lump/split (Re: D. or C. or I. henrici)

[Doug Yanega]

>Deciduphagus is the proper genus.  The use of Callophrys
>is simply the opinion of those who are on the current historical wave of
>mega lumping of taxa.  There are a number of good genera that have been
>demoted to subgenera by a few prominent US workers.  What they call "genus"
>Callophrys is actually a super-genus.  This is the trend today, 1) do not
>recognize any or very few subspecies, then 2) call good species
>super-species, and good genera subgenera, 3) follow through with lumping of
>subfamilies and families.   This is all a conservationists nightmare as it
>results in a dumbing down of the importance of many local and regional
>population formerly consider valid _whole_ species or subspecies.  As you
>know, all butterfly taxa listed on the ESA list are _subspecies_.   Good
>thing this mentality wasn't around 25 years ago or several of these who not
>be listed today as they would just be considered meaningless "local forms".
>In actuality, this new trend is nothing but subjective opinion and much of
>it without any detailed major published papers.  And some of the papers
>that do exist are just considered crap by some of us.  Someone may say that
>the use of Deciduphagus is subjective also.  And that would be accurate.
>It is also the point.   However, in the case of the Elfins there are very
>detailed papers on why Callophrys, Incisalia, Mitoura, Deciduphagus etc.
>should be considered full genera and basically nothing on why to lump them.

The trend you note is at least in part because increasing numbers of 
practicing taxonomists are adhering to the principle that taxa should 
be MONOPHYLETIC - in other words, there are more *systematists* 
around these days. To a systematist, if one is suspicious that a 
given genus renders another paraphyletic, then the two should be 
lumped until there is phylogenetic support for monophyly. In other 
words, the default choice is to lump until there is evidence in favor 
of splitting, not the other way around. This "mentality" has been 
around for quite a long time, but it's taken a perversely long while 
for it to make a visible impression on the lepidopterological 
community. If you exclude scarabaeoids, cerambycids, carabids, 
vespoids, sphecoids, and apoids, there are very, very few taxa 
outside of lepidoptera where even the *traditional* taxonomists 
recognize subspecies. Like it or not, the trend has long been towards 
objectivity and phylogenetics and away from subjectivity and 
phenetics, it's simply that this trend has been strongly resisted in 
a certain subset of the taxasphere, and perhaps nowhere as strongly 
as in butterfly classification. I'd be curious as to whether any of 
the "detailed papers on why Callophrys, Incisalia, Mitoura, 
Deciduphagus etc. should be considered full genera" actually involve 
detailed phylogenetic analyses.
On the flip side of this, of course, is the trend in molecular 
systematics, which has the opposite effect: nearly any population of 
any organism can be found to have some unique genetic marker, and 
therefore - according to the infamous "Phylogenetic Species Concept" 
- should be classified as a species (of course, this leads to the 
ironic phenomenon of having species that absolutely cannot be 
recognized morphologically - and it's already happening, I've seen 
such papers in print). If you're worried about impacts of taxonomy on 
conservation, then you should become a molecular systematist, so you 
won't have to worry about anyone lumping your taxa. Either way the 
concept of the "subspecies" is perceived to have little or no 
utility, and I do expect that it will eventually be eliminated.
I'm not looking to start a debate, actually - the issue is way too 
large and beyond our control - I'm just trying to clarify what this 
"mentality" you deride happens to be.

Peace,
-- 

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
            http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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