|
|
Agrias sp.
Mar 12, 2015 14:17:35 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by morpho45 on Mar 12, 2015 14:17:35 GMT -8
Hi friends ! It come from Peru. Do you know the specie and ssp please ? Thank you !  |
|
|
|
Post by Borja Gómez on Apr 15, 2015 19:18:43 GMT -8
Hello I'm not an Agrias expert but I give you my opinion. I suppose it's Agrias sardapanalus lugens as depicted in this website dedicated to Agrias: Agrias website . Nevertheless I always called this kind as Agrias claudina lugens. So I'm not aware how is, at the current date, the most scientifically updated name to call this one, but I'm pretty sure that is this one. Regards |
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Apr 16, 2015 7:14:16 GMT -8
It is still claudina lugens - but just to irritate collectors, taxonomists have given up on defending the polyphyletic genus “Agrias”. It’s been known for several decades that Agrias is really a cluster of Prepona species based on morphology.
I’m guessing that molecular data are bearing this out as well, because as painful as it may be – professional taxonomists are starting to abandond the genus Agrias in peer reviewed publications.
So – the species is Prepona claudina lugens.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 16, 2015 8:39:10 GMT -8
Well if "professional taxonomists" can't see any differences between Agrias and Prepona, then I am happy to be an amateur...
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Apr 16, 2015 10:31:10 GMT -8
Well if "professional taxonomists" can't see any differences between Agrias and Prepona, then I am happy to be an amateur... Sad but true - here are some links making the case for no more Agrias Molecular systematics of the butterfly tribe Preponini (Nymphalidae: Charaxinae). ELENA ORTIZ-ACEVEDO1,2,* andKEITH R. WILLMOTT1,2 Systematic Entomology Volume 38, Issue 2, pages 440–449, April 2013 Abstract The nymphalid butterfly tribe Preponini includes some of the Neotropical region's most spectacular and familiar butterflies, but the taxonomy of the group nevertheless remains unstable. Several recent studies of Nymphalidae phylogeny have suggested that both the tribe itself and several genera might not be monophyletic, but to date taxon sampling has not been sufficiently comprehensive to allow informed revision of the group's systematics. We therefore conducted the first complete species-level phylogenetic study of the tribe to establish a firm higher classification. We used DNA sequence data from three genes, the two mitochondrial genes cytochrome oxidase subunits I and II (COI and COII), and the nuclear gene elongation factor-1α (EF-1α), to reconstruct the phylogeny of the tribe using maximum likelihood (ML), maximum parsimony (MP) and Bayesian inference (BI). We included 48 individuals representing the 22 recognised Preponini species, and an additional 25 out-group taxa to explore taxonomic limits at different levels. Firstly, we found that Anaeomorpha splendida Rothschild never grouped with remaining Preponini, so that maintaining monophyly of the tribe requires the taxon to be excluded, and we thus reinstate the tribe Anaeomorphini stat.rev. Secondly, we investigated generic limits, in particular the relationship of Noreppa Rydon to Archaeoprepona Fruhstorfer, and that of Agrias Doubleday to Prepona Boisduval. The molecular results coupled with previous morphological studies suggest that Noreppasyn.n should be synonymised with Archaeoprepona, and that Agriassyn.n should be synonymised with Prepona. We found Prepona pheridamas (Cramer) to be sister to all other Prepona, and markedly divergent from them in both morphology and DNA sequences, suggesting the possibility that it should be placed in a separate genus. We also found a number of cases of significant DNA sequence divergence and paraphyly or polyphyly within putative species that require further taxonomic attention, including Prepona claudina (Godart) stat.n. and Prepona narcissus (Staudinger) stat.n.,Prepona pylene Hewitson and Prepona deiphile (Godart). Future research should focus on a broader population sampling of widespread, polymorphic Preponini species to thoroughly revise the current species-level taxonomy, thus creating a solid foundation for studies in ecology and conservation.
Male genitalia of neotropical Charaxinae: A comparative analysis of character variation Downlaod paper here. - jinsectscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/jis/13/1/35.full.pdfDayana Bonfantti , Mirna Martins Casagrande , Olaf Hermann Hendrik Mielke. 18 April 2013 Journal of Insect Science Abstract Charaxinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) has a worldwide distribution, although it occurs mainly between the tropics. Most species occur in the Neotropics, where three tribes, Preponini, Anaeomorphini, and Anaenini, can be found. Collectively, these three tribes encompass 109 species. Because of its relevance to systematics and taxonomy, the male genitalia of Lepidoptera have been extensively studied. The male genitalia are composed of the last two abdominal segments and their modifications for mating, known as claspers of the bodies. In order to improve upon the systematic classification of the subfamily, 31 species of 13 genera of Neotropical Charaxinae were analyzed. All characters relevant to species and generic taxonomy were analyzed. Most structures showed morphological variations among tribes, genera, and species. These variations demonstrated to be important to Preponini, because the structural patterns of the genitalia allow the separation in two groups, Prepona Boisduval and Archaeoprepona Fruhstorfer, and are in accord with the recent taxonomic classification proposed by Ortiz-Acevado and Willmott (2013), wherein Agrias Doubleday is synonymized in Prepona and Noreppa Rydon within Archaeoprepona. In the same way, Anaeomorpha splendida Rothschild showed considerable differences from Preponini’s genera, the tribe in which it was included, confirming the revalidation of the tribe Anaeomorphini (Ortiz-Acevado and Willmott (2013)). Substantial variation was found in the genital structures of Anaeini, making it difficult to establish structural patterns for this group. Such structural variation, however, may be very efficient to diagnose species, such as some species of Memphis Hübner and Fountainea Rydon, which can be easily identified through the presence and location of spines on the valva. |
|
|
|
Post by Borja Gómez on Apr 18, 2015 11:12:34 GMT -8
Hello
I guess it depends on how serious you want to be talking... I've already seen the Agrias classified as Prepona before, but many of us still will call in the future Agrias the Agrias, even knowing that talking properly and respecting cladistic sistematics they are Prepona, because we are used to it and it's still useful to refer like this to this group. For example, I know few people talking of the class Sauropsida when they see a bird, most of us still use colloquially the class birds, even knowing we are making a mistake there concerning the actual cladistic phylogeny. Nevertheless I guess the mistake is allowed if you are aware of the evolutionary facts... Sistematics can be sometimes messy and frustrating, but since sistematics try to give us a better idea of the philogenetic relationships of the living things, we have to give it at least some credit, even if conciously we still use the old names.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on May 13, 2015 9:57:34 GMT -8
A bit more evidence that Agrias and Prepona are the same. It includes a photo of a natural hybrid as well as results from hand pairing. troplep.org/TLR/18-1/Furtado-Hyb.pdfINTERGENERIC HYBRIDISATION BETWEEN PREPONA AND AGRIAS (LEPIDOPTERA: NYMPHALIDAE, CHARAXINAE) Eurides Furtado Caixa Postal 97, 78400-000 Diamantino, Mato Grosso, BRAZIL Abstract – A hybrid was obtained, crossing by hand‑pairing, the male of Prepona omphale rhenea Fruhstorfer = Prepona rothschildi cuyabensis Le Moult with the female of Agrias claudina godmani Fruhstorfer. The larvae were fed on Hirtella gracilipes (Hook. f.) (Chrysobalanaceae), the natural host plant for the female. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 13, 2015 11:49:00 GMT -8
The problem here is that if you recognise Agrias as a separate genus from Prepona, then the various branches of Prepona would also have to be split into several separate genera because you cannot have a genus arising within another genus.
Which is better, call them all Prepona and treat Agrias as a subgenus of Prepona, or elevate all the smaller groups into separate genera?
I know which causes less confusion and less name changes (stability is the aim wherever possible). Also bear in mind that the genus name conveys information about the relationship with other species (same genus = more closely related) for non-taxonomists.
Similarly Polyura is now a subgenus of Charaxes since Polyura arose within Charaxes.
If you wish to use the name Agrias, then put it in () after Prepona, thus:
Prepona (Agrias) claudina lugens
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 13, 2015 11:52:23 GMT -8
I should add that the comment of Borja Gómez is perfectly acceptable when discussing these butterflies, as long as you are aware that in reality Agrias is only a subgenus.
Adam.
|
|
