Thank you!

adamcotton wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 6:43 pm Subspecies generally have a smaller difference in COI between them than between species, but it is often best to treat subspecies as visibly distinguishable from the nominotypical population in the large majority of specimens.

With all the genetics work being done, I've seen a lot of ssp being elevated to full species status. And this brings an interesting question.

In binomial nomenclature the identity of an insect (and all else) is limited to two names: genus and species. However, ICZN recognizes subspecies with "A scientific name added as a trinomen on the end of a bionomen is taken to indicate a subspecies. However, it stops there."

So what of those various regional "forms"? Suddenly when a ssp is elevated to sp, NOW it too can have ssp, so some of those forms- which are not- can be taxonomically recognized. This is not new, though it seems genetic analysis has drastically increased this situation.

I wonder too- is the old taxonomic architecture dead? The genus-sp-ssp tiers are each equivilent, at the same level. But genetic trees show that the branches and nodes are not all at the same level. Some may dead-end at species; some appear to go beyond ssp...some of these "forms" are morphologically and genetically different than the sp/ ssp than the next branch over is to itself.

How will ICZN recognize these distinct below-the-subspecies populations? Will ICZN become archaic, and ignored, while the geneticists publish these great branching trees? It seems so in some cases; case in point the well known freshwater angelfish, Pterophyllum: there are to this day only three recognized species and zero subspecies. But the fish nuts have names for these unrecognized "populations". Why haven't the professionals bothered to describe new species and subspecies? Is it because, in their world, they all know what they're talking about, so don't need ICZN's taxonomic guidance? Is discovery moving too fast for science?

How do we reconcile ICZN's taxonomic rules with recent discoveries? Will there continue to be named populations that we circulate, like a secret, because the authority won't recognize it?

Since we're already a bit off-topic, the dashed red "phylogenic uncertainties": does that mean the uncertainty likes only within those nodes enclosed in the red box, or the entire tree?

For example, hospiton and zelicaon are on branches that meet, and are far off from the higher level branch that eventually leads to brevicauda. Does the red box mean that the close relationship of hospiton and zelicaon is in question, or that those are indeed as shown, but the ancestral tree at a much higher level is unclear? i.e., Clades 3b and 3c may be all one clade, or the extant species under them may not be at all as shown?

eurytides wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:36 am Adam, in the tree you posted above, what does the asterisk beside some species indicate? For example P. brevicauda?

It indicates the species illustrated on the right of the tree.

Adam.

Adam, in the tree you posted above, what does the asterisk beside some species indicate? For example P. brevicauda?

adamcotton wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 4:38 pm This malformation of the forewing costa was caused by incomplete closure of the forewing case on the right side of the pupa after shedding the pre-pupal skin.

If these specimens originate from southern Xishuangbanna the white inner hindwing edge is part of the mimicry of Losaria doubledayi which occurs nearby in Laos. This is true f. distantianus, whereas the darker form which mimics Pachliopta aristolochiae in China is called alcanor. Form alcanor particularly has a short white patch inside the hindwing cell, whereas distantianus has an elongate white patch in the cell.

Thanks, Adam. About f.alcanor, I've got a specimen without white patch inside the hindwing cell, recently.

adamcotton wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 4:38 pm PS. Note that mayo is now a subspecies of Papilio memnon, rather than a separate species, and does not belong to P. agenor.

Sorry for my mistake T-T

martellat0 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 12:46 pm While on the topic, allow me to share some photos from an individual I've been following on Twitter. He is a collector and breeder based in Okinawa who - for the past few years, it seems - has been selectively breeding P. agenor in order to produce individuals with extreme white pigmentation. He can be found under the handle @rhetenor12.

Here is a prized specimen. The translate function provided by Twitter can sometimes be unreliable, but from what I can gather, he seems to be trying to recreate the phenotype of a certain population of P. agenor from Nagasaki in the 1970s. He has shared pictures of other specimens with varying degrees of amelanism, but in my opinion, this is one of the most striking examples.

He has also produced both male and female individuals with malformed (possibly absent) wing veins.

Here is a specimen similar to that other one. According to the caption, it is a wild-caught specimen from Taiwan.

Thanks for sharing, the white one is really amazing ^0^. Hoping for more pictures of Papilio agenor or memnon.
About the breeding pair, the round wing-shape make them seem like Ornithoptera sp.

While on the topic, allow me to share some photos from an individual I've been following on Twitter. He is a collector and breeder based in Okinawa who - for the past few years, it seems - has been selectively breeding P. agenor in order to produce individuals with extreme white pigmentation. He can be found under the handle @rhetenor12.


https://x.com/rhetenor12/status/1831644452248809632
Here is a prized specimen. The translate function provided by Twitter can sometimes be unreliable, but from what I can gather, he seems to be trying to recreate the phenotype of a certain population of P. agenor from Nagasaki in the 1970s. He has shared pictures of other specimens with varying degrees of amelanism, but in my opinion, this is one of the most striking examples.


https://x.com/rhetenor12/status/1705157856436318680
https://x.com/rhetenor12/status/1804744344093565097
https://x.com/rhetenor12/status/1762714940706828460
He has also produced both male and female individuals with malformed (possibly absent) wing veins.


https://x.com/rhetenor12/status/1198916482723266561

Leonard187 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:38 pm About the white one, I saw a wild-caught female with very white wings. It is attractive due to the white pattern on the cells on hindwings, and the red triangles seem to decreased.

Here is a specimen similar to that other one. According to the caption, it is a wild-caught specimen from Taiwan.

adamcotton wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:54 pm I seem to remember this came from W Sumatra, where the yellow L. coon does not occur, but perhaps it is from S Sumatra, where L. coon is found in the far south. The pale hindwing spots (even though in the wrong position) combined with the white 'head' sends two signals.

No, form anura is rather different to this, although the hindwing markings are in a similar position, but they are cream tinged with orange (I suppose this may look bright yellow in flight), the underside is creamy with large black spots (like the Troides female) and it comes from Mt. Kinabalu, Borneo, not Sumatra.
I think this Sumatran form is actually derived from the originally tailed form which has lost the tails (note the pale sides to the abdomen), and it may well mimic a Troides female too. Basically this means the gene to include tails has been 'switched off'.

Adam.

Thanks, but pic2 is from S Sumatra based on the label.
About f.anura I only saw pictures from the paper of sir Clarke as well as you posted previously (really have yellow abdomen), and I donot know where this one (pic 3 of I posted above) collected from >-<
BTW, today on website, I've seen a specimen picture of ssp. oceani from remote Enggano island of Indonesia, and this female one seems rather similar with male. So whether we can suppose that this island might be the origin location of memnon which showed monomorphic of male/female?

Thank you for posting these photos of very important specimens.

Firstly the Batang - 'Mangkang' border specimen is from the type locality of archias (Batang, not 'Fou Lin' as stated by Fruhstorfer), and this is a first generation specimen (from May - note the broad black dorsal band on the abdomen). The type and other specimens I have seen (photos) are summer generation (July-August). Note that the data label is a little confused - Batang is in Sichuan not Tibet, and 'Mangkang' is correctly Markam County, Tibet, which is immediately west of Batang - the westernmost county in Sichuan. 'Mangkang' is the Han Chinese name for Markam. So Sichuan and Tibet are swapped on the label. The border locality is on the Jinsha River south of Batang. Byasa daemonius and Iphiclides podalirinus also occur there, but fly in June.

I have already asked the seller about the Gongga Shan locality (the specimen at the top of the thread is from the same lot). He told me that they came from a local catcher, and he is asking precisely where the locality is. These also look similar to archias, but possibly may not be that taxon, as the location is far from Batang with a very dry plateau at Litang separating the two populations and a totally different taxon 'neochinensis Sheljuzkho (an unavailable name) in Jiulong County to the west of Gongga Shan, i.e. between the two populations.

Adam.

Leonard187 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:59 pm it seems really different with its model Atrophaneura hageni, so does it use its white triangles to mimic the white head of A.hageni?

Exactly, and the silvery hindwings mimic the female of Atrophaneura nox in Sumatra. It's a case of two different warning patterns combined in the same mimic, sort of like the flashing lights on an ambulance telling the predator to keep away.

Leonard187 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:59 pm my friend has a tailed one also with white triangles which is really interesting, though I think it should also mimic L. coon.

I seem to remember this came from W Sumatra, where the yellow L. coon does not occur, but perhaps it is from S Sumatra, where L. coon is found in the far south. The pale hindwing spots (even though in the wrong position) combined with the white 'head' sends two signals.

Leonard187 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:59 pm Is picture 3 named as f.anura? It is not really seems like a Troides spp.

No, form anura is rather different to this, although the hindwing markings are in a similar position, but they are cream tinged with orange (I suppose this may look bright yellow in flight), the underside is creamy with large black spots (like the Troides female) and it comes from Mt. Kinabalu, Borneo, not Sumatra.
I think this Sumatran form is actually derived from the originally tailed form which has lost the tails (note the pale sides to the abdomen), and it may well mimic a Troides female too. Basically this means the gene to include tails has been 'switched off'.

Adam.

Chuck wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 6:58 pm That’s amazing, two forms within the same population mimicking two different inedibles. What a trip. No wonder people have studied them so intently. Thanks Adam. I’ll leave you alone now.

There are usually at least 2 different tailless forms, mimicking tailless models, as well as the tailed one mimicking a tailed model.

Adam.

That’s amazing, two forms within the same population mimicking two different inedibles. What a trip. No wonder people have studied them so intently. Thanks Adam. I’ll leave you alone now.

Chuck wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 1:15 pm That is quite amazing. I wonder if one form will prevail, given that one is a mimic and the other (I presume) is not.

No, in nature both tailed and tailless forms are mimetic, the tailed forms mimic Pachliopta and Losaria, whereas the different tailless forms mimic several Atrophaneura, so they all should survive by predators not attacking them.

On the other hand, in places where no tailless distasteful Troidini models occur it is likely that the tailless ones may be eaten and the tailed ones avoided. However, that was not the scenario that I was replying to in this case.

Chuck wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 1:15 pm Adam, does anyone, including institutions, have a collection to rival yours?

Most definitely there are many much better collections than mine. I seem to remember that the Clarke/Sheppard collection of experimental rearing is in the NHM, London, where of course they also hold huge collections of wild specimens from just about everywhere.

Also there are some huge collections (both private and institutional) in Japan, and I know of one private collection at least in the US that has a better collection than mine.

Adam.

This malformation of the forewing costa was caused by incomplete closure of the forewing case on the right side of the pupa after shedding the pre-pupal skin.

If these specimens originate from southern Xishuangbanna the white inner hindwing edge is part of the mimicry of Losaria doubledayi which occurs nearby in Laos. This is true f. distantianus, whereas the darker form which mimics Pachliopta aristolochiae in China is called alcanor. Form alcanor particularly has a short white patch inside the hindwing cell, whereas distantianus has an elongate white patch in the cell.

Adam.

PS. Note that mayo is now a subspecies of Papilio memnon, rather than a separate species, and does not belong to P. agenor.

I've got several specimens farmed in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan. And some of them are malformed but with very interesting phenotypes. This tailed one is asymmetrical but the white pattern on hindwings is different with typical f. distantianus. The pattern seems much like the one of female P. agenor mayo ^0^, especially it has very slender tails.

https://x.com/larrymadowo/status/186392 ... 38873?s=48
or

adamcotton wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 2:30 pm

Chuck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:07 pm I presume these two different forms are genetic, thus parents with tails (for example) will produce offspring with tails. True?

Actually, not necessarily! It would all depend on which 'super-genes' each parent is carrying and whether one is dominant over the other or not. Parents may carry one 'super-gene' on one side of the chromosome and one on the other or they may carry the same 'super-gene' on both sides of the chromosome, so when they mate there can be more than one offspring phenotype.

Adam.

That is quite amazing. I wonder if one form will prevail, given that one is a mimic and the other (I presume) is not.

This all is amazing, study I've avoided. Adam, does anyone, including institutions, have a collection to rival yours?

adamcotton wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 6:27 pm The white triangle theoretically evolved to mimic Atrophaneura hageni.

Thanks Adam. However, it seems really different with its model Atrophaneura hageni, so does it use its white triangles to mimic the white head of A.hageni?
As picture 2 below, my friend has a tailed one also with white triangles which is really interesting, though I think it should also mimic L. coon.
Is picture 3 named as f.anura? It is not really seems like a Troides spp.

Well, back to everesti - archias - verityi . I understand Wu Ming Hsuan uncertainity. Gongga Shan is outside area mentioned in 4th part of Papilionidae from Omnes Artes series. Also appearance is somewhat in middle ... not exactly 100% matching any of taxons.
I have series from same locality ( unprepared for now ) and there are visible also some variability for some keymark ( especially prominency of black margin under red anal eye ). Also they are definitly more yellowish than pale yellow that archias should be, but that can be due to specimens are not fresh.
Also added one specimen from locality more western ( where archias should be present ), but I think it is not everesti alpherakyi as I have those and they are significantly smaller with smaller tails and also with darker markings.

Jan