|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 14, 2011 23:53:11 GMT -8
Thanos,
How likely is that in such obviously related taxa from very close localities?
There are chromosome differences in some P. machaon populations, but they're still all the same species.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Oct 15, 2011 0:39:43 GMT -8
Adam,
2 very closely related Lycaenids from my country, Lyssandra coridon graeca and Lyssandra philippi (the first one occurs on many mountains of Greece,while the second only on 2 of N.Greece and nowhere else -I have spotted populations of coridon which occur close to philippi- ), have been differentiated by significant difference in chromosome number ( CN= only 20-26 for philippi, while 84-92 for coridon, -so philippi has much lower number- ). Small differences in chromosome number are not indicative of speciation and occur in many species, Ok. But significant differences..? And with my example is shown that 2 really very closely related taxa (as L.coridon and L.philippi) can have such differences.
Thanos
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Oct 15, 2011 1:29:18 GMT -8
a character can be specific in some cases and not in others (exmaple with color, prsenec of absnce of dots, etc. etc.). each case must be treated alone. Thierry
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 15, 2011 2:34:16 GMT -8
And here we go again...
Show first that Papilio chikae and Papilio hermeli have a difference of 50 chromosomes and after that show us that the chromosome difference is the reason why they can't interbreed for more than 2 generations because chromosome number alone does not mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Oct 15, 2011 3:51:54 GMT -8
No,you seem to go alone again. I didn't say that I know they have 50 or so chromosome difference. I don't know. Just it is possible to have. This should be shown by DNA studies on these taxa (if was not the Cites red tape for chikae), not by me. I have neither the number of specimens nor the molecular machine to do something like this here. I say that just I will accept the outcome of molecular studies,cause it will be the safest. Ok then,as the chromosome number means nothing to you,then the describers of L.philippi and other species that have been separated by significant chromosome difference, along with authors of very good rhopalocera books that mention this in the description of the species, all do not know what happens to them.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 15, 2011 4:26:25 GMT -8
>I didn't say that I know they have 50 or so chromosome difference >I don't know >This should be shown by DNA studies
Chromosome number by DNA study, I lol'd.
I said chromosome number ALONE means nothing, you have to back up your claims by further studies. The two species you mentionned may be very well two different species and the chromosome number may be a good way to separate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 15, 2011 9:28:23 GMT -8
Actually chromosome numbers and DNA analysis are totally different issues. DNA analysis compares the sequences of the same sections of particular genes on one or more of the chromosomes (and in the mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA), which is totally irrelevant to the actual number of chromosomes in the cells of each taxon.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Oct 15, 2011 11:17:54 GMT -8
Yes Adam,I understand this. I mean with 'DNA studies' both the analysis in DNA sequences, and the calculation of the chromosome numbers, and the combination/examination/consideration of them in order to conclude that 2 taxa are separate species or not with comparison. (I think that the checking of chromosome number is included to the DNA studies of course,,,as the chromosomes carry the DNA).
Thanos
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 15, 2011 11:23:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by krupten on Jan 7, 2012 6:12:55 GMT -8
Adam is 100% correct - and in conversation with an old friend and colleague who is a Ph.D actually doing this work - it is a big difference. As Claude has indicated you can see the chromosomes under a good microscope but to do DNA you have to isolate a specific gene (CO1 I believe) and in doing so you must first take your DNA and replicate it - then introduce BLOCKERS to start a specific segment and then a blocker of the end desired segment and at the end of the process you have a huge number of ONE particular gene segment that you can do comparitive analysis against. Anything more Less than 3% is basically the same species and more than that indicates the degree of divergence or in more deviation - how far back they separated from a common ancestor. I am only paraphrasing here - as I am learning by assimilation - but my "guru" is good enough for Harvard so he is good enough for me!. Adam may be able to tweek what I am relating here - but for this HERMELI and CHIKAE argument - the morphological differences are enough to separate them for sure as Adam as illustrated. As for the Filipino's selling off chikae for hermeli - well - when they have a reduced knowlege of the morphology (perhaps) and they can take a $25.00 per pair of leps and sell them for $200 - and be able to put food on the table for a month - I think they would acquiece to that in a heartbeat. I am not saying it is right - NOT in the least - but there are such situations done by European and North American dealers all the time and NOT JUST FOR SURVIVAL but just out and out GREED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2012 8:23:03 GMT -8
and they can take a $25.00 per pair of leps and sell them for $200 - and be able to put food on the table for a month - I think they would acquiece to that in a heartbeat. I am not saying it is right - NOT in the least - but there are such situations done by European and North American dealers all the time and NOT JUST FOR SURVIVAL but just out and out GREED.
I wholeheartedly agree Greg, I have no problem with the Filipinos making a profit to feed themselves but I am talking about a major butterfly supplier here who have given me 5 male chikae when I payed for hermeli and a female chikae for a female hermeli, I knew they were wrong on this one straight away, the females dont even look alike but I am stuck with it again now.
|
|