|
|
Post by stapleton on Oct 11, 2014 20:21:38 GMT -8
Hello everybody, Need to find out the EXACT subspecific status of the following Parnassius augustus pairs: The left one is from Dinggye, the right one is from Kangmar. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.   |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Oct 11, 2014 20:24:43 GMT -8
Two more (the left one is from Phari, the right one - from Saga):   |
|
|
|
Post by teinopalpus on Oct 12, 2014 2:53:21 GMT -8
Depending on literature you will use  Rose + Weiss - Parnassius of World part5 recognize 3ssp of P.augustus : a, augustus ( including former ssp. augustus, ssp.panna and ssp.dominikae ) b, karmapa ( including former ssp. karmapa, ssp.vajramusti and ssp.tara ) c, mahamayuri Kocman - Parnassius of Tibet and adjacent areas support only 2ssp : a, augustus ( including former ssp. augustus, ssp.panna and ssp.dominikae ) b, karmapa ( including former ssp. karmapa, ssp.vajramusti, ssp.tara and also ssp.mahamayuri ) As for localities I agree with Radusho with Kangmar, Saga and Phari. As for Dinggye I am not so sure - it depends if Dinggye is name of village or county. I more support idea of ssp.augustus because ssp.mahamayuri should be distributed in area northwards from nominate ssp. around Lhatse Ask Yang, he is always so kind to give more precious data if possible / I expect material is from him /. Jan |
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Nov 8, 2014 3:06:21 GMT -8
Looks like someone would be just happy if this was correct. Still, I have to disappoint him... - over - |
|
robert61
Full Member
Posts: 184
Country: GERMANY
|
Post by robert61 on Nov 8, 2014 11:41:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Nov 8, 2014 16:57:15 GMT -8
"This species is so variable in colour that it is not possible to determine characters specific to only one ssp."
If this is the case, why are there even subspecies designations for this species? I mean, if the only way you can tell which "subspecies" is if someone gives you a locality, doesn't this pretty much mean there are no actually meaningful morphologic differences?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Nov 8, 2014 19:15:33 GMT -8
Well, if the data I was given are fake and all of the afore-illustrated specimens come from the same locality (Robert, I never said all of them are from Saga), i.e. belong with the nominate ssp., that means I can offer a male and three females of P. augustus augustus in exchange for a pair of P. augustus mahamayuri and a pair of P. augustus karmapa (or other options), to fill in the gap in my collection... Anybody hooked on?  |
|
|
|
Post by teinopalpus on Nov 9, 2014 1:05:13 GMT -8
I think whole this topic is interesting from various reasons. 1. According to last relevant literature taxon "augustus" and "panna" are probably same. I hope we can agree both Kocman /2009/ and Rose - Weiss 5th part /2011/ are serious works and authors has great access to material. So I will copy some statement from these works : Kocman statement to "panna" : Rather close to nominotypical subspecies augustus, from which it is only hardly distinguishable. Probably only synonym of nominotypical ssp.augustus. There are insufficient reasons to classify it separately. Rose - Weiss statement to "panna" : Subspecies "panna" and "dominikae" whose specimens seems are little bit darker seem only to be ecological variations of "augustus" and can, therefore, be considered as synonyms. Also Sakai /2002/ consideret it as synonymum. Both works has pictured several Parnassius augustus including those belongs to "panna". Also have pictures of "true" ssp.panna from Czech collectors made on several occasions on insectfairs. And my personal feeling is that individual differences among specimens catched on same locality / mainly by year / are bigger than differences among augustus from various localities / catched by same year /. Radusho please can me tell which part of wing is typically darker ? Marginal area ? Submarginal bands ? Hindwing discal cell ? Or it is only "feeling" from whole specimen ? I did not read anywhere anything more than "somewhat" darker ... Robert also your words are very cathegoric - no chance - so I would like to ask you same, which are those specific marks ? It is not about I am against your words, I know you must saw many more specimens than me and you was also in Tibet personally, so I am curious about your professional opinion. 2. ONLY czechs knows place. It seems to be true for some time. And maybe still is - who knows. But nobody can be sure. I am in contact with czech collectors traveling to Tibet and I am hearing various "stories" when I am purchasing specimens. Not all must be always true. 3. Data of specimens. We already speak about this serious problem many times. Probably only possibility to be 100% is catching specimens personally and be very carefull when placing labels on specimens. Also second statement is important because I bought several butterflies specimen from sellers with great reputation which were with fake data. And I am sure it was only by mistake, not by intention. Of course quality of sellers are different and unfortunately those with Robert´s standards are rare. 4. Chinese seller of specimens. I already bought from this source several dozens of specimens and for now I did not found one mistake in determination or one butterfly where clearly " did not match" locality with specimen. I also bought Parnassius augustus from Saga, but .... I did not ask seller specifically for this ssp., I wanted one nice pair of Parnasius augustus from anywhere, but with given locality. All Parnassius augustus from anywhere were for same price. Parnassius augustus specimens in offer were labelled only with locality, but ssp. was not given. So I am asking what should be reason for seller to make fake data and then asking same money ? At last I am attaching my specimens which should be from Saga area. Sorry have not photo outside setting board. I do not know - are they dark enough to be from there ? Jan Attachments:
|
|
robert61
Full Member
Posts: 184
Country: GERMANY
|
Post by robert61 on Nov 9, 2014 2:39:32 GMT -8
I have also Problem with Parnassius hunnygtoni from same seller, all ssp look the same ..... I collected them in the past myself and cant imagine why they should look after some years the same in every Population.
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Nov 9, 2014 2:44:47 GMT -8
Jan,
My very strong impression is that your pair is a "true" ssp. panna, i.e. it is really from Saga.
At least, my pair labeled with the same locality looks rather different, just as it looks different to the panna specimens I have, labeled by Bieber.
I don't have dozens of specimens to analyze and draw any conclusions, so if the data of the ones I have are fake, I'm not at all happy with that, no matter how large and beautiful all of my specimens are... That's no good at all, and I feel like something should be done about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by teinopalpus on Nov 9, 2014 3:12:43 GMT -8
Thanks friends, Of course collectors which collected butterflies on place has absolute advantage to know what is possible and what is not. As seller surely do not catch all his material personaly, surely there can be mistakes. As for more ssp. = more money, I know it works, anyway some interesting form or simple individual defference can be far more important to add to collection than so-called "ssp" which has no reason to be accepted. His "dark" cephalus paimaensis from Mt. Tianbao are good selling even it is not recognized ssp. For example mentioned hunnyngtoni are very variable although in new works NO SSP are recognized in this species. But local conditions can be such different they look different. In Slovakia I found this phenomen most advanced with Maculinea arion. Separate population from various conditions are extremely different in size, markings, colour and even in number of generations in one year. On other side I personally bred some butterflies at home in different conditions from their "home" biotope and it had influence on their look. Radovan, with acdestis peeblesi you hit nail on head , I got also specimens which do not look like "typical" peeblesi. Anyway very interesting is Weiss-Rose words : "It might be noted that 12 taxa in total have been described from reduced area of about 200km stretching from Mt.Everest to Bhutan borders. Some "old" ssp. also have imprecise TL. Consequently, it would not be wrong to imagine that they all belong to the same ssp. "lampidius" and that variations observed might only be ecological forms linked to habitat and climatic conditions. True is "for me" pundit + peeblesi SHOULD look different from toher taxa from group, but received specimens are not. But what if he really collected it around Phari, but not eastern, but western / it was only example, I do not know where peeblesi exactly flies /, so we get another phenotype, not that we wanted .... but can we blame collector ? Of course, if there is any manipulation with localities - it is wrong and sad. Jan |
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Nov 9, 2014 3:37:06 GMT -8
"- ...your specimens look absolutely the same and for sure come from one place. If you want real ssp. panna specimen get a contact on Czech collectors who collected there this year."  |
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Nov 9, 2014 3:48:34 GMT -8
Oh yes, then it surely does not matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapleton on Nov 9, 2014 4:14:51 GMT -8
and all of yours in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 10, 2014 7:27:10 GMT -8
I have just received an e-mail from Yang confirming that he is very careful about putting the correct data on the specimens he sends to his customers.
He contacted me several years ago when he was just starting out catching butterflies and thinking of trying to sell them. I explained then that the biggest problem with Chinese suppliers is the lack of accurate data, and he understands this and the importance of correct data. Since that time he has tried to provide the best data that he can, and I believe he is the most reliable Chinese supplier with regard to data.
He told me today that some of you were questioning the data on his hunningtoni and augustus, and I would agree with Jan (teinopalpus)'s second post in this thread. Many of these 'subspecies' are not really consistently different, and in reality they are very variable, phenotypes of various subspecies can be found in the same area (the same happens with tianschanicus), and also it may well be affected by annual local weather conditions (especially with respect to size and degree of darkness).
Adam.
|
|
