Ceryconis and species concept

[Grkovich, Alex]

...but I have found darker "alope" (actually probably "maritima") flying in
the same dry field with "nephele" in various locations in central New
England and also near Windsor, Ontario. And "alope" integrades to "maritima"
in northeastern Massachusetts. Etc. etc. Large, beautiful "nephele" with
large FW eyespots with deep blue pupils fly in dry fields at moderate
elevation in northwestern Massachusetts.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Michael Gochfeld [SMTP:gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu]
> Sent:	Monday, February 18, 2002 8:04 AM
> To:	John.Calhoun at SempermedUSA.com
> Cc:	'Ron Gatrelle'; TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com;
> leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject:	Ceryconis and species concept
> 
> John Calhoun wrote:
> 
> > Ron,
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify your work. I really
> > appreciate it.  Something that still bothers me though is the similarity
> of
> > this relationship with Cercyonis pegala in the north.  You find "alope"
> > throughout the south, but primarily in upland sites northward.  You find
> > "nephele" in the far north, but also in bottomlands (marshes, fens,
> bogs)
> > further south.  They act differently and seem to stick to their own
> > habitats. They can occur together at in the same area, separated by only
> a
> > few yards.  There has been considerable work to try and understand this
> > relationship, but they are still considered the same species with
> variable
> > phenotypes ("intermediates" are common).  Admittedly, more work needs to
> be
> > done on Cercyonis to fully explain this situation. I think the current
> > concept of a "species" needs to be completely updated in order to
> explain
> > some of these relationships!
> >
> > Thanks!
> > John
> 
> ================================================================
> Or alternatively our understanding of creatures like Ceryconiis (Common
> and
> Not-so-Common Wood Nymphs) may have to be updated  to take into account
> that,
> since evolution is an active process, there isn't a consistent
> species/subspecies designation for such a species, and we have to qualify
> our
> observations and reports to take this into account).  Not everyone who
> works
> with butterflies believes in evolution and perhaps they have an easier
> time
> dealing with these uncertain issues.  MIKE GOCHFELD
> 
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Gatrelle [mailto:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:50 AM
> > To: John.Calhoun at SempermedUSA.com; TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [leps-talk] Digest Number 78
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Calhoun" <John.Calhoun at SempermedUSA.com>
> > Subject: RE: [leps-talk] Digest Number 78
> >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > I'm a little out of the loop on the areolata/helicta discussion, so
> > please
> > > forgive me if this is repetitive.  Has anyone actually conducted any
> > > electrophoresis on these phenotypes? I know you spent a lot of time
> > working
> > > on these bugs, but most Florida workers are not yet convinced that
> more
> > than
> > > one species is found here.  I have read your treatment more than once,
> > but
> > > can't totally sell myself on your conclusions.  I know that John
> Heppner
> > is
> > > not convinced either.  He synonymizes helicta under areolata in his
> > > forthcoming update of the Kimball catalog. You may be completely
> correct,
> > > but I'm afraid this may be comparable to the Megisto cymela/viola
> > scenario
> > > which we have shown actually represents two subspecies that exhibit
> > > intermediates in many areas. Can you offer any help here?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > John
> >
> > There are at least two issues here.   First, Heppner is a moth
> specialist.
> > I am finding more and more that he has a tendency to get into butterfly
> > matters that he knows nothing about.  Thus, Heppner's position on this
> and
> > any number of butterfly taxa carry no weight with me whatsoever -
> however,
> > it surely does with others.  For him to present helicta (which includes
> the
> > subspecies helicta, dadeensis and septentrionalis) as synonymous with
> > areolata is nothing short of absurd.  This type of personal
> check-listing
> > is certainly not "conservative".
> >
> > Second, the scientific case for helicta has been made, by others than
> > myself - and before and after I did.  This sibling speciation has also
> been
> > accepted by others - and before and after my paper.  The sibling status
> of
> > helicta and areolata has either been accepted, or is strongly suspected,
> by
> > a lot workers.  There is not only no published research to
> scientifically
> > dispute these two as species, there is not even any unpublished research
> > into this. There is just the opinion of a couple of people who do not
> know
> > what they are talking about.   (I am not referring to John Calhoun here
> or
> > anywhere else in this post.)
> >
> > Third, there are no records of N. helicta helicta in Florida, and I have
> > never seen any specimens from that state.  If it is there it would be in
> > the panhandle. However, when I lived in Pensacola in the late 1960's
> > areolata was all I found there.  (I did find helicta along the Alabama
> > coast - nr. Foley - in 1968.)
> >
> > What is found in Florida is N. helicta dadeensis (described from south
> of
> > Miami in Dade Co.).  This was first mentioned as unique in the lit. by
> > James Scott in Butterflies of North America in 1986 on page 238.
> Dadeensis
> > is recognized as a valid subspecies on the NatureServe web site.
> >
> http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?loadTemplate=tabul
> a
> > r_report.wmt&paging=home&save=all&sourceTemplate=reviewMiddle.wmt
> >
> > (The information there is by Dale Schweitzer and quoted below)
> >
> > " Neonympha areolata dadensis
> > Heritage Identifier: IILEPN3013
> > Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and
> > Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
> > Genus Size: 2-5 species
> > Taxonomic Comments: Gatrelle (1999) separated the taxon N. A.
> > SEPTENTRIONALIS (Davis) as a full species, applying the name N. HELICTA
> > (Hubner, 1808) to it and then described DADENSIS as a subspecies. Thus
> this
> > taxon was actually described as N. HELICTA DADENSIS. While a lot of
> > knowledgeable persons suspect Gatrelle was right about there being two
> > species, he fails to present much evidence. Most critically he fails to
> > illustrate or substantially discuss alleged genitalia differences. Both
> > Paul Opler and Dale Schweitzer have considered this decision and agree
> that
> > for now there is insuffcient evidence to recognize two species and
> > therefore in this database the present taxon becomes a subspecies of N.
> > AREOLATUS. It does appear to be a distinctive taxon and could even prove
> to
> > be a separate species. D.Schweitzer. "
> > ---  end NatureServe quote
> >
> > Two things here.  Schweitzer states in this last sentence that dadeensis
> is
> > not only a good subspecies (which is why it _is_ listed as such on the
> > NatureServe web site) but that it is also quite possible that it is a
> > separate species (from areolata).  Yet Heppner plans to sink this?
> > Schweitzer's position can certainly be called "conservative taxonomy"
> But
> > Heppner's is frivolous.  (It should also be noted that in my description
> of
> > dadeensis I myself raised the possibility that this taxon might actually
> be
> > a subspecies of areolata - so Schweitzer is still within the parameters
> of
> > my research and position.)    Second, this data has been up on the
> > NatureServe web site for some time.  Schweitzer mentions Opler's
> position
> > at that time.
> >
> > This has now changed. Opler and Pavulaan (I do not know about Stanford
> on
> > this) as the primary USGS researchers have now accepted and listed N.
> > helicta helicta as a valid species.
> >
> >  http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa/usa/130.htm
> >
> > Here is Opler's current statment on this on USGS (which was just put up
> in
> > the last few months).
> >
> > "  The Nature Conservancy Global Rank: G5 - Demonstrably secure
> globally,
> > though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the
> > periphery.
> >
> > Management needs: Depends on fire succession habitats.
> >
> > Note: It has been determined that this species actually consists of two
> > separate species, Neonympha areolata and N. helicta. Future revisions of
> > this page will take this into account.
> >
> > References:
> >
> > Gatrelle, R. R. 1999.  Huebner's helicta: the forgotten Neonympha. The
> > Taxonomic Report 8: 1-8.
> >
> > Opler, P. A. and G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great
> Plains.
> > Johns  Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 294 pages, 54 color plates.
> >
> > Opler, P. A. and V. Malikul. 1992. A field guide to eastern butterflies.
> > Peterson  field guide #4. Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston. 396 pages, 48
> color
> > plates.
> >
> > Scott, J. A. 1986. The butterflies of North America. Stanford University
> > Press,  Stanford, Calif. 583 pages, 64 color plates. "
> > ---- end USGS quote
> >
> > This current position of Opler can also be called "conservative
> taxonomy".
> > As it is based on the latest and best (only) published research - mine.
> > Don Lafontaine was in contact with me some on this in 2000 as he had
> done
> > some dissections.  He informed me that his results were inconclusive.
> He
> > knows what he is doing and I have no problem with his results.  My own
> > dissections showed that South Carolina areolata and helicta were close
> in
> > genitalia and that the differences were subtitle. I described these in
> my
> > paper.
> >
> > I acknowledged in my paper that a _lot_ more work needed to be done on
> this
> > group. Synonymizing all these taxa is not only counterproductive but
> > completely uncalled for - and the exact opposite direction others who
> work
> > with this group have been proceeding in.  I am especially interested in
> the
> > double brooded NJ pops mentioned on the NatureServe site under
> > septentrionalis.  I have a number of true septentrionalis here and
> > topotypical helicta are just as large.  My suspicion is that the NJ
> smaller
> > double brooded entity is  a northern form of areolata.  In my paper all
> > figures are natural size - the neotype male of helicta is only slightly
> > smaller than the topotype septentrionalis male, but the topotype female
> > helicta is 1/8 th inch larger across than the female of septentrionalis.
> >
> > I mention this again.  The smaller, narrow long eyespotted, closed PM
> line
> > inside the VHW margin, low & slow flying, angulate winged areolata flies
> > sparingly in the swamp forest of the Edisto River at the same time and
> less
> > than 300 yards from the much larger, round eyespotted, open PM line at
> VHW
> > margin, higher & faster flying, rounded winged helicta that can be
> common
> > in the surrounding Turkey oak sandhill in Aiken County South Carolina.
> The
> > topotypical colonies of areolata around the Savannah region of Georgia
> are
> > the same phenotype as the Aiken areolata and have the same habitat and
> > flight characteristis - except they are abundant in that part of the
> world.
> > Areolata is typical of coastal maritime forest, which often has low
> marshy
> > areas within it.
> >
> > Species that fly with helicta helicta at the type locality are:
> Hesperia
> > attalus slossonae (Eastern Dotted Skipper) , H. meskei (Meske's) ,
> Atrytone
> > arogos arogos (Arogos),  Megathymus cofaqui cofaqui (Cofaqui Giant
> > Skipper), Satyrium edwardsii meridionale (Sandhill Hairstreak) none of
> > these fly with the areolata in the valley 300 yard away.  The following
> are
> > found with areolata and not helicta at the Aiken site.  Amblyscirtes
> > aesculapius (Lace-winged Roadside Skipper),  Anthocharis midea annickae
> > (Falcate Orangetip), Satyrium kingi (King's Hairstreak), Enodia creola
> > (Creola Pearly Eye), E. portlandia portlandia (Southern Pearly Eye),
> > Satyroides appalachia (Appalachian Brown).
> >
> > Helicta is to areolata what Satyroides appalachia is to S. eurydice
> (Eyed
> > Brown).
> >
> > Ron Gatrelle
> >
> > PS  Thanks for the contact John.  As Schweitzer stated above: " ... a
> lot
> > of knowledgeable persons suspect Gatrelle was right about there being
> two
> > species.." Unfortunately, Heppner has never contacted me on this (or
> talked
> > with me about this when I've been down there).
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
> > Monitoring Service trial
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/CCYolB/TM
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> >
> > TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know." © 1999
> >
> > Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> > Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
> > Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
> > Unsubscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> > For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    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