The text below is grayed out because it is not intended to be read. It is a necessarily imperfect OCR of the original and is only used by a search engine.
1952
The Lepidopterists' Neus
37
COMMENTS ON THE EDITORIAL "THE COMPONENTS OF AN
ADEQUATE PAPER DESCRIBING A NEW SPECIES"
by A. ,E. Brower
The writer has read and reread with much interest our editor's recent article setting forth "The Components of an Adequate Paper Describing a New Species" (Lep. Neivs, vol. 5: p. 46; 1951). I am glad to see this move to state in definite terms what is desirable in a good description, and I think that much good can come of it if taxonomists will unite in the effort to promulgate a practical set of recommendations. I have some comments on them at their present stage. I do not feel that the Lepidopterists' Society should put its stamp of approval on any set of components without due consideration of the points and their implications.
1. Might be amplified by addition after ". . . . differs from its nearest relative" with which is found in the same or nearby territory. In sections of some genera all of this will have little value, as in Coleophora and others.
2. The genitalia of Lepidoptera are extremely valuable for taxonomic purposes, but still there are many genera where they are so similar that a figure or description would have little or no value. After two papers, both illustrating and describing the male genitalia of Diarsia rubijera (U. S. N. M. Bull. 44 and Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc, vol. 6: p. 101), one might with good reason ask if J. B. Smith did not make matters worse. He was an outstanding worker too. If he had kept his hands off the male genitalia of the species of Zale he described, some modern specialist would have a much better chance of finding out to what his names should apply. Is the ordinary general worker on Lepidoptera in a position to make proper slides in many genera? Genitalic preparations for comparative purposes must be prepared in an entirely different manner in different genera. Considerable work on a genus may be an essential prelude to a properly prepared slide of a type though this may not be practical except for a revision. I have repeatedly heard taxonomists say they had to remount slide preparations or that they found the preparation ruined or impractical to use. Genitalia are subject to variation and are more difficult to describe or figure than the adults, and many such in print are of scant value. In some of our larger museums some curators have not been in favor of having slides made, one practical reason being that they are not prepared to look after slides properly. Suppose we consider the genus Coleophora. I have many specimens of Cole-ophora I should like to get identified. A master technician, Dr. J. McDunnough, has published comparative notes, fine figures of genitalia, with descriptions, of many species found in this part of America, but if I made slides of my specimens I could not hope to determine positively which of my specimens are referable to his species, and I do not know of anyone who would attempt to do so. We need to consider the value of specific illustrations of lone species or a few species against the value of such illustrations of all of the species of a taxonomic group or a geographic area when admittedly money for such publication is limited. I have never seen in print an account of any important effort to determine how variable genitalia may be, as for instance the amount of variation in the genitalia of all of the offspring of several females of one species. Is the confused medley of descriptions in a section of Zale due to variability of the genitalia or to specific distinctness?
38 Brower: "Describing a New Species" Vol. 6, nos.1-3
3. How much would be gained by illustrating the adults of the Coleophora described during the last fifteen years in the many scattered papers?
4. and 5. The "type" should be a fair representative of the species population to be described. Many types of species and subspecies are not representative of the population. There is much interest among collectors in topotypical material, and so there is the suggestion to limit type material to a comparatively small area, apparently on the assumption that typical material may always be secured from that area, but is this necessarily true? Seasons may vary greatly and local environments are often transitory. Any ecologist knows that all vegetation and its associated animal life is transitory, and part of the geographical features are more slowly transitory. I can remember on the Ozark plateau dry seasons when the small, pale form of Junonia (Precis) coenia was usually found, but wet seasons occurred when the large deeply colored form was abundant. One summer the drouth became so intense the papaws shed their leaves. With September rains a partial new crop of leaves was formed and Papilio marcellus emerged in numbers to deposit eggs, but Jack Frost cut things short, and dwarfed adults resulted from that population. I believe that these could have been shown to be significantly different in size at least by the use of statistics. When I came to Augusta I found a mowing field and adjacent pasture where I took a nice lot of Lycaena hypophlaeas ab. fasciata. Expecting to get another series, I gave an interested collector many of them, but I have not been able to do so. The mowing field was plowed up, but the pasture remained untouched; however fasciata seemed to become much scarcer relatively in this population. 1 remember Walter Clayton of Lincoln, Maine, lamenting the disappearance of the colony of Euphydryas phaeton, containing many superba and other aberrations, which was found in a small area near his home. Probably the Turtle-head still grows there and at times is populated by the ordinary form of the species, which presumably has a somewhat different genetic makeup. What has occurred on my best Augusta collecting area seems very significant. Road maintenance crews have apparently successfully maintained the status quo in this half-mile of roadside, and the butterflies discussed were taken on the very same patches of milkweed. During the last twelve seasons, nine seasons have produced so far as observed merely the expected variation in the population of Argynnis (= Speyeria) cybele (Fab.) (specimens which may be labelled novascotiae McD. regularly occur), but in 1939 and 1940 a large number of heavily marked more or less melanic specimens occurred and in 1951 three striking specimens of one variation were secured having three conspicuous silver rays on the underside of the hind wing from the base to near the middle of the wing (like A. cypris mayae). This number in about three trips indicates a fair percentage of the population was of this variation, as the species occurred in moderate numbers. In twenty-two seasons of collecting in Maine I have never seen this conspicuous variation before. If in the Western States a collector had taken a series of these in 1939 and 1940, another collector a series from 1941 to 1950, and third collector a series in 1951, all on the same flowers in a local area, could not three names readily follow? If some favorably located collector in the West would collect in the same flower patches a representative yearly sample for 25 to 50 years of Argynnis, Melitaea, or other. similar group, how great a variation could we expect in some of the species? Yes, type localities may change greatly for an insect and over far greater distances than fifty miles. I have just been tramping an area, difficult of access except on foot, hunting deer. Evidence of transition is abundant in many house
1952
The Lepidopterists' News
39
sites and miles of stone walls, where the primeval climax forest disappeared before the axe and the plow and the stone walls arose around the tilled fields, only to revert through successions until to-day the lumberman is harvesting a crop of large white pine and hardwood sawlogs from those fields. As I gazed upon an eleven inch birch growing between the nicely built walls of a basement, walls of what must have been a fine home in its day, I reflected that not even the deer could exist in the primeval forest. With so many changes can we be sure that the type localities where our early butterfly types were collected will yield comparable material? Have new areas been colonized by our butterflies by extension from the edge of their range or has this come from a boiling-over from an area where population pressure was much greater?
6. The implication in this is that the private collector is frowned upon (or keeping his types, and I agree with Dr. Remington as to its truth, but it would be interesting to know what per cent of those who "frown" are on museum staffs and actually retain control of their types often in their private collection merely stored in the museum. Is the Lepidopterists' Society to consider "frowning" on the practice of the individual collectors retaining types, without anything being said on the other side? One can hear the statement, ' museum doors open in". Unquestionably collectors should be encouraged to place their types in the larger museums, and if The Lepidopterists' News carried an informative article on the policies and practices of museums and their staffs and what they do for the field and private collector and the advancement of our science more collectors would give this thought. I have spent many pleasant and profitable days in the museums of America and feel I have some good friends on their taxonomic staffs, but I have sometimes found collectors hesitant to turn to museums. Are museum taxonomists too jealous of anyone else describing new species? Do they devote too much of their time to miscellaneous descriptions and small papers which would be practical for the private worker to the neglect of much needed monographic and revisionary papers? We haven't had a passable catalogue of our Lepidoptera since Dyar's and even that lacks much information which is sorely needed in a catalogue. Suppose we "frown" upon the private collector keeping his types and he passes them on to some of the largest museums, then when he finds something more which he thinks may be new or important how much help can he reasonably expect to receive from these same institutions?
Important as all of the points set forth are — viewed in their entirety — every one of them may be satisfied by arm-chair entomology using a single specimen in any degree of condition, except the discussion under No. 6. Oh how many descriptions would read differently if the describer had waited until he had before him a series, including both sexes! (Many would never have been published.) To set forth the proposed requirements will require, for most Lepidoptera, two to three pages of technical description and all of great value but haven't some workers like S. B. Clemens set forth in as many sentences or a short paragraph information of as much practical value for the positive determination of the species they had before them? Measured by these standards Miss Braun's paper on Nepticula falls far short, but for the practical identification of the species the writer feels it is equally far above some papers which can qualify. Other papers could be readily named. The larva, pupa, and the habits of the larva and adult offer points of fully as great value as those enumerated for specific determination and shouldn't these be included so far
40 Brower: "Describing a New Species" Vol. 6, nos.1-3
as possible in an adequate description? Many species have been recognized first by differences in larval or adult habits, and can most readily be recognized by such differences; therefore, isn't their description necessary for an adequate description? Perhaps there are no more Edwardses or Scudders among butterfly collectors, but certainly biological work has lagged. The museum worker will as a rule of necessity deal with the lifeless remains — whatever the field worker has preserved — but for rhe majority of the members of the Lepi-dopterists' Society doesn't the living animate insect offer unique opportunities for contributions toward our knowledge of the Lepidoptera?
5 Hospital Street, Augusta, Maine
FUNDS NEEDED FOR ILLUSTRATIONS
The Lepidopterists' News is now printed by a process and on a paper which permits perfect reproduction of photographs and other half-tone figures (see Prof. Wohlfahrt's Iphiclides podalirius, Abb. 2, on page 16). While not unduly costly, such figures are expensive enough so that half-tones must be kept at a minimum unless special arrangements can be made to provide funds. The warm response we have always received, whenever a definite need for funds has been announced, leads me to believe that there are probably one or more members of the Society who would be interested in establishing a specific ILLUSTRATIONS FUND. Correspondence on this possibility will be welcomed.
C. L. Remington
ANNUAL SEASON SUMMARY
The Associate Editor in charge of the annual Season Summary, Dr. E. G. MUNROE, is re-examining the policy for the Summary, in cooperation with the eight Area Sum-marizers. All members of the Society concerned with the Summary are invited to send their views to him. His address is: Dept. of Entomology, Science Service, Ottawa, Canada.