Cynthia

[Bill Yule]

Hi Alex.
   I'm not sure I understand your point or possibly you misunderstood my
question because I didn't make it clear enough. The point I was making is
about the assignment of the genus Cynthia to entities like cardui,
annabella, etc.  The hypothetical question I was posing is if annabella and
atalanta can hybridize, and let's SUPPOSE for a minute that the hybrids of
that union were fertile, then does it make sense to still assign the parents
(annabella and atalanta) to two distinct genera (Cynthis and Vanessa)?
   To use your example of arthemis astanax and archippus, individuals that
hybridize along contact zones, would it make sense at some future point
though molecular analysis or whatever to assign one of those taxa to a
different genus. And if it does make sense than what does that mean about
the information that "belonging to a genus" gives us?  I have no strong
opinion about this I'm just curious what folks think about this because the
idea never occurred to me before. ;>}

                                             Bill Yule----- Original
Message -----
From: "Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com>
To: <droberts03 at snet.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: Cynthia


> Bill,
>
> No, it isn't in my opinion. The hybridization could be evidence of two
> biologically close species which are very closely related in their
ancestry.
> A good example of this are the Limenitis, all of which hybridize in their
> contact zones (including the Viceroy and Red Spotted purple - along the
> Miss. and Ohio Valleys - I have a specimen, it's known as the Rubidus
> Admiral), but which are all probably distinct species (arthemis and
> astyannax may be exception, but there is growing opinion that even these
may
> be distinct, and not subspecies as has been long considered).
>
> Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Yule [SMTP:droberts03 at snet.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:16 PM
> > To: drdn at mail.utexas.edu; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> CAUTION PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is
> intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission. If
the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended
> recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that we do not intend to waive
> any privilege that might ordinarily be attached to this communication. Any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained in
this
> transmission is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us
of
> any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone
> number/email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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