Post by eurytides on Mar 20, 2022 21:32:58 GMT -8
Hi all,
I recently got copies of Outsanding Birdwing Butterflies by Deslisle (2015) and Natural History of Birdwing Butteflies by Matsuka (2001). I compared the taxonomic treatments to a 2015 paper by Condamine et al that looked at the genetics of the entire birdwing group (Troides, Trogonoptera, Ornithoptera) and a number of questions come to mind. I'm hoping the knowledgeable members here can pitch in and offer some opinions. I realize there may not be definitive answers...
Arfakensis - species or not? Genetic studies suggest it is a good species and there was a thread on insectnet from some years back where someone commented that the larvae are distinct as well. However, Deslisle only recognizes this as a subspecies. I'm leaning toward species rank mainly because of the genetic data.
Staudingeri - species, or a subsp of Troides haliphron? My understanding is that most people treat this as a species based on differences in genitalia compared with haliphron. However, Matsuka has this as a subspecies. I don't have access to the paper first describing the genitalic differences. Just how big of a deal are these differences?
Plateni - species, or subsp of Troides rhadamantus? Most current sources list this as a species but again Matsuka does not. I'm not able to find the reasoning/evidence behind either way of thinking. In the text, Matsuka doesn't mention why plateni is a subspecies and I'm unable to find the paper where plateni was first elevated to species status (Adam, help?).
And finally, are euphorion and richmondia species or subspecies of O. priamus? Neither Matsuka or Deslisle think they are full species but the genetics say otherwise. Priamus has a huge range and such variation. I can definitely see why it's easy to lump them altogther. Is separating them into species partly motivated by the politics of trying to protect them as endangered "species", sort of like Papilio ponceana? It's not that I don't trust genetic analyses. It's just that I don't think species can be defined purely based on some arbitrary number like "there is a 5% difference in mtDNA between A and B." You can have 2 taxa that differ by less than that genetically, but isolated in nature by geography, time, climate...etc such that they are indeed perfectly good "species."
I recently got copies of Outsanding Birdwing Butterflies by Deslisle (2015) and Natural History of Birdwing Butteflies by Matsuka (2001). I compared the taxonomic treatments to a 2015 paper by Condamine et al that looked at the genetics of the entire birdwing group (Troides, Trogonoptera, Ornithoptera) and a number of questions come to mind. I'm hoping the knowledgeable members here can pitch in and offer some opinions. I realize there may not be definitive answers...
Arfakensis - species or not? Genetic studies suggest it is a good species and there was a thread on insectnet from some years back where someone commented that the larvae are distinct as well. However, Deslisle only recognizes this as a subspecies. I'm leaning toward species rank mainly because of the genetic data.
Staudingeri - species, or a subsp of Troides haliphron? My understanding is that most people treat this as a species based on differences in genitalia compared with haliphron. However, Matsuka has this as a subspecies. I don't have access to the paper first describing the genitalic differences. Just how big of a deal are these differences?
Plateni - species, or subsp of Troides rhadamantus? Most current sources list this as a species but again Matsuka does not. I'm not able to find the reasoning/evidence behind either way of thinking. In the text, Matsuka doesn't mention why plateni is a subspecies and I'm unable to find the paper where plateni was first elevated to species status (Adam, help?).
And finally, are euphorion and richmondia species or subspecies of O. priamus? Neither Matsuka or Deslisle think they are full species but the genetics say otherwise. Priamus has a huge range and such variation. I can definitely see why it's easy to lump them altogther. Is separating them into species partly motivated by the politics of trying to protect them as endangered "species", sort of like Papilio ponceana? It's not that I don't trust genetic analyses. It's just that I don't think species can be defined purely based on some arbitrary number like "there is a 5% difference in mtDNA between A and B." You can have 2 taxa that differ by less than that genetically, but isolated in nature by geography, time, climate...etc such that they are indeed perfectly good "species."