Why Mitoura?

[Ron Gatrelle]

"gwang" <gwang at mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
> Hi Ron,
> Perhaps you've explained this already in a previous post and I missed
> it, but why is Mitoura a genus?  In Butterflies of Canada, the authors
> give the following reason for regarding Mitoura as a subgenus of
> Callophrys: "The tenuous nature of the characters separating these
> 'genera' were illustrated by Warren and Robbins (1993) in their report
> of a hybrid between 'Incisalia' augustinus and 'Callophrys' sheridanii.
> In particualr, the valve 'cap' (a sclerotized thickened area at the apex
> of the male valve), used to characterize Incisalia, is shown to be
> present also in Mitoura and Callophrys, but expressed to a lesser
> degree." (page 25)  Is this somehow incorrect, or has some new evidence
> been discovered which justifies this split?  Are the other 'subgenera'
> really separate genera?
>
> Peace,
> Xi Wang
>

Hi,
Good topic. I have actually been wondering when this topic would be brought
up.
No I have not addressed this publicly but am happy to do so - although
email style dictates some brevity which is not my forte. This is such an
important topic I want to answer your post to the general audience.

You have asked the wrong question. The question is not- why is Mitoura a
genus - but why the heck are some not recognizing it as a genus and lumping
it (and other genera) under Callophrys?  In the B.of Canada they give their
reason - which is pretty lame.
They base their decision primarily on the _"report"_ they referred to by
Warren and Robbins. So lets look at this "report".

1) Why is it called a report?  Because it is _not_ an article.
2) It is a "general note" - a secondary type of "report" below a truly
professional level but just above a Newsletter type of report.   And way
way below the type of definitive scientific systematic paper that deals
with taxa at the generic level.
3) The Note is basically one page of text, one page of pictures and one
page of a chart.
4)  The Note has nothing to do with assessing and concluding a generic
level matter. It is the simple reporting of what the authors themselves
called a "presumed hybrid" between what they referred to as Incisalia
augustinus and Callophrys sheridanii. They _never_ call augustinus a
Callophrys. The word Mitoura is mentioned once - in passing. They never
render a verdict relative to generic rank or alignment - simply because it
is not an "article" about that topic but a "note" on a "presumed hybrid".
(Which by its picture looks much like a simple augustinus aberation to me.)
Here is the very last sentence in that paper - their conclusion if you
will.
    "While the presumed hybrid provides no information on phylogeny within
Callophrys (genetic similarity is shared primative traits derived from the
last common ancestor), it indicates that Incisalia and Callophrys are
genetically very simalar, whether they are considered subgenera or genera."
5) This Note makes no congeneric conclusion WHATSOEVER.  "Incisalia AND
callophrys" is how they leave it.

    It is apparent that between the lines Warren and Robbins _opinion_ is
that they lean to (or consider) these various species congeneric. Many
others do not share that opinion. Nor is anyone obligated by any rule (i.e.
ICZN) to follow it.  Genera and subgenera are very subjective taxonomic
categories.  The question is _not_ why are Incisalia, Mitoura and others
split out - the question is why the heck were they lumped after decades of
stability as full genera based on some "note" on a "presumed" hybrid?
     There are various kinds of intergeneric etc hybrids. Just because one
can cross Troides with Ornithoptera are we to now just eliminate one genus?
Are we to just return to the days of only Thecla and Papilio? An augustinus
X sheridanii cross in and of itself means nothing. Which, by the way, is
not even a fact. The specimen was collected amid a 100% colony of
augustinus. The authors acknowledged that the nearest sheridanii were a
good 100 meters away. You should see a couple of the wild grynea
aberrations I have - especially one which will be in our next TILS
Newsletter.
    Let's talk about real Elfin science. In 1992 Dr. Kurt Johnson published
a 141 page research paper on the Palaearctic "Elfin" Butterflies. In this
European published generic level monograph he also briefly touched on the
Elfins of the new world. Here is a real good question. Why did the authors
of B. of Canada ignore this science? I bet they did not ever know of it -
that's why. I have discussed this paper before on Leps-l and at one point
posted the paper's entire generic layout of the North American species.  It
is Deciduphagus augustinus by the way since Johnson's paper.
    Butterflies of British Columbia 2001 by Guppy and Shepard utilizes
Mitoura and Callophrys as genera. The Massive 1998 Systematics of Western
North Ameircan Butterflies utilizes Mitoura and Callophrys as genera. The
1997 Butterfies of West Virginia by Allen employs Mitoura not Callophrys as
the appropriate genus. Nielsen in the 1999 Butterflies & Skippers of
Michigan likewise does not use Callophrys but Incisalia for the relative
eastern taxa.
    There are several larger questions here. The informed opinion of some
of us is that way too much taxonomy is now being presented in books for
public consumption based only on the opinion of a "click" and not published
science. This is taxonomy by decree - not research. Don't be surprised if
science demonstrates that siva and grynea really are different species too.
And people think they are getting stability.
    Xi, thanks again for opening up this topic. Don't be surprised if some
professional jealously now pops its head up and the clicks begin to butt
heads - or be butt heads.

Ron Gatrelle, president
The International Lepidoptera Survey
http://tils-ttr.org


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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