
If one looks at a long series from the same place (any place) of either of
these species, how much do the shape of the spots on the dorsal FW vary.
The ones in the photo don't closely match any of my local photos or book
photos.  How close is close enough?
_______________________

Andrew Warren's commented:
I have noted considerable variation in long series of female themistocles
from any given locality (eastern and western populations show considerable
variation in sizes and colors of spots, and amount of fulvous scaling)...
________________________

Ron:  How close is close enough?  That is a difficult question.  In a
single colony  there is good phenotypic similarity in my experience, but
colonies say 100 mile apart are apt to have trait differences.  There are
three areas of variation being dealt with. 1) local variation,   2)
regional variation (which in these taxa is diverged to the degree of
subspeciation)   3) representation in literature.   This is a tough working
arrangement -- especially since much of the modern guides do not "guide" us
to the knowledge that there are very different subspecies in  various
regions, much less guide us to photos of said divergence.   One of the very
beneficial features of the Moths of North America (MONA) issues is that
from the first issues the plates were filled with multiple photos of to
show regional and individual variation parameters.  In several of these
issues the multi-illustrations were not there relative to subspecies but to
simply illustrate a taxon.  The MONA authors, as experts, know that _few_
species can be illustrated by just one specimen.   This adds a lot of
expense to a publication. (I personally especially dislike "artistic
renditions" - unless they are the quality of Howe's in his classic Bflies
of North America - Audubon like.)

This brings me to a subject I posted on a while back.   A beginner
obviously begins at the novice level of learning the basics -- the broad
(taxonomically simplistic) guides fill this nitch.    My post recommended
to those who were advancing on the learning cure to invest in the many
regional and state books that are out there.  They are more expensive yes
but this is where the "real" info is at.   Andy mentioned Polites
themistocles turneri.  That was unknown to me (and I consider myself no
nomenclatural slouch).    His post  sent me to the new Butterflies of
British Columbia --- and there was turneri in all is textual and
illustrated glory.

I get a fair number of photos sent to me either directly or forwarded for
ID.  The number one handicap this "collector" encounters is lack of size
perspective.  As Andy and I have both said on these two -- size is a major
factor we use in field and spread specimen identification.  I encourage
those who use ("collect" via) photos to also make a mental note of the
comparative size of specimens and write it on a field note pad.   I close
here with a copy of my suggestion on this recently to someone.

"....It is _very_ important for those who do not collect to make a notation
of the size of specimens relative to species they do know. (It matters not
that the species used for comparison flies at the same time or is even
closely related.  The object it to provide a reference that most anybody
will relate to -- it was the size of a male tharos (Pearly Crescent),  a E.
lisa (Little Yellow), a C. neglecta (Azure Blue) or E. comyntas
(Eastern-tailed), a J. coenia (Buckeye)  etc etc.)..."

Ron




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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