A p u b lication o f the M ichigan Od o nata Su rvey V olu me 8 Issu e 1 Winter 20 0 4 W i lli a m s o n i a W h a t ’ s i n a N a m e : W h e n i s a n A e s h n a n o t a n A e s h n a ? By M ark O ’Brien M any of the readers of Williamsonia w ill recall m y previous w ritings on the use of "com m on" nam es versus the Latinized binom ials that have long been in use. Som e of these nam es, quite obviously, date from the tim e of Linnaeus. The system of binom ial nom enclature defines not only a species, but its supposed relation to other entities. So, for exam ple, although there are m any dragonflies know n as darners, that term encom passes an entire fam ily, the A eshnidae. N ow , w ithin the A eshnidae, there are quite a few genera and m any, m any species. A C yrano The Spatterdock D arner, although an appropriate com m on nam e, does not tell us that it is in its ow n genus Nasi- D arner, A eshna m u- aeschna, not Aeshna. Likew ise, the Sw am p D arner, Epiaeschna heros, is not in the genus Aeshna. tata, is related to all The m osiac darners, genus Aeshna, are w hat m any people typically think of w hen the w ord the other members of darner com es to m ind. The Spatterdock D arner, Aeshna mutata, is related to all the other m em - the genus Aeshna. O r bers of the genus Aeshna. O r m aybe not. The study of system atics seeks to find relationships am ong taxonom ic units and to ferret out the evolutionary history of a group of anim als. N ot maybe not. only how are they related, but from w here did they evolve? W hat lineage produced a certain genus or group of closely-related species? In the past, this has not been exactly a precise sci- ence, but w ith m odern tools, cladistic m ethodology, and plenty of specim ens to w ork w ith, the science has becom e m uch m ore respectable. N ow , back to w hat I started this discussion about. There are tw enty species of A eshnidae in M ichigan, in seven genera. The m ost speciose, the genus Aeshna, contains 12 species in M ichi- gan. W ell, not any m ore. N atalia V on Ellenrieder -- a talented and extrem ely hard-w orking A rgentinian system atist-- had her paper about South A m erican Aeshna published in 2003. W hat does a paper on non-N orth A m erican m osiac darners have to do w ith all of this? W ell, it turns out that N atalia's w ork on the genus Aeshna in South A m erica has revealed that the genus Aeshna is not m onophyletic. In other w ords, there are m any branches in the fam ily tree, and som e nearby shrubs are not w hat they seem . In essence, there are several sim ilar-looking (at (Continued on page 2) O d e s i n S u ri n a m e By Stephen R oss I have had the good fortune to visit the little country of Surinam e three tim es, the first tw o on V ictor Em anuel N ature Tours (V EN T, 2002 and 2003). O n these tw o trips, I w as in the drier portions of the country w here dragonfly view ing w as not the best, though there w ere a few . H ow ever, in O ctober 2003, I w as invited to go along w ith one of the V EN T guides on a tw o-m an tour w hile he did som e scouting for future (Continued on page 3) Probable U racis infumata in Surinam e. Photo: Steve R oss Williamsonia P age 2 W h a t ’s i n a N a m e : W h e n i s a n A es hna n o t a n A es hna ? (c o n t .) (Continued from page 1) the other species in the genus. N ow , w ith N atalia's analysis first glance) groups of South A m erican A eshna-like species of the group, it is placed in a different genus, and probably that do not share a com m on ancestor w ith the northern ge- quite correctly. nus Aeshna. H er phylogenetic analyses have led her to recom - m end that the genus Aeshna be restricted to the H olarctic The generic nam e Rhionaeschna is used because Friedrich För- species, and that the N eotropical species of Aeshna be as- ster first described a South A m erican m em ber of this group, signed to the genus Rhionaeschna. That m eans that tw o com - and gave it the nam e Rhionaeschna (in 1909). Rhion apparently m on N orth A m erican species w ill be placed into the genus com es from the G reek m eaning "headland" or jutting m oun- Rhionaeschna because of their relationship to the South tain peak, w hich m akes sense for m any of these species, as A m erican species. From here on, Aeshna mutata H agen they com e from m ontane regions. R. mutata is closely related (Spatterdock D arner) and Aeshna multicolor H agen w ill be to 3 other species, including the w estern R. multicolor. The know n as Rhionaeschna mutata (H agen) and Rhionaeschna multi- other tw o species are found in the SW U SA , M exico and color (H agen). These are know n in the system atics literature C entral A m erica. as new combinations, m eaning that they have been reas- So, after all of this, w hat do w e do about it? W e sim ply use signed to a different genus. A lthough I am sure som e w ill be the new nam e in our literature, checklists, and so on. It's still puzzled over all this, and w ish it w ould go aw ay, I find it the Spatterdock D arner for those of you that are w orried very exciting that w e have in our m idst a representative of a predom inantly South A m erican group of darners. Think about com m on nam es, and Rhionaeschna mutata rolls off the about it -- the Spatterdock D arner has alw ays been unusual tongue pretty easily, too. N ow w e have eight genera of A esh- com pared to the other Aeshna species. It prefers w ell- nidae in M ichigan, by the w ay... vegetated fishless ponds (and these are often tem porary), em erges quite early in the season (as early as m id-M ay in Literature C ited som e years) it eyes are a cobalt blue (unlike other darners), its thoracic m arkings less defined than the other species, and V on Ellenrieder, N . 2003. A synopsis of the neotropical spe- does not get very far north in M ichigan. So, w ithout external cies of 'Aeshna' Fabricius: The genus Rhionaeschna Förster evidence, I have alw ays felt that Aeshna mutata stood out from (O donata: A eshnidae). Tidjschrift voor Entomologie: 146:67-208. R e v i e w : A F i e ld G u i d e t o t h e D ra g o n fli e s a n d D a m s e lfli e s o f M a s s a ch u s e t t s By Julie C raves for dam selflies, and it is the first A Field G uide to the D ragonflies and D amselflies of M assachusetts by field guide to cover fem ales Blair N ikula, Jennifer L. Loose, and M atthew R . Burne. 2003. thoroughly. Burne did a stun- M assachusetts D ivision of Fisheries and W ildlife. ning job illustrating the m ale term inal appendages of the Sid D unkle’s D ragonflies Through Binoculars spaw ned a popular spreadw ings (Lestes) and pond interest in odonata that has resulted in the publication of a dam sels (Enallagma, Coenagion, spate of state odonota field guides, including several from the Chromagrion, Ischnura, and Argia), neighboring states of O hio and W isconsin. Though not close the thoracic patterns of the m o- by, M assachusetts shares m any of M ichigan’s odonata, so A saic darners (Aeshna) including Field G uide to the D ragonflies and D amselflies of M assachusetts is of the pattern on abdom inal segm ent 2, the term inal append- interest to state dragonfly afficionados. ages of m ale pond clubtails and snaketails (G omphus, Ariogom- phus and O phiogomphus) and em eralds (Somatochlora). They This guide covers all 166 species from M assachusetts w ith full should have let him illustrate each species! color photographs. I’m unconvinced that photographs are the best w ay to illustrate an odonata field guide. A lthough these The species accounts are adequate, but som ew hat disap- photos are m ostly high quality, there are no arrow s pointing pointing.