New Papilio described today

[JVCalhoun]

I understand completely. By the time I retired last July, my brain was mush!

Here is an old article of mine that may be helpful when you start exploring Lee County:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ty_Florida

[JVCalhoun]

Many thanks for joining the forum !

Thank you, I'm glad I'm able to contribute!

[JVCalhoun]

By the way, here is a link to Lehnert (2010): https://original-ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UFE0041499/00001

[Chuck]

As for glaucus not occurring in the Ft. Myers area, there are at least 54 observations on iNat from around Ft. Myers, dated 2008-2024. Also, I have one male from Lee County (in which Ft. Myers is located) from 1983, and two males from southeastern Collier County, also from 1983. These are all truly from southern Florida, and to me they look just like those I have from as far north as Alachua County (Gainesville).

I should not have said "does not occur" you know how black and white statements fare.

That said, the iNat records "around" Ft Myers is pretty broad in range. There are observations even in Ft Myers, however the quantity pales to the observations north of SR-70. As well, iNat shows a greater number south of Ft Myers, with most in Corkscrew preserve and (no surprise) Jane's Scenic Drive.

I often blame human population density for an imbalance in observations, and surely north of SR-70 is nearly non-stop suburban. That said, the I75 corridor isn't exactly low in population. Too, I'd expect if the observations were population-influenced, we'd see more in the Palm Beach-Miami megalopolis.

That maynardi is apparently relatively common in Corkscrew and Fakahatchee, it's probably safe to say it IS indeed common throughout the forests of Lee County- perhaps for whatever reason iNat observers don't care for it. Well, in a few months I should be able to reflect on the population with personal observation.

[JVCalhoun]

I often blame human population density for an imbalance in observations, and surely north of SR-70 is nearly non-stop suburban. That said, the I75 corridor isn't exactly low in population. Too, I'd expect if the observations were population-influenced, we'd see more in the Palm Beach-Miami megalopolis.

Agreed, but this has a lot to do with availability and accessibility. Outside of public lands, much of South Florida is either developed or fenced off, making it tough to reach quality habitat. In my younger years, I had no problem with jumping fences, but those days are over. Getting caught on private property nowadays can have fatal consequences. The majority of observations on iNat are from personal yards/neighborhoods, or from conservation lands (i.e., parks, state/national forests, wildlife management areas, etc.). Also, a lot of land in South Florida is inaccessible swamp and marsh. Note the lack of glaucus records in the center of the region, which is the heart of the Everglades. A lot of areas where I found things 40 years ago are now gone due to development. Some of the best areas in Lee County were where the Southwest Florida International Airport was constructed. That ate up a LOT of land. Hopefully, you will be able to come up with some good things down there.

[Chuck]

making it tough to reach quality habitat.

Speaking of which, the place we're putting an offer on backs to forest. But- "tough to reach" between our Lanai and the forest is a 2' deep, 12' wide creek to cross. Shouldn't hurt the MV though.

I should note that a few months I ago I had a brainstorm that I'd leverage my relationship with the Native Americans here, and go ask if FL if I could study on their land. But it looks like there's not a lot close. John, did you ever approach concerning study on Big Cypress reservation?

In KY I did research on the WMA lands, and thought I could expand that to Indian reservations- and discovered that there are none in KY.

[JVCalhoun]

John, did you ever approach concerning study on Big Cypress reservation?

Sorry, Chuck, I've not tried to conduct a survey there, and don't know how difficult it would be to obtain permission from the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

[eurytides]

I read that many many years ago….might have it saved somewhere, but yes my recollection is that he was talking about the suture zone of maynardi with nominate glaucus.

[JVCalhoun]

it's probably safe to say it IS indeed common throughout the forests of Lee County

Chuck, I don't think glaucus is particularly common in Lee County. Most of the recent records are from conservation lands, particularly the Six Mile Cypress Slough Preserve. I only encountered it once during the period 1976-1986, and that was in the southern part of the county. There are a couple of old reports (pre-1980) from Sanibel Island, but they were probably stays from the mainland. I've never seen numbers of them anywhere in South Florida. To me, finding one or two down there is a good day -- even along Janes Scenic Drive and nearby areas. As suggested by iNat records, it is much more frequent in central and northern Florida. Maybe you will be able to find some great spots for this species in Lee County and beyond. However, most of the prime habitat is now located within preserves (including Fakahatchee Strand in Collier County), so collecting opportunities may be limited.

[Chuck]

Here's a nice and professional writeup on the Papilio solstitius paper.

https://www.sci.news/biology/papilio-so ... 13710.html

[JVCalhoun]

Awesome, Chuck!

In case you aren't aware, an anonymous "curator" on iNaturalist just committed a wholesale taxon split to identify all "canadensis x glaucus" observations as solstitius, citing your paper as justification. I think this is a very bad idea, and I voiced my opinion to that effect: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_splits/157220.

The logic is that people should now go through all such observations (more than 2100) and change those that should not be considered to be solstitius, instead of the other way around. The option to select "canadensis x glaucus" on iNat allows observers to call attention to unusual, "intermediate" phenotypes, but they are not necessarily applicable to solstitius, especially those southward and earlier in the season. This action just seems to muddy the water.

[Chuck]

John, there are actually two discussions on this split, they deal somehow with different aspects of a new taxon. I chimed in on the other, noting bjorkae, undescribed taxa, and the fact that people already can’t even get glaucus and canadensis right.

That said, solstitius is a valid species, and the fact that there are undescribed taxa, and people can’t ID anything beyond monarchs, is no reason to dumb down the taxonomic selections.

In the end, my suggestion was to make it simple- rename canadensis x glaucus as solstitius, except MI, and and thus simply rename the observations. The erroneously ID are still erroneously ID. But really this was the only expedient way to do it- it was suggested to do it by state which won’t work, and I declined to comb through observations to pick out solstitius.


That’s where it stands now. Frankly I’m on the fence concerning iNat. It’s useful, but one has to be able to pick the bugs out of the flour before using it.

What’s more important to share is your perspective and ideas. I hope you don’t mind that I copied below. I don’t care what they do on iNat, but your comments have wider taxonomic implications If you want me to remove this, give me a call.

am very concerned by this wholesale taxon split of all "Canadian x Eastern Tiger Swallowtail" to the recently described P. solsitius. Many of those records may, in fact, represent hybrid phenotypes or other undescribed taxa, which are not applicable to P. solstitius. The placement of many such records exceeds the expected distribution of solsitius, potentially confusing studies of that taxon. Records of "Canadian x Eastern Tiger Swallowtail" must be reviewed by competent, regional identifiers to determine if they agree with the concept of solsitius, including flight time, morphology, and locality. The tiger swallowtail group is still under study, and automatically assigning all "Canadian x Eastern Tiger Swallowtail" records to solsitius contributes to the confusion. This effectively removes the option of having a "Canadian x Eastern Tiger Swallowtail" identification to bring attention to unusual "intermediate" phenotypes, regardless of identity. DeRoller et al. (2025) clearly state that more research is necessary to determine the range of this newly-recognized species.

[JVCalhoun]

Thanks, Chuck, for your perspective. I wasn't aware that you had been involved. I really appreciate your attempt to resolve this situation, but there are often downsides to expediency.

This blanket action on iNat for the Northeast is akin to a "guilty unless proven innocent" scenario. In other words, it must now be proven that individual records are NOT solstitius, otherwise they will continue to be mapped as that species, giving the false impression that it is much more widespread -- and perhaps better understood -- than current knowledge dictates. This can potentially mislead other researchers and local conservation agencies. In other words, the records may be accepted at face value, without question. I suspect that only a small percentage of the photos that were previously identified as canadensis x glaucus in the Northeast on iNat could confidently be identified as solstitius. And maybe that's OK, as so little is known about the species that fewer records suggests that more research is needed.

By the way, I did share my perspective by posting a link to my comments on iNat. I felt that reproducing it here would be redundant. Sorry for the confusion.

[JVCalhoun]

I should add that the broad assumption that all records in a given region represent a particular species, based merely on the uncertain identifications of perceived "intermediates" by observers with varying degrees of experience, would likely overestimate its distribution. In fact, 14 of the records currently identified as solstitius are from May, 238 are from June, 268 are from August, 58 are from September, and 2 are from October. A large number these are probably not applicable to solstitius. Many records are actually larvae, which cannot be confidently identified.

Maybe there is a better way to identify possible records of this species based on a combined method of capturing dates (late June-early August only) and localities (within the current known range as published). All records of larvae could also be removed.

[adamcotton]

By the way, I did share my perspective by posting a link to my comments on iNat. I felt that reproducing it here would be redundant. Sorry for the confusion.

I for one am very happy that Chuck copied your important iNat comment here, as I expect many people would otherwise not see it (and that includes me).

Adam.

[JVCalhoun]

Thanks, Adam. As I mentioned, I did provide a link to my comments, and this discussion on iNat is ongoing...

[Chuck]

In The Beginning there was the glaucus box, and life was good.

But then Jordan, being dissatisfied with the order of the garden, made a new box and called it "canadensis." But there was not much rejoicing, instead much consternation.

Two lifetimes later, Hagen et. al. confirmed the existence of said canadensis box long forgotten in an immense warehouse. And Adam said "ICZN gives you two boxes, the glaucus box, and the canadensis box. Use them wisely." And while there was some rejoicing, man was made not from sheep's brain, but from clay, and far in the future simple COI would show that even experienced Lepidopterists would put butterflies in the wrong boxes [see "gla", "can" and "glaxcan"] with one so clay-minded as to put one into the garcia box, which is in a land far, far away.

In between Jordan and Hagen, oracles Jeremiah and Isaiah Clark quietly said "we think there are more boxes." But two boxes were sufficient a problem already, and they were ignored.

More lifetimes would pass until the day upon which I posted a photo and said "I will put these in the canadensis box", to which member Eurytides said "Though shalt not." And I complained "but they clearly do not fit into the glaucus box." And so it it came to pass that Eurytides shared with me a secret box they kept in Canada, one for which the taxes had not been paid to Caesar ICZN. This secret box was not a catch-all, it was specifically for an entity given unto Canada. And the Canadians used this box, and gave it a name of Midsummer Tiger Swallowtail, and the heretics openly wrote of it.

Upon the land came a plague of the clay-minded, iNat, which purportedly paid homage to Caesar ICZN. But as a platform for the people, with the book of knowledge secondary, iNat openly recorded a greater diety "Me Me Me." And all peoples throughout the land were invited to place whatever they wanted into which ever of the boxes their feelings led them to.

Meanwhile, torn between Caesar ICZN and Canada, iNat recognized a tribe that neither ICZN nor Bureau of Indian Affairs would, and offered unto the peoples a third box, "canadensis x glaucus" into which they could place Canadian entities which were not of the canadensis tribe. And there was rejoicing in Canada, but not so much in New York. And too, it was not only these boxes, but iNat introduced other boxes called "complex" upon other entities in the land, boxes for which gold coin has not been surrendered unto ICZN.

For unto taxonomy, while error was induced by skilled Lepidopterists even with only two boxes, at least they made an effort to comply with the laws of Caesar ICZN. But the clay minded, kowtowing to the idol Me Me Me, put whatever they want into whichever box. Most often they placed rubbish into boxes, and verily at times did they get lucky, but mostly all three of the boxes are littered with wrong. The kingdom of iNat did request an authority to clean out the boxes, but the Stables of the boxes are beyond repair. And for so long as iNat recognizes Me Me Me as a god greater than Caesar ICZN, the sin of misidentification can only fall deeper into Styx.

Other oracles have hid in the shadows of Clark & Clark, secretly passing scrolls which discuss entities not at all known to ICZN. These heretical tomes infer that the whole concept of boxes is not correct; that the foundation of the house of Caesar ICZN may in fact be cracked. Yet they continue, sometimes in the face of ridicule, by creating "Appy" and "solstitius" and "bjorkae" and even consider making OTHER boxes.

Still, some oracles debate the iNat application of boxes, citing abuse by the heathen Teutonic tribes, the clay-minded people. Yet, with the foundation of ICZN becoming unstable, and with Me Me Me usurping authority over Caesar ICZN, and even over reason, does it matter?

[jhyatt]

In The Beginning there was the glaucus box, and life was good.

And all peoples throughout the land were invited to place whatever they wanted into which ever of the boxes their feelings led them to.

Indeed, Chuck. Back in the late '80's or early '90's, I had a visit here by J. F. G. Clark, renown microlepidopterist at the Smithsonian. He was looking through my (then fairly small) collection and I apologized for not having everything in phylogenetic order (to save space). He said something like "Hyatt, they're your specimiens, you caught them, prepared them, and you should feel free to arrange them any damn way you please!"

He did have a point, but the German in me still wants to have everything in order and labelled correctly. If only "correctly" didn't keep changing faster than I can keep up!

Cheers,
jh

[Chuck]

He did have a point, but the German in me still wants to have everything in order and labelled correctly. If only "correctly" didn't keep changing faster than I can keep up!

Cheers,
jh

I don't even bother with ID labels on most specimens these days. That's what they have graduate students for, generating soon-to-be-outdated specimen labels.

[JVCalhoun]

iNaturalist is a helpful tool, nothing more. Like Chuck, I use it to track sightings, especially in Florida and Maine, and it helps me understand distributions -- with the caveat that unusual sightings must be confirmed. I often reach out to individual observers for this purpose, and I usually get a response, though sometimes the sightings remain dubious. iNat was created with good intentions, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So here we are.

Unfortunately, iNat is a form of social media, which is inherently all about "me, me, me," and it's plagued by the same problems as other types of social media. The majority of iNat observers carry their phones with them when exploring the wilds, taking photos of things that interest them or that get their attention. They innocently post these images on iNat for others to see, relying on iNat to make ID suggestions, or other "naturalists" to provide the answers. For too many others, it's about the numbers: total observations, total identifications, total followers. It doesn't matter if their identifications are correct, they just need to increase the numbers. Too many of these identifiers are anonymous, so we have no idea who they are or how much experience they have with the species they are identifying. Many have never seen those species in the wild, or even in a museum. This is the nature of social media -- it's open to all, and participants join for different reasons, and some of those reasons run counter to those of other participants. Regrettably, this is iNat. Use it at your own risk.