One of the biggest problems with BOLD and DNA barcoding is they're comparing a
relatively small part of the sequence. They're the parts that are most likely
to show differences but if they had the time and money to run the entire
sequence there might be some differences. Barcoding is a useful tool but it's
not the final word.
From: Doug Bruce <s137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tn-butterflies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 8:51 PM
Subject: [TN-Butterflies] Re: Discussion
This brings to mind the situation with Pyrgus communis and P. albescens. These
two very similar species were differentiated by Burns (2000) mostly on the
basis of a non-obvious difference in the male genitalia. However, an attempt
by Fordyce et al. (2008) to differentiate the two by DNA sequencing failed. I’m
not sure if anyone has ever looked into Pyrgus hostplant use and distribution
as a possible explanation for the morphological difference. ~ Doug From:
kjchilds (Redacted sender "kjchilds" for DMARC) Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016
3:04 PMTo: tn-butterflies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [TN-Butterflies] Re:
Discussion Here's the source.
http://molbiol.ru/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t104216-300.html
From: kjchilds <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: TN Butterflies <tn-butterflies@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 1:35 PM
Subject: [TN-Butterflies] Discussion
There's an interesting discussion going on in the Mothing group on
Facebook and the most interesting part is a reference to a study on some of the
Polyommatus species of blues found in Russia. The same species of butterfly
raised from caterpillars on different foods and in different conditions not
only looked different and were different sizes but also had differences in the
size and shape of their genitalia. DNA tests showed that there were fewer
species than originally thought. If you're on Facebook, the details can be
found in this thread.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/137219092972521/permalink/1202404213120665/
