Second Interim Report of the NABA Names Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hübner, 1819 (type species Papilio bixae Linnaeus, 1758), Lindsey (1921) erected Second Interim Report of the the genus Apyrrothrix (type species Erycides araxes account of “the difference in habitus and the NABA Names Committee form ofHewitson, the secondaries”. 1867) to Although receive it, Lindsey on has until recently not been widely followed combinationin this separation, Apyrrothrix Mielke araxes (2005a) was able Scientific Names Subcommittee: Michael Braby, Marc Epstein, Jeffrey into separatinglist well over Pyrrhopyge a dozen citations into a number for the of Glassberg (ex officio), Peter W. Hall, Yu-Feng Hsu, Torben Larsen, David genera, formally resurrected Apyrrothrix. Mielke (2002),, with Lohman, Naomi Pierce, Malcolm Scoble, John Tennent, Dick Vane-Wright A. araxes (Hewitson) and A. arizonae (Godman (Chair/Secretary), Angel Viloria, Shen-Horn Yen 27 genera of Pyrrhopygina recognized by & Salvin) as the only included species. Of the treated as monobasic, and another 2 (including English Names Subcommittee: Alana Edwards, Jeffrey Glassberg (Chair/ ApyrrothrixMielke (2002), almost half (13) are currently Secretary), Fred Heath, Jim Springer, Julie West used in combination) have only with 2 species. araxes and arizonae: ErycidesThree Hübner, other generic1819 (type names species have Papiliobeen pigmalion Myscelus Hübner, 1819 (type species Papilio nobilis Eudamus Cramer, 1779), Papilio Cramer, 1777), and This is the second report of the proteus Linnaeus, 1758). Of these, Erycides is Swainson, 1831 (type species reconstituted NABA Names Committee. For more information about the Committee, www.butterfliesofamerica.com/ih02/ currently recognized genus Phocides Hübner, considered to be a subjective synonym of the including aims, principles and procedures, BMNH20120713_DSC8437_i.htm;Myscelus araxes accessed 1819, Myscelus is in use for another recognized please visit www.naba.org/ftp/NABA_ 1868:1.xii.2012] 176. Dull Firetip’s English and scientific genus, and Eudamus names_committee_2012.pdf Pyrrhopyge araxes(Hewitson); Herrich-Schäffer, names remain unchanged, Pyrrhopyge of Urbanus is an objective synonym araxes. names can be applied to araxes or arizonae in the context Hübner,of the currently 1807. Thus accepted none ofgeneric these NABA-NC 2014-04 Pyrrhopyge araxes Pyrrhopyga cyrillus(Hewitson); Plötz, 1879: Edwards, 529. 1875: 794. Pyrrhopyge araxes arizonae Godman & Type locality: Mexico (Oaxaca). Type material Top: Sept. 7, 2012. Parker Canyon in Museum for[sic] Naturkunde, Berlin (ZMHU). The decision lies between Pyrrhopyge and Salvin, 1893, Apyrrothrix araxes arizonae Lake, Cochise Co., AZ. Apyrrothrixclassification. of the American Hesperiidae. (Godman & Salvin, 1893), Pyrrhopyge arizonae Godman & Salvin, 1893, or [http://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/L/ih/ Bottom: Aug. 19, 2005. Etla- Erycides araxes Hewitson, 1867, and Pyrrhopyga Apyrrothrix arizonae (Godman & Salvin, cyrillus-Pyrrhopyga-syntype-recto-ZMHU_i.htm; Guacamayas Rd., OAX, Mexico. cyrillusWith Plötz, respect 1879, to werespecies based names, on material both 1893): potential change of scientific name Pyrrhopyge race arizonae accessed 1.xii.2012] from Mexico — and the latter has long been Fort Grant. Type material in Godmanthe Natural & Salvin, Scientific Names Subcommittee History1893: 253. Museum, Type locality: London USA, (BMNH). Arizona, [http:// near former. Following its introduction by Godman This case presents two problems with respect recognized as a subjective synonym ofP. the araxes to the current NABA checklist: In which genus Pyrrhopyge arizonae from Arizona, Pyrrhopyge arizonae was formally should the taxon currently listed as Pyrrhopyge www.butterfliesofamerica.com/ih02/ 1951: 38. treated& Salvin as (1893) a subspecies as a “distinct race” of araxes be included? And should the North BMNH20120713_DSC8436_i.htm;Eudamus araxes accessed Apyrrothrix araxes Godman & Salvin; Burns American populations currently included under by Dyar (1905) and 255.1.xii.2012] & Janzen, 2001: 38, 41. then arizonae continued to be treated almost P. araxes (a species originally described from Barnes & McDunnough (1917: 17). Since Pyrrhopyge araxes(Hewitson); arizonae Wright, 1905: (Hewitson); Mielke, 2002: of araxes until Burns Mexico) be regarded as a separate species — or 222;Apyrrothrix Opler & Warren, arizonae 2002: 4; Mielke, 2004: 26; not? universally as a subspecies Apyrrothrix araxes Godman & Salvin; Mielke, 2005a: 51. & Janzen (2001) proposed that it should be 16.Dyar, 1905: 111; Evans, 1951: 38. (Godman & Salvin); the male genitalia of material from Arizona Erycides araxes Hewitson, 1867: 2. Type given full species status, based on comparing Apyrrothrix araxes arizonae(Hewitson); (Godman Lindsey, & 1921: Mielke, 2002: 222; Mielke, 2004: 26; Mielke, locality: Mexico. Type material in the Natural Although2005a: 52. Erycides araxes Hewitson has most History Museum, London (BMNH). [http:// with specimens from the vicinity of Mexico City. Pyrrhopyge araxes araxes often been placed in the genus Pyrrhopyge genitalia of populations from intermediate areas But according to Opler & Warren (2002), the 26 American Butterflies,Fall/Winter 2015 Salvin); Lindsey, 1921: 16. 27 (Hewitson); Evans, exhibit intermediate characters to those cited Pyrrhopyge arizonae and cyrillus, but others are not yet Apyrrothrix araxes arizonae. doesgenus not (dropping appear toto befewer well than corroborated 4 per genus or if sequences, three of these have names: araxes, [The]Apyrrothrix analysis seems araxes very. I am helpful inclined here, for andthis by Burns & Janzen (2001), and point out that founded insofaritself as is clearexcluded). (phylogenetic This classification or be treated as species. I think Burns is correct, combination… [so] I vote forbecause it is plausible to consider againstother geographic species status variants for arizonae are known. Caterino named. I suspect that these eventually will a(3) strong case for a good generic entity separate et al. (2003) made an earlier committee ruling from Pyrrhopyge. These are some of my reasons: treated araxae and arizonae as separate.. However, cladistic) arguments for these divisions have and he usually is! Only one of them enters U.S. The generic name Apyrrothrix Mielke (2005a), citing Burns & Janzen (2001), typologynot, so far more as I can than tell, phylogeny. been presented. If not, then Mielke’s he publishedHowever, they about all this diverged complex rather being recently split into The type species of the genus Apyrrothrix haswork not (2002) published appears his argumentation.to me to be based on (~0.5mya), and there is no solid documentation Lindsay, 1921 is (by original designation) is available. Currently the situation seems unresolved, “If we go to the Tree of Life (http://tolweb. These skippers are quite distant from Erycides araxes Hewitson, 1867, the taxon although the Butterflies of America website ) we see that the 27 typicalseveral Pyrrhopygedistinct species. (Warren et al., 2012), based treatson Opler arizonae & Warren as a skippers means different genera usually), but diagnosis establishes clear distinctions between subspecies(2004) and ofPelham araxes (2008),. and in opposition to listedorg/Pyrrhopygina/94268 under Pyrrhopygina (downgraded from are closer to Chalypyge (8%, MelanopygeCOI distance, Jonaspyge— for , Pyrrhopygewe are dealing and with. Apyrrothrix Mielke’s, not morphological only in male Burns & Janzen (2001), still genera recognized by Mielke (2004) withoutare simply any etc. Also, considering how huge Pyrrhopyge Scientific Name Discussion phylogenetic or cladistic structure. The ToL list tribal status by Warren et al., 2008), frontoclypeus,genitalic structures, abdominal but also terga, in several etc.). This other sensu lato (Evans) is, it is not constructive to non-traditional characters for butterflies (as the committee, a member commented: The Chalypyge, Melanopyge, etc as subgenera inside nomenclatural combination has been at least Following release of the first draft case to includedis evidently molecular based on data Mielke’s for 7 ofwork, the cainterpreted Apyrrothrixmaintain it ,as but such. this In has my not taste been I would published. have speciesin the light of Pyrrhopygina of Warren et al.currently (2008). recognized, The latter Regardless, Apyrrothrix is the oldest name, and NABA Names Committee (Caterino et al., representing 7 of the 27 genera, including130 justified by morphological studies since Lindsay and skipper is .” erected the genus. Mielke’s revision seems 2003) has already consideredarizonae, and Burns’ decided paper to Apyrrothrix araxes Pyrrhopyge zenodorus Apyrrothrix araxes arizonae (formerly treated as a subspecies of , I think the best supported name for the U.S. onsufficient genetic to distance me, and between is now 13 generic years entitiespublished. retain(Burns araxes & Janzen,. Unless 2001) there where is new he treatedpublished the P. phidias U.S. populations as but now widely accepted as a separate species). are exactly the sorts of data and interpretation hereI give in total discussion credibility (included to [the] in information the document To these points the Chair responded: “These information that provides data arguing for a araxes groups with Creonpyge (a monobasic In their cladogram (Warren et al., 2008: p. 6), we need (leaving aside the issue of how large “Chairman’s comments”). thinksplit, thethat Committee we should shouldstick to not the reconsider genus question the genus), and these two together then form a region we are