Pontia daplidice vs. Pontia edusa

I think you did the right thing

That's right, this is one view and there is. If you don't agree, please tell us what are the good distinguishing features between them? The form of valv is still not a sign, and there is a good variability in it within the population. Genetics also seems to indicate that these taxa are conspecific.

That's right, this is one view and there is. If you don't agree, please tell us what are the good distinguishing features between them?

I don't exactly agree or disagree... (I'm not a taxonomist) I just wanted to understand at least in general terms what's going on.

As far as I understand, the species were divided according to biochemical characteristics. Morphological signs, apparently, only then tried to" pull by the ears " (IMHO, this is natural, because it is more convenient to check them). But it didn't work out very well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In recent Russian publications (for example, catalog ed. Sineva, Lvovsky-Blink, etc.) edusa-view. Not to mention the European ones. In their earlier publications (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) Chikolovets wrote that we are talking about a complex of two species, and that, unfortunately, he cannot yet establish the species affiliation of these populations (not surprising: there are no clear morphological boundaries...). But now it is written more simply: daplidice and that's all. So I had a question, what are the reasons behind this. It would be nice to have some explanations: based on such and such studies, we came to the conclusion that we have one type here. Or links to works where such research is described. In general, at least some comment.

Genetics also seems to indicate that these taxa are conspecific.

"Sort of" - what do you mean? I would be grateful if there are, say, links to works where this issue was clarified.

There are data on the COI gene of only 4 Central Asian (in Lukhtanov) and 1 Chinese specimen. Which of them is edusa, which is daplidice - it is not clear. There are almost no differences in the gene sequences between these instances. Unfortunately, more northern specimens (where edusa theoretically lives) were not studied.

I found some comments supporting conspecificity, with links to original research, in the book by P. Gorbunov and O. Kosterin. Thanks!

Dear Kharkovbutt,
I will try to answer your questions.

Kharkovbutt: As far as I understand, the species were divided according to biochemical characteristics. Morphological signs, apparently, only then tried to" pull by the ears " (IMHO, this is natural, because it is more convenient to check them). But it didn't work out very well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, it is true. The two taxa (Pontia daplidice and Pontia edusa) were separated by biochemistry based on differences in allozymes that were detected by electrophoresis. These results are published in a number of papers based ONLY on European material (please correct me if you have data for other regions). Here are the two main works:

Geiger H.J., Descimon H., Scholl A. Evidence for speciation within nominal Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus, 1858) in southern Europe (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Nota lepidopterologica. 1988. Vol. 11. P. 7 – 20.

Porter A.H., Wenger R., Geiger H., Scholl A., Shapiro A. M. The Pontia daplidice-edusa hybrid zone in Northwestern Italy. – Evolution. 1997. Vol. 51 (5). P. 1561 – 1573.

I am only familiar with the second article (I attach it to my post). I am only indirectly familiar with the first work through other sources. If any of the forum participants have it, please post it in this topic.

So, in the work of Porter et al. Based on the study of allozymes, it is concluded that Pontia edusa and P. daplidice are still not species, but taxa of subspecific rank, differing only in four markers. And these taxa form a hybrid zone in Northwestern Italy, where they interbreed freely, i.e. the genetic isolation between them is weak. The same authors note that these taxa have very similar morphology and life cycles.

In the first paper, as far as I know, P. edusa and P. daplidice are considered as "semispecies".

Bora: There are data on the COI gene of only 4 Central Asian (in Lukhtanov) and 1 Chinese specimen. Which of them is edusa, which is daplidice - it is not clear. There are almost no differences in the gene sequences between these instances. Unfortunately, more northern specimens (where edusa theoretically lives) were not studied.

Here, the study of mitochondrial DNA also speaks in favor of conspecificity of taxa... Of course, you need to study in detail the material from other regions, maybe something will change after that. But I doubt it very much.

Based on small differences in biochemistry, I would not conclude that these are two, and not one, species. Moreover, all other signs do not speak in favor of this. The morphology of imago and preimaginal cells is extremely similar. Environmental features-too. They cross freely. The output is a single view.

This post was edited by Ekos - 27.02.2010 07: 11

File/s:



 Porter_etal_Evol_1997.pdf

size: 2.43 mb
number of downloads: 700