Species definitions!

[Grkovich, Alex]

The Good Lord has given us who were created in His image so much to do, so
much to learn, and so much to know in this Life and this World. I realize
that, with everything that I do understand and know, that I am only
scratching at the surface. There is so much more to know and so much more is
known by others than that which is known by me. I will confess this freely.

When we do willingly shut our eyes and ears and close our hearts, then we
are in truth no longer alive even though we continue to walk this earth.

As far as the Limenitis are concerned, it may very well be that the entire
arthemis/rubrofasciata/astyannax/weidemeyerii/lorquini  complex is in fact
conspecific since they all freely hybridize in their contact zones and
produce fertile offspring. Their ranges fit one another quite nicely.
Structurally they are nearly similar, are they not? Archippus does hybridize
with astyannax in the Mississippi Valley at least, but apparently produces
only sterile male offspring, and also does rarely hybridizes with arthemis.
It is obviously very closely related to them. What about arizonensis? Is
there any known hybridization with either weidemeyerii or archippus? What is
its true relationship with astyannax? This whole group seems to be in a very
fluid and ongoing continuous evolutionary state. There is obviously genetic
transfer between all of them.

And then we come to the subject of the Buckeyes? What are they? I have a
"Common" Buckeye from Dayton, Ohio that bears a striking resemblance to the
Dark Buckeye (it isn't one, I won't exaggerate, but it certainly resembles
it).
 
Anyone care to elaborate?

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX [SMTP:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca]
> Sent:	Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:16 PM
> To:	'jadams at em.daltonstate.edu'
> Cc:	'lepsl'
> Subject:	RE: Species definitions!
> 
> OK, I confess :-). I do indeed have a bandwagon/agenda. There is so much
> that we do not know about even such a tiny part of the biodiversity on
> this
> planet as my friends the butterflies.  There is a lot of really
> speculative
> stuff and just plain goofy stuff in the literature on butterfly taxonomy
> that needs to be researched and reconsidered under a different light and
> new
> information. We desperately need more people with energy and open minds
> looking into these affairs. The idea that we intelligent human beings
> should
> continue to repeat past errors in nomenclature and taxonomy just because
> some people like to have stable names is highly abhorent to me. There
> cannot
> be progress without change and there cannot be change without people
> questioning the status quo as perpetrated by those who are willing to
> subvert science for reasons of name stability or databasing
> technicalities.
> That is my secret agenda - lets learn more about butterflies, lets have
> fun
> doing it, lets correct the errors of the past, lets share what we learn
> with
> other people who may be interested. As usual, everyone else is most
> welcome
> to pursue their agenda as well :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DR. JAMES ADAMS [mailto:JADAMS at em.daltonstate.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:52 PM
> To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
> Subject: RE: Species definitions!
> 
> 
> Listers,
> 
> 	I'm still catching up, but I have a couple more things to say.  I 
> think I'm also jumping on Norbert's bandwagon (sorry, Norbert for 
> presuming that you *have* a bandwagon).  He's saving me a lot of 
> writing!
> 
> Norbert said:
> 
> <snip> . . . The chemical species
> > concept might argue that two butterflies with, for example, less than
> > 3% difference in gene chemistry are the same species. Extending this
> > logic to mammals would result in chimpanzies and humans being declared
> > the same species. I have some difficulty accepting that there is some
> > magic level of similarity in gene chemistry that defines what is or is
> > not a species.
> 
> This gets back to my point about subjectivity of taxonomic 
> categories.  3% differences is certain traits may be incredibly 
> important to certain organisms and represent what we humans 
> might call even generic differences (or family differences when it 
> comes to humans and chimps), but in other groups of organisms, 
> 3% difference in a trait may be completely insignificant and fall 
> within normal variation even within a population.  What happens in 
> insects may be in no way directly comparable to what happens in 
> mammals, or monocots, or sponges (I'm purposely mixing 
> taxonomic categories to make a point).  When you say a child can 
> recognize the differences between moths and butterflies (even if 
> this was a natural division), that is *all you can say*.  That child 
> does *not* recognize the suborder level of taxonomic 
> nomenclature, only names we have applied to what we *call* a 
> suborder.  A subtle, but incredibly important distinction.  What 
> constitutes suborders in one group of organisms might be 
> perceived as families in a different group of organisms.  It *is* to an 
> extent, no matter how much we don't want to think it is,  *arbitrary*!
> 
> James
> 
> Dr. James K. Adams
> Dept. of Natural Science and Math
> Dalton State College
> 213 N. College Drive
> Dalton, GA  30720
> Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
> http://www.daltonstate.edu/galeps/  (Georgia Lepidoptera)
> U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
>   Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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