|
Post by exoticimports on Aug 19, 2021 3:36:46 GMT -8
To get to eurytides in Kingston, southern species have to pass through my area first, either as strays or by expansion. Spice bush are common in 2021, though I’ve never seen a graphium.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Aug 19, 2021 3:48:51 GMT -8
P.troilus is rather rare in west of Toronto area, I yet to see one. The closest point where I did saw one once was 40 km south/west.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Aug 19, 2021 12:08:48 GMT -8
Note that we had a sidebar on Troilus a few pages back, so for details on the species in the Lake Ontario region, flip back a few pages. Back on topic, the original description of papilio appalachiensis is quite a good read. The intuitions and efforts of the authors is impressive. Now 20 years old some of the info has been demonstrated wrong, and unfortunately some of the cited unknowns still exist. lepsurvey.carolinanature.com/ttr/ttr-3-7.pdfWhat remains of interest to me, and as yet undetermined, is how many species of Tigers are in Finger Lakes region. I’ve confirmed glaucus, canadensis, and MST. Is “Ithaca” synonymous with appalachiensis, MST, or yet another cryptic Tiger? And what about Vermont, and those Pavulaan referenced in CT? I mean, how many bloody species are there of these Tigers?
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Aug 19, 2021 14:04:44 GMT -8
Chuck, if canadensis and glaucus are confirmed species in your region and yet you still find ones that don't seem to match either; then would you not simply consider this to be a transition zone and these "one-offs" and "odd ones" are simply a blending of the two species.
Perhaps, you are looking too closely at subtle differences as a "splitter" in an effort to come up with a species that simply may not be there...
I mean no offense by this as it happens to many people intrigued by what they perceive as a scientific quandary.
Sometimes, even the best of us can over examine something which can make for endless personal frustration.
Still, your thread has been intriguing...
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Aug 19, 2021 14:15:10 GMT -8
Well when this started I claimed to have recorded glaucus and canadensis; in fact I had though a majority of the specimens I thought were canadensis. I knew nothing of MST, though have now added that to the Finger Lakes list.
Scriber even describes the all yellows as a hybrid. But I can’t find any molecular studies that indicate to what extent, though some studies have shown that current hybrid tests go poorly for the subjects. So I still propose the all yellows may merit species status.
What remains to be worked on is the range of appalachiensis, MST, Ithaca, Vermont, etc. I can understand ignoring this if they were skippers, but seriously!
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Aug 30, 2021 16:24:32 GMT -8
Chuck, if canadensis and glaucus are confirmed species in your region and yet you still find ones that don't seem to match either; then would you not simply consider this to be a transition zone and these "one-offs" and "odd ones" are simply a blending of the ... To build on this now that field season is over (somewhat thankfully) I can turn my time to answering your question and start bench research. Here’s the sitrep: 1. The Finger Lakes are in the thermal zone where all females are yellow. Breeding studies have crossed them with southern glaucus and canadensis, with generally successful results. This race is indeed a hybrid, though to what extent genetically and historically is unknown. They will, but rarely do, interbreed. So they are historically similar to appalachiensis, though perhaps still not (or ever) genetically isolated. 2. MST, now confirmed by one specimen from Finger Lakes, is not appalachiensis. Thats despite similar morphology. 3. The range of MST in Finger Lakes is unknown. It is widespread in cold, mountainous Vermont. Thus I expected to find it in the hills of Finger Lakes but did not. 4. In a pocket of SE Finger Lakes (Cornell area) is an unidentified cryptic. It ecloses when MST does. 5. Not far south of Cornell purported appalachiensis have been recorded. Not just there, either. Photo records (misidentified as glaucus and canadensis) go all the way up into CT and RI, on a straight line continued NE through the known range of appalachiensis. Aside from examination of my recent field studies, I will also be churning through photo records of the misidentified to plot these cryptics. From there further research will reveal if they (each region/ population) are appalachiensis, MST, or some other archaic cryptic(s). Haha and some of you are going to help. I’d love to see genetics of the all yellow race compared to nominate glaucus, canadensis, appalachiensis, and MST. Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by jhyatt on Aug 31, 2021 5:35:14 GMT -8
Eurytides and Paul K,
Yesterday I saw a male glaucus - the first in about 2 weeks here in the southern Appalachians of Tennessee. The bug has been quite uncommon all season, and in '21 also. I spent a mid-August week on the coast of GA, and did not see a single glaucus (they're usually the maynardi form) there... just lots of palamedes and cresphontes, and the odd troilus, philenor and asterias.
This is probably the poorest season for glaucus I've ever seen. Puzzling.
jh
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Aug 31, 2021 10:25:54 GMT -8
Thanks John for the field reports.
As you know, populations fluctuate due to a variety of normal factors. In our region, throw in horrible storms and cold fronts in June (zero observed) and a storm in early August that I blame for the decimation of the summer adult population.
Aside from Finger Lakes, this summer I observed "normal" populations in VA Beach, three locations in PA, and KY.
Both in Finger Lakes and KY I experienced a rule of law: location, location, location. One field might have none, another field might hold a few, and the goldmine might be loaded with them. In both locations the subject fields were between 500 yards and two miles apart. In fact, my favored local field ONLY hosted glaucus on the northern end due to ironweed being only on the northern end. In KY I chased the buggers through hell of nettles,roses, and thimbleberry only to find a very close field loaded with thistle (and LOADED with glaucus.)
Lattitude of course plays a part. KY was loaded with glaucus, but returning to NY they were done (as was, not surprisingly, their favored thistle.) I have no doubt that if I were to return to my field in KY right now there would be a few there. Southern seasons are longer on both ends.
Location, location, location.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 28, 2021 8:42:19 GMT -8
Taking a break in between summer field research and winter bench research, but though I'd solicit input on one specimen. Perlman & Perlman published a fabulous set of papers on mosaics and more in Holarctic Lepidoptera, and one of the surprise forms was the "Insufficient Scales Quantity" form, in which the specimens appeared translucent (you can search and find these papers if I haven't linked to them on page 2 of this thread.) In the paper, P&P specifically note a form/ variant in which the FW are most affected. Now, the question on the above specimen, is if it is a ISQ, or if what is observed is some sort of wear. I cannot think of a circumstance that would lead to uniform wear on the FW but not HW. Open to speculation. Thanks, Chuck
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Sept 28, 2021 14:08:34 GMT -8
Agree Chuck. To me, the dorsal FW isn’t missing a lot of black on the stripes. However, the yellow is uniformly and disproportionately translucent.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 28, 2021 15:37:58 GMT -8
I also think is ISQ. Very interesting, one has to really catch everything to find example like that or be lucky. I would definitely let it go when see it flying or resting thinking that it’s only bid up specimen.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 29, 2021 5:04:17 GMT -8
I also think is ISQ. Very interesting, one has to really catch everything to find example like that or be lucky. I would definitely let it go when see it flying or resting thinking that it’s only bid up specimen. I've found that my eye doesn't catch morphological nuances in the field. If one skips the damaged animal, there's a good probability that any rare or unusual morph will be missed. Case in point too, in Ecuador I had many duplicates of sphingid species, so when we left I just grabbed handfuls of "extras" and donated them to the university. Upon arriving home and doing bench studies I discovered that what I thought was three species in fact wasn't, it was many more, some likely new ssp. So I wonder what I'd left behind.
|
|
|
Post by LEPMAN on Oct 26, 2021 15:08:15 GMT -8
Came across this interesting thread and figured I share some of my findings in southern Indiana this summer. Specimens on the top right are P. glaucus males of typical size. Below you can see a large melanic female and in between there is a black female, yellow female and male that are significantly smaller than the typical expected size. These were all collected from the same location during the same day. I kept the ones in best condition for my collection. The female almost looks like a P. trolius. Hope you enjoy! image1 (1) by e d, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 26, 2021 15:31:09 GMT -8
That small female is astonishing, the blue runs all the way up the FW, and the HW black is scalloped like the ventral side.
|
|
|
Post by jhyatt on Oct 27, 2021 5:48:08 GMT -8
That bigger dark female is very reminiscent of the typical female P. appalachiensis from high elevations in West VA.
jh
|
|