In the last post I reported on T. winbrechiini, a newly described species split from T. agrippina. I can't authoritatively discuss the validity of this recent nomination--I am not a taxonomist--but I can ask some questions. The strength of a claim for a new species designation should be strong. Some factors that help:
Another trickier issue: is the describer conservative in considering these factors, knowing that new designation will affect how others assess the taxon long term? Or is there a predisposition for he/she to discern new species from relatively weak evidence? The case of T. winbrechiini seems to be the latter. The primary author of the new species paper is Ronald Brechlin, a German entomologist with >200 taxonomic publications. In the year 2010 alone, he put out 33 papers, describing 51 new species and many lesser taxa. That is, Ronald Brechlin made the case for a new species once a week in that year, and in many other years. This leads me to skepticism. It is not possible to rigorously make that many IDs.
Where were these many taxonomic papers published? Nearly all were contributed to Entomo-satsphingia a journal founded in 2008 by ... Ronald Brechlin (and Frank Meister). My skepticism deepens. I highly doubt that true authorities on the relevant taxa reviewed the claims made in this journal.
There is one small piece of follow-up that I can do, to assess the reliability of Brechlin's report of a morphological distinction between agrippina and winbrechiini. He states that "Externally in winbrechlini we ... found both a double 3rd transveral line (from the base/body) in forewing and double 2nd line in hindwing (vs. almost single lines in agrippina). I examined photos available to me (most from iNaturalist) and mapped the occurrence of these two morphologies. Red symbols indicate records for moths with double transverse lines in the hindwing, and blue symbols show a single line. There is a pattern here - the "agrippina" type alone in the north and south, "winbrechiini" type central. However this needs more data. The overlap (also noted by Brechlin) is interesting.
Final note: I collected two agrippina in Roura, French Guiana, on consecutive nights at one location. Based on the Brechlin wing pattern distinction, one of these was "agrippina," one was "winbrechiini."
- Consistent morphological distinctions, particularly with respect to genitalia.
- Lots of specimens, collected from throughout the range.
- Evidence of geographic isolation.
- DNA evidence in support.
- Reproductive barriers between species; absence of hybrids.
- Support from qualified scientists - i.e., peer review, in quality journals.
Another trickier issue: is the describer conservative in considering these factors, knowing that new designation will affect how others assess the taxon long term? Or is there a predisposition for he/she to discern new species from relatively weak evidence? The case of T. winbrechiini seems to be the latter. The primary author of the new species paper is Ronald Brechlin, a German entomologist with >200 taxonomic publications. In the year 2010 alone, he put out 33 papers, describing 51 new species and many lesser taxa. That is, Ronald Brechlin made the case for a new species once a week in that year, and in many other years. This leads me to skepticism. It is not possible to rigorously make that many IDs.
Where were these many taxonomic papers published? Nearly all were contributed to Entomo-satsphingia a journal founded in 2008 by ... Ronald Brechlin (and Frank Meister). My skepticism deepens. I highly doubt that true authorities on the relevant taxa reviewed the claims made in this journal.
There is one small piece of follow-up that I can do, to assess the reliability of Brechlin's report of a morphological distinction between agrippina and winbrechiini. He states that "Externally in winbrechlini we ... found both a double 3rd transveral line (from the base/body) in forewing and double 2nd line in hindwing (vs. almost single lines in agrippina). I examined photos available to me (most from iNaturalist) and mapped the occurrence of these two morphologies. Red symbols indicate records for moths with double transverse lines in the hindwing, and blue symbols show a single line. There is a pattern here - the "agrippina" type alone in the north and south, "winbrechiini" type central. However this needs more data. The overlap (also noted by Brechlin) is interesting.
Final note: I collected two agrippina in Roura, French Guiana, on consecutive nights at one location. Based on the Brechlin wing pattern distinction, one of these was "agrippina," one was "winbrechiini."