[Taxacom] moth taxonomy

[John Grehan]

Thanks for the feedback. I did read Dugdale et al quite a few years back
and I do not recall whether they provided a phylogenetic justification.
My recollection was that it was just posed as the classificaiton.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shen-Horn Yen [mailto:shenhornyen at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:24 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] moth taxonomy
> 
> hi
> 
> At moment there is no phylogenetic hypothesis for Yponomeutoidea based
on
> modern methods, but there is a discussion pubilshed in the Handbook of
> Zoology series that may answer your question.
> 
> Dugdale, JS, Kristensen NP, Robinson GS, Scoble MJ. 1999. The
> Yponomeutoidea. 119-130 pp. In Kristensen NP (ed.), Handbook of
Zoology,
> IV,
> Arthropoda: Insecta, Lepidoptera Moths and Butterflies, Vol.1
Evolution,
> Systematics and Biogeography. de Gruyter.
> 
> In the moth research communities in Taiwan and Japan, Argyresthiinae
is
> accepted as a subfamily of Yponomeutidae.
> 
> regards
> 
> Yen
> 
> Dr. YEN, Shen-Horn
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Biological Sciences
> National Sun Yat-Sen University
> Kaohsiung 804, TAIWAN
> E-mail: shenhornyen at hotmail.com or shenhornyen at mail.nsysu.edu.tw
> Webpage: http://www2.nsysu.edu.tw/biology/shenhornyen_e.htm
> Tel: +886 (07) 5252000 ext 3612; +886 (07) 5256392
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:07 PM
> Subject: [Taxacom] moth taxonomy
> 
> 
> > If there is any microlepidopteran systematist on this list who might
be
> > able to clarify a question I have regarding the family status of
> > Argyresthiidae I would be most grateful. I have referred to this
group
> > as a family in a forthcoming article, but it seems that quite a few
> > authors list it as a subfamily of Yponomeutidae. I am trying to
learn
> > the rationale for the subfamily designation. So far I have gone back
as
> > far as Kyrki (1984) (Entomologica Scandinavica), but he only
presents
> > the subfamily designation (Argyresthiinae), citing this as the
status
> > accepted by European sources. Of these four do not seem to encompass
the
> > group, while the fourth is by Falkovitsh and Medvedev 1981 which is
> > written in Russian and I do not have to hand at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > What I am interested to know is whether the situation is one in
which
> > the family Yponomeutidae was just enlarged to encompass several
> > monophyletic families, including Argyresthiidae, which were then
> > downgraded to subfamily status. Or was it a case that the
Argyresthiidae
> > was shown to be more closely related to one or more species of
> > Yponomeutidae, or visa versa, and thus requiring a change in status.
If
> > the former choice (enlarging the family Yponomeutidae) it would seem
> > that the choice is arbitary and there is no necessary reason for me
to
> > accept it, even if it is popular. If the latter, then I would have
to
> > recognize the changed relationships reflected in the revised
taxonomic
> > status. So for all the literature I have read just accepts the
subfamily
> > without phylogenetic justification.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. John R. Grehan
> >
> > Director of Science and Collections
> >
> > Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway
> >
> > Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
> >
> > email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> >
> > Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
> >
> >
> >
> > Panbiogeography
> >
> > http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php
> >
> > Ghost moth research
> >
> >
http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php
> >
> > Human evolution and the great apes
> >
> > http://www.sciencebuff.org/human_origin_and_the_great_apes.php
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom mailing list
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >