by harrypav » Wed Oct 30, 2024 3:56 am
Some clarification here, in response to comments here and elsewhere:
1) Pterourus bjorkae is not a “spring form” of the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail. It is an introgressed-hybrid taxon that flies in the spring, along WITH P. glaucus and what I initially perceived as P. canadensis in Rhode Island. It is not a spring form, as there is no summer form. ‘Kevinkk’: yes, you misunderstand.
2) As for canadensis, I refer to this in my paper as “near-canadensis” on advice of my reviewer who suggested that canadensis likely does not fly in southern New England (except for NW Connecticut and far western Massachusetts). Whether the small, early spring taxon in Rhode Island is actually canadensis, or yet another taxon, remains to be seen.
3) I appreciate Chuck DeRoller’s understanding of the issues at hand, also Adam Cotton.
4) I have reared all three taxa in Rhode Island: glaucus, bjorkae and near-candensis. They are different. In particular, I have reared glaucus almost continuously, on an annual basis since 1983 and the Rhode Island spring flight produces the summer flight. Both spring and summer forms are perfect matches for those that I have reared over many years elsewhere. Genome research won’t provide any earth-breaking finds.
5) If any doubters were to actually read my paper, P. glaucus has a black form. That black form is only found along the immediate southern New England coast. The black form does NOT occur in bjorkae or canadensis.
6) Mark Schenk, former owner of the Newport (R.I.) Butterfly Zoo, once informed me that he reared many glaucus from a single black female of the spring flight, thus producing many black females of the summer brood. It was a one-time finding.
7) Chuck brings up an interesting point. There may yet be MORE cryptic taxa within the “Tiger Swallowtail Complex”. The late Alex Grkovich, who collected a considerable number of P. bjorkae in Massachusetts, long knew this was a unique taxon, and he often referred to it as a subspecies of P. appalachiensis. However, Alex was quite convinced that there were additional cryptic species in New England. I won’t go into detail but Chuck may be on to something.
8) Chuck: try looking at the bivoltine populations of glaucus up on the Allegheny Plateau of West Virginia, western Maryland and some parts of western Pennsylvania. They are flying where, according to Mark Scriber’s team, it is too cold for glaucus to exist. I can share observations related to this.
9) ‘Eurytides’ stated: “I am also hesitant to take Harry’s word here without genetic data. It’s 2024, and despite the ICZN, I personally don’t think you can claim a new species without genetic data.” Well, that’s not how science has been working. There are no prerequisites for genetic data to describe any biological entity. As a matter of fact, when you look at 99% of described species, those were done before DNA analysis even started. It’s only been the past few decades that genomics has really taken off. And, so, if I describe a new species before any genomic work has been done, that does not disqualify the description of a new organism. We can’t have it both ways, as so many people criticize Nick Grishin’s genome team for naming and describing new taxa from DNA analysis, before we even know anything of their life history. Example: when Hermeuptychia intricata was described, it wasn’t until months later, that Andy Warren published a paper on how to tell the difference from H. sosybius.
10) ‘Trehopr1’ stated: “why are these "scientific" papers produced without adequate peer review?” If this is in reference to The Taxonomic Report, for how many years to I have to tell folks that TTR is PEER REVIEWED. There are a number of issues here. (1) TTR employs a flexible peer review process. As editor, I can assign a reviewer, or the author is at liberty to select a reviewer who will work with them to produce a top notch paper. Take a look at any of the TTR papers, and you’ll see reviewers listed. (2) TTR reviewers are expected to be expert in the topic at hand. (3) Putting one’s paper into the hands of an anonymous reviewer who knows little or nothing of the topic at hand, is not productive and can lead to excessive delays. Look at some past issues of JRL that took YEARS to publish papers. Also, some TTR papers, especially those by Nick Grishin’s team, have an entire acknowledgement devoted to listing all the players who reviewed or provided help.
11) Yes, TTR is a private journal of sorts. It is actually the journal of what is left of The International Lepidoptera Survey after its founder, Ron Gatrelle passed away. I have been struggling to keep TILS and TTR afloat. However, again, there is no requisite for anything to be published in the “big boy” vanity journals. Small journals such as TTR and also James Scott’s ‘Papilio – New Series” were founded precisely to remove avocational and professional research from the grasp of the “big boy” journals, and also to expedite publication. Otakar Kudrna once wrote to me and explained how, in Turkey, a small elite of entomologists controlled research, being unreasonably critical, thus the need to often look for other outlets. Case in point - many years back, I published a paper in the JLS on Rhode Island Butterflies (not Skippers). A year later, I mailed in another paper on R.I. Skippers. Well, the new editor apparently did not even read my paper and rejected it outright the day he received it, suggesting I find another journal. I did, and Opler made sure it was published in Xerces.
12) Thanks, Chuck. Yes, we are all entomologists, especially when we spend a lifetime of fieldwork and study, then write, though some may only be interested in the hobby aspects of collecting. So, I prefer not to associate as a mere “collector”.
13) DNA work is not the final word! It does not work for groups such as the Celastrina and many of the western Blues. If we simply use DNA work to recognize species, then all eastern Celastrina are ONE species! Even black Celastrina nigra has the same DNA as C. ladon, neglecta, others. So we rely on good old fashioned fieldwork to distinguish species. Had David Wright and myself not described Celastrina idella and C. serotina when we did, we still to this day would not recognize them as species.
14) Chuck hit a home run with this comment: “In some focus fields, I have no peers. I am the authority. So who's to review the subject material?” David Wright reviewed my P. bjorkae paper. I can confidently say that Dave and I are experts on the Tiger Swallowtail group. Yes, there are others, but think here: Often the institutionally-affiliated experts focus solely on their OWN research, and in my experience, some won’t even respond to email inquiries. Ever hear of “conflict of interest”? If I were to disclose my research to others, it would be a snap to throw together a paper using my research, and claiming it for oneself. So we avocational lepidopterists are left to our own devices. We don’t have unlimited free access to literature, unlimited time, finances and resources to travel far and wide to conduct collaborative research. I depended heavily on my own fieldwork and rearing, but also on all the published studies which I cited in my paper. Those are, in a way, PRE-review.
That’s enough rambling for now.
HP (yes, a Bjork fan)