genera

[Ron Gatrelle]

James Adams wrote:

Xi,
> Perhaps you've explained this already in a previous post and I missed
> it, but why is Mitoura a genus?

There have undoubtedly been other responses already to this
question that I simply haven't read yet (catching up after a Labor
Day weekend), but I may have a different one.

The answer to this question is simple.  Differences of
interpretation and opinion.  But there is a more basic underlying
idea that must be understood.  As far as the biological world is
concerned, there *is no such thing* as a genus.  A genus, and all
higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial* constructs used by
humans to represent some level of relatedness.  Genera, families,
etc. cannot evolve (with the rare hybridization being the only case
of some fuzziness) -- only species and populations of species.
Once species are genetically isolated, what happens to other
evolutionary lineages that they once were connected to are of no
importance to the evolution of that lineage (with the exception of
some kind of ecological connection).

So there will *always be* disagreement on what constitutes a
genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs.

To which Jeffery Oliver replied.

Although if a genus defines a recipocally monophyletic linneage, it is
biologically informative, especially if that clade is defined by some
trait which may have lead to it's radiation.

New stuff from Ron.

In these short posts are some very important statments - which perhaps can
easily be missed. James first.
    "A genus, and all  higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial*
constructs used by humans to represent some level of relatedness."

And Jeff.
    "...it is biologically informative..."

There we have it. It is all about humans trying to understand, define and
communicate to each other the what, how and why of the natural world. In
our interest - Lepidoptera. Isn't more communication better than less?
More knowledge and understading?  Is this only for a scientific elete - or
is it OK for all of us to "know"?

Why have we come up with words like clade and grade, geography and
panbiogeography, Danaus and gilippus and strigosus and berenice and
thersippus and...? To communicate "our" understanding of the natural world.
We have discovered fire, the wheel, and even genes. We are suposed to have
gone beyond
"Me Tarzan, u Jane"
"butterfly on pretty thing".

Jeff is absolutely correct - the terms inform.  Subgenera?  Subspecies?
Absolutamente!  James is almost on the money - "Once species are
genetically isolated, what happens to other evolutionary lineages that they
once were connected to are of no importance to the evolution of _that_
[newly forming] lineage."  The statment should be: Once a _sub_species is
genetically arrived into being, what happens to other subspecies of that
species (still connected _only_ because they can still reproduce viable X
subspecific offspring) are of no importance to the _evolution_ of the new
forming linage.

Species do not become species. Subspecies become species. Not "in a way"
but in factual and intellectual truth, "our" terms of subfamily, subgenera,
and subspecies are the most _informative_ areas of study and communication.
No wonder folks just see Pearls and not tharos and coyta (heck selenis
would do).  The new communication is toward ignorance not information.
Strigosus, berenice and gilippus are evolutionally far apart - gilippus is
only stuck in the following ( D. _g._ strigosus, D. _g._ berenice, D. _g._
gilippus) to "tell us"  "by us"  they all came from the same parent (not
gilippus). We have no idea where each are GOING to. To apply "Queen" to all
three of these very different organisms in wrong because it is confusing
via dumbing down. Striated Queen has been used in may popular books for
years - so who scrapped it?

Callophrys, Mitoura, Loranthomitoura are all modes of communication _but_
based on some rational _published_ definition and explanation. Full circle
back to Xi's question. Why Mitoura?  His question was _specifically_
relative to it not being used in the Butterflies of Canada.  The lack of
use there was pointed out by Xi per the authors ref to the Warren and
Robbins article. Which I in turn pointed out was only a tiny note about a
"presumed" hybrid with absolutely _no_ definition let alone explanation of
any generic conclusions whatsoever. The B. of Canada's basing their generic
usage or lack thereof is thus based on nothing.

BUT, is not this all just, as James and many other often say, just a matter
of  "...differences of interpretation and opinion."?  A yes and an emphatic
_no_!  For there to be an interpretation there must first be something to
interpret - data - scientific data. Where there are published papers there
can be, will be and should be interpretation but not _alteration_. One can
not read something into a paper that is not there. Re opinion. There is no
place for opinion without evidence in science period. Hypotheses and theory
are informed questions based on rational observations that point to a
_suspected_  fact. Well, the earth is flat looked like a good theory - till
someone went around it. Once something has been proved as fact NO ONE is
free to have an opinion contrary to it - except religious zealots and
idiots.

Email - how unsuited to this. I'll quit. One other thing though. If all
these ranks etc are really just man made (professor so n so made) and there
is "no such thing as" like James said, _and_ if all our taxonomy and
systematics is just "interpretation and opinion" anyway ---- then why all
the fuss (from Dr. so n so or so-s ) about Peer Review???????     It is
either crap or science. And if science it has to have rules and absolutes
as well as theory. This can not always be communicated to the masses in its
most fine frog hair splitting elements - but it should be reflected as much
as possible. Thus, Mitoura and Striated Queen.

Ron

PS  James and I agree "So there will *always be* disagreement on what
constitutes a
genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs."  I am
just saying let's have more Constructs not less (technical and popular),
and let's make sure new Constructs actually have a blue print published
someplace.  James and I have discussed this in private too -- I don't sweat
the load any more than he does - I just come across on line like I do  ;-)


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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