Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
 

Register · Log In
HomeGuideID RequestRecentFrassForumsDonateHelp
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar
Upcoming Events

Registration is open for the 2024 BugGuide gathering in Idaho July 24-27

Moth submissions from National Moth Week 2023

Photos of insects and people from the 2022 BugGuide gathering in New Mexico, July 20-24

Photos of insects and people from the Spring 2021 gathering in Louisiana, April 28-May 2

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Photos of insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29


Previous events
Home » Forums » Taxonomy Proposals

SPLITTING NORTHERN PEARLY-EYE

A 2003 paper in The Taxonomic Report advocates separating out the northern populations into, at least, a subspecies borealis. At present BG has 7 images ranging from NC to ME. The NC individuals look different enough from the ME specimen to suspect that these could be different taxa. If the split was made then I would place the MA, WI, ME specimens in borealis and leave the NC and IL specimens in anthedon. I can add specimens from NB. Any pros or cons?
Detailed info at http://www.tils-ttr.org/ttr/ttr-4-5.pdf
login or register to post comments · previous forum topic · next forum topic
Contributed by A.W. Thomas on 31 January, 2006 - 7:11am

to borealis or not to borealis
If there's a recognizable difference (recognizable in photos, that is) between the proposed taxa, I'm all for distinguishing them in the guide. Once you have them separated, you can change the rank of the taxa to species subspecies, race, variation or whatever infraspecific categories you have available(some would have to be "No Taxon" nodes, of course), depending on how the scientific consensus evolves. It's even pretty easy to put them back together if the distinction turns out to be wrong.

The main thing is that you're providing more information about variation within the parent taxon. As long as you're clear enough in the info page remarks about the tentative nature of the classification, I don't see that there's any harm.
… Chuck Entz, 9 February, 2006 - 8:05pm login or register to post comments

Sorry you haven't heard from anyone.
We just don't know enough to have a helpful opinion. Hope you get a response. We're interested in the answer.
… john and jane balaban, 7 February, 2006 - 7:15pm login or register to post comments

 
I read the article...
and looked some things up online. It does seem to be accepted as a subspecies. I wouldn't be opposed to adding it as a subspecies for now and waiting upon the DNA testing to prove it's a new species someday. I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I do, so I'm comfortable with your decision.
… Lynette Elliott, 9 February, 2006 - 2:40pm login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

Disclaimer: Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world. If you need expert professional advice, contact your local extension office.

Contributors own the copyright to and are solely responsible for contributed content.
Click the contributor's name for licensing and usage information.
Everything else copyright © 2003-2024 Iowa State University, unless otherwise noted.

Bugguide is hosted by:

Plant Pathology, Entomology and Microbiology at Iowa State University logo

Printer Friendly Version 		Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
Site Map
Contact