Papilio machaon from Sichuan, Identification please.

[Wu Ｍing Hsuan]

Does anyone know which subspecies this is? The location is Mt. Gonggashan in the Ganzi area of Sichuan, at an elevation of 3000m. My guess is that it could either be Papilio machaon verityi or Papilio machaon archias.

Ming

[adamcotton]

This should be Papilio archias, not P. verityi which has a much larger red anal eye spot, normally without any black edge along the lower margin of the eye spot, and also has even longer tails.

Note that both are separate species from each other and from P. machaon. Also P. verityi does not occur that far north.

Adam.

[Wu Ｍing Hsuan]

This should be Papilio archias, not P. verityi which has a much larger red anal eye spot, normally without any black edge along the lower margin of the eye spot, and also has even longer tails.

Note that both are separate species from each other and from P. machaon. Also P. verityi does not occur that far north.

Adam.

Thanks Adam!

I'm looking forward to seeing more publications on the machaon species-group. I'm curious how these two species are placed within the machaon clade.

Ming

[adamcotton]

Unfortunately, the machaon group has very poor resolution using only COI or a few mitochondrial genes, all the populations are mixed down the tree for many taxa. It looks like a large whole genome analysis will be needed.

Adam.

[Wu Ｍing Hsuan]

Thank you so much.

Is there a clear boundary in the distribution of these two species, or perhaps a transition zone?

By the way, any news about the taxonomic status of the Taiwan Papilio machaon? Some say it holds a rather unique taxonomic status, but it's unclear where exactly it falls within the machaon clade. I’m wondering if it’s possible to extract DNA samples from old specimens for whole genome analysis.

Here are some specimens I've collected over the years.

Ming

[kevinkk]

I'm always learning something new here. We have our own machaon in Oregon, Papilio machaon oregonius.

[adamcotton]

I'm always learning something new here. We have our own machaon in Oregon, Papilio machaon oregonius.

Kevin,

No you don't, oregonia is a subspecies of Papilio bairdii now.

Adam.

[adamcotton]

Is there a clear boundary in the distribution of these two species, or perhaps a transition zone?

P. archias is found in western Sichuan from around Batang to Gongga Shan and gets as far south as the northernmost part of Yunnan on the border with Sichuan and also around Tsekou [Yanmen]. P. verityi has a much wider distribution, but is found further south in Yunnan. It occurs from Manipur (NE India) eastwards through Myanmar and Yunnan to Hagiang in northernmost Vietnam.

The sequence of P. archias is significantly different and was separated as a species in Nazari et al. (2023) (Guide to the Butterflies of the Palearctic Region Papilionidae part. IV - Tribe Papilionini, Genus Papilio, Genus Papilio (partim), available from https://www.omnesartes.com/en/books-gui ... ae-IV.html).

Unfortunately P. machaon sylvina has not been seen since the 1999 earthquake destroyed its habitat. It may be possible to get sequence from an old specimen with the (expensive) modern techniques, and hopefully that will help clarify its status. You have a super series!

Adam.

[Chuck]

I'm always learning something new here. We have our own machaon in Oregon, Papilio machaon oregonius.

Kevin,

No you don't, oregonia is a subspecies of Papilio bairdii now.

Adam.

And just like that, because somebody has to over-analyze a well established species, Oregon loses an entire species!


Adam, I can't keep up with all the machaon, bairdii, indra, etc. taxonomy now, is there a tree or range drawings? I could go to bugguide or inat but then have to click on every one of them.

[adamcotton]

Here's the tree from Condamine et al. (2023), in which P. bairdii was officially separated from machaon. Note that P. kahli was also officially split as a species, sister to P. brevicauda.



Sorry there isn't a more recent published tree specifically on the machaon-group. Note also that other Asian species (P. everesti, verityi and archias) were separated as species after this paper was published. There were no new trees in those publications.

Adam.

[Chuck]

Thanks Adam. I had seen that, didn't realize it was the latest and greatest. And, of course, no ssp. I have a drawer of "these things" that have data but in most cases no ID, so taking it to ssp will be some work.

[Chuck]

If two populations are consistently visibly distinct in the vast majority of specimens then they should deserve subspecies status


...also officially split as a species, sister to...

Going back to this statement posted elsewhere, and the tree above where everything fits into nice little boxes at the end of lines:

In looking at COI trees for the Tiger Swallowtails, I see many branches that do not fit into the nice boxes. Some are individual specimens, some are groups of; some fit closely next to known clades, and some are sisters to well established species (i.e., at the same level.) I'm not going to count them, but of the eastern Tiger Swallowtails in BOLD, I'll bet 1/3 don't fit in a nice box, and that includes boxes like MST that haven't yet been described but are known.

So Adam, you MUST be aware of "sister" specimens / groups that don't fit into the nice machaon/ indra/ etc boxes, right? As complex as the tree is for those clades already, I'm assuming there are "outliers" - and more than in the eastern Tigers. Is that correct? I'll bet there are some right in USA. And if so, what do you make of them?

[adamcotton]

The important distinction between the tree from Condamine et al. (2023) in the figure above and COI trees of Tiger Swallowtails is that the tree above is based on a number of both mt and nuclear genes.

A number of species groups in Papilionidae (and I am sure many other taxa) do not separate into neat clusters in a COI analysis, machaon and its relatives is one of those. I suspect that only trees based on multiple nuclear genes as well as COI and a few other mitochondrial genes will be able to produce well resolved trees.

Adam.

[adamcotton]

And just like that, because somebody has to over-analyze a well established species, Oregon loses an entire species!

Actually Oregon hasn't lost a species at all, the name has just changed but the butterflies are still there.

Adam.

[Chuck]

And just like that, because somebody has to over-analyze a well established species, Oregon loses an entire species!

Actually Oregon hasn't lost a species at all, the name has just changed but the butterflies are still there.

Adam.

Tell that to Kevin. He had machaon, now all he's got are bairdii. That's worse than when Alaska "lost" its own ssp of canadensis.

Thanks for your insights Adam.

To my mind, all this reinforces my (current) belief to compile series - "Catch 'em all and let the scientists sort 'em out." Except Papilio polyxenes, which I'm told nobody wants more of; that said I never know in the Appalachians when that polyxenes might be joanae.

[kevinkk]

the name has just changed but the butterflies are still there.

Yes. For some reason I found Adam's first post correcting me very amusing. "No, you don't". Funny.
Anyway, it's unlikely I'm changing labels on the specimens.
my copy of Pyle's Butterflies of Cascadia mentions bairrdii as an "aka". I remember the butterfly becoming the state insect back in 1979, I didn't notice a name change when I googled "oregonius", all interesting reading.

[teinopalpus]

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

[adamcotton]

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.

[eurytides]

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

[adamcotton]

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.