A unique Parnassius sp. or a common one?

[trehopr1]

Recently, I was able to snap up some 8 specimens of various Parnassius from an old collection. All possessed typewritten data labels of limited substance but, the specimens were beautiful examples and I had to have em'. I presume whatever original data they had (which was probably written on their envelopes) had been transcribed so to speak into a typewritten format and then the originals were tossed.
Anyway, one particular specimen has this data: Parnassius himalayensis Elwes 1886
                                                                     Lahoul elev. 11,500-15,000
                                                                                   1930
It seems this former species is now a synonym of it's present species status: Parnassius jacquemontii Boisduval 1836. After trying to look up where the heck Lahoul is; I could only find Lahaul North India. Wikipedia says Lahaul is one of two isolated Himalayan valleys in the Indian State of Himachal Pradesh. The elevation cited is 14,009'.

I believe whomever typed up the label may have mis-read the handwriting on the original data which is why it says Lahoul. I presume the elevation cited was what was on the envelope. So, if I wish to print off a smaller label should I use the new species name it has (along with author and year); and should I still use the original elevations cited or should I plug in the 14,009' cited by Wikipedia ?
Of coarse, I'm also wondering if this species is really anything all that special or is it just common fodder by most Parnassius enthusiasts ?

I do still think it's the best of the lot which I purchased due to the elevation given and the North Indian/ Himalayan location. I have next to nothing from India -- let alone the Himalayan mountain range. Any input would be appreciated. Will post a picture later of it.

[trehopr1]

Well, I finally got around to photographing the specimen mentioned in the above post.



I know it's just another parnassius but, it's location from the Himalayas (Lahoul); along with the elevation (11,500-15,000), makes
it the highest elevation specimen that I personally own. Collected 1930.

Member Radusho earlier this year stated that this should properly be called Parnassius jacquemontii himalayensis. He noted that 3 ssp.
of jacquemontii do occur in the region of Lahoul and that this is quite an uncommon interesting ssp.

Unfortunately, his former post has somehow disappeared...

[Adam Cotton]

himalayensis Elwes, 1886 is really just a synonym of ssp. jacquemontii. You have a rather nice example!

Adam.

[trehopr1]

Thank you kindly Adam ! Are Parnassius sort of a side interest of yours? Do you have a portion of your collection dedicated to them?

[Adam Cotton]

Since Parnassius is a genus in family Papilionidae I am interested in them and they do form part of my collection, except that I don't have any P. apollo or other CITES and locally protected Papilionid species. I must admit that I haven't devoted enough energy into studying Parnassius in detail yet, as they really deserve full time attention to do them justice. I did edit Kocman's Tibet Parnassius book a few years ago, and spent a fair amount of time working on relevant taxa then, but generally tend to study subfamily Papilioninae, especially the Asian representatives. One good thing about studying Parnassius is that there is a significant amount of good literature on the genus, including two series of publications by Dierl and by Weiss (and Rose in one volume) as well as older publications by Bryk & Eisner amongst others. Comparison of the opinions in various publications can quickly assist in providing answers to questions such as yours.

I just checked the drawer listing for my collection and worked out that 86 drawers are currently allocated to Parnassius, but a significant proportion of my collection of those is still papered.

Adam.

PS. As in the case of Lahoul, very many Indian place names are nowadays spelt slightly differently to the way they were spelt by the colonial British, or even have completely differnet names. The same problem occurs in other countries for various historical reasons, for example many place names were changed in China during the past 100 years, and think of places like St. Petersburg/Leningrad as another example. Thus it is advisable to be very cautious about interpreting place names on old labels, and importantly NEVER discard an old label on a specimen, just put yours underneath.