Plataea californiaria - Plataea personaria

Moved following Rindge's revision

Moved from Plataea californiaria.

DNA of personaria and californiaria are very close, and I don't think BOLD can be relied on. For this individual, the features include: discal spot without a pale center, highly contrasting colouration leaning greyish, outer white indentation near the costa deep and nearly reaching discal spot.

The coastal location and contrasting pattern seems to rule out P. ursaria, which is an inland (often described as "montane") species. It's easily distinguished from personaria by size, though that's not possible to tell here.

… James Bailey, 3 February, 2021 - 6:37pm

Agreed

I think there are a few more of these still posted under P. californiaria here.

More study needed. Perhaps there are two cryptic species involved, one or both highly varied and overlapping in pattern traits. Or, perhaps BOLD isn't allowing for variation in nucleotide sequences within populations. Or both, or perhaps more complicated than this.

… David J. Ferguson, 4 February, 2021 - 10:28am

I'm still seeing if I can work out P. personaria in full

There seems to be some variation involved ranging from bold individuals like this to more plainly marked ones as well. I believe right now all of our P. californiaria suspects are actually P. diva. Even though Rindge says they are easily distinguished, I'm finding those two quite difficult to separate. It helps that P. californiaria is only known from the immediate coastline of central CA, which rules out all the inland ones.

… James Bailey, 4 February, 2021 - 12:11pm

James, I just skimmed the photos of these at BOLD again

It's been some time since I did that last, though I didn't go through all the details fully. To me it still looks like there are no actual specimens of P. californiaria there; they all look visually more like P. personaria. The fact that the assorted specimens of this general appearance seem to group (?neetly) into two categories is interesting, and there seems to be a geographic element to those groupings. It may not be a species level distinction (???) at all, but simply that the DNA sampled differs in one population from the other. I don't think I can tell the two groups apart based on appearance, but I did't try very hard this time through to find something unique to separate them. One group seems to all be San Diego County, and the other group all from north of Los Angeles (though I didn't check the data for a few specimens).

I'm not really "up" on how significant how many discrepancies in nucleotides really is, nor how reliable it is (I've been a skeptic from day one - too simplistic it seemed). The few samples I just compared for these two "species" showed 26 discrepencies out of 658 positions (a hair under 4%). But how significant is the 4%? Every one was a transition between T/C or A/G, pyrimidine for pyrimidine and purine for purine. Functionally seems to leave them as exact matches. The amino acid samples were identical. This implies to me that the genomes (the part sampled anyway) is functionally identical between the two variations, and that should one mate with the other, these sections of DNA would align perfectly and do their thing as if they weren't different at all.

Anyway, I think of formost importance would be to get some samples that match the type specimens of P. californiaria to BOLD. I suspect it's totally unrepresented there.

Your suggestion some time ago that pasadeniora might be a distinct species had occured to me too, and perhaps that is where the ones coming out as "californiaria" should actually be placed?

This hasn't been a priority for me, and it seems I only come back to it for a few moments every few years or so, but it's been fascinating. I only stumbled back into it today because I got an email notification when you moved one of them.

There are actually quite a few of these situations at BOLD - definitely a work in progress.

… David J. Ferguson, 4 February, 2021 - 12:35pm

Emails

I just forwarded to you and James two emails from 2019 in which this was discussed. It remains unresolved but you can at least see what has been discussed. Please let me know if either of you do not receive the emails.

… Steve Nanz, 4 February, 2021 - 1:42pm

Follow-up

A quick browse through posted specimens yields this as the only potentially real Plataea californiaria that I have been able to locate here so far.

… David J. Ferguson, 26 April, 2017 - 12:00pm

I Agree

I think the MPG and BOLD images of californiaria may be wrong and the one you reference is the only one I see that looks reasonable. The BIN at BOLD for californiaria, BOLD:AAL7803, contains 22 specimens of which 12 are identified as californiaria, 7 as ursaria and 3 unplaced. While it is possible that this BIN may hold more than one species, I am am not at all convinced that they aren't all ursaria. I will try to get more expert advice on this.

Arthur, just wanted to add to what David already said. You indicated below that it seems unlikely that BOLD could get two species in a genus wrong. In fact it would seem expected given the thousands of species covered just for NA leps. I have seen many species pages with specimens in more than one BIN and many BINs with more than one species. Sometimes BIN does not equal species, but it usually does and when it does not, it's usually an error. And I agree that sometimes we do have to start over by getting a sample dissected and then DNA barcoded.

BOLD is a tool which gives some but not all information on relationships between specimens. It is an identification aid but it does not do actual identification except where a human identifies a specimen which is used by the BOLD ID Engine for other unidentified specimens in a BIN. Also, many specimens are identified by the collectors. It's always best to see what is in a BIN and then look at the images and tree for the BIN.

The process is not at all self evident but it is doable. Taking Plataea californiaria as an example, you will note that the species page at BOLD has an "Public Data" button which takes the user to a list of public specimens. Clicking one from the list gives the specimen data page. On that page you will find a BIN number which is hyperlinked to the BIN page where you would see both californiaria and ursaria. You will also see a tree button. If you want to go crazy, you could go back to the specimen page and copy the sequence and plug it into the search engine under the "Identification" tab from which you can see it's nearest 98 neighbors with links to the tree and image list. If you do the same process for Plataea trilinearia, you would find that there are 3 BINs for that species. It is possible that an undescribed species is lurking there.

Edit: The image for personaria, Pl. 30.22m, in Powell & Opler (2009) looks like californiaria and the image for californiaria, Pl. 30.23f, looks like ursaria or personaria to me based on Rindge (1976). Interesting.

… Steve Nanz, 3 January, 2019 - 1:37pm

BOLD may redefine some species...

The species are ultimately defined by humans for the type specimen. So if BOLD defines the species and records its bar codes there is a potential to redefine a species. Still, one has to assume that they are getting closer and closer to the truth. It seems to have great potential not just for ID, but for the history of species variation and distribution.

… Arthur Scott Macmillan, 26 April, 2017 - 2:26pm

I think the placement here is indeed probably incorrect.

Looking at your comments, I have re-examined this one, but I've come to the same conclusion.

However, this is based entirely on Rindge's treatment, as I don't know these insects intimately in the field. I am not personally familiar with the range of variation shown by each species within populations. So, I could be wrong. Here is some of my rationalization:

First of all, BOLD specimens are not all correctly identified. Some samples are still mixed (even if the barcodes seem genetically the same), but more often all the specimens under a name are simplary wrong. It is a great database, but it needs to be treated with a bit of caution, since there are still mistakes that need to be corrected. Also some barcoding conclusions are misleading and of debatable value. But this is a whole other discussion; so, moving on.

The specimens identified as P. californiaria on BugGuide all appear to actually be P. personaria, as do all of the ones shown at BOLD. I haven't searched for P. californiaria specimens under other names here on BugGuide, nor under unidentified specimens yet, but the insects that Rindge shows in his revision under the name P. californiaria are very distinctly different looking from any of these currently posted here. It would be interesting to see how the molecular results for the two BOLD sets of samples sort out if mixed - do they really segregate into two clearly defined groups, and if so, is the difference significant?

So, on the flip side, I could see that there could posibly be two taxa represented in the postings here, but I expect that neither one is actually P. californiaria.

There is a candidate name for the ones currently posted under P. californiaria. The holotype specimen of the name P. californiaria pasadenaria, which Rindge places in synonymy under P. personaria, looks like those posted here. However, in morphology that specimen is apparently the same as P. personaria (which it also looks more like) and is not P. californiaria. Rindge did not distinguish this name at any taxonomic level.

To my eyes, it looks as if there is a continuum in the pattern variation shown in the photos under both names, not a clear division into two obvious types (though the extremes do look quite different). I suspect the division is artificial.

Based on Rindge's treatment, and based on pattern alone (there are no genitalia to examine) they are ALL referable to P. personaria.

Now, getting to Rindge's paper. His figures 11-14 show P. personaria (his interpretation), and the caption reads: >. However, figure 13 is also individually captioned as "P. californiaria pasadenaria" because it is the holotype of that name (though Rindge clearly treats this name as a synonym under P. personaria in the body of the text). Figure 14 is not subcaptioned with a name, but follows the other directly, and looks like the other. If one is just looking at the plate, and doesn't read carefully, this could cause confusion. Photos of P. californiaria are on the following plate as figures 23 & 24.

I have posted Ridges photos of Plataea californiaria, though they may need to come down if there is some sort of infringement by doing so:

Notice that the pattern is quite different from those posted here, and particularly notice the very elongate pale basal area that nearly reaches the dark mark at the end of the discal cell, the mark being light-centered.

… David J. Ferguson, 26 April, 2017 - 11:31am

If his paper is well backed by genitalia examination

Then I think we have enough grounds to shuffle around all the bugguide images.

But then, what about P. ursaria? I can hardly distinguish that from californiaria, and I'm not even sure I can.

… James Bailey, 26 April, 2017 - 11:57pm

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Rindge recognized P. ursaria based upon genitalia and considerably larger size. I suspect it is easier to tell from P. personaria when in hand or sitting under a light than it is when seen in a photograph. P. ursaria is supposed to have a more irregular dark submarginal line on the front wing, and that it has a mid-dorsal thoracic "crest" that is by implication ?lacking? on P. personaria.
I haven't looked through the P. personaria and unidentified photos to see if any look perhaps more like P. ursaria.

… David J. Ferguson, 28 April, 2017 - 1:12pm

My only point is...

...since numerous moth specimen are received by BOLD, and I would think with a species that seems to have similar looking species that they would carefully check them when they are in their hands. That's why I say it might be good to know what the procedure is when an ID could be wrong. If you are sure of the ID feel free to move it back. But doesn't that mean moving Gary McDonald's BOLD verified specimen as well? Maybe that is the first step in preventing the confusion from continuing.

If Gary still participates in BOLD, maybe he can flag new finds of the species in question. I've never sent any moths to them, so I don't know if this is realistic or not.

Again, I have no objection to your original placement. Your ID does seem legitimate. But I'm just going to take the position of "I don't know" Because I am not knowledgeable enough to say BOLD is wrong on something that may or may not have variable markings.

… Arthur Scott Macmillan, 28 April, 2017 - 5:29pm

I will try to remember to talk to the people at BOLD

about this one. No point in moving everything around until everything is sorted out at BOLD too.

… David J. Ferguson, 1 May, 2017 - 12:15pm

I don't quite understand why...

...one would use the name P. californaria pasadenaria for the photo, and then use P. personaria in the text. If he is elevating a subspecies to a new species I would think he would make that point explicitly.

I have a hard time with thinking that BOLD has not misidentified one species, but two! If such is the case maybe they need to be made aware that there is conflicting information. I think the only way to resolve it would be to photograph new specimen, have them analyzed by dissection, and then DNA tested. How else can we know where the identification mistake is being made?

This demonstrates whether the BOLD database is valid. Will they address possibly misidentified base line samples, or simply assume they are correct?

… Arthur Scott Macmillan, 27 April, 2017 - 6:04am

Hi Arthur

I hope I can address your comment to your satisfaction. Rindge labelled the illustration in his paper as the holotype specimen of the name P.californiaria pasadenaria, but he was not considering it to actually be part of P. californiaria. He synonymized that subspecies name under P. personaria, and gave it no status. He was not publishing a new combinatiion, he was sinking it - in other words, he didn't recognize the name pasadenaria as being distinct from personaria at all. The fact that the name pasadenaria was originally described as a subspecies of californiaria is just coincidental.

Did that make sense?

This is a related but different observation. Morphologically, Rindge considered this type of insect (apparently the same as the ones under this heading on BugGuide) to be P. personaria, but he was looking at morphology and not at biology; he could have lumped two distinct species together that are morphologically close, but behaviorally distinct. If the BOLD samples consistently sort into two groups (while ignoring pattern or names attached to the specimens), it would be reasonable evidence that these might indeed be two biologically distinct entities. The name "pasadenaria" would be available (as a species, subspecies, or whatever) for the ones that are currently being confused for P. californiaria.

As for BOLD, it is only as good as the identification of the specimens submitted. So, if a specimen was submitted and accepted under the wrong name to start with, it will be listed incorrectly there, as will (probably) any matching specimens to follow. I have found more than one of these situations, but haven't kept track of them so far. Some have been corrected. The system is not fool-proof; occasionally there are even weird or just plain wrong results, and occasionally data sets do have the wrong names attached. It is a statistical database, not one based in population behavior. Even so, it is a great source of information, and has helped to sort out a number of puzzles. As for this Plataea situation, I think it is only the specimens listed as P. californiaria that are incorrectly identified.

… David J. Ferguson, 28 April, 2017 - 12:41pm

Moved

Moved from Plataea personaria.

Thanks for catching this James!

… Arthur Scott Macmillan, 25 April, 2017 - 5:47am

I would suggest it is ursaria or californiaria

Note how deep the indentation is on the outer margin of the dark patch.

BOLD and MPG specimens of personaria don't have a deep indentation but a shallower one.

Is this a proven feature? Not yet, but it is consistent over the BOLD and MPG specimens.

… James Bailey, 24 April, 2017 - 9:51pm

I do appreciate the input.

I find myself still thinking that this is P. californaria. Compared side by side with Gary's BOLD verified P. californaria from neighboring San Benito county. Pretty good agreement at the pointed out areas:

… Arthur Scott Macmillan, 25 April, 2017 - 5:33am

and comparison with P. personaria

A re-oriented comparison to a BOLD verified P. personaria:

They do not match up very well at all. I realize this bold verified sample was not available at the time David was comparing these. I believe James is correct and I will place this back with P. californaria. I don't claim to be an expert but since there is support for the ID, and a fairly closely matching example of this species from neighboring San Benito County, CA. I will make the move tentatively. If there are objections then it can be re-examined!

… Arthur Scott Macmillan, 25 April, 2017 - 5:39am

This looks like P. personaria

as do the other specimens posted here under P. californiaria.

Moved from Plataea californiaria.

… David J. Ferguson, 8 April, 2014 - 10:26pm