I remember back in school when my profs said don't bother learning the common names. Now it seems that the only thing that doesn't change is the common names. I'm tired of changing labels even if it is for the better. It kind of makes you feel like Charlie Brown.

I think it would be interesting to know what they have decided. I probably won't be able to follow details, but I'd like to know big picture stuff--are they being placed into different groups (or genera). Are they creating more groups, or are they creating a whole new family?

I guess my question is what does it mean to have the classification revised?

Thanks!

After you read through the paper, we'd love to read a simplified summary, Larry.
Sherry

turtledon,
Easy answer... don't bother. I played that game for a while early on, but as my synoptic collection grew curiating it was becoming a full time job. IOW, I stopped changing labels many, many years ago. Just another thing taxonomic classification has over common names... when they change the taxonomy the old AND new names always still cross reference to each other (in "real" data bases and publications, not bare bones field guides) whereas common names are generally local, author specific and so often do not cross reference. This cross referencing also includes clearing up confusions in the level of the names.

bernergrrl,
Like with everything else in science, advances in technology changes (and sometimes improves) the methods. The old ways worked, but were very labor intensive and had a larger margin for error based on interpretation of microscopic similarities, known life history characteristics, etc. Enter DNA for defining morphological characters in your data matrix. Much like DNA testing can separate us into distinct family groups and bloodlines, so can it with Lepidoptera. Revision comes about when studies prove that old associations are in error for whatever reason. It can be for only a single bug up to an entire higher level of classification like in this case.

Sherry,
I can give a basic idea right now. What they propose is a new phylogenetic classification based on a monophyletic clade that includes confirmation of some of the traditionally recognized subfamilies, the establishment of a couple of new subfamilies, and many shifts in and to tribe level. In laymanÂs terms, a new family tree for Hesperiidae (who begot who to produce who) based on the DNA of the worlds existing species plus the old methods combined. DNA evidence will be hard to disprove, so I expect their proposals will be accepted into common use.

DNA studies on bugs? They have it too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised!
My favorite members of this family are long-tailed skippers/Urbanus proteus and Common checkerd skippers/Pyrgus communis - I've raised both of them.
Sherry

Sherry,

I'm still weeding through the descriptions of the 49 morphological characters in their data matrix. It goes slowly for it to "sink in" even though I know the terminology. Doesn't help either that I never seriously studied the Hesperioidea as a complete group, but rather just targeted certain species of interest. Briefly scanning ahead it looks like your two bugs are both targeted species for change though.

Pyrgus communis communis is in the Purginae subfamily / Pyrgini tribe, but they are calling for an elucidation (further clarification) of the P. communis group which they determined are closer to Helioptes & Heliopyrgus than they are to the boreal North American and Old World Pyrgus. That could cause a reassignment of this group (of 3 genera) at genus level in the least, and maybe more.

Urbanus proteus proteus has been reassigned to the new Eudamine subfamily (formerly it was in Pyrginae).

FWIW, none of this papers findings and proposals are earth shattering at the level of most of the folks here on these forums. And it will take time for any changes it influences to start showing up in laymanÂs books (if at all in fioeld guides). But it is important to professional researchers as the first of its kind for this entire family that combines morphological and molecular data in a phylogenetic study.

I think I would like a good understanding of where skippers fall on the Lep family tree. When did they split off? Before butterflies? After? When I give talks to the public almost 99% of them are not even aware these wonderful creatures exist. They are fast becoming some of my favorites. I guess, I have identity issues with skippers :).
-Elisabeth

Elisabeth,

Not easy to answer without writing a book, literally, and naturally it can be speculative based on interpretation of known datum. But generally accepted, most families of moths predate what is sometimes referred to as the Macrolepidoptera (which includes what we call butterflies), and more "Macro" moth families yet predate Rhopalocera (the three superfamilies of butterflies). The "Rhop" (or butterfly) families are Hedyloidae, Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. The obvious choice for the most primitive of the Rhop's is the Hedyloidae, and the most advanced the Papilionoidea. Within these Rhop families some subfamilies are more primitive than others as well. An example would be one of my specialties, the Parnassiinae, which are considered one of the most primitive subfamilies of the true butterflies (Papilionoidea).

Close enough for a short answer, but you really need to read into it yourself if you want to be prepared for "those" questions.

Larry

Very interesting!

Sandy

Thanks Larry, that answered my question. For the general public they are "butterflies".

I have read about the hedyloidae. Are all the known species in neotropics? What is fascinating about this is that I was recently reading about the metalmarks they found in amber that were dated to 25 million years ago. These were simillar to a species found in the Dominican Republic today. They are thinking that the origin of butterflies may be around 65 million years ago. Also fascinating that due to the breakup of the continents the hotspot for studying the evolution of butterflies might be at our doorstep in the caribbean and central americas.

Thanks again,
Elisabeth

Yep, they are all Neotropical. Why they are referred to as the "American" moth butterflies. However, in as much as they do resemble small, plain indistinct moths and there is thousands of lepidopteran species still not determined or catalogued is it possible they also occur someplace else?

Because lepidoptera do not lend well to leaving fossil records and very few have been found in catalysts like amber, their origin is pretty much speculation. Didn't see the article you read, but I've read lots of opinions and theories over the years. Generally they suggested that insects date to nearly 400 million years ago, they made a huge move to the air about 100 million years later and most of the so called modern insects evolved about 50 million years after that (numbers all rounded by me to remember them easier). So if those approximate numbers are true its possible lepidoptera date to 250-300 million years ago. Oldest known fossil suspected of being related to lepidoptera is around 200 million years old if I remember right.

Larry;
Here is the link to the paper. I think you will find it fascinating and probably understand it a lot better than I did. I think it implies that upper order butterflies (if I am saying that correctly) are older than thought. The pictures are amazing!

http://entomology.si.edu/StaffPages/Robbins/2004-Hall_Robbins_Harvey_Amber_Butterfly_Proc_R_Soc_Lond.pdf

enjoy,
Elisabeth

Larry,

Is the .pdf online somewhere? I would love to see it if possible.

It's interesting that P. communis is being moved around. I've always felt that it (a) is more "butterfly-like" than other skippers in habit, and (b) quite variable in appearance.

Jeff

Speaking of P. communis, I got this picture the other day of a female on Sida rhombifolia, the local host plant that they also nectar on -
{{gwi:494552}}
And this male nectaring on porterweed -
{{gwi:492149}}
Sherry

Jeff,

Actually I see it more like giving the communis group a higher classification than just moving them around. If what they suspect is true soemthing is misassigned, whether it be the communis group, the other Purgus, the Helioptes, or whatever. I targeted studying the Helioptes more than the Pyrgus myself. They were far rarer in the habitats I did field work in the most often.

I sent Andy an email to ask if the paper was available yet on-line. He'll let me know, and if it's not I'm sure he'll OK my either sending the pdf file myself or hosting it on my server if nothing else. I'll let you all know here when I do.

Sherry and her awesome pictures again... very nice girl.
. .
. I HATE MY CANNON S3 IS.........

I hate my Cannon S3 IS.......

i hate my cannon s3 is.....

i...

OK, I'm calm again now.

LOL

Jeff,

I haven't forgot you. Still have not heard back from Andy, so I have to assume he's off on a lep project somewhere around the world. Otherwise he'd get right back to me. Maybe I'll try calling his office, or even his Dad one of these days to find out if that's the case.

I've looked on the web myself and only found brief abstracts about the paper. Might not be out there in its complete form. Still feel I need to ask Andy first before sharing it though.

For everybody else, probably way too deep for you to care on this level, so I'm not going to review it now that I've read it all.

Larry

Who knew I'd be revisiting this topic 3.5 years later. I saw some info on skippers that I thought sounded incorrect so I started doing some digging. Found the article that Larry was talking about plus more stuff that I liked a lot. Figured I'd share.

The article Larry originally posted about can be found in the journal "Systematic Entomology," July 2009, Vol. 34, pages 467-523. It is not light reading. If the classifications Dr. Warren and his colleagues proposed have been adopted, I have not seen it during my searches.

I also found that the same three guys published another article in 2008 about redoing which tribes the skippers fall in.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00218.x/abstract

Then I found that Larry's friend has a webpage and a twitter account. I highly recommend both. Great pictures. I've linked the webpage.

Twitter account is:
https://twitter.com/AndyBugGuy
He was out yesterday looking for bugs and posting pics. Then his friends from around the world are posting pics of bugs they're finding. It's great.

Lastly, he has a You Tube video that shows the most unique way to find a caterpillar that I remember seeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55ynC8GtMd0

KC

Here is a link that might be useful: LepScience - Musings on Nature and Science

That was interesting to watch! Also, he mentions the white powder is possibly an insecticide to repel other insects--that would be interesting to see what it is made of etc., and perhaps there would be applications because obviously it doesn't harm the caterpillar.

Wish I were younger getting exposed to all of this stuff--would have loved to have been able to study it.

Also wonder how Larry is doing?