4 ms·

Perhaps Wager meant no one had seen the juvenile form. Blanchard had a holotype of the moth only. [1] [1] https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_49606_anewspec

Perhaps Wager meant no one had seen the juvenile form. Blanchard had a holotype of the moth only. [1] [1] https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_49606_anewspeciesinthegenusursiabarn1884/page/n1/mode/2up?q=Blanchard https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_49606_anewspeciesinthe...

zabzonk 4y ago
But how would he know that the caterpilar was that of the adult? Not saying it wasn't, but without observing its life-cycle, or DNA testing it would be impossible to say. You can't simply whack a bush and then say "nobody has seen this critter before". Please note that this is a criticism of the journalism, which I think is crap, not the science.
- kevinwang 4y ago
  It's mentioned though: > Based on a series of taxonomic calculations, Wagner was convinced that the caterpillar was the juvenile form of an exceptionally rare moth known as Ursia furtiva.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    Hypothetically, how could taxonomic calculations conceivably tell you that an unknown animal form belongs to a known species? They can tell you that the form you're looking at is related to certain other known forms. That's it.
    - Kaijo 4y ago
      With additional knowledge about biogeography, species ranges, species sampling coverage / description rates, already proven adult-larvae identity and so forth, they can get you sufficiently in the ballpark to make a strong prediction that in popular reportage is forgiveably rendered as "sure". Wagner is a career lepidopterist and an authority on caterpillars. He will be intimately familiar with caterpillars in the family Notodontidae (which contains the genus Ursia) and know their characteristic morphology and diversity. There are only two species known in the genus Ursia. The other one has a more southwesterly range and is not known to occur in Texas. Also, the caterpillars of species in closely related genera in the Notodontidae are well-surveyed. So, looking at a shrub in the range of Ursia furtiva and finding a caterpillar that fits the bill in terms of expected morphological characters, and being able to rule out its belonging to closely related genera, it's a reasonable leap of logic to attribute the larva to that particular species only previously known by its adult form. It's not "certain" at that point, but as a biologist who spends his life researching those taxa, and knowing well where the missing gaps are, it's the kind of hunch that is very often proved correct.
- Kaijo 4y ago
  I tried to give an explanation further down this comment thread, if you're interested
- nuclearnice3 4y ago
  Do we agree that Blanchard saw the moth and the journalist is quoting someone looking at the caterpillar?

zabzonk 4y ago

But how would he know that the caterpilar was that of the adult? Not saying it wasn't, but without observing its life-cycle, or DNA testing it would be impossible to say. You can't simply whack a bush and then say "nobody has seen this critter before". Please note that this is a criticism of the journalism, which I think is crap, not the science.

kevinwang 4y ago
It's mentioned though: > Based on a series of taxonomic calculations, Wagner was convinced that the caterpillar was the juvenile form of an exceptionally rare moth known as Ursia furtiva.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  Hypothetically, how could taxonomic calculations conceivably tell you that an unknown animal form belongs to a known species? They can tell you that the form you're looking at is related to certain other known forms. That's it.
  - Kaijo 4y ago
    With additional knowledge about biogeography, species ranges, species sampling coverage / description rates, already proven adult-larvae identity and so forth, they can get you sufficiently in the ballpark to make a strong prediction that in popular reportage is forgiveably rendered as "sure". Wagner is a career lepidopterist and an authority on caterpillars. He will be intimately familiar with caterpillars in the family Notodontidae (which contains the genus Ursia) and know their characteristic morphology and diversity. There are only two species known in the genus Ursia. The other one has a more southwesterly range and is not known to occur in Texas. Also, the caterpillars of species in closely related genera in the Notodontidae are well-surveyed. So, looking at a shrub in the range of Ursia furtiva and finding a caterpillar that fits the bill in terms of expected morphological characters, and being able to rule out its belonging to closely related genera, it's a reasonable leap of logic to attribute the larva to that particular species only previously known by its adult form. It's not "certain" at that point, but as a biologist who spends his life researching those taxa, and knowing well where the missing gaps are, it's the kind of hunch that is very often proved correct.
Kaijo 4y ago
I tried to give an explanation further down this comment thread, if you're interested
nuclearnice3 4y ago
Do we agree that Blanchard saw the moth and the journalist is quoting someone looking at the caterpillar?