|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 15, 2019 20:43:00 GMT
I thought the original description was Chinese Tartary, not Tibet, which included Ladakh, where Charlton is known to have collected. Can anyone place him in Tibet, if so can someone provide provide a reference? Indeed, "Chinese Tartary" is the stated type locality, but this was a very vague term. It is clear where they were collected by comparing the various specimens described from Charlton's specimens with those from across the region. The area of the type locality is not very far from India inside Tibet, which of course covers a vast area. Of course there is the possibility that Charlton didn't actually go to the type locality himself, but the specimens were brought to him by a local collector. Sorry I cannot provide information about where Charlton went myself, maybe someone else can. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 16, 2019 9:32:09 GMT
Indeed, "Chinese Tartary" is the stated type locality, but this was a very vague term. It is clear where they were collected by comparing the various specimens described from Charlton's specimens with those from across the region. The area of the type locality is not very far from India inside Tibet, which of course covers a vast area. Can you point me to a reference for A Tibet locality as regards Charlton's Parnassius in the literature/specimens labels. Only Ladakh is given by Moore, so he much have had some to knowledge to Charlton collecting his specimens there, otherwise why would he given it as the type locality?. On the map part of the Ladakh area is very close to the Tibet border and the people in many areas resemble them in culture and look.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 16, 2019 11:05:11 GMT
The type locality is around Gurla Mandhata mountains. If you put Gurla Mandhata into Google Maps you will find it just north of the western border of Nepal. There are 3 main peaks all in the same area. The problem is that names such as Ladakh, Tibet and Chinese Tartary are very vague and their meanings have changed over the years.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 16, 2019 13:06:56 GMT
The type locality is around Gurla Mandhata mountains. If you put Gurla Mandhata into Google Maps you will find it just north of the western border of Nepal. There are 3 main peaks all in the same area. The problem is that names such as Ladakh, Tibet and Chinese Tartary are very vague and their meanings have changed over the years. Adam. Thank you, but where is this type locality Gurla Mandhata mountains mentioned, in what literature? The specimens labels I thought just have Tibet.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 16, 2019 15:30:09 GMT
Dietz (2002) lists the type locality as "Gothing", and the range as "Kumaon". I suspect that Gothing actually refers to Kuti, a place on the Indian side of the border just south of Gurla Mandhata Mts. There is an old fort there (Pandaw Fort), so it is likely that Charlton stayed there and collected in that valley. Probably he didn't actually cross into true Tibet at all.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 16, 2019 15:33:46 GMT
The specimens labels I thought just have Tibet. Old specimen labels often have such vague locality data, but in the 20th century the approximate origin of most subspecies was determined by comparison of the types with modern specimens which had precise locality data. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 17, 2019 8:37:29 GMT
I am not sure where the author Dietz 2002. of the paper got "Gothing" from, its not mentioned in the reference he gives Cataloques of the Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, 1, p, 77, pI. 12, fig. 7. by Gray just Chinese Tartary. I think this is a case of of where an author has given a type locality by looking at specimens, not a good thing to do when c harltonius is so variable and where many of the current subspecies are best regarded as synonyms of the type and many of the new subspecies are made to get ones name in print, and for the collectors market because of their high Money value. Moore in Lepidoptera indica 1901-3. clearly states the type locality for the female to be Ladak =Ladakh (and where Charlton collected bird specimens) and where it was then taken again. See also P. Simo collected at the same locality as P. charltonius by Charlton and mentioned by Lieut-Col C. T. Bingham Fauna of British India Butterflies (1907) volume two. Note that Bingham gives Ladakh as "Tibet" and in which the author record that Henry John Elwes in 1886 mentions Charlton collecting the P. Simo at Ladak. All the Literary evidence points to Ladakh being the type locality for Charlton's Parnassius and is almost certainly correct and i cannot see why or where there is a reason to doubt it. Peter.
Moore Lepidoptera indica 1901-3. Below. Type locality given as Ladak and taken there again.
Lieut-Col C. T. Bingham Fauna of British India Butterflies (1907) volume two. Type locality Ladakh and Elwes in 1886 mentioned the same locality here where Charlton collected his Parnassius.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 17, 2019 16:21:14 GMT
Parnassius charltonius from Ladakh is VERY different to the nominate subspecies, and so are most of the other species Charlton collected at the same locality, "Chinese Tartary"; probably all except P. hardwickii which does not subspeciate. As I said above, comparison of the type and other species collected at the same place with modern specimens with accurate data identifies clearly the approximate area where Charlton collected them. Whether this was on the Indian or Chinese side of the border is impossible to determine for certain, but it seems likely that Charlton stayed at Pandaw Fort which I mentioned above and probably collected in the area nearby. This fort is in the valley immediately south of the border in the exact area where nominate P. charltonius flies, but of course it occurs on both sides of the border.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 17, 2019 17:22:36 GMT
I am still surprised that you would base a type locality on single specimens without a reference in the literature of such a variable butterfly/genus and there is no reference to Charlton being at Pandaw Fort, I cannot even find it on a google map. I do understand that you are saying that Moore, Bingham and Elwes got the type locality wrong.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 17, 2019 20:10:37 GMT
For charltonius a locaity "Tibet" pretty much narrows it down. This species occurs there in 2 subspecies, both well characterized, both different from all other. I dont understand how you can asume that Moore is correct. Based on what do you judge that those blokes wrote it correctly 150 years ago with maybe a dozen specimens in total in existence? Charltonius for comparison: Left column: charltonius charltonius (S. Tibet, Mt. Gurla Madhata), charltonius bryki (W. Tibet, 40km W of Gar), charltonius basharianus (nom. nov. for ssp. gehleni, =bryki, Spiti Fluss, Tum Tum Thang, e coll. Bang-Haas) Right column: charltonius deckerti (Lamayuru), charltonius otto (=deckerti, Tagalng La), charltonius ella (=serenissimus, Pakistan, Deosai Plain, Sheosar Lake) I dont understand how you can asume that Moore is correct. Based on what do you judge that those blokes wrote it correctly 150 years ago with maybe a dozen specimens in total in existence? Well these blokes as you call them were all very fine naturalists, Henry John Elwes who mentioned the type locality in 1886 of the female charltonius and of Charlton's other types was Ladakh, was a British botanist, entomologist, author, lepidopterist, collector and traveller who became renowned for collecting specimens of lilies during trips to the "Himalaya" and Korea. He was one of the first group of 60 people to receive the Victoria Medal of the Royal Horticultural Society in 1897 he left a collection of 30,000 butterfly specimens to the Natural History Museum, including 11,370 specimens of Palaearctic butterflies. To have stated that locality Elwes must have been told it . I afraid to your critical eye, you might see great differences in your lovely specimens, but to me I fail to see that they even warrant subspecies status, and are probably the same geographical race.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 17, 2019 20:14:27 GMT
I am still surprised that you would base a type locality on single specimens without a reference in the literature of such a variable butterfly/genus and there is no reference to Charlton being at Pandaw Fort, I cannot even find it on a google map. I do understand that you are saying that Moore, Bingham and Elwes got the type locality wrong. Peter. Peter, Try this: www.google.co.th/maps/place/Pandaw+Fort/@30.0303047,80.2203072,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x39a69c2dfba75a37:0x2a5cebd0f50281f0!8m2!3d30.3039716!4d80.7606972 Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 17, 2019 20:19:36 GMT
Adam something went wrong with your link, when I used it I got Swindon where I live.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 17, 2019 20:19:39 GMT
I afraid to your critical eye, you might see great differences in your lovely specimens, but to me I fail to see that they even warrant subspecies status, and are probably the same geographical race. You need to see series of specimens rather than just an example of each, then you will realise that the differences are constant. Nominate charltonius is very different to the others, but each has their own characteristics. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 17, 2019 20:48:40 GMT
Adam something went wrong with your link, when I used it I got Swindon where I live. Peter. Strange, perhaps that's because my link is copied from the Thai Google Maps. Open Google Maps and then search for this: Pandaw Fort, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, India Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 18, 2019 12:54:09 GMT
I afraid to your critical eye, you might see great differences in your lovely specimens, but to me I fail to see that they even warrant subspecies status, and are probably the same geographical race. You need to see series of specimens rather than just an example of each, then you will realise that the differences are constant. Nominate charltonius is very different to the others, but each has their own characteristics. Adam. I am afraid i have always had great difficulty regarding many subspecies in genus such as Parnassius, Ornithoptera and others which warrant such designation. If subspecies would eventually evolve into full species, you would see the end of the world before that happens with those mentioned. I cannot see any great barriers, with the mountains and plains for subspecies to establish themselves in that region, and I think you are just looking at local variation within a wider populations. i can see the great Himalayas as being a barrier but not much else where valleys connect mountain ranges and plains. I guess you could call me a lumber rather than a splitter which in the case of Parnassius species has gone to ridiculously lengths. I am afraid I see no justification in many of these so called sub- species, but who am I to comment, when I believe in those blokes from the 19th century, who may have been in the know, and gave the locality as ladakh of Charlton Parnassius and other types, and which seems to upset the current thinking, and might sow seeds of doubt and validity to the array of doubtful (in my opinion) subspecies that modern Parnassius authors like to publish. Peter.
|
|