Ah, interesting it’s been long said it’s one of the oldest, so perhaps that confirms. I wonder what other regional taxa may also be that old. Figure, to continue for that many millions of years requires a specific environmental stability.

eurytides wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 9:38 pm That’s quite a story Chuck! You are a good story teller. I can picture you running around frantically searching for nets!

The plus is that I was fully clothed, so there is no element of THAT part of the story.

https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?sc ... 1000100340

That’s quite a story Chuck! You are a good story teller. I can picture you running around frantically searching for nets!

Geneticists use rate of mutation (AKA "voodoo") to estimate when taxa, such as subspecies, are significantly different enough to be recognized.

When the parental species becomes extinct, those subspecies become elevated to species status, and presumably continue to mutate.

But not all parental species are extinct. I wonder- does anyone know which species-level taxa that still exists is the oldest remaining?

If I'm reading Figure 4 of Condamine 2023 correctly, Papilio esperanza as a species dates to about 18 million years old.

"Be Prepared." I was not.

From mid-May till November, I keep a net next to the back porch; one behind the basement door; and a collapsing net in the vehicle. When on the boat, the collapsing net goes on the boat.

But not much flies in the Finger Lakes until the Spring Form Tigers appear May 13 or 14, depending on weather.

So when one flew past me today I was shocked. It stopped to look at some ground flowers, then hopped over to a yellow "no mow" sign laying on the grass, and was flitting around.

I left a net and envelopes at the new house a couple days ago, but we returned north.

My collapsing net is somewhere in my office, packed to move.

There is no net near the porch, nor any need for another behind the basement door.

I ran into the house, stripped my boots off (wife said "Wear your boots!" in the house, that is the first time and last time I will hear that.) and ran to the basement. All of my nets are packed ready to move. I tossed aside a couple hoops, trying to figure out how long it would take to mount them on a handle, when I spotted it- a brand new in bag collapsing net. I tore open the plastic bag on the way up the stairs, and never bothered to grab a handle.

It was probably gone anyway. But stalking down the yard I found it nectaring on a bush. And caught it. May2nd. Unbelievable, and lucky.




After that, I put my decoy out. And, I've been checking it every 30 minutes, you know, in case another Tiger alights on it. Yeah, right. But the bluejays found it, luckily the transparent cover is too tough for them.

At 3:15pm I was checking the decoy and another Tiger flew out of the forest, up over the house, and disappeared. No interest in the decoys.

I checked iNat, and there is one other record of a 2025 Tiger in NY State, way down on Long Island.

Here is the range map for ophthalmica https://www.inaturalist.org/observation ... _id=486567

and for cerisyi https://www.inaturalist.org/observation ... _id=119492

You can see there is some overlap, but surprisingly limited. And apparently ophthalmica is pretty well know to iNat people.

I have one outside my front door. Does anyone want him? I'm in Colfax California.

kevinkk wrote: Thu May 01, 2025 12:41 am Thank you very much for the synopsis. Page 502?!

Kevin, if you haven't already done so, you can download the whole 'paper' from the link I posted with the text, it's only 2MB+ despite having so many pages.

eurytides wrote: Thu May 01, 2025 10:07 am they said there was a 3.5% divergence in mtDNA.

That's more than enough of a difference to suggest that they must be separate species. I see from the text above that both occur in Alberta, but perhaps in different habitats.

Adam.

I read all the text, but was too slow to post, ha.

eurytides wrote: Thu May 01, 2025 10:07 am In the paper, they said there was a 3.5% divergence in mtDNA.

Oops, yes they did! I didn't read all that text, just copied and pasted it for you

It can get also confusing when speaking about plants as well, which is something else we want to be certain of.

In the paper, they said there was a 3.5% divergence in mtDNA.

Has anyone sequenced the two species to see whether there is a genetic difference?

Adam.

eurytides wrote: Thu May 01, 2025 3:57 am Yeah the paper was basically a checklist of Alberta moths….

and butterflies.

Adam.

I completely agree with the concern about the use of non-Latin names in classified ads. As collectors and enthusiasts, using the proper Latin names is essential for clarity and consistency. Common names can vary widely and often lead to confusion, especially when people aren't familiar with the species. The Latin name, however, provides a universally accepted reference point.

I also think it's important for sellers to adopt this standard, as it helps both experienced collectors and newcomers alike. As mentioned, the scientific names are subject to change, but they remain the most reliable form of identification.

Let's keep pushing for the use of Latin names in the community to ensure accuracy and prevent misunderstandings.

Yeah the paper was basically a checklist of Alberta moths….it was more a book than paper. 549 pages total!

adamcotton wrote: Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:45 pm Here's what they say on p. 502:

Thank you very much for the synopsis. Page 502?!
I have a copy of Tuttle's book as well, didn't really explain much except the species is variable

Adam beat me to it, was just about to post the same paper. Anyway, very interesting read.

The paper is available here:

Greg Pohl, Gary Anweiler, Christian Schmidt, Norbert Kondla 2010. An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada
https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/216 ... pdf/280073

Here's what they say on p. 502:
A18. Smerinthus ophthalmica Boisduval, 1855 REVISED STATUS
We arrange the AB populations of Smerinthus “cerisyi” into two species, the southern prairie–
mountain (Crowsnest Pass southward) populations as S. ophthalmica (type locality: San
Francisco, CA) and the boreal–mountain populations as S. cerisyi Kirby (type locality: North
America; limited to New York State by Eitschberger (2002)). Rothschild and Jordan (1903)
revised ophthalmica to a subspecies of S. cerisyi, and Hodges (1971) treated it as a straight
synonym of S. cerisyi; the latter taxonomic view has generally been followed since (Tuttle
2007). A notable exception is the work of Eitschberger (2002), who raised three taxa (astarte
Strecker, vancouverensis Butler and ophthalmica) from synonymy under S. cerisyi¸ in addition to
considering two specimens from the Columbia Icefi elds, AB, as possibly representing yet another
species. Eitschberger (2002) qualifi ed his taxonomic decisions by rather vague statements like
“Based on genitalic structure, clearly a good species” (Eitschberger 2002, page 94), while failing
to examine specimens of both astarte and vancouverensis from the regions of the type localities
(CO and Vancouver Island, BC, respectively). Given the variation in genitalic structure in
cerisyi (sensu lato) (BCS, unpublished data) and the lack of diagnostic genitalic features, as
noted by Rothschild and Jordan (1903), Eitschberger’s (2002) work is underwhelming at best,
and the taxonomic changes pertaining to North American taxa were appropriately countered
by Tuttle (2007).
Despite the shortcomings of Eitschberger’s (2002) interpretation of the cerisyi group, it
appears he was partially correct (although for the wrong reasons). Relative to cerisyi, ophthalmica
is distinguished by a pale brown phenotype prevalent in prairie populations (which often cooccur
with darker phenotypes; the pale phenotype does not occur in cerisyi), a less scalloped
margin on the forewing, less scalloped and “smoother” postmedian lines on the forewing, a
sharper angle of the antemedian line, and narrower serrations of the male antennae, as well as
surprisingly large mitochondrial DNA divergence (in the cox1 gene) between AB populations of
these taxa, averaging about 3.5%. Th e phenotypic variation present in this group has previously
been assumed to represent clinal intraspecifi c variation from western into boreal phenotypes.
Th is appears to be the case only in the central foothills region (Crowsnest Pass to Banff ), where
many specimens are phenotypically intermediate, presumably indicating a contact or hybrid
zone between the western and boreal taxa. However, the broad geographic transition from the
boreal to the prairie region (i.e., aspen parkland) shows no such intergrades, and an abrupt
change occurs from cerisyi phenotypes in the parkland and central prairies to ophthalmica in the
southern prairie. In the prairie region, cerisyi occurs south to at least Tolman Bridge Provincial
Recreation Area and east to Nevis, whereas typical ophthalmica occurs northwest to at least
Dinosaur Provincial Park, a distance of about 60 km to the nearest known cerisyi populations.
Collections from intervening areas would be very informative. Th ere is no indication that
ophthalmica is an ecologically induced phenotype, since only typical cerisyi are present in the
hot, arid badlands of both the Red Deer River in central AB and the Peace River Canyon, both
regions known for the occurrence of typically Great Plains species. Th e phenotypic variation in
CA and CO populations of ophthalmica was summarized by Comstock and Dammers (1943),
who documented the pale tan and brown form occurring among siblings. Th eir interpretation
of phenotypic variation extended to CO populations (astarte), and they accordingly treated
ophthalmica, astarte, and saliceti Boisduval as subspecies of cerisyi. Th is situation has been cited
as further proof of ophthalmica and cerisyi being conspecifi c (Tuttle 2007). Examination of
specimens from the Rocky Mountains in CO shows that they are consistent with ophthalmica
(sensu novo), but are not the same taxon as the boreal (nominal) cerisyi, which was not examined
by Comstock and Dammers (1943). Th e taxonomy and biogeography of this group is in need of
additional study, as it seems clear that more than one species is involved. It is indeed possible that
the prairie taxon is a species separate from both the southern mountain and boreal populations,
related to or conspecifi c with saliceti. Antennal structure, wing phenotype, and mitochondrial
DNA indicate a closer relationship of these southern AB populations to saliceti than to cerisyi
(BCS, unpublished data); the extremely variable genitalic structure has so far not provided useful
characters, but AB would certainly be the place to study this fascinating and beautiful group.