Elaphidion pseudonomon Ivie
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.177141 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6241362 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D5080724-1137-6F3C-7F86-8EB2A683F956 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Elaphidion pseudonomon Ivie |
status |
|
Elaphidion pseudonomon Ivie View in CoL
( Figs 1, 2 View FIGURES 1 – 6 , 11 View FIGURES 7 – 11 , 17 View FIGURES 16 – 17 , 19, 21)
Elaphidion pseudonomon Ivie, 1985: 312 View in CoL . Monné and Giesbert, 1995: 55. Monné and Hovore, 2005: 66. Valentine & Ivie 2005:280. [For a complete pre-1985 synonymy, see Ivie 1985.]
Elaphidion glabratum pseudonomon: Chalumeau and Touroult, 2005: 103 View in CoL .
This species has been a problem to distinguish throughout its more-than-100-year history ( Ivie 1985). When two unit trays of 50 specimens each are placed side-by-side, the difference between E. pseudonomon View in CoL and E. glabratum View in CoL is so obvious that no one would question their distinctiveness. However, when faced with diagnosing these two highly variable species in such a way that every specimen can be identified in isolation, the situation is much more difficult, leading to polite and understandable questions by workers with only small series to work with. This has been aggravated by use of relative and weakly defined characters to diagnose these differences (e.g. Ivie 1985). Recently, Chalumeau and Touroult (2005) went so far at to consider E. pseudonomon View in CoL a subspecies of E. glabratum View in CoL . However, the definition of a subspecies generally includes “…and interbreeding successfully where their ranges overlap” ( Lincoln et al. 1982), and there is no evidence of these two forms occurring together anywhere in their ranges. Therefore, they cannot be considered subspecies. In the absence of behavioral or genetic data most modern insect systematists consider two allopatric populations that exhibit consistent differences to have divergent evolutionary histories, and place them either as populations of the same taxon or recognize them as full species. After extensive work with these populations for (in the case of Ivie) nearly 30 years, we have found they consistently behave as species, and have identified several, albeit difficult, characters to distinguish them (see diagnosis under E. glabratum View in CoL above). These differences correspond to a biogeographic boundary (the Anegada Passage), which divides the Greater and Lesser Antillean faunae, further strengthening our argument. We therefore return E. pseudonomon View in CoL to full specific status.
DIAGNOSIS: See under E. glabratum . Length 9.5– 17 mm.
DISTRIBUTION: St. Thomas, St. John, Tortola, Guana ( Valentine and Ivie, 2005), Virgin Gorda, Anegada. Puerto Rican record removed to E. mayesea .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Elaphidion pseudonomon Ivie
Ivie, Michael A. & Schwengel-Regala, Michelle L. 2007 |
Elaphidion glabratum pseudonomon:
Chalumeau 2005: 103 |
Elaphidion pseudonomon
Hovore 2005: 66 |
Valentine 2005: 280 |
Giesbert 1995: 55 |
Ivie 1985: 312 |