|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 18, 2013 15:16:00 GMT -8
Ive seen hundreds of new Saturndiidae species listed in the past few years, and has raised some questions. What, if any guidelines and protocol is followed in getting them described and acknowledged? and where can we find this supporting data? Im sorry but I find much of the "new" species to be nothing more than existing species just in a newly recorded locale. How much study has been done prior to getting them described? DNA, cross breeding attempts in effort to check fertility? mate responses, etc. Please tell me that new species are not being described based only on a specimen or two, locale, flight times, host preferences, size and other poor factors in the determination. Most importantly where can we, who are supposed to accept these updates/changes review the data that was used for it?
Looks as though the splitters have been hard at work for personal recognition sake, and the dealers are capitalizing on the ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by obewan on Oct 18, 2013 16:28:41 GMT -8
From what I heard...many of the "new" species are just that...same old same old but different locality!
Many of the "new" Automeris species are quite variable. DNA suggests minor differences, but larvae and
genitalia are not being scrutinized as close as one might hope for a truly "new" species. 8(
obe
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 18, 2013 19:33:08 GMT -8
One has to wonder if they realize (or care) for that matter, that they are making a huge mess of things? Some of us can see that now, but I think it will get worse as time goes. A species ID will be based on nothing more than the specimens collecting locale. That alone is telling me that they indeed are NOT new at all. The Automeris genus is an excellent example of the rubber stamping that is going on lately. it is just my stance on it, but I will not acknowledge any of the Automeris that were recently described as being "new". Anyone else see that Samia watsoni was given its own Genus a few years ago? From the little bit Ive found on it, it was re-named based on very scant evidence at best. I have yet to see the immature stages, life history reports, or even a recorded natural hostplant. So it was moved based on one persons opinion that wings look like Archeoattacus (according to this individual) and its slighter larger than other Samia sp. My watsoni specimens still hold the Samia name, and until proper research proves otherwise, always will.
The individuals that have submitted the species, and the taxonomists that help push them through should be ashamed.
Tuskes, Tuttle and Collins did an excellent job I feel with placing the Saturniidae of North America. They were able to validate all of their placements for species, and even the dreaded sub-species with huge amounts of research in the lab and field to provide SOLID evidence to support the taxonomy. Studying the ranges, series of specimens from all over their ranges, breeding projects etc. Maybe these more recent new species have been proved valid, and if so I stand corrected. However something tells me they don't. I don't see how there was time enough to do these procedures and considering the locales they come from. I hope that I am wrong for the sake of science and entomology, otherwise where and when will it stop?
Im going to try and contact Bill from WLSS in the coming days and see if he can provide some answers as he is very much on top of the subject. I cant remember, but he may have addressed this somewhere before in one of these threads. If anyone else remembers, please direct me to it so I don't have to have him repeat it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Oct 18, 2013 23:43:17 GMT -8
I perfectly agree with you guys. This behaviour is messing up things. Nowadays I almost came to a point that I don't believe any of the 'new' species that are mentioned on ebay and other sites. We've come to such a crazy point that some people are calling a deformed specimen as an aberration and stupidly enough there are buyers out there who are buying such crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Oct 19, 2013 0:40:44 GMT -8
most of the doubtfull new species are due to 2-3 authors that undesrtand nothing in systematic ! Unfortunetely they destroy the work of the others authors and create this mess. This is for all 3 continents .... Many new recently decsribed are valid despite they are difficult to identify. The effort in this group is really very important and explain this increasing. That will continue a few years as many more (valid) are coming. After that, a period of calm will come during which order will be put. It is not a good period to make a (philatelist  ) collection of Saturniidae (based on catalogue) but it is good period to try to let your name in the nomeclature  (the chance to be valid will depend on the author you will choose to study your material !) |
|
|
|
Post by oehlkew on Oct 19, 2013 3:36:30 GMT -8
Most of the "new" Saturniidae species put forward by Brechlin & Meister 2009-2013 are so listed/described based on DNA barcoding analysis.
I personally think the bar to determine new species based on degree of difference in barcoding has been set too low. I think over the next decade or two quite a few of the "new" species will be synonymized. Most of the synonyms will only occur, however, when rearing results show that DNA of many specimens from the same parentage (siblings) have DNA differences beyond what the code currently allows, encompassing the "new"
species. Many countries now have laws that prohibit collecting so unless permits are obtained, it might be a long time before we see examination
of larvae or breeding attempts.
On the other hand, I personally feel that many of the new names put forward by these same authors are valid and will stand the test of time.
Having received digital images of many specimens (thousands), photographed in the field or from collections, I could see differences that seemed legitimate enough to indicate similar, closely related species, almost cryptic, but not quite. Because I work with a number of breeders, they have also noted larval differences in species that are very hard to distinguish as adults. Those differences seem consistent in geographic areas, and seem to be validated by the same DNA research.
Species from the Andean regions of South America are quite interesting. The high elevation of the Andes clearly separates Saturniidae species found on the western slopes from species found on the eastern slopes. Principles in evolution theory would suggest/expect that, over eons, differences would occur. It is also noted by several highly regarded collectors that species collected on the eastern slopes (Columbia, Ecuador, Peru), occurring at high elevations seem to have different flight times (clock times) as well as subtle differences in appearance from species flying at moderate elevations, and differences in both the high and moderate elevation species from species flying at low elevations are also noted. Here altitude seems to act as an isolating barrier which allows for very miniscule differences to become larger differences over eons. Many of the Saturniidae species have five or six generations a year, so changes can occur more readily amongst such animals, especially when there is some isolating factor. Food plants and temperatures can be quite different at the different elevations.
As one who tries to stay current with the changes and tries to maintain an up-to-date website, I often find the new determinations quite frustrating.
I have images of many specimens which seem to have a mix of characters between "known" specimens and the "new" species. And I have images of specimens from one area which seem to be a best match for newly described species, but range is different.
If you believe in principles of evolution, you must accept, however, that no two individuals are exactly identical with regard to DNA unless they originate from same egg (twins). Isolating factors (canyons, mountains, rivers, elevation) would be expected, over many centuries, to have
contributed to the evolution of differing flora and fauna. This is clearly evident with the different natural flora and fauna on the continents, why not when there are isolating factors upon the continents?
The Saturniidae are not migratory. They do not feed as adults so their lack of a renewable individual energy supply keeps them from flying great distances. Slight DNA differences are therefore more likely to be retained in a more limited area. Multiple generations/annum can accelerate continuous change over centuries, so perhaps if there are not differences sufficient to really distinguish one species from another, maybe there are differences that are indicative of a future change that will be sufficient to make people "happier" with differences centuries from now. Maybe there are new species in the making! Evolutionary theory supports that.
I have found that some of the work of Brechlin and Meister where they have removed some species from synonymity is quite valid.
There are subtle but consistent differences in adult appearances and in larvae from different geographic regions that help to separate species.
There is no reason either why there should not be cryptic species in the evolutionary chain.
Over the centuries there have been many changes in taxonomies. Those authors who described "new" species had/have no obligation to rear them.
There are some few quite distinct species where I think only males are know to science. Should we not give the specimens a scientific name because the females and larvae are unknown?
I share your frustration, but I would be very hesitant to ascribe anything at all malicious with regard to the intentions of these authors.
I think they are simply working within the parameters of "new" science. It is perhaps the "science" that needs revision/chastising, not the people who work within the parameters it provides.
They have put their names to their work and opinions.
I believe the recent (2010 or 2011) resurrection of Sphingidae species Smerinthus ophthlamica from synonymity with Smerinthus cerisyi
is quite valid. I often felt there were subtle differences between the species from the Pacific Northwest (US and Canada) and those from further east. Brechlin & Meister had nothing to do with that study which is also supported by DNA research.
Recently new Syntherata species have been described by a different set of authors from Australia and southern Pacific area.
DNA analysis supports their findings and a local Saturniidae hobbyist has reared the species and notes differences between larvae.
He reports that often the only way for him to determine which species is which is to get eggs and rear the larvae. Here both the
observation from field rearing and lab testing confirms differences which the "naked eye" cannot see.
Bill Oehlke
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 19, 2013 9:07:19 GMT -8
It is very likely that the bar to determine new species is set too low, but does it make it ok to exploit it? It would seem it is nothing more than a loophole that some people are utilizing today. The process (from my POV) is that everything is being done backwards and hurried right now because of this loophole or low standards. Submit, submit, submit, get it official and sort it all out later attitude to see what is valid and what is not doesn't seem correct in the eyes of majority and is what science as a whole is founded on. That is why I say these folks should be ashamed. They have the cart before the horse so to speak. If the barcoding parameters are in fact set too low, than it almost makes what is going on intentional, because all avenues, study and procedures are not being exhausted before making a solid final determination, and it is obvious enough that you, me and many other people can clearly see the standard is too low. That is why it is a making such a mess that future studies now have to go back and prove or disprove what has already been rubber stamped in what is supposed to be currently accepted.
I personally am not targeting a certain group of individuals, but If the shoe fits they can wear it. Saturniidae is my area of focus and is why I used it, but it can be seen in the Sphingidae and even quite recent was a split of Papilio glaucus from the east coast? Im sure many other areas are affected by this issue that I am not aware. Lepidoptera and all other Orders in entomology. There will be changes made that are valid or in some cases proved valid at some point, but how can a species evolve into its own species? Living things could evolve but the genetic markers would still show that it is still one, already known species. DNA is going to be varied, it can be seen in all living things, including humans from all over the world. Our behaviors, color, size and genital variations are well known. Yet we are still all one species. It is that genetic makeup and DNA variation that keeps us different but all the same. These species that have a physical barrier become isolated and of course will show obvious differences, and some not so obvious differences based on the seperations of DNA and genetics. The species will adapt or evolve to survive or thrive in its locale but how does it make it a different species? We see this all the time by manually selective breeding, host provided, temperature/climate differences etc. It is no different in these isolated/separated colonies of insects in the wild. I can induce size, color and some patterning by foodplant alone, One can also selectively breed siblings or outbreed individuals to exploit certain genetic variations or "defects" that can be duplicated with great success and would show up in genetic testing. Whatever the case is and how these colonies may have gotten separated, their food source may be different, creating a variation. Or the genetic pool they have to "choose" from got smaller creating the variation. Any number of events could play into how the populations behave, or how they look physically.
My concern remains that there is a lot more that can be and should be done before we go making things official. certainly in areas that are restricted or so remote that only opinions and ideas can be formed from the limited field and lab observations we currently have. Im not knocking anyone for trying to advance science and give us a better understanding of things, but please put in all the thought and effort possible or required to back it up the first time around, not just finding the loophole or doing the bare minimum required by the "authorities" as we all know just because they are, doesn't mean they know any better. It bothers me greatly that these things are published as fact, when it is not possible. It appears that we were flooded with new species, for whatever the motive or reason, in HOPES by the authors that SOME will stick and stand the test of time as Bill pointed out. Backwards and poor science. Yes they have put their names to it, and their reputations to it. But then they must accept criticism good or bad for it. Personally with what I know and have read about this put forth in the responses, personal communications with others, is something I would not be willing to do. Yes certain criteria may have been met, but still a lot of holes were left to be at least more certain and confident, even if it cant be stated as fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by obewan on Oct 19, 2013 17:11:01 GMT -8
Not to change the subject, but did I miss something? What split of Papilio glaucus from the east coast???
obe
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 19, 2013 18:02:51 GMT -8
Don't quote me on it, but at least 2 other serious local collectors that I talk to said something about P glaucus getting split according to geographic location. If I remember right it had something to do with populations involving the App. mountain range? Someone in the know will comment on it and give the exact details. Im pretty sure it was a full species update/change, not sent to sub species status. If it is true Im sure it has 3 sides as does our dilemma. Those who question it, those who agree with it, and those that simply don't care. As it pertains to this splitting debate, id be curious also if anyone has the info on it to share.
In the meantime I'll research it and try to get in touch with my local friends that originally told me about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 19, 2013 18:26:16 GMT -8
I did locate it, but it is not as recent as I thought. It is Papilio appalchiensis (Pauulaan and Wright 2002) Look it up on butterfliesandmoths.org
It doesn't go into any detail as for the naming or splitting. Have they been able to prove that they are reproductively isolated from glaucus, field and lab? I sure hope so, otherwise you can pretty much throw the whole thing right out. There must be papers on this. We cannot use the excuses that access is limited, there hasn't been enough time for the proper research and the opportunities to rear them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayrard on Oct 20, 2013 8:54:29 GMT -8
I did locate it, but it is not as recent as I thought. It is Papilio appalchiensis (Pauulaan and Wright 2002) Look it up on butterfliesandmoths.org It doesn't go into any detail as for the naming or splitting. Have they been able to prove that they are reproductively isolated from glaucus, field and lab? I sure hope so, otherwise you can pretty much throw the whole thing right out. There must be papers on this. We cannot use the excuses that access is limited, there hasn't been enough time for the proper research and the opportunities to rear them. It's been shown that P. appalachiensis is a hybrid species. More info here. linkthe complex of glaucus, canadensis, rutulus, and appalachiensis is discussed |
|
|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 20, 2013 12:13:31 GMT -8
Very good work. Thank you for the link. A self sustaining hybrid like H kasloensis.
|
|
|
|
Post by oehlkew on Oct 20, 2013 13:15:06 GMT -8
Here are four quotes from the cited article:
"Papilio appalachiensis is a hybrid species."
"These results suggest that natural selection and sex-linked traits may have played an important role in the origin and maintenance of P. appalachiensis as a hybrid species. In particular, ecological barriers associated with a steep thermal cline appear to maintain the distinct, mosaic genome of P. appalachiensis despite contact and occasional hybridization with both parental species."
"Hybridization between two species may sometimes lead to the formation of a third species."
"While this phenomenon is of interest because it can generate new species from existing variation, it is rare in animals. Therefore, the factors responsible for the origin and maintenance of hybrid species are largely unknown."
++++++++
I live in an area of Prince Edward Island, Atlantic Canada, where natural hybrids of Hyalophora cecropia and Hyalophora columbia columbia are relatively common. All hybrid females, wild taken in New Brunswick, another Atlantic Canada province, and reared on Prince Edward Island, have been barren. The do not carry developed eggs.
Although I have not encountered a wild female hybrid of these two species in Nova Scotia, another Atlantic Canada province, we have encountered in Nova Scotia many wild males at lights and in response to calling females of both cecropia and columbia. The wild and reared hybrids are quite distinct from both columbia and cecropia, being intermediate in size, showing traces of the red median bands of cecropia (never seen on pure columbia; based on close to twenty years of rearing), but never with the much wider red bands of cecropia. Hybrid larvae from a male columbia x a female cecropia are much larger than true columbia, but are extremely close in appearance to columbia. Hybrid cocoons have more of the shape of columbia, but are larger than columbia and lack the silvery gold striations in the silk.
Male hybrids of this particular cross are reportedly partially fertile, ie., capable of producing offspring with low survival rates, through pairings with both cecropia and or columbia. These first generation hybrids are not considered species because they are not capable of producing self-sustaining offspring. It is my understanding that Papilio appalachiensis is considered a species because it is self sustaining.
I wonder how many other (hybrid) species we have accepted as species without knowing possible hybrid origins or intergrade origins. Perhaps
there are quite a number of accepted "species", described many years ago and readily accepted as valid species, that are just examples of wild collected (rare) hybrids which were never capable of reproduction.
I suspect some (small number) of the many recently described species may be naturally occurring hybrids, possibly self sustaining and therefore worthy of species status in some cases.
The cited summary is based on analysis of DNA.
Bill Oehlke
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticleps on Oct 20, 2013 19:51:32 GMT -8
This subject is quite interesting, confusing and frustrating all at the same time. I went back and refreshed myself on the "kasloensis" write up in The Wild Silkmoths of North America, by Tuskes, Tuttle and Collins. Page 213 the very first sentence under general comments states: "Under the international rules of zoological nomenclature hybrid zones cannot be formally assigned a binomial species name, and we use the name "kasloensis" for convenience of discussion" My perception of that would mean that the hybrid tiger P appalachiensis is not a valid name/species, even if it is self sustaining? I googled this appalachiensis and found one page that put glaucus and canadensis side by side and The physical differences are very minimal. I then found another page similar to the link rayrard posted, with a summary about the DNA workup involving this hybrid. It shows that canadensis doesn't fall from the glaucus tree, and depending on where the bar is set, would be open to interpretation on canadensis possibly questioning it as a valid species? Its known that Canadensis has a earlier flight time and is a bit smaller than glaucus, but those traits alone cannot prove either one of them as the nominate species, Saturniids have a much shorter adult life than Papilios and is possibly one block of Saturniidae species inter breeding. Even the calling times of 3 overlapping Callosamia species keeps them segregated and only rarely produces natural hybrids. It would have to be determined which was published first? I'll try to find it again and post the link. ( I was in the middle of my sons schoolwork at the time) If this papilio hybrid is self sustaining, as is kasloensis, then they should be able to backcross quite easily (and Im sure they do) creating individuals that would be very difficult to ID. Even on the genetic level. So it would support that opening sentence under kasloensis that these self sustaining hybrids cannot be formally assigned at species rank. Otherwise where do we place the intermediate, backcrossed individuals?
On a similar note, what constitutes a species? Under the idea that a species can only sustain itself by breeding with the same species, when hybrids occur they are almost always barren, and males can be sterile or have very low fertility rates as the blocking mechanism. In the case of kasloensis it would be hard to accept noting the obvious differences in the parents, but could it be possible that euryalus and gloveri are actually one species that is evolving and is not yet too genetically isolated that when they interbreed they are still able to produce viable offspring? Just a thought... Put this concept to work on the papilio species and it could get very confusing. Another idea- could any of these just be a sub species that is able to interbreed and continue on, creating the blended "hybrid" or "new" specimens?
That said, even if some of the newly described Saturniidae are of hybrid origin, and unless the international rules have changed, they still would not be a valid species name. The idea of some of them being hybrid in origin is quite possible, I agree, but then it opens them up to even more scrutiny. Are they self sustaining? were they specimens taking in the wild and we do not know if they are barren females, or impotent males? etc. In this possible scenario rearing will be very important to deciding the outcome. Also take into account that some of these closely related new species could just be sub-species? So much more research needs to be done in these countries and locales add in the locations, and regualtions it will probably take a lot longer to get sorted out. The whole thing just seems a bit hasty to me which is why Im questioning it. 300+ new species in 3 years is pretty bold. Africone said "a period of calm will come when order is put" To put order to this could take 500 years, so isn't it easier to put order to it as we go? We can speculate what the motives are of the authors, are they sincere?, are they ignorant? are they over eager? are they brilliant? only time will tell, but none of us or them will be around to find out. They will go down in future literature as entomologic heroes or villans. Id just want to be damn thorough before taking that leap. Thoroughness is the question, but they certainly took the leap. No one will care if the bar was set too low even 100 years from now. If that's the case and most of these are found invalid, it will be a matter of the lack of common sense and poor judgment on behalf of the authors and that is how it will be written. Also as Africone pointed out, if this goes badly it might make us all look like idiots "for our time". They wont go easy on folks messing up the taxonomy. Good lucks guys, I sincerely mean that. And since I wont be here to see how it ends, congratulations if it all comes out on top. we all want to be recognized and have our names associated with great works for the future to see, but better you than me on this one. even if 50 stick, the other 250 wont make up for how it is written if it goes the other way...
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 20, 2013 23:26:09 GMT -8
I just overflew the end of the topic as I was rather busy (insect fair in Belgium) but I wanted to point something out. Please excuse me when I misunderstood you but I think you misuse the idea of "hybrid species". A hybrid species is some group of interbreeding individuals whose origin lies in fertile hybrids between two separate species. This said it involves three concepts. The stage where the new species is constituted of real hybrids (of both parent strains) is long gone. These two parent strains had not been real species at that stage as they produced fertile offspring and lastly all 3 populations are self sustaining nowadays. I think that a few species that we have nowadays followed this principle and we just don't know yet.
|
|
) collection of Saturniidae (based on catalogue) but it is good period to try to let your name in the nomeclature 
(the chance to be valid will depend on the author you will choose to study your material !)
