|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 21, 2020 10:22:50 GMT -8
Based on Ontario Butterfly Atlas black female was recorded near Long Point probably in St.Wiliams forest.
However P.troilus is also not uncommon there and maybe these two where confused as most of the records are sightings.
|
|
|
|
Post by leptraps on Sept 21, 2020 13:39:10 GMT -8
I have been at this a lot longer than most of you, and, I have collected extensively in the in the Eastern USA.
I also think that Papilio canadensis is more than likely a single brood of Papilio glaucus that only flies in late May to early July.
I also think that the farther North you collect, in Wisconsin, Michigan and Canada, especially southern Canada, you will find a mix of Papilio canadensis and "near" glaucus.
Just my thoughts....
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 23, 2020 4:34:54 GMT -8
Based on Ontario Butterfly Atlas black female was recorded near Long Point probably in St.Wiliams forest. However P.troilus is also not uncommon there and maybe these two where confused as most of the records are sightings. It has been my experience that observation reports of species ("data")is highly suspect when the reporter is not a lepidopterist. Bird watchers are notorious for being lax in their identifications- not just leps but birds as well. They are a well meaning bunch, but some are so excitable that they'll stretch an observation so they can add a checkmark on their bird book; with leps it's even worse. A local group maintains a list of observed leps which includes many obvious (i.e., impossible or improbable) "observations." Photos on BOMONA and iNaturalist are far better than nothing. But as can be observed in this discussion on Tigers, it's clear that the photographed specimen is often tossed into the wrong ID. If one looks at the purported ranges of canadensis, glaucus, and appalachiensis there is immense overlap to the point that one would conclude they are cospecific. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by foxxdoc on Sept 23, 2020 5:57:38 GMT -8
Differing opinions on this species. What is the basis for determining canadensis a legitimate species ? Were there DNA studies ?
Tom |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 23, 2020 8:18:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 23, 2020 8:25:11 GMT -8
This is a typical error with determination of the species . www.butterfliesandmoths.org/sighting_details/614549The photo clearly shows P.canadensis but because of false data it was ID by famous lepidopterist as P.glaucus. The chive plants bloom in May and June so the photo could not be taken on July 27. Also P.glaucus does not occur that far north. This is only one example that I just found within 20min searching BAMONA records and Im sure there will be a lot more. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 23, 2020 8:31:22 GMT -8
A quote from part of the introduction: Tiger swallowtail butterflies of North America (Figure 1A) are a monophyletic group consisting of eight closely-related species. Sister species glaucus and canadensis show clear and strong evidence for interspecific divergence and multiple forms of reproductive isolation: one-way assortative mate preference [12,13], reduced hatching success of hybrid eggs [13,14], Haldane’s Rule and hybrid incompatibility in glaucus/ canadensis crosses [14,15], divergent thermal habitat preference [16–18], differential host-plant preference/usage [18–22] and larval development times [23], and differential survival on preferred host plants [14,19,24] (also see Materials and Methods). This broad range of isolating mechanisms shows that glaucus and canadensis are good biological species [13,25]. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 23, 2020 10:02:54 GMT -8
Here's the first paper separating glaucus and canadensis as species: images.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/jls/1990s/1991/1991-45(4)245-Hagen.pdfPAPILlO CANADENSIS AND P. GLAUCUS (PAPILIONIDAE) ARE DISTINCT SPECIES ROBERT H. HAGEN, ROBERT C. LEDERHOUSE, J. L. BOSSART AND J. MARK SCRIBER Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 ABSTRACT. Papilio canadensis Rothschild & Jordan is recognized as a distinct species, not a subspecies of P. glaucus L., on the basis of physiological and genetic differences despite great similarity in adult appearance of these two taxa. Interspecific hybrids are found in a well-marked zone where the ranges of the species come into contact. The ecological or genetic factors that maintain species integrity despite this natural hybridization are as yet uncertain. |
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Sept 23, 2020 10:49:06 GMT -8
This is a typical error with determination of the species . www.butterfliesandmoths.org/sighting_details/614549The photo clearly shows P.canadensis but because of false data it was ID by famous lepidopterist as P.glaucus. The chive plants bloom in May and June so the photo could not be taken on July 27. Also P.glaucus does not occur that far north. This is only one example that I just found within 20min searching BAMONA records and Im sure there will be a lot more. Good catch. Probably should ask them to correct it? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 23, 2020 11:14:51 GMT -8
This is a typical error with determination of the species . www.butterfliesandmoths.org/sighting_details/614549The photo clearly shows P.canadensis but because of false data it was ID by famous lepidopterist as P.glaucus. The chive plants bloom in May and June so the photo could not be taken on July 27. Also P.glaucus does not occur that far north. This is only one example that I just found within 20min searching BAMONA records and Im sure there will be a lot more. Good catch. Probably should ask them to correct it? Good idea! I have to register I guess to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 23, 2020 15:30:38 GMT -8
They have corrected to MST instead of P.canadensis.
I suppose 27 July is also late for MST so fresh or isn’t .
This is how mislead data can cause a problem.
I definitely see legit P.canadensis on this photo and record is not from Jul 27. Chive plants bloom in spring and early summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 23, 2020 16:05:21 GMT -8
It would be interesting to compare the Finger Lakes (and northern band) all yellow female race to other glaucus to see if there are other differences than melanic and repressive genes.
Also why the preponderance of mixed color females in SE PA? I would think genetically they would be yellow or black not mixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Sept 23, 2020 16:27:38 GMT -8
They have corrected to MST instead of P.canadensis. I suppose 27 July is also late for MST so fresh or isn’t . This is how mislead data can cause a problem. I definitely see legit P.canadensis on this photo and record is not from Jul 27. Chive plants bloom in spring and early summer. Yeah if it’s May or June, it’s good for canadensis. Late July is good for MST. I collected MST eggs around July 22-25. |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 5, 2020 10:39:44 GMT -8
I accessed the Robert J Iveson collection at SUNY Brockport and photographed the "Eastern Tiger Swallowtail" specimens. My apologies for the dark images; I can lighten them but thought it better to leave as-is. Notably, Bob lives in Brockport, which along with nearby Holley and Bergen are in the northwestern corner of the Finger Lakes region, in other words not far from Lake Ontario. However, there are specimens from Adirondacks, Catskills, and PA- apparently corresponding to family trips. Click on image for larger, click again for extra biggenization.Note: Some dates had been transcribed incorrectly, and are reference in following posts. These have been corrected. Below is a summary, sorted by location then date:  For a geographic understanding of Bob's Finger Lakes records, the map is updated to show Brockport, Holley, and Bergen. I've also added Webster and Victor for future discussions.  The following sorted by location, Finger Lakes region first. Note from the map that Brockport and Holley are adjacent towns; Bergen isn't far. Finger Lakes, Brockport, 12 Aug 2001   Finger Lakes, Brockport, 22 May 1977    Finger Lakes, Brockport, 18 June 1978    Finger Lakes, Brockport, 01 June 1985    Finger Lakes, Brockport, 01 June 1975    Finger Lakes, Holley, 6 June 1976   Finger Lakes, Holley, 06 June 1976     Finger Lakes, Holley, 06 June 1976   Finger Lakes, Bergen, 03 June 1962   Adirondacks, Old Forge, 18 June 1978  Adirondacks, Old Forge, 18 June 1978   Adirondacks, Old Forge, 31 May 1988   Adirondacks, Forestport 31 May 1980   Adirondacks, Old Forge, 31 May 1988  Adirondacks, Old Forge, 31 May 1988  Catskills, Rt 10, 30 May 1980  Catskills, Rt 10, 30 May 1980  PA, Gold, 27 May 1985   PA, Gold, 27 May 1985   VA: Front Royal, 06 Sept 1997   Ex Pupa, "Wards", 02 Dec 1996  In examining the Finger Lakes specimens (line items 2 through 10) Bob had only nine specimens, so not a great survey size. Note though that he had only ONE specimen later than mid-July (12 August) which is dated 2001. This is perhaps indicative of something (and certainly reflecting my own records)such as a univoltine flight ending by early July- until about 15 (maybe 20 now?) years ago. Or it could be just the sample size. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 5, 2020 22:27:00 GMT -8
Thanks for doing all that leg work! For lines 2-10, I suspect all 3 taxa are present, but it’s difficult to say without knowing if the specimens were fresh or worn. I suppose the mid August specimen could be a really worn MST but that seems like a stretch. It’s probably a second generation glaucus. In the pictures you’ve posted, I believe I see all 3 taxa. When I have time later this week, I need to reexamine my own specimens more closely as well. I have 9 putative MST pupae in the fridge. In a couple of months, I will take them out and we shall see how long they take to eclose and what they look like!
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 6, 2020 4:05:59 GMT -8
I resorted the post on the Iveson Tigers by region, and added a handy map showing capture data locations for the Finger Lakes. Hopefully this will make comparisons easier.
One trend I observe, from both the Iveson records and my own, is that the NY Tigers exhibit a far straighter sub-marginal UNS HW black band than do the typical southern glaucus, such as the example from VA. Even ignoring every other characteristic, this differentiation is consistent. I didn't say "straight", I said "straighter", even in the tentatively identified second flight glaucus.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 6, 2020 18:40:54 GMT -8
Chuck, I think you have a bunch of the dates wrong. V and VI on the labels are May and June, but you have consistently listed these as June and July. I think you might have mistaken V for 6 instead of 5?
|
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 6, 2020 18:48:34 GMT -8
All the Adirondack and Catskills specimens look like typical canadensis. The rest all look like glaucus. Based on the labels, I do not see any July specimens, which is when I would expect MST to fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Oct 6, 2020 19:58:21 GMT -8
Chuck, I think you have a bunch of the dates wrong. V and VI on the labels are May and June, but you have consistently listed these as June and July. I think you might have mistaken V for 6 instead of 5? Maybe Chuck got mixed up with V6 engine 🤔 That’s why I don’t use Latin numbers for months. In few more decades no one will know what those means. English names are seem to be more recognized. I’m not sure if I’m doing this wright but that’s what I do |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 7, 2020 4:01:02 GMT -8
Paul K, It is fine to use English names or abbreviations for months on data labels, such as 'Apr.' for April etc, but NEVER use '04' for April, because no-one can be sure whether 04.07.2020 means 4th July (UK style) or 7th April (US style). Months should always be written either in letters or Roman numerals. I use letters myself rather than Roman numerals for the same reason. Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 7, 2020 4:44:24 GMT -8
Chuck, I think you have a bunch of the dates wrong. V and VI on the labels are May and June, but you have consistently listed these as June and July. I think you might have mistaken V for 6 instead of 5? Thanks for that. The error was mine alone. The dates, both in the summary spreadsheet and above the specimens, have been corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 7, 2020 4:46:27 GMT -8
All the Adirondack and Catskills specimens look like typical canadensis. The rest all look like glaucus. Based on the labels, I do not see any July specimens, which is when I would expect MST to fly. Thanks for your examination! Thus we circle back to my original observation. Acknowledging the still-small sample size, it does appear that in the Finger Lakes glaucus was univoltine until circa 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 7, 2020 5:58:52 GMT -8
All the Adirondack and Catskills specimens look like typical canadensis. The rest all look like glaucus. Based on the labels, I do not see any July specimens, which is when I would expect MST to fly. Thanks for your examination! Thus we circle back to my original observation. Acknowledging the still-small sample size, it does appear that in the Finger Lakes glaucus was univoltine until circa 2000. It certainly looks like way. Do you agree with my tentative IDs or do you think there is something else happening here? |
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 7, 2020 6:00:21 GMT -8
Also, thanks for doing all that leg work getting pictures of the various specimens and posting the map and summary. Very helpful!
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 7, 2020 7:16:34 GMT -8
It's a pity I can't see any of the photos Chuck has posted in this thread except one in an early post that was linked from somewhere other than lensdump.com.
Adam.
|
|
