|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 11, 2012 8:37:05 GMT -8
And as we are talking about Papilio, here is a beauty..Missing 1 antenna, but apart from this in great condition with no repairs. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2012 10:13:16 GMT -8
SUPERB homerus. If you remember my post from last year, I got stung with chikae when I ordered hermeli, fake data and all, wont be ordering from that company again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zacatak on Sept 11, 2012 15:18:14 GMT -8
nice homerus thanos  have you ever been tempted to fix/replace, a antenna? |
|
|
|
Post by Zacatak on Sept 11, 2012 15:24:50 GMT -8
i thought hmm should i share my views on both hermeli and chikae  ...well,   i believe myself hermeli to be a ssp to chikae, i dont believe they are the same butterfly as i agree there are visual differences. (just the fact they both live on 2 different islands and both living at different altitudes says allot) just like there is differences between all the ssp in the ulysses family genus, they stand out as different but are indeed not the same, but some can be similar in most cases. |
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 11, 2012 21:43:32 GMT -8
Yes Dunc, I remember . And had seen the photos you had posted here and the specimens were indeed chikae. I checked again on BOLD, and still that single barcoded chikae specimen exists only (the pictured specimen IS chikae), but its sequence is still not in the public records at the moment..: www.barcodinglife.com/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=50272From the 12 barcoded hermeli specimens (all are hermeli..?), the 3 have their sequences public: www.barcodinglife.com/index.php/Public_SearchTerms?query=Papilio%20hermelinzwings, I don't like repairs, but yes I have done it a few times. But only if the antenna is original from the same specimen. When it is to glue an antenna from another specimen of the same species (not talking for one from different species), I just leave is as is, without antenna. Thanos |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Sept 11, 2012 23:51:35 GMT -8
be careful when using BOLD. names are not always the good ones ! they release more and more datas for public without any verification. - some are released because they are published, these are more or less reliable. - others (more and more in the future) are released because they exceed time planned by sponsor to be kept at the exclusive use of their owner and specialist didn't had time to check and /or publish them before releasing. In the case of hermeli, the BOLD barcoded specimens involve two very distinct groups (7 and 5 specimens) separated by +/- 3 % of divergence and then iclude two different things (may be chikae or something else and hermeli). Then they were released without any correction by their owners (may be it will be done soon at least the three from genbank, that are of the two groups). Bold access a period of disorder (growth crisis, a kind of adolescence ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Sept 12, 2012 0:10:05 GMT -8
Thank you Thierry, interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 12, 2012 0:22:41 GMT -8
Hmm, yes they have 2 different clusters for the 3 'hermeli' specimens from the GenBank, 2 specimens in the one cluster and 1 in the other. So it's possible that chikae and hermeli have quite different sequences and are different species.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 12, 2012 7:14:30 GMT -8
The differences between the two clusters are not that large, certainly not large enough to confirm that they are definitely two species, although the old cutoff criterion was 2-2.5% difference. Nowadays the percentage difference between barcode sequences is no longer considered as a good indicator of specific distinction as greater diversity has been found within the same species. Conversely the barcodes of P. rutulus and eurymedon are almost identical, but no-one is suggesting they are the same species.
In the case of chikae and hermeli, it is not surprising that they have distinct 'barcodes' since the two populations will have been genetically isolated for a long time.
In reality subspecies are just a step on the speciation road. All we are trying to do is decide how far down that road these butterflies have gone.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 12, 2012 7:26:20 GMT -8
be careful when using BOLD. names are not always the good ones ! I always tell the DNA researchers I work with that they should be very wary of using sequences from other sources. I know of at least one Papilionidae DNA paper where a few of the specimens were misidentified before posting sequences to GenBank. If you take an unverified sequence from GenBank or BOLD (and even so called verified ones may be misidentified in some cases) and use it in your analysis you just perpetuate any possible errors. Every sequence should be accompanied by a photograph of the specimen that the sample came from, so that its identity can be confirmed at a later date. Generally there is no problem with identifications, but I have found examples of misidentified Pazala and Protesilaus specimens used in sequencing. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 12, 2012 7:38:26 GMT -8
From the 3 (from GenBank) barcoded 'hermeli' specimens on BOLD, the first one is the 'alien' (=chikae , = the one belonging to the one cluster), as it differs in 19 bases (if I numbered them correctly) from the other 2, which other 2 specimens have almost identical sequences, differing only in 1 base. |
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Sept 12, 2012 8:31:02 GMT -8
Thanos, your investigation is incomplete, the two clusters (availbale from public access !!) are of 5 and 7 specimens. As none photos nor datas are available it seems impossible to say what is what I suppose this is canceled because the owners wish to publish their results themselves. what can be surely said is that the clusters are quite constant and very well distinct (around 3 %, note that divergence is usually calculated in percentage) and that these clusters probably fit with "hermeli group" |
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 12, 2012 14:34:07 GMT -8
Thierry, the sequences of the 3 out of 12 barcoded 'hermeli' specimens are available. And these 3 specimens are put in 2 clusters (2 in one and 1 in the other). Each sequence is of 669 bases, and the sequence of the first specimen differs from the ones of the other two in about 19 bases.
in 669 we have different 19
in 100 >> x
x= 1900/669 = 2.84 ~= 3%.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Sept 12, 2012 23:07:02 GMT -8
and |
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Sept 13, 2012 3:52:49 GMT -8
And (as I understand it), as the percentage difference between the sequence of the first specimen and the (almost identical) sequences of the other 2 specimens (these 2 specimens have almost 0% difference) is 3%, then possibly the first specimen is not hermeli, and if is chikae, then the 3% difference from the other 2 (hermeli) could be good to support that the 2 taxa are not conspecific.
I didn't say that I'm sure about anything -and of course can't be without photos and datas of each specimen- just I told my thoughts and some possible things, examining the available data.
|
|
have you ever been tempted to fix/replace, a antenna?
...well, 
i believe myself hermeli to be a ssp to chikae, i dont believe they are the same butterfly as i agree there are visual differences. (just the fact they both live on 2 different islands and both living at different altitudes says allot) just like there is differences between all the ssp in the ulysses family genus, they stand out as different but are indeed not the same, but some can be similar in most cases.
