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

TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
Photo#369477
1796 Orthotaenia undulana - Dusky Leafroller 2770 - Olethreutes deprecatoria

1796 Orthotaenia undulana - Dusky Leafroller 2770 - Olethreutes deprecatoria
Bay Center 98527 Willapa, Pacific County, Washington, USA
July 29, 2009
Size: wingspan ~13mm
DSCF8568.JPG
wingspan ~13mm
RWWA-0923 BOLD DNA Orthotaenia undulana A species level match has been made.
Locality: Coastal SW Washington State at the edge of Willapa Bay geo:lat=46 37.273 ge=-123 56.8140:lon
www.boldsystems.org/views/taxbrowser.php?taxid=21625

Moved to "Olethreutes" deprecatoria
Moved from Syricoris lacunana. Moved here following discussion involving Steve Nanz, Michael Sabourin and Todd Gilligan which produced a consensus view that BOLD:AAB4022 is best considered deprecatoria, which it should also be noted does not belong in genus Olethreutes nor in a different genus with other Nearctic "Olethreutes" but rather in the Syricoris/Celypha grouping.

 
Acleris lipsiana change
Up front I do not have anything to gain as to which species some of these forms end up being. The DNA data is there whether one want to consider it or not, and the specimen archived. I do have a concern over the lessening of the DNA data for what are usually much more subjective criteria. A species should not be determined by consensus. One example is Acleris lipsiana.

Yes, Acleris capizziana is matched to the many specimens from here. However, A. capizziana is also a 99-100% match to the other A. lipsiana forms from Europe, as well as, those from here in North America . On the main BOLD Tree updated in April of this year, the A. lipsiana from here is less than 0.2% from the European specimens. I have a feeling that you are somehow defining species to fit a present day geographic distribution and not the sequence data from the DNA tests. A complete non-variable endemic status. Geology and paleontology, especially upper Tertiary and Pleistocene, were my one time fields and the botanical changes across the Beringia connection have been verified in evidence such as pollen tests. Then the dynamic changes in the sea level and most certainly the ever changing botanical types resulting from temperature changes during advance and retreat of glaciers from North America to Asia. These were relatively fast geologically speaking. One of the unusual periods of the Holocene a few thousand years ago, was the hypsithermal interval which created the warmer temperate habitat across the entire northern areas with plants responding to it. I am sure the moth species took advantage. Today we probably see just a very small period and the results of what had taken place. I have an album on Flickr with ± 80 moth species with DNA sequences with species from my backyard matched to those from areas in Europe. Take a look at the other species of Acleris from here with very similar distributions to what I call, A. lipsiana from both continents:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76798465@N00/albums/72157639274126665/with/24273916630/

Note: The various Acleris species seem to be highly polymorphic (host) and most likely this a factor in moving among similar and changing vegetive habitats. I have noted this in the species of Zeiraphera with matches to Z. griseana, as they moved among or into different conifers types. Or as better said as conifer types change in response to climate.

I have the same concerns about changing all the species from Orthotaenia undulana to Olethreutes deprecatoria. I can't see where this conforms to the DNA sequencing at all. Again, is it the oceanic separation as we have today with Asia and North America?

 
DNA
Hi Dick - As Aaron has said, the dispute is not with the DNA barcoding, at least not in this case, it is with the identifications applied to the BIN by humans. We have collectively spent dozens of hours working through this group. I will forward the email and would be happy to discuss it further as needed. I will also check the Acleris issue and forward emails if possible.

Edit - For others who see this, the A. lipsiana issue is discussed here and I have responded.

 
Olethreutini
I can’t speak to the issue with Acleris, but I can explain more fully what happened with some of your specimens in Olethreutini. The bottom line is that there are lots of issues with identifications of barcoded specimens in this group at BOLD, but the issue is with the provided identifications, not the DNA. In the case of this species, the BOLD BIN contains many specimens that are simply misidentified. The entire BIN is clearly not referable to Orthotaenia despite many of the specimens being labeled as such. This is readily apparent to the trained eye based solely on the maculation seen in the photos at BOLD, including your photos. The only question then is: what name properly applies to the species represented by the BIN? There is a single specimen in the BIN identified as Syricoris lacunana by a tortricid systematist, and that is why I initially moved the images here to that species. However, a conversation with a couple tortricid experts produced a consensus that that identification was mistaken as well and that the BIN very likely represents deprecatoria instead. This conclusion was based on a corrected identification of the dissected specimen previously misidentified as lacunana. Something similar happened with another batch of your barcoded specimens.

DNA barcoding is extremely useful for identification and taxonomy, but its value is limited by the accuracy of the identifications of the specimens that establish the correct names to be used for BINs. When these identifications are in question, DNA barcoding can elucidate relationships among specimens and species but is useless in associating them with names. To reiterate, the problem is not that the specimens in the BIN to which this specimen belongs should not have been associated by barcoding. The problem is that the entire BIN was misidentified.

Moved

 
Not sure
Todd Gilligan is following LaGasa's treatment but I think LaGasa is in error unless he and others were able to show his specimens are not deprecatoria.

 
I’ll wait to hear more
I can always change the name of the species page if needed. (Of course, deciding on a generic placement to follow might be challenging.) I’ve put some information on the info page and will update as we get more info. Feel free to make changes as you see fit. I may have jumped the gun a bit, but these clearly didn’t belong in Orthotaenia. I’ve been itching to move them, as I’ve been curating that species as well as fasciatana and cespitana on BugGuide. The early flight time of Orthotaenia is finally apparent in the data having been obscured for years by misidentified images.

 
No Problem but...
... please do not change the name of the species page. Even if these images are of deprecatoria, lacunana remains a NA good species based on barcoded specimens from eastern Canada and northern AB and BC. Besides, a page already exists for deprecatoria.

 
Got it
I’d forgotten there was already a page for that species. I’ve changed the info page to reflect its permanent status representing lacunana.

Olethreutes deprecatoria
Still on the fence with this but it's come to my attention that Eric LaGasa's barcoded specimen in the same BIN as yours from just south of Seattle and identified as Syricoris lacunana, includes an image of the genitalia which is very similar to that of Olethreutes deprecatoria illustrated by Heinrich (1926). The nearest neighbor to this BIN is the BIN for S. lacunana which also has very similar genitalia. Neither is close to O. undulana.

BOLD Error
This looks like an error. The BIN in which this is placed, BOLD:AAB4022, contains 41 samples identified as Orthotaenia undulana and one identified as Syricoris lacunana. All are from your area. It's closest neighbor is BOLD:AAC3531 which contains 148 lacunana, 8 cf. lacunana, and 5 Olethreutes deprecatoria. What appears to be true undulana is spread over two BINS, BOLD:AAB4021, mostly Eurasia, and BOLD:AAA8540, mostly US and Canada. Those two are each others closest neighbors and they do not appear to be close to BOLD:AAB4022. I'm guessing this is an undescribed species near Olethreutes deprecatorius.

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