Red Book of Butterflies in Turkey Red Book of Butterflies in Turkey

10
Red Book of Butterflies in Turkey
Taxonomy Workshop, Kızılcahamam, August 2009: from left to
right, Martin Wiemers, Chris van Swaay, Evrim Karaçetin and
Rudi Verovnik.
©DKM Archive
many problems associated with this group. For newly described species
papers were obtained from various sources and with the assistance of
many people.
Taxonomic workshop
Once all this initial work had been done, a taxonomic workshop was
organised in Ankara (8-9 August 2009) to finalise the species list.
Participants were Chris van Swaay, Evrim Karaçetin, Hilary Welch,
Martin Wiemers, and Rudi Verovnik. In the two days, the problematic
species were discussed and decisions made.
In order to ensure an objective and consistent approach, according to
the information available for each species one of the following rules was
applied:
1- For a new taxon to be accepted, or for the status of an existing one to be
changed, a scientific paper presenting the case for this should be available
for review by the international entomological community. This rule was
applied for all the newly described endemic species.
2- For changes of status or name of more widespread species, at least two
of the principal authorities should also have adopted this change in their
checklists.
A major benefit of the workshop was being able to use Martin Wiemer’s
experience to review and organise (as far as possible) the Agrodiaetus
subgenus. Despite this, question marks remain over several Lycaenid
species (marked with a single asterisk [*]) on the new checklist. Generally
these are taxa in complex and unsettled taxonomic groups, where recent
genetic work has raised questions about the relationships between the
group members. In these cases it was agreed that a species’ taxonomic
status should follow the most recent published and scientifically
supported opinion. This means that until the genetic work needed to
answer the questions has been carried out and published – and can thus
supersede any earlier published work – taxa of uncertain status should
remain on the list.
In the year since the new checklist was drafted, taxonomy has
continued to evolve. In the autumn of 2009 Nazari et al. (2009)
published a paper on the molecular systematics and phylogeny of the
Marbled Whites (Melanargia spp.); as a result of this four species (M.
syriaca, M. hylata, M. grumi and M. titea) were downgraded to subspecies
level and one subspecies, M. titea wiskotti, was upgraded, becoming an
endemic species. Then, ten Hagen and Miller (2010) published a major
article discussing the taxonomic situation of the Green Hairstreaks
(Callophrys spp.) and, as a result one species was downgraded to a
subspecies (C. chalybeitincta became C. rubi chalybeitincta), another
species’ distribution was re-evaluated (so all populations of C. suaveola
in Turkey became C. danchenkoi) and a third species was split in
two (so some populations of C. rubi became a new endemic species,
C. herculeana). In addition to these major genus level changes, new
scientific articles are being published and minor changes to species are
continuously proposed. For the Agrodiaetus subgenus, papers on genetic
work are particularly prolific.
The authors have tried to keep abreast of the literature, but recognise
that some new papers may have been missed. Further, major papers are
expected on both the Hyponephele and Hipparchia in the near future
so this list will soon require further revisions. Thus it is acknowledged
that no checklist can be considered final, only a presentation of current
knowledge and opinion.
A detailed annotated checklist is in preparation, presenting and
justifying all the changes made to the Turkish list during this review; it
will be available to download from www.dkm.org.tr.
Karaçetin, E. and Welch, H.J. (2011). Red Book of Butterflies in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Doğa Koruma Merkezi. Available from: [www.dkm.org.tr]