|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 6, 2017 2:42:04 GMT
This specimen was collected in July 2000 in Canet De Mar, Spain. Please correct and if it is right what ssp.   This one, there is no data, old collection,   |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Sept 6, 2017 7:11:06 GMT
First one is indeed Iphiclides podalirius feisthamelii
Second one is not an Iphiclides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 6, 2017 11:18:53 GMT
The second one is Eurytides (Protesilaus) glaucolaus leucas. I would guess it may have originated in Peru, but the subspecies is widespread in the Amazon and Brazil.
As for the first specimen, wollastoni is correct although probably feisthamelii is a separate species from podalirius. They are sympatric in SW France near Montpellier, but I have not seen any information about whether they interbreed or not, and if they do, whether hybrids are fertile or sterile.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Sept 6, 2017 13:03:22 GMT
For me, the species status of feisthamelii is a myth...
Even the ssp looks dubious to me, podalirius being a strong flyer...
Until someone proves me they cannot make fertile babies together, I would highly doubt it. A very simple experience on this very common species.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 6, 2017 13:31:48 GMT
Thank you Adam and Olivier. I thought I'm most likely wrong about Eurytides, My guess was E.molops but they're very alike and specialist's knowledge is much appreciated here  Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 6, 2017 15:14:30 GMT
In E. molops the basal two forewing black cell bars reach all the way to the lower edge of the forewing. Note also the shadow of the 2nd bar of the underside is visible through the wing at the end of the same bar on the upperside, which is typical of glaucolaus. Another character worth noting is that the hindwing edge is not strongly toothed.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 6, 2017 15:27:11 GMT
For me, the species status of feisthamelii is a myth... Even the ssp looks dubious to me, podalirius being a strong flyer... That's why I said "probably". Interestingly there must be genetic exchange between the two, because Martin Wiemers examined DNA of podalirius as part of his PhD thesis (the link no longer works) and found no molecular genetic difference in COI between feisthamelii and podalirius but large differences between North African and European feisthamelii. However, he does not think that necessarily means the European and N African populations represent separate species, as large genetic differences are also known to occur within the same species. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Sept 7, 2017 5:50:54 GMT
Just a question. If DNA studies show large differences within a current subspecies, such as feisthamelii and no differences between feisthamelii and podalirius , how can DNA in butterflies really be of use, determining what is a separate species or subspecies. I have mentioned this before but it does seem the DNA studies are not the "Great" advancement in Lepidoptera science it promised to be!
|
|
cormion
New Aurelian
Posts: 6 
Country: France
|
Post by cormion on Sept 7, 2017 8:36:28 GMT
Hi Olivier, Crosspairing between feisthamelii and podalirius have been realized many years ago by Pr. Z. Lorkovic. But don't forget,if interspecific infertility remains an aboslute criteria to confirm the "validity" of a species, it's not a necessary condition. I join a link to a very interesting paper dealing with these two sister species (By Lafranchis and Mazel). diatheo.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/2/3/28235851/feisthamelii_podalirius_lafranchis_2015__2_.pdfYvan |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 7, 2017 12:10:03 GMT
Just a question. If DNA studies show large differences within a current subspecies, such as feisthamelii and no differences between feisthamelii and podalirius , how can DNA in butterflies really be of use, determining what is a separate species or subspecies. I have mentioned this before but it does seem the DNA studies are not the "Great" advancement in Lepidoptera science it promised to be! Actually, DNA is very useful in most cases, although it definitely is NOT the "be all and end all" magic answer. In reality, DNA analysis helps provide many of the answers to problems in classification of Lepidoptera and all other organisms, but it MUST be interpreted with caution if used by itself. The best results come when DNA analysis is used in conjunction with morphological work. The two together can produce much more realistic hypotheses than either one alone. Note that classifications are just hypotheses based on the evidence assimilated, which is why they can change when further characters are added. There are many cases of anomalies in DNA (particularly the so called "barcode" sequence) but these are in the minority. For example the sequences for Papilio rutulus and eurymedon are almost identical, but these are clearly two different species. On the other hand there can be considerable difference between barcode sequences of different populations of the same species, although this is not really common. In general though, DNA analysis really does help to spot species that look superficially alike. When DNA of a series of specimens from the same place splits into two distinct groups morphological analysis can show whether or not there really is a difference, or it is just variation in the DNA itself. Adam. |
|
