|
|
Post by krupten on Nov 25, 2014 10:18:14 GMT -8
Yes Suguru was a wonderful man and exceptional lepidopterist. I met him in Australia and then visited him in Japan. HE did have a wonderful wife - her last name (maiden) was Suzuki and she was the daughter of the Prime Minister at the time I met him in 1980 in Tokyo. Dinner was spent recanting tales of butterflies and swapping data. It went without saying Ray came up in the conversation and the origins of Rays "AliBabas" was recounted and enjoyed.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
mokky
Full Member
The Butterfly Society of Japan
Posts: 155
|
Post by mokky on Nov 25, 2014 21:04:07 GMT -8
Dear krupten, You met the late Dr. Igarashi in Australia! That is great. FYI, I have to make some comments on your post. - The name of Dr. Igarashi's wife is not "Suzuki" but "Yoshiko" She is still very well and she is the person who decided to donate all collection to UT (University of Tokyo). - Ms. Igarashi's father is not the Prime Minister although he was a powerful and famous politician. Definitely the late Dr. Igarashi was legend. Many Japanese butterfly enthusiasts still miss him. cheers, mokky Yes Suguru was a wonderful man and exceptional lepidopterist. I met him in Australia and then visited him in Japan. HE did have a wonderful wife - her last name (maiden) was Suzuki and she was the daughter of the Prime Minister at the time I met him in 1980 in Tokyo. Dinner was spent recanting tales of butterflies and swapping data. It went without saying Ray came up in the conversation and the origins of Rays "AliBabas" was recounted and enjoyed. Cheers |
|
saye
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by saye on Nov 29, 2014 16:40:11 GMT -8
Peter,
I see that the obvious didn't occur to me at all, after all the first O. alexandrae was taken down with a firearm. I also presume this is applied to other species in the genus, if not both sexes, than at least males keep to the canopy. I do not know what the state of protection is right now, or rather, the state of the forests; the only paper I read on the related subject was on the conservation of O. alexandrae (Parsons 1992).
I figured it is a good book at least on that aspect, large photography of adults. But it's nothing like the second title you mentioned, "Natural History of Birdwing Butterflies" looks greatly dedicated and expansive. Another tome. "Fluttering Encounters in the Amazing Archipelago" is, in turn, more accessible. Thanks.
Adam,
Did not know there were two editions!
I'm guessing Losaria is within Atrophaneura as well? That sounds particularly impressive in content, so of course one would consider it a much more engrossing piece of content than D'Abrera's book, which could almost be considered a coffee table one in comparison. Thanks you for the help!
Thank you both for the replies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 30, 2014 7:28:24 GMT -8
Actually Igarashi (1979) treated coon under Pachliopta, which is nowadays regarded as the closest relative of Losaria, so you could say he was well ahead of his time.
As for the second edition of D'Abrera's Birdwing butterflies, some of the text is classic D'Abrera, rather than classic science.
Adam.
|
|
saye
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by saye on Nov 30, 2014 8:00:01 GMT -8
Meaning that only rhodifer and neptunus (and maybe palu) remain under Losaria? How was he ahead of his time though? I thought that the classification of coon out of Atrophaneura and into Losaria was the most recent change. In keeping with respective subgenera, that is.
Ah, I see. Tough I'm not sure what that entails. But thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 30, 2014 9:18:26 GMT -8
Losaria is worthy of generic status and contains coon, rhodifer, neptunus and palu. These have been shown to be most closely related to genus Pachliopta (Miller (1987) on morphology and Morinaka et al (1999) on DNA analysis). Parides, Byasa and Atrophaneura together form another branch of the Troidine tree.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
saye
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by saye on Nov 30, 2014 11:30:10 GMT -8
One would think of Atrophaneura together with the other three which were at some point subgenera, forming a four genera branch. Guess not, thanks for the info. Somewhat related, can you perhaps help me identify the species that is drawn here? It's a print screen of a part of an association/relationship diagram of troidine pupae from Gondwanan Evolution of the Troidine Swallowtails (Parsons 1995). I find the protrusions in the abdomen to be so distinct, what species of Atrophaneura is that?  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 1, 2014 8:34:23 GMT -8
There are two species in the illustration, one of genus Atrophaneura and one of genus Pachliopta, although Parsons treated them both as subgenera of the same genus. It is not easy to distinguish these pupae to species, and indeed the pupa of Atrophaneura varuna is very similar to Pachliopta aristolochiae, the former is a little broader and slightly different in ornamentation.
In fact these protrusions on the abdomen of the pupa is a characteristic of the Troidini as a whole. Even Battus and the birdwings have them, although they are often not as obvious as in the illustration.
One problem with this example in Parsons' work is that he is taking a character shared in the whole tribe, and equating enlarged protrusions with close relationship. It may well be that all the other species of Atrophaneura, Byasa, Pachliopta and Losaria have the same enlarged protrusions, certainly the species of these four genera that I know all have very similar pupae. However this doesn't necessarily imply that they are directly related to each other, especially if it is a retained character from an ancient common ancestor that may have been abandoned or modified in other current day genera. It is more likely that these are relatively closely related, but it is always necessary to bear in mind that characters like these can evolve independently due to similar environmental pressures. Similarly a species or group of species that does not have these very enlarged protruberances could be closely related if it has subsequently lost this character. Deciding exactly what a character implies is a major issue in morphological taxonomic analysis, and there are similar issues with DNA analysis as well.
Adam.
|
|
saye
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by saye on Dec 2, 2014 12:37:47 GMT -8
Though I didn't find a match per se, A. varuna's chrysalis (if correct under a quick Google search) does have the similar protrusions illustrated in the figure, though not the same (this is trusting a single image, which is poor). On the other hand I had noticed that P. aristolochiae (and hector), for which images are most available, shared those same characteristics; it didn't occur to me that the illustration could refer to the whole genus/genera, it was just that to me the protrusions seemed quite notable. They still do, for example: the three first pairs of protrusions are much larger than the forth, which doesn't seem to happen for others, they also appear plate-like, instead of lobed. That said, or then thus said, this comes from not knowing the morphological characteristics of Atrophaneura (and the related previous subgenera) pupae. It might be, as you say, a shared characteristic - and in fact that makes the most sense since this diagram is of relationship, a stand-out, singular morphology wouldn't aid in description of relation. This without addressing the subject of how much the troidines are related to each other, of which I know even less at hand.
Though I understand what you're saying - that morphological characteristics shouldn't be associated without other data - the diagram refers also to the type of androconia. But it's rather straightforward in building up from smooth-abdomen to notorious protrusions. I haven't read the paper so I don't know how Parsons sums this up and treats it with the rest of the data.
Thanks for the reply.
|
|
