|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Oct 7, 2020 7:33:11 GMT -8
I can see all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 7, 2020 7:43:08 GMT -8
It certainly looks like way. Do you agree with my tentative IDs or do you think there is something else happening here? Well, I think we need a greater sample size from before 2000, and I'm working on that. As I'd noted before, both P cresphontes and ticks (with associated Lyme disease) have moved into Finger Lakes at about the same time as glaucus purportedly went bivoltine. The first suspect would be warming. As far as IDs, I've spent more time collating the images and data than looking at the specimens. However, as I said I do note consistent canadensis-like characteristics in the Finger Lakes specimens that are not observed in specimens from elsewhere in USA (though I'd like to see more from Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). That leaves me as perplexed as MST. Surely, somebody has compared the genetics of Finger Lakes glaucus to those south of PA, I wish I knew where to get the data/ information. That there is, based on examinations of specimens presented thus far, no MST- at least in northern Finger Lakes- would be consistent with observations from 1970s and 1980s that no Tiger flew in late summer. The records on iNaturalist and Butterfliesandmoths.org of MST in the southern Finger Lakes (e.g., Ithaca area) I believe are suspect...why would MST be in Canada, and Tompkins County, but not northern Finger Lakes? Again, photo images are largely deficient for identification...using those sources if I map glaucus, canadensis, and MST they have 90% overlap...rubbish. The UNS inner margin marking is a consistent feature, I can't believe I've never noted it before; if I'd read of it I'd forgotten it. But there it is, and consistent across, how to say, groups of specimens. The UNS FW marginal yellow spots/ stripes, particularly considering bleed-through from UPS, I find less worthy...if we had to ID based on that alone, virtually no Finger Lakes specimens would be readily put into a pigeon hole. So I dunno. There are better entomologists than me, I'll just keep feeding data and throw out my ideas, right or wrong. I'm a problem solver, and it drives me nuts not to have an answer, but that we have one or more serious questions about a long-known large butterfly is exciting! Chuck
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 7, 2020 10:05:16 GMT -8
Chuck, in the last paper I posted here by Scriber et al, they concluded that the reason spring form glaucus has some canadensis traits is because of genetic introgression. This is why they look different from glaucus farther south.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 7, 2020 12:18:13 GMT -8
I just get "This site can’t provide a secure connection lensdump.com uses an unsupported protocol. ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH" if I try to open any of the photos in my browser. I haven't seen this problem with other photo hosting websites. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 7, 2020 12:45:45 GMT -8
Chuck, in the last paper I posted here by Scriber et al, they concluded that the reason spring form glaucus has some canadensis traits is because of genetic introgression. This is why they look different from glaucus farther south. Yes, I remember reading that, though some of the early hypotheses have been discounted, so I wasn’t certain where that now stood. Would this not then qualify as a hybrid?
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 7, 2020 13:49:38 GMT -8
It all depends on how you define hybrid. They have some canadensis genes but its not like 1/2 or 1/4. Many humans are ~5% Neanderthal. Are we hybrids or do we just consider those genes ancient and part of what we are as a species. So if glaucus has some canadensis genes from the last ice age, is that just part of the biological concept we label “glaucus”?
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 7, 2020 16:19:25 GMT -8
It all depends on how you define hybrid. They have some canadensis genes but its not like 1/2 or 1/4. Many humans are ~5% Neanderthal. Are we hybrids or do we just consider those genes ancient and part of what we are as a species. So if glaucus has some canadensis genes from the last ice age, is that just part of the biological concept we label “glaucus”? How would I know? I'm a field guy, not a lab guy! :-) Taxonomy has changed significantly since I was a youth. And, with the advent of advanced science, technology has given us incredible insights that our eyes cannot. Certainly, we could (should) have a completely separate thread (= argument) on taxonomy. [Adam? You want to start off a new thread with a lesson?] Certainly, some races or regional populations will exhibit different hybridization, to some level, than others. For example, "Greeks" to the east may have more Ottoman, while "Greeks" to the west more Italian. Still, I guess, all Greeks (not to start a fight about Spartans and Athenians, that was done a long time ago.) It is all part of the Species Problem, argued about for how long now? Back on topic and going back to my original observation, it appears that glaucus south of Lake Ontario (~northern Finger Lakes, plus or minus) started to exploit its ability to be multivoltine. I suspect such an occurrance has been documented previously for some other species- anyone know? This of course means that it can't be canadensis, which is univoltine. And, as the specimens thus far exhibited from the region, none have been identified as MST. Ergo, they must be glaucus. What I do find interesting is that there is a "race" of glaucus that exhibits many canadensis characteristics, and and NOT have the dark female (as do glaucus over 95% of its range), both of which appear, to me, as fairly significant. That this band of glaucus may have more canadensis than all other glaucus is not shocking; that they exhibit significant morphological difference from other glaucus is (to me.) In any event, I'd not ever heard of MST until this thread, so that too has been a great read, and a great ride, for I thought our new late summer flight must surely be MST...yet it is not. Wow. Thus, it does appear that my original conundrum has been answered, only to open more. For sake of further study, even if to rule out MST in some locales, I'll continue to photo Tigers and post them for future reference. Chuck
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 7, 2020 17:10:16 GMT -8
Chuck, I can’t even remember your initial conundrum lol. Anyway, debating what constitutes a species is indeed for another thread, but I suspect answers are few. There is an element of subjectiveness here - for example, lumper vs splitter.
As for the yellow-only female “glaucus,” there are probably at least a couple of factors. For one, mimic models are fewer, though this by itself shouldn’t completely eliminate the melanism. I vaguely remember researching this topic years ago and reading that the yellow suppressor gene was very close physically to genes responsible for diapause. The result is that there was selection pressure against melanic females in colder climates. I don’t remember the source off hand but will search for it if I find the time.
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Oct 7, 2020 17:19:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 8, 2020 4:26:42 GMT -8
|
|