Mimic Crescent

[Ron Gatrelle]

Thought I would post some thoughts from some private exchanges I've had
since the publication of my Phyciodes incognitus (Mimic Crescent) paper.

As expected, questions have come my way.  Some of these are more expected
than others because some are more relevant than others.   In particular, I
have found the questions about these all being just tharos _forms_ due to
possible variation due to environmental differences the most irrelevant.
This is because a close reading of the paper would answer that question.
In this type of research _that_ question is the first any researcher would
ask and answer.  And it is answered therein.

(Even though most on both list-serves don't have the pictures mentioned
below I think the text points below still convey a "picture" of the
situations.)

There are other things that are evident but not obvious in the paper.  For
example the figures depict the variation is tharos and incognitus.   This
is not stated so it is easy for someone to miss this completely.  The males
figured as #27 and #35 are as dark as spring specimens of incognitus get.
This is contrasted to tharos spring male #29 which is the normal look of
early season tharos.   There is a huge difference in these phenotypes,
which is why the Mimic is not a mimic of tharos but of cocyta (Northern
Crescent).  Mimic males #32 and #38 show the normal summer form of
incognitus and #40 same for tharos males.  The visual result IS mentioned
in the paper, which is that tharos is _much_ more variable on its underside
markings spring to fall than are males of incognitus.  Evident by text and
illustrations but not obvious because it was not specifically stated that
the illustrations show the _range_ of variation.

In the same way, I chose the uppersides to illustrate how the sexes of
incognitus are marked alike on the upper surface season to season.   #30
and #31 are spring form incognitus and #32 and #33 are summer form.  In
both instances the sexes are very similar in dorsal pattern.   Again stated
in the text as an overall point, but not specifically stated that the
pictures show this.  I had assumed that anyone reading the text and looking
at the pictures (and noting their dates) would have made the connection.
This similar phenotype of incognitus sexes carries over into the textual
and illustrated difference between incognitus sexes and those of cocyta.
In cocyta (#42 and #43) we see that the sexes in cocyta are marked very
differently both above and below.  Ditto for diminutor (Summer Crescent) in
#25 and #26 - sexes marked quite differently.

In the female of incognitus I figure three forms, #28, #36, and #33 which
illustrated the maximum variation on the underside.  28 and 36 both being
spring forms - with 28 being the less common.   What I did not specifically
mention is that the undersides of spring tharos #29 male and #34 female is
_the_ form found in early spring tharos.  All early season thaors are
heavily marked beneath - which is why I didn't illustrate any more lower
surfaces of spring tharos.

What I did in chosing illustrations (for my limited space) was to show the
markings and phenotypes that would answer all questions relative to sexual
and seasonal variation in all these species.  As I said, evident, but not
obvious.  No one will ever find first generation mountain tharos that looks
like the sympatric spring male of incognitus illustrated in #27 - a first
generation form of incognitus that is not uncommon.  No one will find
cocyta sexes that match (as do incognitus sexes).  No one will find male
tharos in the Appalachians with entirely orange clubs.

If anyone has any other questions, comments, please let me know.   I hope
this bit of extra info re the illustrations will make the evident also
obvious. :-)

Ron Gatrelle

PS  First page of this paper can be found at
http://www.tils-ttr.org in the Taxonomic Report section and an update in
the NEWS section of that web site in the Oct. 04 News.



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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