|
Post by nomad on Nov 23, 2019 17:00:50 GMT
A question for the Parnassius experts here. Are there any details in the books about a Major Charlton who discovered Parnassius charltonius, Simo, acco etc, captured in a locality given as Chinese Tartary at 15.000ft, perhaps this is the Ladakh area, India, where he is known to have collected. The Parnassius species he discovered were described by G.R. Gray in 1853. Just Major Charlton is given online, with no other details about him.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 25, 2019 15:34:30 GMT
I believe that Major Charlton who collected and discovered the above the Parnassius is Andrew Charlton who collected them in Chinese Tartery= Ladakh, at 15000- 16000 feet, date unknown.
Charlton joined the army in 1820 and in 1835 was a second lieutenant, and second in command of the Assam light infantry from the Bengal Regiment stationed at the Sadiya garrison. While there he is most famous for discovery the Tea Plant in India, for which he received the Gold Medal from the Agricultural Society. During 1835 he was seriously injured in a military action while storming a stronghold of the stockade of Daffa Gaum at Gackwah.
In 1838 he is now a Captain, and is stationed with the 74 Regiment of Native Infantry at Nusseerabad, and still suffering from his wounds, is given a six month leave of absence. In 1841 he is stationed at Loodiana, and in 1843 at Nowgong.
In July 1845 he returns home to England with a large collection of new Birds and Mammals, insects, that he had collected in India, and Malacca, Malaysia. His address is given as Liscard in Cheshire. T.C. Eyton who described some of his new birds in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, mentions his discovery of the Tea Plant in India.
In 1846 now a Major he is stationed at Mhow, and retires from the army in 1852.
The Charlton's Parnassius were described by G.R. Gray in Catalogue of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum (1852).
All information courtesy of various web sources found with Google Chrome and searching the wonderful Internet Archive. I thought that there might be further details of Charlton in the Parnassius books, but probably not?
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 25, 2019 17:41:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 25, 2019 19:38:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 26, 2019 8:07:08 GMT
The Charlton's Parnassius were described by G.R. Gray in Catalogue of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum (1852). Actually this work was published on 8 January 1853, so the year of publication of names in the Catalogue is 1853, not 1852 as printed in the book itself. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Nov 26, 2019 10:15:21 GMT
Thanks Adam. I did wonder about that.
I also have began to wonder what those who study this group think about large number of subspecies that various authors are creating, almost for each locality where Parnassius charltonius occurs, which is also the case with many other Parnassius, surely this bears no relation to reality, and perhaps as the authors state in the paper I added, it is because this species is a highly desirable insect to collect with a high money value. As a result I often see these highly priced and dubious paratypes of Parnassius charltonius and other Parnassius subspecies of that group on the web for sale.
The authors of the web page Butterflies of India sum this up nicely with Parnassius charltonius
"Considerable infrasubspecific and subspecific variation in this species has been named, often with little understanding of geographical and altitudinal separation between the named forms or subspecies, so it is difficult to ascertain taxonomic validity of many of these names. A comprehensive study of this entire genus is in order before any taxonomic issues can be solved in this group."
|
|
|
Post by radusho on Nov 26, 2019 12:15:45 GMT
If you check taxa described by Korb you will see a great hypocracy in these words. When I see his name in a paper my interest decreases signigicantly.
|
|
|
Post by jmg on Nov 26, 2019 15:35:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 26, 2019 17:20:52 GMT
Korb enjoys a very special reputation in Russia I suppose "special" can be interpreted in many different ways. Since he is a member of this forum I do not feel it is appropriate for me to comment on whatever reputation he may have. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 15, 2019 15:52:19 GMT
The type locality was stated by Gray as "Chinese Tartary ... at an elevation of 15,000 feet" in the original description. The specimen(s) came from the part of Tibet opposite the western border of Nepal, quite a way south of Ladakh. Since Gray did not state the number of specimens in the original description (although it is likely to be a single specimen by inference) the type(s) must be treated as syntype(s). Kawasaki pictured a type female incl. a photo of the label. I only found a photo of the specimen without label in the journal Wallace, where did Kawasaki publish the photo with label? Strangely I do not have any photos of the type of charltonius and it isn't available on the NHM website either. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by radusho on Dec 15, 2019 16:36:36 GMT
The type locality was stated by Gray as "Chinese Tartary ... at an elevation of 15,000 feet" in the original description. The specimen(s) came from the part of Tibet opposite the western border of Nepal, quite a way south of Ladakh. Since Gray did not state the number of specimens in the original description (although it is likely to be a single specimen by inference) the type(s) must be treated as syntype(s). Kawasaki pictured a type female incl. a photo of the label. I only found a photo of the specimen without label in the journal Wallace, where did Kawasaki publish the photo with label? Strangely I do not have any photos of the type of charltonius and it isn't available on the NHM website either. Adam. I saw it pictured in Wallace. But it is possible that it was a label belonging to nominate acco or perhaps simo. Nevertheless the type location for all 3 species is the same as this website suggest: globis-images.insects-online.de/?q=node/3&tree_h=Papilionidae.Parnassiinae..Parnassius.Kailasius.charltonius.charltonius&sub=yes&tree_status=plus&tree_seq=5&s=5191
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 15, 2019 18:01:50 GMT
As Ladakh borders Tibet to the east, I believe the locality is probably correct, I would prefer to rely on the British Journals. Ladakh has previously been claimed to be part of Tibet.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 15, 2019 19:07:40 GMT
As Ladakh borders Tibet to the east, I believe the locality is probably correct, I would prefer to rely on the British Journals. Ladakh has previously been claimed to be part of Tibet. The type locality of charltonius is a long way southeast of Ladakh. Gray stated in the original description that the type came from the same locality as other specimens collected by Charlton, including P. jacquemontii, acco, simo and hardwickii. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 15, 2019 19:15:13 GMT
Yes, it is pictured in Wallace without a label; this is the same specimen as pictured in Ackery (1973) Strangely the GART/GloBis project did not photograph this specimen, otherwise I would have copies as they gave me copies of all the type photos from the project back in 2006. Probably the specimen was not housed in the BMNH type collection, so was overlooked. It is also pictured on page 703 of Bryk, Das Tierreich (1935), but he equated the type locality to Kumaon, which is in India opposite the true type locality. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Dec 15, 2019 19:45:24 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?
|
|