|
|
Post by prillbug2 on Aug 23, 2011 5:18:59 GMT -8
Maybe, but you're not considering migration away from stressful areas, or emigration back into those areas. You're not considering host plant availability or extinction. Also, the development of glycol in the bloodstream. Or becoming more of a generalist as opposed to being a specialist. I don't consider it to be simply not being able to withstand the glaciation periods, it's more complicated than that. To me, it's just really all speculation without any real answers. Maybe, we ought to create a time warp and go back in time, if possible, but I don't think that it is. The fossil record won't reveal too much.
Jeff Prill
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Aug 23, 2011 6:51:25 GMT -8
The first flowering plant guy- there are a few people working on this, names of Chanderbali, Soltis and Dilcher (he's the one that might have the oldest flowering plant fossil). Most of those "origins of angiosperms" folks are at UF, very nice people- Go Gators! Sorry  The glaciation period gets my vote too. It is complex how species move around, and all the thing mentioned such as biome shifts and proximity to center of diversity will be factored in. However in general, the biodiversity of Europe and North America is low because of geography and climate- the glaciation period has great amounts of ice moving south while both continents are bounded by large mountain chains. The ice moves until it bumps the mountains, more pronounced in Europe of course, and everything above it more or less dies off. Then when ice recedes, very little diversity left to build back up from. While some species may move back into a region, it's much easier to imagine a rich diversity emerging over time through evolution than it is to imagine a huge host of immigrants and thus we have much lower diversity north of the Mediterranean belt. Since we are talking about plants, think of the diversity of unusual plants, especially bulbous plants, in Greece, Italy, Turkey, and so on where north of there the numbers drop off dramatically. Trees too, count the tree species in Europe even compared to North America. So it stands to reason that one way or the other the removal of diversity by the glaciation period would have some effect on the extant butterfly (and everything else) populations either by direct extermination through extreme low temperatures or by loss of most potential hosts. In the US we see our highest diversity on the coastal boundaries of the mountains of both East and West coasts and in the far south for this reason as well. Glaciers move down, bump into the mountains and everything that couldn't cross them or move further south is gone. Of course there has been 10,000 years to recover so there are some things are no doubt post-ice age introductions but the numbers are noticeably low when compared to places that did not share this geographic/climatic combination. It's not 100% responsible obviously but if you think of starting with 10 different organisms versus 100,000 at the same point in time it is clear why one area would be more likely to be biologically rich where the former would be relatively poor after a geologically short period like 10,000 years. |
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Aug 23, 2011 16:56:08 GMT -8
Is it possible that existing species may have been blocked from repopulating Europe after the glacial period due to geography as well? African species were blocked northward by the Sahara and Mid East deserts and Asian species were blocked by the Himalayas. I seem to recall reading somewhere, though, that the Sahara was not nearly as large 10K years ago.
North American mountains run north/south which left open through-ways from the south after the glaciers retreated
|
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Aug 24, 2011 17:40:44 GMT -8
Hi
If you are considering the whole North America, and just Europe, and only Papilio, may be. North America has more rich variety of habitats. Europe is just a part of the Paleartic
On the other hand, if you see the list of Papilio in the East Coast of USA, a hand is more that enough, specially if you exclude doubtful species as P. appalachensis. If you count Papilionidae as a whole Europe is much more rich in species than at least the East Coast of USA.May guess is that Papilio is a Tropical genus with very little success in temperate climate (I suppose the number of species will decrease too in the South hemisphere as the climate temperates)
On the other hand I was born and collected in Spain for years, when I come to live to the East Coast I was surprised of the poor representation of Satyridae here (One hand is enough again), despite the richness is grassess. However, Hesperoidea is very rich in species.
I think the diversity of a region in a particular family or genus is unlikely to be related to extinction (in general). Most likely will be associated to the ecozone in which they originate, the host plant biology...
Best regards
Jesus
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Aug 24, 2011 21:32:53 GMT -8
This would suggest that every species evolving at a certain time X in the past would be well adapted at the conditions of a time Y in the future. This sounds higly unlikely. I bet there was more Papilio in Europe before the glacial period, even when it was just some silly form of Papilio machaon up in Scandinavia like Papilio hospiton down on Corsica. Maybe we should dig in permafrost to find fossilised Papilio, what do you think about that Jeff?  |
|
|
|
Post by prillbug2 on Aug 25, 2011 5:54:36 GMT -8
Yeah, you could go up to Norway, Finland, or Sweden, or Russia, or into the Alps and start digging. My thinking is that most insects capable of leaving, left, and then eventually emigrated back into those areas. As for more species of Papilionidae in Europe before the glacial period, we don't know. No one was around to take a census of the species. And any humans that were there probably didn't care. But, I might remind you that there has been work done in permafrost in Alaska, and I do remember seeing evidence that they found evidence of insect tracks of carabids walking in mud, but as far as butterflies, i don't recall anything having been found, even though I might have missed a couple of papers, since I haven't seen all of them. But that can be accessed by simply going into the library and doing a search. If you want to put the money together then go ahead and do it.
Jeff Prill
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Aug 25, 2011 7:14:36 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2011 10:09:29 GMT -8
Why is P. appalachensis a doubtful species?
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Aug 25, 2011 11:01:56 GMT -8
Doubtful to me because there is no molecular data supporting splitting it from P. glaucus as far as I know. Seems the biology doesn't really make that much sense for the area either, the pattern supports a seasonal form over a separate species- as though you would split the blue toned lunas from the yellow toned lunas because you see one at one time of the year more often than the other. Size and color vary frequently and there are many examples of far more distinct individuals of the same species that it seems hasty to me to declare it a new species. Maybe I missed some literature somewhere, but if not it sounds more like a butterfly someone wanted to name rather than one that should be named. It has it's own genera in fact which seems really artificial. I'd wait for molecular data before spending any money on a specimen if you are so inclined.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Aug 25, 2011 11:07:59 GMT -8
I just checked some literature while I have access to my databases and preliminary molecular data suggests (according to Harvard) that "Pterourus" appalachiensis is simply a hybrid between P. glaucus and P. canadensis. I'll try to do a little more extensive reading to see what they think and I will get back to you all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 25, 2011 11:36:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by hypanartia on Aug 25, 2011 15:50:03 GMT -8
Hi
I do not like to go there. Just let me point that some people use incorrectly the taxon species. If two "species" mixed and produced fertile descendents, this is not probe that the hybrid population is a species, it will strongly suggest that both parental 'species" are not actually, species.
Regards
Jesus
|
|
|
|
Post by homard on Aug 25, 2011 16:47:18 GMT -8
Papilionidae probably originated in the ancient southern hemisphere, various molecular publications seem to suggest. I think the low diversity of Papilionidae in Europe is probably a combination of it being far from the centre of origin of the family, and also the glaciation that occurred several times in the northern hemisphere will have had some effect on the distribution. Adam. I'm with Adam here  I guess it's about the distance from the center of the group's origin. Look at the species' distribution and richness in the various subregions of Holarctic, say, in Parnassius, Colias, Erebia, Oeneis, Clossiana... Parnassius came perhaps from Tibet, thus at the genus range's ends we have only 3 species in Europe and 4 species in N.America. Erebia is perhaps originated in C. Europe, Oeneis - in S. Siberia, etc... In addition, Eurasia is stretched in the latitudinal direction, with the main portion situated in the temperate climate. The tropical parts of it are separated by the impenetrable natural barriers of Himalaya etc. The Americas are stretched meridionally w/o of sufficient natural barriers between the South and North, so the species could penetrate relatively easy to the NA. Just my speculations Regards, Alexei |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 25, 2011 23:49:14 GMT -8
Hi I do not like to go there. Just let me point that some people use incorrectly the taxon species. If two "species" mixed and produced fertile descendents, this is not probe that the hybrid population is a species, it will strongly suggest that both parental 'species" are not actually, species. Regards Jesus Generally I would agree with you, but in this unusual case the hybrid population, living in its montane habitat became isolated due to the local climate combined with the effect of having one univoltine and one bivoltine parent (the offspring emerged inbetween the flight periods of both parent species). This resulted in isolation of appalachiensis from both parent species and evolution into a distinct species of its own. Bear in mind also that this happened a long time ago. No-one is suggesting that the original hybridization only occurred a few years ago. Adam. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 5:40:17 GMT -8
what is the range of appalachiensis?
|
|
