Actias maenas saja

Thank you ;D

>If it is nearly impossible to tell the subs apart without data. Is there any justification for separating them?

Restricted gene flow. The populations of these different islands will genetically be a bit different. Some of them also do show some differences in early stages like caterpillars. I must say that I am not the biggest fan of these subspecies solely based upon geography because it is in some sense subjective at what level you judge a gene flow restricted enough to make a new ssp. or not. Anything other than species level isn't objective and not really worth putting a name on in a scientific sense and my POV. Nevertheless these names have been assigned and using them as long as the majority of people wants to work with subspecies it is ok.

Yes the debate can be long, there is whole books on the topic and I started reading a few of them. (Speciation by Coyne & Orr was the last one I finished and an interesting read).

Going after your example, you can be perfectly well describe the situation by saying "aurotinens from Brittany", "aurotinens from Massif Central" and "aurotinens from Normandy". These 9 words do contain much information available to anybody. They say that we have one species that can interbreed, and that we have them from 3 localities and we know which localities. I do not know exactly how natio works, but if this has a describor and a nametag like subspecies too then we will end up with 3 names that do not tell anything to anybody, unless you have the specialized literature available.

The same thing for the above example, you have:

Actias maenas maenas (Doubleday, 1847)
Actias maenas diana Maassen, [1872]
Actias maenas saja Van Eecke, 1913

These names are nonsaying to me. Unless you write like Bill:

maenas maenas are those specimens from India and mainland Asia except for Malayasia
maenas diana are those specimens from Malaysia and Borneo
maenas saja are those specimens from Jawa (Java): West Jawa Province, Banten Province, East Jawa Province; Sumatra;
and possibly on the island of Bali in Indonesia.

That gene flows from Java, Sumatra and Bali is possible and that India isn't in connection with them isn't rocket science either. I also assume that you didn't mean Mainland Malaysia when referring to diana but the part on Borneo along with Kalimantan? (Wikipedia also states Philippines for A. maenas diana which makes perfect sense as these islands are in close proximity trough Palawan). So, the main information was again in the species name and the localities. Subspecies are somewhat redundant.

The whole problem is a problem of information and how to get information across to somebody. Subspecies have little use to this and do in some sense have subjectivity in them. I could just split up the populations from Java, Sumatra and Bali by the same argument of reduced gene flow and if I look exactly enough I will probably find some hints to this in the genetics.

Dave's question was about the point of these names, you can argue that you have reduced gene flow and need them to better communicate knowledge. I think this is not the case and would probably go as far as to drop subspecies names. As many people in biology still use them I do not see a reason how I could refrain myself from learning them. If anyone can raise a good point on their necessity I am open to listen. I hope my point why the names are redundant in my eyes came across.

Rgds Claude

"you can be perfectly well describe the situation by saying "aurotinens from Brittany", "aurotinens from Massif Central" and "aurotinens from Normandy". These 9 words do contain much information available to anybody"

No because it does not include "individual forms". Among each of those auronitens populations, you have different forms. Some infeoded to a specific population, some that can be found in different populations. Then the ratio of individual forms is different from one population to another one. There is some woods in Brittany with no individual forms, some with about 50% individual forms... and so on...

And if you want to try to understand something to all those evolutive process, you need to "name" them.

So yes some carabologists use 4 names + 1 form name to describe a specimen ! It astonished me when I first discussed with them, but now I understand why.

As per all comments in above thread, it depends upon whom you ask.
Peigler indicates the atlas "subspecies" from Dacca and Sylhet, Bangladesh, regarded as Attacus atlas sylhetica by some, is same as Attacus atlas atlas.
Peigler also indicates the atlas "subspecies" regarded as formosanus by some is same as nominate atlas.
Attacus atlas ryukensis from Ryuku Island is also treated as a legitimate subspecies by some.

Occasionally subspecies get elevated to full species level. Science also seems to recognize some "cryptic " species whereby two individuals that look exactly the same can inhabit the same area (sympatric), but have sufficiently different genetic makeups to
warrant full species status for each. For the average and even experienced collector, this all can be quite frustrating, but to scientists interested in genetic studies, it is all very interesting.

On WLSS I try to maintain updates on species/subspecies status based on "scientific" publications.

Bill Oehlke
PS. I personally think that the constructs used to permit subspecies status with regard to recent DNA barcoding analysis
have not sufficiently allowed for variation within a species, and I suspect that over the years quite a number of the "new" species, subspecies will be synonymized. Quite a number of them are also very valid, at least with regard to consistent variation in a geographic population.

In the case of Saturniidae, almost all scientific publications of names of "new" species come from examination of dead specimens. In some cases only a single specimen (or a small number of specimens) is available, and, in the case of Saturniidae, it is often only the male that has been captured, as males tend to come to lights more readily than females.
There are a great many (100's) of Saturniidae species, quite apparently distinct, that have never been reared, and whose larvae are unknown to science. I am glad we have names for them
Yes, I am skeptical (and advise others to be skeptical as well) when a new name is put forward, based on a small sampling, when there seems to be little difference in outward appearance between the "new" species and a known species.
Nonetheless, someone has put his or her real name (names) to the new description, and they have published the name and description.
The "new" names certainly invite more study, and amateurs, such as myself, who enjoy rearing, often show that larvae forms from the "new" species and look-a-like species are consistently different, supporting the new name.
In other cases, rearing tends to support the idea that the new species is really just a variation of an existing species and probably should be synonymized.
The internet, which provides for such rapid sharing of information and images, will probably do much to sort out errors and answer questions regarding classifications.
There will always be some people who like to recognize even minute differences while others are more content with a more inclusive approach, and since naming is a human construct, there will probably always be differences of opinions as to how precise
one needs to be.
I do not name species, but only report the published reports of others who have put their names to the species they have named.
There certainly is much room for trained entomologists and amateur collectors/breeders to share information to get a more accurate picture.
Bill Oehlke