Tiger beetle subgeneric elevations

...and especially to Charley for his work in setting up all the new genus pages.

Many of the comments on the Cicindela info page were more applicable to the tribe Cicindelini - I made the appropriate edits and added common names for the tribe and all included genera.

...but thanks Charley, Ted, and everybody. And congrats.

...to make statute of limitations fully applicable :-]

To me the genera are quite distinctive in appearance; to someone only casually aware of these beetles, maybe not. However, if we're going to disregard validly recognized genera, it should be for reasons much more substantial than the fact that some people may not be able to distinguish them on a strictly visual basis.

Quoting your review, "Erwin and Pearson break ranks with the preponderance of recent North American literature (including Pearson’s own 2006 book) and accord full genus status to most of the former subgenera of the genus Cicindela... Certain of these taxonomic acts will likely confront little opposition (e.g., Dromochorus as a full genus); however, again no justifications are provided, leaving the reader with the impression – rightly or wrongly – that the new rankings are the result of personal preference rather than new anaylsis."

This leaves me with the impression that some people go one way, some go the other, and there is no reason other than personal preference to choose one or the other.

The question at hand is not validity of the names but their rank -- genus or subgenus. It is our custom here to disregard ranks between family and genus and between genus and species unless somebody wants them in the guide. The software requires no more than genus, family, and order between species and class. If we omit a subgenus we are not stating that the subgenus is invalid. We are choosing to omit it for convenience of the guide.

While Erwin and Pearson's book is the first major North American tiger beetle publication to treat these taxa as full genera, European authors have been doing this for some time. My comment (quoted above) was intended not as a criticism of the classification, but rather the omission of supporting arguments in introducing this classification to the North American fauna. Those arguments are out there and (to the Tiger Beetle Guild) are well known - I just felt the largely North American audience for this book would have benefited from some discussion about it. My personal feelings about the classification are really beside the point (although it does make sense to me, and apparently also to Ron Huber, based on his comments to Peter Messer above).

Like Freitag's North American catalog and Pearson et al.'s field guide did in 1999 and 2006, respectively, Erwin and Pearson's Western Hemisphere treatise now serves as the benchmark for modern tiger beetle classification in its covered region. Will it change in the future - absolutely - all classifications do. However, it would be misleading to suggest these taxa are being bounced up and down in rank based on personal whim. They've gained a lot of traction as full genera in recent years in European literature, and North America is now following suit. Keep in mind that elevating these taxa to genera has now allowed recognition of subgenera within them, so it seems unlikely that this trend for generic recognition will be reversed in future classifications.

I'll emphasize again that BugGuide is most valuable as a resource if it reflects current classification rather than trying to decide to what degree it should be "simplified" - at least in the core categories of order, family, genus, and species. Such "dumb-downed" classifications are less informative and are, necessarily, subjectively applied. Their supposed advantage of being easier for the casual user to navigate can be achieved in other ways - refer to the info pages for Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, and Eucnemidae to see examples of up-to-date classifications with subfamilies, tribes, and genera, all hot-linked on one page for easy searching and navigation. These groups all have far more genera than cicindelines that have changed much over recent years, yet somehow people still manage to navigate within them. The Eucnemidae page even has all species listed under their genera, with hot links to those represented on BugGuide - a similar page for Cicindelidae would provide marvelously easy search and navigation while being more informative rather than less.

...I spent several months figuring out how to say that about subfamilies in Coccinellidae and it never came out as well!

Nice to see you've been promoted, by the way :-)

Although barely familiar with this speciose group, I would welcome the split as both a step towards enhanced organization of the section and a better opportunity to learn, as Max have pointed out. It will be easier for me to grasp the tiger beetle diversity under the proposed arrangement. Ted, you have my vote. And I'm delighted to see you join the editor force.

To John: "We" don't split them, just like "we" didn't split Ichneumonidae from Braconidae -- taxa sometimes unrecognizable at family level even by those with lifetime experience studying them...

taken as 'no objection' - so, I'd say go ahead and update

who may complain if you don't wait 30 days for comments

...so I won't be making any changes. It just seemed odd to me that a large proposal for a popular group would generate no discussion, but if people want to mull it over for a bit that's fine with me.

I've given up on trying to interpret what silence is supposed to mean - in any venue :)

Sounds like we should at least add the subgenera [e.g. Aphodius], so that the names are in the guide. Let's give this a month.

I know nothing of this issue/proposal, but I will probably always vote for BugGuide (or anywhere else) staying as current and scientifically accurate as possible.

As long as there is general agreement on the changes among tiger beetle-ologists. If no one speaks up to protest, I'll be happy to help in bringing things up to date.

is a practical one, i.e., hopefully newcomers to entomology and casual visitors searching BugGuide will not dismiss taxa that do not include "Cicindela" in the desired name. Below are pertinent opinions by tiger beetle authority Ronald L. Huber (managing editor of the journal Cicindela) who kindly gave permission to post them here:

"My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that taxonomy, as a human construct, is therefore always a "work in progress."
At least one world authority on carabids said in an email to me, that just because tiger beetles have "funky mouthparts" is no reason to consider them a separate family. He may not be aware of the internal differences in antennal structure, or the differences in hindgut morphology, etc. (which I gleaned from conversations with the late Professor A. Glenn Richards at the Univ of Minn - a world authority on arthropod cuticle). Those of us who have spent half a century working with tiger beetles still consider them a full and distinct family, as do most European researchers.

It follows then, that the morphological differences, used by authors in the past, may have full generic significance. The counter-argument is that such morphology often reflects adaptation and may therefore not truly reflect lineages. Molecular work being done may offer some additional perspectives and, at this early stage, seems to support full generic status for many of the names that Rivalier (using male genitalia) had used in that sense. My own studies of several Amazonian species of Odontocheila suggest that, in fact, Rivalier may not have, in some cases, gone quite far enough in delineating species. The more work that I do with Cicindelidae, the more that I am leaning toward the use of generic concepts offered by Rivalier. Because it is so globally widespread, Cylindera certainly seems like a "good" genus with several recognizeable subgenera. It will be interesting to see what concepts prevail a few decades (not likely that I'll be around) from now.

My major concern is that some overly-eager workers, in an attempt to "make a name for themselves," may sort of "jump-the-gun" in elevating these names without some additional research. All too often (especially in another of my favorite groups, the butterflies) various "authorities" will broadcast their opinion as absolute gospel without any supporting discussion. And so it goes.... (and please note that I began this by stating that it is just my opinion !). Does any of this make sense ?
Cheers, Ron

P.S. Enjoyed looking at some of BugGuide's current "holdings," and should alert you that many changes are in the works (i.e.,
C. viridisticta is from southern MX - ours is C. arizonensis Bates, based upon much field work in MX since 1987)".

...seems to indicate agreement with generic level ranks for the taxa in question. What he disagrees with is subfamily level for tiger beetles as a whole - a rank that BugGuide has already adopted. Ron's skepticism of subfamily rank for tiger beetles - in the face of a growing body of data that suggests otherwise - is reminiscent of the pushback when apes and humans were combined within an expanded Hominidae (molecular and phylogenetic data clearly show humans nested within the apes, but we just look so... different!).

For what it's worth, however, it matters not what Ron thinks about any of this - he himself states that taxonomy is always a "work in progress". The fact remains that we now have a comprehensive treatise covering all North American species and published by two authorities of considerable standing. They have weighed in with their "opinions" on taxa that were first proposed more than a half century ago and whose validity is increasingly supported by molecular and morphological studies. This tiger beetle expert or that tiger beetle expert may not like it, but it is the current state of the knowledge, and detractors are free to continue to debate in their own publications. That's the way taxonomy is and always has been. For our part, I don't see how we can simply decide we don't like the recent literature (especially a comprehensive taxonomy from recognized authorities) and continue to follow an old classification that we think might be easier for newcomers and casual users to understand.

On the latter point, it was certainly easier in the Cerambycidae when all lepturines were "Leptura" and all lamiines were "Lamia" - but it didn't impart much knowledge about relationships, and somehow people have adapted to the explosion of genera in those groups. Newcomers here will also learn to search on tiger beetles as a group and not to exclude anything that doesn't start with "Cicindela". Should we also revert back to Megacephala, since that is the genus most popular references use for what is now considered Tetracha, or even just call them "Cicindela" as well?

I suspect a large part of BugGuide's success is the fact that it does - largely - reflect current taxonomy and nomenclature. It's the one thing that sets it apart from the many other online "picture guides" and is the reason the site is so popular among experts and lay people alike. Personally, I hope I never see the day when BugGuide starts picking and choosing which classifications it will recognize.

There - I've said it, and I feel better :)

I agree with Ted. Let's go for it. When the subfamily name was proposed, everyone grumbled, but followed suit. This being an online resource, it should follow precedence for utilizing the most current literature available.

I agree that we should make new pages for these genera. I'm not sure how much more consensus + time we need, since these are necessary changes (considering the number of authorities that agree upon elevating these to genus, and the changes are now published).

Regarding your concern about searching for "Cicindela," I hope it goes without saying that any changes we make in taxonomy will be accompanied by adding the previous name to the "synonyms and other taxonomic changes" field on the guide page. Doing this will ensure that everything heretofore known as Cicindela will still come up in a search for Cicindela. By the same token, if we decide not to go ahead with any of these changes for whatever reason, we should certainly add the new synonyms to all the guide pages.

I almost jumped the gun, but I see a few want to wait 30days. Please inform us as to when we can make these changes.