Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:05:59.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STATISTICAL COMPARISONS OF VALVAL STRUCTURE WITHIN AND BETWEEN POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICAN LIMENITIS (NYMPHALIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Austin P. Platt ,
Susanne D. Frearson  and
Peter N. Graves
Austin P. Platt
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut
Susanne D. Frearson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut
Peter N. Graves
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The valval shapes of 314 male Nearctic Limenitis (including 15 samples from nine localities and 20 laboratory-bred hybrids) were examined for anatomical differences. Seven phenotypically different forms are included as follows: L. arthemis, astyanax, the intergrade form proserpina, L. archippus, the rare hybrid form arthechippus, L. lorquini, and L. weidemeyerii. The claspers of each specimen were dissected, mounted on slides, and photographed. Counts and measurements were made of eight larval characters (including four apical features: the number of distal teeth, distal width, and dorsal and ventral angles, as well as four basal traits: valval length and base, and the length and basal width of the inner process), and right forewing length. The data were compared between and among samples by canonical analysis and by one-way analysis of variance tests. Forms of the arthemis–astyanax complex possess no obvious morphological differences in their valvae. The apical characters are constant throughout the group, although the basal valval traits and forewing length show variation in size which is inversely correlated with latitude. The similarity of valval structure in these forms is evidence that they are conspecific. Consistent differences in the apical shapes and valval characters of arthemis, archippus, lorquini, and weidemeyerii confirm that they represent valid species. The valvae of the hybrid form arthechippus are intermediate between the two parental types. The relationships of valval structure to hybridization and genetic isolation are discussed, and consideration is given to the probable evolutionary affinities of the common forms, and how they may have arisen.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 5 , May 1970 , pp. 513 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brower, L. P. 1959. Speciation in butterflies of the Papilio glaucus group. I. Morphological relationships and hybridization. Evolution 13: 40–63.Google Scholar
Chermock, R. L. 1950. A generic revision of the Limenitini of the world. Am. Midl. Nat. 43: 513–569.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R., and Ehrlich, A. H.. 1961. How to know the butterflies. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
Field, W. L. W. 1904. Problems in the genus Basilarchia. Psyche, Camb. 11: 1–6.Google Scholar
Field, W. L. W. 1914. Hybrid butterflies of the genus Basilarchia. Psyche, Camb. 21: 115–117.Google Scholar
Hovanitz, W. 1949. Increased variability in populations following natural hybridization. In: Jepsen, G. L., Mayr, E., and Simpson, G. G. (Eds.), Genetics, paleontology and evolution, pp. 339–355. Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Klots, A. B. 1951. A field guide to the butterflies. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Klots, A. B. 1958. The world of butterflies and moths. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Nakahara, W. 1924. A revision of the genus Basilarchia(Rhopa'ocera: Nymphalidae). Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 19: 166–180.Google Scholar
Newcomb, H. H. 1907. Description of a new variety of Limenitis ursula. Psyche, Camb. 14: 89–91Google Scholar
Platt, A. P. 1967. Inter-relationships between banded, partialIy banded, and unbanded Limenitis butterflies in New England. Bull. ecol. Soc. Am. 48: 129.Google Scholar
Platt, A. P. 1969. A simple technique for hand-pairing Limenitis butterflies (Nymphalidae). J. Lepid. Soc. 23: 109–112.Google Scholar
Platt, A. P., and Brower, L. P.. 1968. Mimetic versus disruptive coloration in intergrading populations of Limenitis arthemis and astyanax butterflies. Evolution 22: 699–718.Google Scholar
Remington, C. L. 1958. Genetics of populations of Lepidoptera. Proc. tenth int. Congr. Ent., Vo1. 2, pp.787–805.Google Scholar
Remington, C. L. 1968. Suture-zones of hybrid interaction between recently joined biotas. Evol. Biol. 2: 321–428.Google Scholar
Scudder, S. H. 1889. The butterflies of the eastern United States and Canada, with special reference to New England. Vol. I. Published by the author, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. M. 1966. Butterflies of the Delaware Valley. Spec. Publ. Am. ent. SOC. Cushing-Malloy, Ann Arbor, Mich.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. M., and Biggs, J. D.. A hybrid Limenitis from New York. J. Res. Lepid. In press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical methods. Iowa State Coll. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar