Moths of the Past

General
1

Look, I know I’m not the most welcome person here, although I try hard. I really do! But there are some things I just feel bursting to discuss, and this is the only platform I can think of where they would be engaged with.

First, I must thank @lothlin for setting this in motion. In another discussion, she posted a link to a YouTube video about bogbean buck moths. The creator of that video, before going into the field to look for the moths, referenced a book about them, Moths of the Past by John Cryan and Robert Dirig. The creator seemed bemused by the book, poking fun at its references to chaons, new paradigms, and so forth, and it was clear that he didn’t take it very seriously. But because of that exact subject matter, I knew it was a book I wanted to read – I am always drawn to exploring those kinds of ideas, whether or not I come to accept them in the end. Plus, I saw previews of the artwork and it really resonated with me. The book is on Lulu, if anyone can relate to this intro.

Now, the part about chaons isn’t suitable for discussion here because it’s more about particle physics. Likewise, I will not get into the philosophical and theological aspects here. But there are several ideas which, although outside the current mainstream, are worth bringing up in a forum like this one.

CONVOLUTION – The authors propose this terms as “the other half of evolution.” Natural selection is acknowledged as the destructive side, winnowing out the less fit. But, they ask, what is the creative side, the process by which the fittest come to be? They contend that random mutation can only bring about small, incremental changes; they refer to “compound compositing,” by which they mean the flow of genes between and among lineages, both by horizontal gene transfer aming microbes and by “genetic bombardment” whereby microbes deliver genes to multicellular organisms; and through the “epigenetic triangle” whereby soma, genes, and environment interact to produce what the authors call metamorphic amplitude (which in some ways seems like simple phenotypic plasticity, but I’m not sure that fully covers what they were trying to say).

FLUXUS – At first, I thought they were using this term as a synonym for what we call a radiation, but I think there is more nuance than that. For they describe an expanding fluxus potentially engulfing as incipient lineage and preventing it from fully differentiating. I think they are describing something like the geographic area where a radiation is occurring, or possibly a set of conditions which cause a radiation to occur.

SEMISPECIES – Here’s where I have to say these authors aren’t as groundbreaking as they think they are. They propose that there are no species, and that the term semispecies should be used instead; but all they mean is what we already know: that species boundaries and species definitions are not fixed. The contentious arguments about taxon changes are ample evidence of that. They describe semispecies as the nodal lineages that remain after natural selection has acted on a field of continuous variation. Well, Darwin described just that in On the Origin of Species, but acknowledging that has not required us to abandon the term species.

Finally, they provide a diagnostic description of Hemileuca iroquois, which they believe to have originated as a hybrid of H. maia and H. nevadensis. They cite type specimens as well. I note that Section Hemileuca maia on iNaturalist does not contain this taxon, and neither does BugGuide. I assume that their description in this self-published book is not considered valid – whether because it was not peer reviewed, because they describe it as a semispecies (an unrecognized taxonomic rank), or some other reason.

And that brings me to a final thought: Part Three, where the taxon description is found, also contains notes on the life history, behavior, and conservation status. The Methods section in Part One details the authors’ experience and techniques for rearing lepidopteran larvae, and the Results and Interpretation section of the same part describes a putative history of ancestral migrations. These portions are in keeping with mainstream science. Would these sections be acceptable citations in serious research? Or would the unorthodox parts be considered to invalidate the whole book as a worthy citation?

6 Likes
2

I see no reason from what you said why the name would not be considered available as a species-group name:

https://code.iczn.org/chapter-4-criteria-of-availability/article-11-requirements/?frame=1

This of course is highly subjective. “Acceptable” really depends on the person. You can cite just about anything, from conference presentations, to gray literature, to peer-reviewed articles. Whether your conclusions or those you cite hold water is up to the judgment of the reader.

3 Likes
4

I assume that their description in this self-published book is not considered valid

The official ICZN requirements for a new species publication are quite low. Peer review is not required. Self-publishing is fine as long as the publication is accessible to the scientific community and provides a permanent scientific record. The fact that they describe it as a “semispecies” rather than a species might be problematic though, which is unfortunate since as you correctly note, most biologists don’t believe that “species” are anything other than a convenient fiction when you get down to the nuts and bolts. Getting catalogs and iNaturalist to accept the name is another matter entirely. iNaturalist seems to have no strict criteria for accepting Lepidoptera names, but getting listed in Butterflies and Moths of North America definitely helps.

Would these sections be acceptable citations in serious research?

If you wrote some serious research about Hemileuca iroquois, I think it would be weird if you didn’t cite this book, regardless of its woo-factor. I would love to hear more information about this putative species (or “semispecies”). What are the distinguishing characteristics? It would be interesting to look at genetic records for H. maia and H. nevadensis to see if multiple genetic clusters exist. (I’m assuming the author didn’t publish a phylogenetic analysis.)

6 Likes
5

Glad you enjoyed the video! I’d encourage you to watch more of his content, he really does produce some neat little videos.

6

key word: ‘creative’. if something is ‘created’, there must be something that ‘creates’. Nothing non-thinking can create, only living, thinking things; therefore, a nonliving, non-thinking force cannot create. You can talk about anything you want; natural selection, mutation, ‘convolution’, you still have the problem that the world seems created, but you think you know nothing created it.

There is no creative side to nature; God is the creator

I would say that both mutation and this ‘convolution’ do not cause enough change to cause the amount of differences seen between different kinds of animal

I actually would agree that all three happen- convolution, fluxus, and semispecies, perhaps not in those exact words though. I actually read an Answers in Genesis article somewhere about something similar to ‘convolution’ as a factor in pre- and post-fall speciation.

This from The New Answers Book 3: https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/why-did-god-make-viruses/ ; this sound like a part of what the book seems to be describing.

Could you maybe add a link so I can look into the book more? It does sound interesting.

7

Sure. I didn’t initially because I didn’t want to seem like I was promoting it.
Moths of the Past - Eastern North American Buck Moths (Hemileuca, Saturniidae)

Although the authors do touch upon their concept of God, it does not correspond to the usual views of the Abrahamic faiths.