Monarch miscalculation Has a scientific error about the butterflies persisted for more

first_img Christopher Hamm By Michael PriceFeb. 24, 2017 , 3:00 AM (Left to right): bushton3/iStockphoto; Fabrice-Chanson/iStockphoto A new study suggests the first published chromosome count for the monarch butterfly (right) was actually based on cells from the similar-looking common tiger butterfly (left). Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Hamm thinks that Rao and Murty, perhaps not knowing about the reclassification, netted bugs they assumed were monarchs but were actually common tiger butterflies. Back in the lab, they performed a technique known as a chromosome squash—squeezing the butterflies’ cells between thin films of glass until individual chromosomes are visible under a microscope—counted to 30, and published the results. Then, in 2004, Brazilian zoologist Keith Brown Jr. cited the work in his own research exploring the evolutionary history of butterflies; he never suspected that Rao and Murty might have been working with a misidentified species. Brown’s paper has been cited a dozen times since, and the idea that monarchs have 30 chromosomes is now well established in the literature.Murty has since died—though his name lives on in a namesake flatworm, Pseudodiplodiscoides murtyi—and Rao could not be located to confirm the theory. Still, it’s a plausible explanation, says Krushnamegh Kunte, a biologist at the National Centre for Biological Sciences in Bengaluru, India, who studies butterfly genetics. “Unfortunately, history has a strong influence in taxonomy,” he says. “Many Indian taxonomists continued to erroneously refer to the Indian populations of Danaus genutia as Danaus plexippus.”Hamm performed his own chromosome squash with six juvenile monarchs—real ones given to him by Kansas-based Monarch Watch, a network of scientists, teachers, and volunteers that supports research on the butterfly. Earlier this month, he reported his count of 28 chromosomes on the bioRxiv preprint server, an online repository where scientists publish work before it has been peer reviewed. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Email Monarch miscalculation: Has a scientific error about the butterflies persisted for more than 40 years? Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe A few years ago, Christopher Hamm was reading up on monarch butterflies when he noticed something peculiar. All of the scientific articles that mentioned the number of the insect’s chromosomes—30, it seemed—referenced a 2004 paper, which in turn cited a 1975 paper. But when Hamm, then a postdoc at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, did a genetic analysis of his own, he found that his monarchs only had 28 chromosomes, suggesting that an error has pervaded the literature for more than 40 years. Another twist, however, was just around the corner.Hamm suspected a mistake when he read the original 1975 paper. The authors, biologists N. Nageswara Rao and A. S. Murty at Andhra University in Visakhapatnam, India, had studied what they claimed was an Indian monarch butterfly in their work. But there’s a problem: Monarchs are nearly exclusively a North American species. “It’s implied they just went outside their building and collected some butterflies,” Hamm says. “I immediately thought, ‘Monarch butterflies in India? Really?’”Sure monarchs are master travelers, with the longest-known seasonal migration of any insect. And it’s not uncommon for a few to get blown off course to Australia, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and a handful of other places from time to time. But ending up as far away as India seemed like a stretch. Hamm, now a data scientist at Monsanto in Woodland, California, also knew that taxonomists since Carl Linnaeus have struggled to distinguish species in Lepidoptera, the order of insects to which monarchs belong. For example, the monarch (Danaus plexippus) and a similar-looking butterfly known as the common tiger butterfly (D. genutia) were thought to be the same for more than a century until they were reclassified as separate species in 1954. And guess what: D. genutia lives in India. A zoomed-in view of a monarch butterfly’s chromosomes. Case closed, right? Not quite. A paper published a few days later on bioRxiv by some of Hamm’s former colleagues at the University of Kansas claims to have found, like Rao and Murty, 30 chromosomes in monarchs. “Previously, an observation of N=30 chromosomes was reported only for males (Nageswara-Rao and Murty 1975),” the authors write. “Our current analysis confirms the same chromosome number not only in males but also in females.” The authors of that paper declined to comment on Hamm’s findings.Hamm doubts that he miscounted the chromosomes in six different samples, but he says there’s a chance he and his former colleagues are both right. Lepidoptera genetics is notorious for the fact that chromosome counts can vary between populations of the same species and occasionally even within cells from the same individual, he explains.“I am glad that other researchers are skeptical and want to build on my minor contribution,” Hamm says. “There could be some interesting biology going on.”Kunte admits it won’t exactly shake up the field of monarch research to revise the species’s chromosome count; a few genetic studies might need to be reconsidered.The larger point is that it’s important to correct the historical record, says Akito Kawahara, a butterfly researcher at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. The work underscores a common complaint that all too often in genetic research, taxonomists are left out of the equation, he says. As a result, genetic studies are vulnerable to species misidentifications like this one.“These kinds of things do happen with closely related species,” he says. “Twenty-eight versus 30 chromosomes doesn’t really have any impact on the conservation of the species or our understanding of it, but the next time someone makes a mistake like this, it could be with something important.”last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *