[Taxacom] moth taxonomy

Thu Oct 12 09:44:43 CDT 2006

The classification presented by Dugdale et al. was essentially that proposed by Kyrki, 1990 (Nota lepid. 13: 28-42), which they discussed and modified slightly while emphasizing its provisionality. It has a 'phylogenetic justification' albeit not a full-fledged analysis. Kyrki's 1990 paper was published posthumously from his working notes, it contains elements of phylogenetic analysis but the work was incomplete at the time of his death in 1986. 

I consider it reasonable to follow the classification in Dugdale et al. for the time being because the Handbook is a standard reference and is probably the best current overview of the Yponomeutoidea cast in a phylogenetic context. Thus, Yponomeutidae: Argyresthiinae. 

_______________________________________________
Jean-François Landry, Ph.D.
Research Scientist / Chercheur scientifique
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada/Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
Telephone/Téléphone: 613-759-1825
Facsimile/Télécopieur: 613-759-1927
960 Carling Ave / 960, avenue Carling
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6
landryjf at agr.gc.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:32 AM
To: Shen-Horn Yen; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] moth taxonomy

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
> >

_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom