Butterfly naming problems. Example O. paradisea.

Greg Watson, which actually has seen them in the field, states that they live in different altitudes, this is not what sympatric means as they remain separated in habitat. Furthermore altitude can have a large impact on the look and genetics of a population. I can not give examples in Troidini for this (or is Ornithoptera arfakensis and Ornithoptera paradisea such an example?) but I can give two examples in Lycaenidae which I know a bit better. In Lycaenidae you have the two pairs of Lycaena hippothoe hippothoe and Lycaena hippothoe eurydame and Lycaena tityrus tityrus with Lycaena tityrus subalpinus. The latter is always a high altitude version of the former with strong differences in coloration (lack of purple or lack of orange, ventral side spot patterns sometimes reduced to over 50% of spotsize) and also observable differences in wing shape (accuter apex and anal angle). If you look at a map the regions where they occur will only be separated by a few kilometers or just a couple of hundred meters, but if you look at the altitude there is always a strong gap between both populations. Lycaena tityrus subalpinus even has a different hostplant than nominate (although within the same genus). There is hybrid specimen at regions where they can sometimes meet. The darker coloration of the high altitude populations is just a change of the present alleles within the populations not producing any reproductive isolation. We can not say A in the first story and B in the other story if the same situation is present.

I am not speaking against your opinion, I just wanted to show you that you should give more sound arguments when expressing an opinion.

Claude, Thank you for you information on the Lycaena and its changes in appearance at altitude. It is interesting that Greg Watson has seen both paradisea [arfakensis and chrysanthemum] in the Arfak Mountains at different altitudes. I originally thought that the different paradisea in the Arfak mountains might be flying at different altitudes and have mentioned that in this thread. I also mentioned that Greg is one of the few Entomologists that has observed O. paradisea in the wild. I do not know how many localities Greg saw O. paradisea chrysanthemum in the Arfak mountains, but I would say you would have to visit all of its localities in the Arfak's mountains, before you could say that it does not fly with arfakensis. Matsuka also visited the Arfak Mountains and observed O. arfakensis. In his book he shows one locality where both paradisea are found but does not mention the altitude. Abrera mentions both paradisea fly together in the Arfaks and says that this is the information he has received from collectors. I also mentioned that O. arfakensis has a different larva, hostplant and genitalia and again I would say these are all strong arguments when dealing with butterfly species. However elevation would not be a good argument for the separation of arfakensis from paradisea. If you believe as I do there are two O. paradisea species with a number of subspecies and local forms, geographical isolation would be much more important. Because if O. arfakensis is indeed a good species it would have to have occcidentalis and galatea as subspecies [ the latter may be a local form] both of which occur at a much lower altitude than arfakensis inhabits in the Arfak mountains. There are again the discoveries of the paradisea on Yapen and Supiori [If this is true?] and both of these are again very close morphologically to O. arfakensis. Whether you think there are two species or just subspecies of O. paradisea there are clearly two important groupings. I would suggest the oldest of these in the arfakensis group is in the Arfak mountains and the original dispersal came from here.

Thank you for you link to the Great O. paradisea versus O. arfakensis debate. I actually saw this thread when it was on going at the time but then I was not a member. I have since then, read the debate a number of times and like most people I believe that some of the points that were made are valid ones and some are not. I also would like to say that I would not even enter into a argument that involves comparing butterflies with mans infinite desire to do selective breeding with domestic dogs and other domestic animals for his own use. I believe with butterflies [species,subspecies] we are dealing with the hand of ' nature' not the hand of ' man'. I also believe with butterflies, it is geographical isolation that is important and barriers such as mountains and being confined to Islands. Ornithoptera are strong fliers but isolation it the key factor here. This can be seen with New Guinea's other important group of butterflies ' the Genus Delias '. In New Guinea most mountain ranges have their endemic Delias.

Peter.

I would add than on this paradisiacal beach were flying hundreds of Graphium and Appias. In a small bush near the beach there were also huge Idea species.

Another story : I made some snorkeling there for fun. 2 meters from the beach thousands of small tropical fishs, 4 meters from the beach bigger one like groupers, 10 meters even bigger like tuna... and then I came back because I did not want to meet the bigger ones that eat tuna fishs.

Just to a add a bit of fuel to the fire, here are a few thoughts. I have been giving some thought to Claude's information of how the two Lycaena subspecies vary at different altitudes. Especially of note is how he reveals the two subspecies of Lycaena tityrus [ Sooty Copper] overlap from different altitudes and produce a multitude of different intermediate characters. Lycaena tityrus and Lycaena hippothoe are quite widespread and common in Europe. The butterfly Family Lycaenidae in Europe is especially known for its variation in the Adults. One example is Lysandra Bellargus [Adonis Blue] which I have observed in England over a number of years. In the Adonis Blue there is much variation in the hindwing red spotting of the female especially between the spring and summer broods. Can we really compare situation of the European Lycaenidae to the Ornithoptera paradisea of New Guinea?

The O. paradisea populations in the Arfak mountains occur in isolated pockets with a much a smaller number of individual butterflies. I believe the morphological differences are important in the arfakensis and chrysanthemum adults because both are very uniform in their appearance, with very little variation occurring. It is worth pointing out that whether they fly together or not there are no known hybrids between the two. Ornithoptera are well known to have produced hybrids in the wild but this usually occurs on Indonesian breeding farms. In the Arfak mountains the high elevation O. rothschildi occasionally pairs with O. priamus which usually occurs at lower altitudes and produces the hybrid known as akakeae.

Of all the known paradisea populations in New Guinea the Arfak arfakensis and the chrysanthemum are probably the oldest and most distinct. It is indeed highly unusual to have two very different paradisea populations occurring within one range of mountains and this situation is not found elsewhere in New Guinea. Why is this?. If you believe in Evolution, the answer certainly lies there. For a better understanding Haugum and Lows outstanding Birdwing Monograph gives you a good idea. They state that the Northern, western, and southern areas of New Guinea were not faunal centers because in the Pleistocene era they were repeatedly flooded. The Vogelkop [Arfak] area of West New Guinea was practically cut off during high level sea phases. Because of this, the high mountains of this part of the New Guinea are believed to have been the ancestral home of a number of the Ornithotera and is highly likely the ancestral O. paradisea came from here and produced the two very different populations that today occur in the Arfak. As sea levels fell the general dispersal of the Ornithoptera began and then they spread and evolved over the rest of New Guinea.

The different genitalia of O. arfakensis is another important factor to consider. A good example is the following episode. Until quite recently in Ireland there was thought to be one species of Wood White [Leptidea sinapis]. That was until a number of Entomologists compared the genitialia of a number of different Wood White populations and although the adult butterflies were identical they found there were in fact two different butterflies species. The New butterfly was found to be the European Real's Wood White[Leptidea reali]. Both are considered good species on account of their different gentitalia.

Peter.

Hi Claude.
Thank you for your comments. The information I have on the flooding of New Guinea came from the Haugum and Low Birdwing monograph. Sadly the authors have both passed on and there is no way to find out where all their sources came from but here is their explanation in more detail. They state " The snow-capped peaks constitute remnants of what was an extensive glaciation in previous geological periods. The geological history of the island is complex, and it has been subjected to rather dramatic changes in the distant past. Once connected to the Australian continent in the southeast, a volcanic island chain arc existed north of the island, possibly forming a bridge from the Moluccas to the Solomons."

"Sea level fluctuations have been found to vary from a level some 70 meters, or more, lower than the present level, sometime during the Pleistocene to phases, inter- and post glacial, when the sea-level was upwards of 100m, higher than the present day level [Zeuner1942,1943b]. The latter phases may be important in that they served to 'concentrate' and isolate the fauna, whilst the former periods are of particular zoogeographic importance in that they afforded species with means of dispersal by the land bridges provided."

"During the low-level phases, New Guinea and the Aru Islands joined to Australia, whilst in the west, New Guinea was, at least parly joined with the E. Moluccas. The present day distribution of the Ornithoptera, [perplexing as it may seem at first, owing to the anomalies present], must be considered with such condition in mind. It is also evident that islands and land areas that remained relatively isolated, exhibit distinct species-groups and subspecies, whilst islands and areas that have been flooded have relatively recent forms. The Vogelkop area of West Irian Jaya is such an 'isolated area and was practically cut off from the rest of New Guinea during high-level sea phases. It is to be considered as a centre of faunal dispersal, and is particularly important with regard to the Ornithoptera. The condition also serves to illustrate the great differences that exist between the species and forms of W. Irian Jaya and Papua; the majority of the western species and subspecies are 'older' than are their eastern counterparts and representatives, some of which are relatively recent."

" The great Central Ranges and the Onin peninsular are other areas, to be considered as 'faunal centres'. The Onin area was reduced to two small islands during high-level sea phases, and the representative of O. goliath which existed here became isolated from mainland populations. Subsequent changes allowed this particular form to spread back into the mainland, where it is now represented from the neck of the Vogelkop Peninsular [O. goliath atlas range is now known to extend into the Western Vogelkop] over the Onin area to the East Weyland Mountains, as ssp atlas. Such subsequent dispersals may have occurred in any direction, and, where a return dispersal took place, the situation may well be complex. This is, apparently, what happened in the Arfak Mountain district, where the subspecies are allopatric in altitude. The occurrence of three distinct subspecies of O. priamus on the Australian continent may also be interpreted in terms of subsequent dispersal.

"The western, southwestern, and the southern lowlands of New Guinea cannot be regarded as faunal centres, as they have been repeatedly flooded during the Pleistocene period. This condition also appplies to the Northern Coastal Ranges and the Great Central Ranges [Zeuner]. Thus the ancestral Ornithoptera, spreading from the Moluccas and perhaps the Vogelkop Peninsula, in reaching mainland New Guinea, spread towards the East, following mainly the Northern Coastal and remained, at least partially, separated from the Schoenbergia that spread from the Great Central Ranges."
I would like to say again that I believe the O paradisea populations in the Arfak Mountains to be old isolated relic populations. The very detailed distribution maps in Matsuka show clearly that O. arfakensis and ssp chrysanthemum are limted to a few populations in just a few localities and both are not widespread in the Arfak Mountains. Thus even if their numbers were high here of which I can assure you they are not, hence the high price of specimens. Their numbers would not in anyway compare to the widespread Lycaena that you mentioned.

This what Haugum and Low have written in full on this matter, I hope this helps. Please also see the post below

Peter.

Can I just point out that the Monograph of the Birdwing Butterflies was written by Haugum and Low (not Haugham).

Jan Haugum was a great modern lepidopterist, and is sadly missed by all who knew him.

Adam.

Adam, thank you I have corrected the Authors name. I should get it right, I bought the monograph as it came out in parts from E. W. Classey and I often read them. Bob, that was a fascinating story, I should very much liked to have met Jan Haugum and also Andrew Low, there would be so much to ask them about the Birdwing Butterflies.

Peter.