Saturniidae from South Chiapas, Mexico

Thadeos,

I have not seen the Entomo-Satsphingia journals for 2012 yet, and that is where the new Rothschildia would be described. Thus, I cannot speak to your specific question. I hope to obtain the 2012 journals in
December.

I can offer an opinion on subspecies designations.

When I first started purchasing good quality reference texts (eg Lemaire's works) to do identifications, I was amazed that almost every Central and South American country seemed to have its own Rothschildia lebeau subspecies or Rothshildia orizaba subspecies. I read more from other highly regarded "taxonomists" that they considered these various subspecies more of a cline of one species, rather than a series of subspecies. I do notice in the Entomo-Satsphingia 2010-2011 journals that I do have, that Brechlin and Meister have not used subspecies designations for the most part to name the "new species". Instead they
have used new names like
Automeris abdomicajamarcensis from Peru: Cajamarca
A. abdomimeridensis from Venezuela: Merida
A abdominapoensis from eastern Ecuador: Napo
A abdomipichinchensis from Ecuador: Pichincha
A abdomipiurensis from Peru: Piura
to represent the new designations of Automeris species that are very similar to Automeris abdominalis

I do not know if all those new designations will stand the test of time. Some of them may be synonymized in future years. On the other hand, there may be even further subdivisions.

One problem that Brechlin and Meister have possibly avoided for themselves by using new names instead of subspecies designations is that the international code does not allow for two subspecies of the same species to be sympatric, ie., flying in the exact same geographic area.

I always wondered what specimens of two subspecies would look like on a possible common
"boundary" between their ranges, ie, what would be the real difference between A. abdomimeridensis from Venezuela: Merida and A abdominapoensis from eastern Ecuador: Napo. It would seem that somewhere in Colombia between those two designations there would have to be a closer relative than another subspecies, and that begs the question of what a subspecies really is. I do not have an answer.

If someone subsequently pairs an abdominalis type moth from Merida, Venezuela, with an abdominalis type moth from Napo, Ecuador, and the offspring are fully capable of reproduction in both sexes and seem
to be of good health, is there really any need to differentiate between them as separate species or even as subspecies.

If there are only slight but consistent variations between the appearances of the moths from the two different areas, I am sure many collectors would want to note those differences either in a name (subspecies or clinal variation or form).

Because of all the variations I see between Antheraea polyphemus males that fly in to my female polyphemus in cages, i think that if one geographically isolated those variations by "type", one could create
specimens that some taxonomists would designate as subspecies or new species.

In other words, I think the "DNA barcoding analysis range of difference" to allow for new species designations has been set two low, but I could be "all wet" on that opinion, and future studies may show that there are very real differences that go beyond simple appearance or geography. Only time will tell.

I do not think people would like it if we could only call all the myriad of Saturniidae species by one name, Saturniidae, but I also think the vast majority of people find it unsettling/frustrating if two specimens that look exactly the same can only be distinguished by examination of genitalia or DNA barcoding analysis.

One person once told me that he found Catocala moths to be very beautiful, but he stopped collecting them because identifying them was so frustrating. The naming of species, subspecies, and the rules for same are human constructs. What may be useful and appropriate for one group of people, might be totally frustrating for another group of people.

Bill Oehlke