What is the difference between sasakii and simulator? I notice that on iNaturalist, there are quite a few of the former and hardly any of the latter. Of the latter, they all occur in a very small area on the east coast. Here on BG, there are more identified as simulator. I observed my first one this week and don't know which it is. I'll be uploading it here at some point. I tentatively identified it as CC. sasakii based on its similarity to this one:


But I think it also looks similar to this one. Since this was moved from sasakii to simulator, perhaps you can share why.

The BG images were all barcoded as cf. simulator or were from the a contributor with a similar specimen that was barcoded. The range of simulator is probably more restricted, possibly only AR and nearby in OK and TX, however there are barcoded specimens of cf. simulator from MD and Terry Harrison identified one by Bob Patterson from MD.

All the barcoded specimens should probably be regarded a tentative and by extension all BG and live MPG images as well. I don't recall why we felt they represented true simulator but I do know that they are not sasakii or "ottawana" which have a different barcodes.

I should also add that the C. ottawana which was synonymized with niponensis in Davis (1969) (1) and later with sasakii in Diakonoff (1989) (2) is unsupported by DNA barcode and that both niponensis and sasakii appear to be extralimital. I also noticed that there appear to be unnamed cryptic species involved. I'm not sure it makes sense to identify these beyond genus. Dissection it needed and even then I'm not sure we can be certain.

So, Steve, let me see if I have this correct: Certain of these species of Carposina look similar, may not be separable by genitalic dissection, and have similar DNA barcodes. Certainly the group is in need of more careful study, but this gets to my usual concern about what type of species concept is appropriate in such cases.

I communicated with Jim Young the Curator of Carposinidae at the Smithsonian. He has been working on the North American Carposina for the past couple of years and recently published a revision that restored C. ottawana as a valid species based on larval, genitalic and DNA differences, see Young & Robertson (2020) (1). Additionally, he said that in the course of doing this study he found numerous undescribed species with distinct morphological differences and he will continue working on them when the museum reopens.

I did not mean to imply that DNA barcode failed to separate sasakii, ottawana, simulator, etc. I think it does. I meant that I was just not sure which specimens at BOLD referred to which species and to what extent undescribed species were involved. I was specifically unsure if the small barcode variations in the BIN for “cf. simulator” indicated a separate species from Maryland. Dr. Young mentioned that the COI region appears to be highly conserved in the North American species of Carposina and it is likely that regions other than COI will need to be explored and that will require fresh material which is proving difficult to find.

Also, I didn’t mean to imply that genitalia could not separate species in the genus. I likewise believe that it does. I meant that we may not know what variations exist and to what extent a variation indicates a good species.

I think that after reading Young & Robertson (2020), you will find that their “species concept” raises no red flags. I apologize for confusing statements in my previous comments.

I agree that the “species concept” by various authors does at times need to be challenged. I often add notes on species pages at both BugGuide and MPG when I question current taxonomy, a practice I think is appropriate for other BG editors provided species names and synonyms as set forth in published works are preserved.

Thanks, Steve, for this considered and considerable response. I look forward to catching up with all the Carposina research.

I'd like to weigh in on this question. I know there are various species concepts, and I'm not sure what is the best one to apply here. Having done some reading of this group, I'll point out that the different populations being deemed as different species or at least subspecies have different habits, for example, being found on different groups of plants. That seems like strong evidence they should be thought of as separate. maybe they're just different clades in the same species, but surviving on different foodstuffs seems rather fundamental, particularly if they are both available.

Thanks for the details reply. I was doing some reading in Davis (1969) today, and it seems to me that he was unsure whether those species you indicated were synonymized should have been. There was also some discussion on the paucity of specimens available for significant determination. I have not looked at Diakonoff. Perhaps I won't, since I've come to the conclusion as you seem to have that these are best left at genus level for now.

Edit:
I suppose it's worth quoting Davis here (also quoted in Diakonoff). "Furthermore, C. n. niponensis clearly belongs to a Palearctic species group which also includes C. berberidella Herrich-Schaffer and C. scirrhosella Herrich-Schaffer. Thus, the available evidence seems to suggest that the two subspecies actually are distinct, and that they may differ significantly in their biology. Largely for this reason, I have not synonymized C. n. ottawana, but prefer to recognize it as a separate subspecies even though present morphological evidence does not fully support such a division"

and it has been moved. Thanks for the note.