Cynthia

[Bill Yule]

Hi.
  Actually Chris did not say that his records of annabella and atalanta
hybrids were fertile and I bear the editorial responsibility if that
impression was given.  Chris' post simply stated that the hybrids exist.  I
was bringing up a hypothetical general point, a "what if" one found a
fertile hybrid from two individuals, "then could" they consider them not
congeneric and "if so" what does that mean about the information that a
generic circumscription gives us.
         Sorry for any confusion. Hope that sets the record straight. ;>}

                                        Bill Yule
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Venters" <nigelventers at ntlworld.com>
To: <droberts03 at SNET.Net>; <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>; <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Cynthia


> Are you sure the offspring of V. atlanta and C. annabella were fertile? A
> few years ago a friend of mine had a Saturnid (Forget which one) pair with
> Sphinx lingustri in a large flight area...I didn't believe him until I saw
> the photos! Needless to say the ova were infertile!
> Nigel
>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Yule" <droberts03 at SNET.Net>
> To: <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>; <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Cynthia
>
>
> > Hi all.
> >    I think Chris brings up a good point: If two entities can hybridize
in
> > the wild is that in itself sufficient to consider them congeneric?
> >   I'm not a taxonomist or an entomologist but I can't help but wonder if
> two
> > butterflies can mate and produce fertile offspring and you can still
> > consider them affiliated with different genera what exactly then does
that
> > taxon (genus) mean?
> >
> >                                             Bill Yule
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
> > To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Cynthia
> >
> >
> > > To me the occurrence of occasional wild hybrids between *V. atalanta*
> and
> > > *C. annabella* suggests that they should be considered congeneric and
> that
> > > *Cynthia* should be ranked as a weak subgenus of *Vanessa*.
> > > ................Chris Durden
> > >
> > > At 11:57 AM 11/4/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >Hi Bill et al.,
> > > >
> > > >Cynthia resurrected by W. D. Field (1971, Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.
> 84)
> > > >for
> > > >cardui, kershawi, virginiensis, altissima, braziliensis, terpsichore,
> > > >myrinna, annabella, carye
> > > >
> > > >Vanessa ss. is for atalanta, tameamea, samani, indica, dejeanii
> > > >
> > > >Bassaris ss. for itea and gonerilla
> > > >
> > > >Lately, the monophyly of Vanessa + Cynthia + Bassaris  has been
> > > >supported by molecular and morphological cladistic analysis by Nylin
et
> > > >al (2001, Biol. J. Linn Soc. 132:441-468), although they do not have
an
> > > >opinion on whether the clade should be one genus or three.
> > > >
> > > >Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >Andy Brower
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >    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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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