ON SOME INACCURACIES IN KLOTS' FIELD GUIDE
In connection with "Blues," I wish to correct two or three
slips in Professor Alexander B. Klots' important and delightful
hook (A Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America,
East of the Great Plains, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1951).
On p. 166 there is a misprint: "Center (formerly Karner)"
should be, of course, "Karner (formerly Center)." Incidentally
I visit the place every time I happen to drive (as I do yearly
in early June) from lthaca to Boston and can report that,
despite local picnickers and the hideous garbage they leave,
the lupines and Lycaeides samuelis Nab. are still doing
as fine under those old gnarled pines along the railroad as
they did ninety years ago.
On p. 165, another, more unfortunate transposition occurs:
"When fawn colored, more vivid in tone" should refer not to
Lycaeides argyrognomon {idas\ but to L. melissa,
while "wings beneath, when fawn colored, duller in tone" should
refer not to L. melissa but to L. argyrognomon
{Idas] (see my "Nearctic Lycaeides," Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool., vol. 101: p. 541:1949).
On pp. 162-164, the genus Brephidium (in company
with two others) is incorrectly placed between Hemiargus
and Lycaeides. I have shown in my paper on Neotropical
Plebejinae (Psyche, vol. 52: pp. 1-61; 1945) that
Hemiargus {sensu lato) and Lycaeides belong to
the same group (subfamily Plebejinae-- or supergenus
Plebejus; the rank does not matter but the relationship
does). Brepbidium, of course, stands on the very
outskirts of the family, in a highly specialized group,
immeasurably further removed from Hemiargus or
Lycaeides than, say, Lycaena. This is where my
subfamilies come in handy since at least they keep related
things in one bunch and eject intruders. Views may differ in
regard to the hierarchic element in the classification I adopt,
but no one has questioned so far the fact of the structural
relationship and phylogenetic circumstances I mean it to
reflect. The whole interest of Hemiargus is that it is
allied to Lycaeides etc., while bearing a striking
superficial resemblance to an African group with which it does
not have the slightest structural affinity. Systematics, I
think, should bring out such points and not keep them blurred
in the haze of tradition. I am perfectly willing to demote the
whole of my "subfamily" Plebejinae to a supergenus or genus
Plebejus (Plebejus ceraunus, isola, thomasi, idas, melissa,
aquilo, saepiolus, etc.) but only under the condition that
it include exactly the same species, in the same groupings
("subgenera" or numbered sections, as you will) and in the same
sequence of groups, without intrusions from groups assigned
structurally to other "subfamilies" (and then, of course,
lygda-mus, battoides, and piasus should be all in
Scolitantides or its equivalent). However, I still think
that the formality of generic nances for the groupings is a
better method than going by numbers, etc. Names are also easier
to handle in works on zoological distribution when it is
important to bring out the way a group is represented in
different regions of the world. Generally speaking, systematics
is not directly concerned with the convenience of collectors in
their dealings with small local faunas. It should attempt to
express structural affinities and divergences, suggest certain
phylogenetic lines, relate local developments to global ones--
and help lumpers to sort out properly the ingredients of their
lumps.
The Lepidopterists' News, Vol. 6, August 8, 1952, p. 41
|