Recent posts
Topic: Callophrys Pupae? | Author: Seth Mueller | Replies: 3 | Views: 53
User avatar
58chevy
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 5:58 pm

Re: Callophrys Pupae?

by 58chevy » Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:38 pm

It could possibly be the underside of a beetle abdomen, but it's a close match to the pupa in the life cycle sequence.
Topic: Callophrys Pupae? | Author: Seth Mueller | Replies: 3 | Views: 53
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: Callophrys Pupae?

by adamcotton » Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:51 am

Seth,

That is a very good field photo for something so small. It certainly looks like the abdominal segments of a pupa and the shape is similar to the reference picture. Whether it is Callophrys mossii hidakupa or another species/genus/family is rather difficult to ascertain from the photo, and I am totally unfamiliar with the fauna in Southern California.

Note that species and subspecies names should always be written with a small first letter, only genus names start with a capital letter.

Adam.
Topic: Callophrys Pupae? | Author: Seth Mueller | Replies: 3 | Views: 53
User avatar
Seth Mueller
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:18 pm

Callophrys Pupae?

by Seth Mueller » Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:24 am

Hey guys,

Recently, I've been trying to photograph a rare butterfly from Southern California. Its Callophrys Mossii Hidakupa, and there has been a location in the San Bernardino Mountains historically. It hasn't been seen in about 20 years at that spot. I went out last month to check out the exact canyon where it's hostplant is abundant. Even though the species does not emerge until April, I sifted through some of the host plant (a species of Sedum) to see if I could find anything, maybe pupae. I pulled out what I thought was another leaf, but it took me by surprise. I snapped a quick picture of it and then dropped it thinking it wasn't anything important. Once I got home, I reviewed the image I took and it looks suspiciously like the bottom part of a lycaenidae pupae. If it is, it was found at the base of Mossii's host plant, indicating it's very likely Callophrys Mossii Hidakupa. I wanted to come on here and ask if anyone agrees or has another diagnosis.

I'll insert the image I took (hopefully it's visible) and I'll follow that with a reference picture I found online. Let me know your thoughts, Is this part of a lycaenidae pupae? Is this even a pupae at all?

Image

Image
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
lamprima2
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 8:16 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by lamprima2 » Sat Dec 14, 2024 12:41 am

Chrtistmas bugs IN.jpg
Chrtistmas bugs IN.jpg (699.13 KiB) Viewed 81 times
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
Panacanthus
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 7:51 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by Panacanthus » Fri Dec 13, 2024 6:49 pm

Stigmodera roei from Australia
IMG_4161.jpeg
IMG_4161.jpeg (403.21 KiB) Viewed 170 times
Trogonoptera brookiana
IMG_4162.jpeg
IMG_4162.jpeg (440.14 KiB) Viewed 168 times
“Seems to me the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.” -David Attenborough
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
wollastoni
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:51 am

Re: Christmas Bugs

by wollastoni » Fri Dec 13, 2024 5:03 pm

Delias ellipsis

Image

More info on this wonderful species here : https://www.delias-butterflies.com/spec ... s-ellipsis
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
Panacanthus
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 7:51 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by Panacanthus » Fri Dec 13, 2024 4:08 pm

IMG_4160.jpeg
IMG_4160.jpeg (164.6 KiB) Viewed 184 times
“Seems to me the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.” -David Attenborough
Topic: How Genetic studies reveal new relationships, species | Author: Chuck | Replies: 41 | Views: 25049
AVATAR
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: How Genetic studies reveal new relationships, species

by Chuck » Fri Dec 13, 2024 1:01 pm

Some comments and insights came up on another thread concerning MtDNA COI, trees showing purported taxonomic relationships and sample sizes. These are copied below because they are applicable to the topic of genetics, and useful to understand what these trees and such mean in recent publications.

*************************

many of Huang's friends didn't like the idea that there could be several species within what looked to them like a single species. A number of Huang's illustrated mandarinus group specimens were misidentified (his so-called 'hybrids' were actually 1st generation G. confucius, and several other specimens were misidentified)

**************************

To demonstrate the ambiguity in COI: a soon-to-be-published paper has both COI 3’ and 5’ tree diagrams for P rutulus and eurymedon. One of the trees highly suggests that one is a ssp of the other; the other tree slightly suggests it might be the other way around.

Further, only some specimens of said ssp fall under the other species; but other specimens group oddly, kinda all over the place, including one level up. I believe these inferences to not reflect the real situation, however it has happened for other taxa that “one species” has been split, some elevated, etc.

The lesson is that COI trees for 3’ and 5’ don’t always agree, and any tree built with few, or ONE, specimen are highly suspect to the point of being useless at species level and below. That’s where SNP and other analyses shed more light.

To be clear COI is useful, and more so with more specimens. If a series of specimens all group together you’re probably on to something. But when they don’t differentiate well with COI- as is the case with the group in the original question- it means other tools are required, tools which are more costly and time consuming.

*****************************

There is yet another explanation: provisional misidentification of specimens.

The ID you see for a specimen in a tree must be assigned by a human. If that ID is wholly wrong it will show up there anyway, based on MtDNA. The tree is automated based on COI, not names. If someone IDs a Graphium mullah as T Rex, then it will look like T Rex groups with those butterflies.

For example, in the Tiger Swallowtail trees you will see soon there is an outlier- my nemesis. Amongst all the glaucus is one Papilio alexiares ssp. garcia. This is simply because some moron misidentified a glaucus as the Mexican Papilio alexiares ssp. garcia, and it was uploaded to BOLD with that ID. And, since most studies that use BOLD COI also use that specimens ID, it shows up in the tree that way.

When there are two or more easily misidentified taxa, and the tree is generated, it will show two or more distinct groups, with the named specimens all jumbled up in both or all groups. It just means that many were misidentified.

When I assign an identifier to a specimen it includes location and date. Not name. In a tree you can see what groups together and AH HA moments can arise if the lab test ID has this data. As in, all the AZ P rutulus group together, aside from the main rutulus. When the specimenID is “Jim vacation” it’s useless, you have to research every damned specimen. When a provisional ID is just wrong it will be misleading in the tree. A bit of common sense goes far.

******************************

[misidentification of specimens] happens more than often indeed. Having sampled hundreds of Delias legs myself and put them in little vials... I can tell you that if someone talks to you or phones you in the middle of the process... you don't know where you are and you hesitate to start all over again.

In a study I took part in, the source specimens from the Museums were misidentified... by the Museums. As a result, conclusions of synonymy or differentiation were erroneous. If the scientists put a label on or took photos of the sampled specimens, we can confirm the initial error. Otherwise, it's impossible to know... and even then, it has to be verified.

This is why any DNA analysis must be carried out on SEVERAL specimens per taxon. But this is obviously not possible for rare species in collections. If a DNA study concludes something really strange... the first reflex must be: “can we see photos of the sampled specimens”.
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
livingplanet3
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by livingplanet3 » Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:51 pm

Historis odius -

Image

Siderone galanthis -

Image

Parides childrenae -

Image
Topic: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus | Author: Wu Ming Hsuan | Replies: 11 | Views: 710
User avatar
wollastoni
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:51 am

Re: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus

by wollastoni » Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:47 am

Chuck wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:17 am There is yet another explanation: provisional misidentification of specimens.
It happens more than often indeed. Having sampled hundreds of Delias legs myself and put them in little vials... I can tell you that if someone talks to you or phones you in the middle of the process... you don't know where you are and you hesitate to start all over again.

In a study I took part in, the source specimens from the Museums were misidentified... by the Museums. As a result, conclusions of synonymy or differentiation were erroneous. If the scientists put a label on or took photos of the sampled specimens, we can confirm the initial error. Otherwise, it's impossible to know... and even then, it has to be verified.

This is why any DNA analysis must be carried out on SEVERAL specimens per taxon. But this is obviously not possible for rare species in collections. If a DNA study concludes something really strange... the first reflex must be: “can we see photos of the sampled specimens”.
Topic: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus | Author: Wu Ming Hsuan | Replies: 11 | Views: 710
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus

by adamcotton » Thu Dec 12, 2024 8:21 am

Chuck wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:17 am There is yet another explanation: provisional misidentification of specimens.
I agree this can happen, and I know of instances in published papers where specimens have been misidentified.

However, in this case there is absolutely no way any specimens were misidentified. My colleague, Dr. Hu, is an expert on Pazala and there are only two species in Taiwan, easy to separate.

Adam.
Topic: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus | Author: Wu Ming Hsuan | Replies: 11 | Views: 710
AVATAR
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus

by Chuck » Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:17 am

There is yet another explanation: provisional misidentification of specimens.

The ID you see for a specimen in a tree must be assigned by a human. If that ID is wholly wrong it will show up there anyway, based on MtDNA. The tree is automated based on COI, not names. If someone IDs a Graphium mullah as T Rex, then it will look like T Rex groups with those butterflies.

For example, in the Tiger Swallowtail trees you will see soon there is an outlier- my nemesis. Amongst all the glaucus is one Papilio alexiares ssp. garcia. This is simply because some moron misidentified a glaucus as the Mexican Papilio alexiares ssp. garcia, and it was uploaded to BOLD with that ID. And, since most studies that use BOLD COI also use that specimens ID, it shows up in the tree that way.

When there are two or more easily misidentified taxa, and the tree is generated, it will show two or more distinct groups, with the named specimens all jumbled up in both or all groups. It just means that many were misidentified.

When I assign an identifier to a specimen it includes location and date. Not name. In a tree you can see what groups together and AH HA moments can arise if the lab test ID has this data. As in, all the AZ P rutulus group together, aside from the main rutulus. When the specimenID is “Jim vacation” it’s useless, you have to research every damned specimen. When a provisional ID is just wrong it will be misleading in the tree. A bit of common sense goes far.
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
kevinkk
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 5:06 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by kevinkk » Wed Dec 11, 2024 8:10 pm

Here's an offering.
The species I usually associate with the season are the one's I've raised in the winter, Actias isis, maenas and dubernardi.
Attachments
Graellsia isabella.JPG
Graellsia isabella.JPG (33.53 KiB) Viewed 317 times
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
livingplanet3
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by livingplanet3 » Wed Dec 11, 2024 7:51 pm

Conradtia principalis -

Image

Chrysina aurigans (red form) -

Image

Charaxes zingha -

Image

Polygrapha suprema

Image
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
alandmor
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:38 pm

Re: Christmas Bugs

by alandmor » Wed Dec 11, 2024 5:24 pm

Photo collage by Noel Mal

Image
Topic: Christmas Bugs | Author: 58chevy | Replies: 9 | Views: 338
User avatar
58chevy
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 5:58 pm

Christmas Bugs

by 58chevy » Wed Dec 11, 2024 3:44 pm

Show us your red & green bugs that remind you of Christmas. Here are a few:
Attachments
P vind.png
P vind.png (528.43 KiB) Viewed 338 times
Gaudy copy.jpg
Gaudy copy.jpg (193.78 KiB) Viewed 338 times
D nerii.jpg
D nerii.jpg (261.03 KiB) Viewed 338 times
Topic: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus | Author: Wu Ming Hsuan | Replies: 11 | Views: 710
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus

by adamcotton » Wed Dec 11, 2024 2:19 pm

Chuck wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2024 3:09 pm To be clear COI is useful, and more so with more specimens. If a series of specimens all group together you’re probably on to something. But when they don’t differentiate well with COI- as is the case with the group in the original question- it means other tools are required, tools which are more costly and time consuming.
Absolutely agree, and this is the same problem we have found with some other Papilionidae such as P. machaon and G. sarpedon.

Adam.
Topic: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus | Author: Wu Ming Hsuan | Replies: 11 | Views: 710
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm

Re: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus

by adamcotton » Wed Dec 11, 2024 2:17 pm

I have been away for a few days, but I asked Shao-Ji Hu about the tree, and he replied:
The topology is due to missing taxa in the eurous-mullah group. When we fill in with more data, the topology will change. The tree in any paper of Mitochondrial DNA Part B is required to validate the placement of the sequenced specimen ONLY, not intended for any phylogenetic inference.
Adam.
Topic: 3 butterflies listed on Endangered Species Act | Author: Kona | Replies: 11 | Views: 636
AVATAR
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: 3 butterflies listed on Endangered Species Act

by Chuck » Wed Dec 11, 2024 1:17 pm

wollastoni wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2024 8:34 am
I now hope the US Army will bomb all people deforesting in the distribution area of these species..
USA won’t bomb the narcotics gangs, so I doubt they will bomb loggers.

ESA does have a provision, written into law, that land can be bought to protect a listed species. Theoretically if USFWS really cared enough they could buy that land in Brazil. I won’t hold my breath.
Topic: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus | Author: Wu Ming Hsuan | Replies: 11 | Views: 710
AVATAR
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Re: A question for Graphium(Pazala) mullah chungianus

by Chuck » Tue Dec 10, 2024 3:09 pm

To demonstrate the ambiguity in COI: a soon-to-be-published paper has both COI 3’ and 5’ tree diagrams for P rutulus and eurymedon. One of the trees highly suggests that one is a ssp of the other; the other tree slightly suggests it might be the other way around.

Further, only some specimens of said ssp fall under the other species; but other specimens group oddly, kinda all over the place, including one level up. I believe these inferences to not reflect the real situation, however it has happened for other taxa that “one species” has been split, some elevated, etc.

The lesson is that COI trees for 3’ and 5’ don’t always agree, and any tree built with few, or ONE, specimen are highly suspect to the point of being useless at species level and below. That’s where SNP and other analyses shed more light.

To be clear COI is useful, and more so with more specimens. If a series of specimens all group together you’re probably on to something. But when they don’t differentiate well with COI- as is the case with the group in the original question- it means other tools are required, tools which are more costly and time consuming.