Hey Aaron,
If this is the case then why isn't
Lyssa zampa in Microniinae? - it's black grey and white!
More seriously, though...
Taxonomy of Lepidoptera is not just based on external characters of a moth or butterfly's form (morphology). The internal structures, especially genitalia, and at a molecular level, the DNA, provide characters that show the relatedness (phylogeny) of one species to another.
To use
Microniinae and
Uraniinae as the example, take a look at Jeremy Holloway's descriptions of the key characters that are unique to each of these subfamilies in his descriptions of them in his Moths of Borneo series. I will normally accept such information because I know that he (and other similarly experienced scientists) have taken a rigorous approach that can be repeated by fellow workers, who will usually arrive at the same conclusion independently (or not, though this is rarely the case).
Science is all about asking questions and trying to find answers to these question. Just accepting someone else's statement without that statement being backed up by evidence that has been thoroughly and critically tested is poor science, actually it's unreasonable. To be scientific, one has to accept that one's ideas will be challanged, and if shown to be wrong then one learns from it and moves forward. Stubbornly clinging on to a belief that is clearly wrong is unacceptable - however, stubbornly clinging on to a good idea that the results show is correct, even when others around you say otherwise (without proving it) is also good science - without it we would never have heard of Darwin, Copernicus, Gallileo . . . (to name but a few) ... these are people who strove against adversity when they could not ignore the facts that the results of their methodical observations told.
Stay curious, keep asking questions.
cheers,
Roger.
Originally Posted by hkmoths
Hey Aaron,
Reply With Quote