|
|
Post by nomad on Feb 3, 2015 17:33:58 GMT
Great specimen but what is the data?
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 3, 2015 20:14:55 GMT
Congrats Radovan, splendid !
|
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 10, 2015 13:58:56 GMT
These males are of ssp. aristocratus... (QingHai, Nangqian, Dana Mt. 4500 m)  |
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 10, 2015 16:59:11 GMT
And these belong with przewalskii ssp. kunlunica (QingHai, KunlunShan, 5100 m) .  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 10, 2015 19:39:23 GMT
... except przewalskii is really just a subspecies of acco, so these are P. acco kunlunica.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 11, 2015 2:01:36 GMT
Anything you say, Master...  Victor |
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jul 11, 2015 4:29:17 GMT
Those are both gorgeous subspecies of acco. My compliments on your spreading style for Parnassius -- really nice !
|
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 11, 2015 6:24:26 GMT
Thanks a lot, trehopr1, very nice of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 11, 2015 17:56:15 GMT
Anything you say, Master... Victor Victor, You (and anyone else who wants to) can continue to treat przewalskii as a good species if you prefer to, after all species vs subspecies is really a subjective decision without conducting breeding experiments at least to F2 to see if the offspring are fertile or not. However, Omoto et al. (2004) showed przewalskii to be internal to acco on DNA grounds. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 12, 2015 2:20:01 GMT
Adam,
Being, obviously, not too deep into the DNA analysis, I nevertheless consider it all still has too much room left to be studied and researched...
Could you please tell your opinion regarding the acco/baileyi relations? What about, say, bubo? To me, "P. acco pseudobubo" looks and sounds pretty lay, for the two taxa have virtually nothing in common even morphologically; it's like naming an urticae a "pseudoio"...
Victor
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 12, 2015 16:01:55 GMT
Indeed, DNA analysis is not the "be all and end all" answer to classification, but it is generally a reasonable indicator of the more likely relationships between taxa (note - 'more' rather than 'most' likely).
As for baileyi, bubo, and pseudobubo they are treated as subspecies of acco by Kocman (2009) and Rose & Weiss (2011), presumably on more than just visual appearance of the phenotype. Have any reputable modern authors actually treated them as separate species?
I have not studied these in real detail (yet) as I am busy with lots of other Papilionidae, but I can reply to your point "it's like naming an urticae a "pseudoio"..." with the thought that many subspecies of Papilio machaon are similarly very different to the nominate subspecies, but they are still recognised as belonging to the same species.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 13, 2015 0:39:58 GMT
Thanks, Adam.
Indeed, I don't know any up-to-date or relatively recent paper wherein bubo is treated as a ssp. of baileyi, the only reference I found being: "Treated as a subspecies of Parnassius (Tadumia) baileyi South, 1913 by Weiss (1992: 82)". But still, I believe my example of urticae and io shows somewhat a way more dramatic difference, than yours one with actually one and the same species (P. machaon).
Victor
|
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 13, 2015 7:29:29 GMT
P. acco (TIBET, Xuebu Mts, 5000 m)  |
|
|
|
Post by sensedigger on Jul 13, 2015 7:30:48 GMT
P. bubo (NW Yunnan, Deqen, BaimaXueShan 4300 m)  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 13, 2015 14:51:27 GMT
Thanks, Adam. Indeed, I don't know any up-to-date or relatively recent paper wherein bubo is treated as a ssp. of baileyi, the only reference I found being: "Treated as a subspecies of Parnassius (Tadumia) baileyi South, 1913 by Weiss (1992: 82)". But still, I believe my example of urticae and io shows somewhat a way more dramatic difference, than yours one with actually one and the same species (P. machaon). Victor Indeed your example of urticae and io are more dramatically different than the various subspecies of machaon, but I was comparing the variation in the P. acco 'complex' with that in machaon. Try comparing a dark summer form female hippocrates with machaon from Taymyr, or even from France, for example. They are the same species but look very different. You could also compare with the black form of machaon bairdii from Arizona, which looks totally different to either of the previous subspecies. As for bubo being treated as a subspecies of baileyi, my question was actually whether anyone had treated baileyi, bubo, and pseudobubo as separate species from acco. Anyway, it is probably best to agree to disagree, and as I said before species vs subspecies status is a subjective issue, and I am not going to prevent you or anyone else from treating them as separate species if you prefer. I just want to point out the currently accepted opinion in the literature for the information of all the readers here. Adam. |
|
