Читать книгу Parnassiology. From Rhyme to Crime - - Страница 2

Apollos, or Parnassiini, is a tribus of swallowtails, numbering, according to various estimates, from 48 to 54 species in the Palearctic, and about 57—59 species in total. Having no economic significance, these butterflies, however, are well known to almost everyone: The Apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus, 1758), one of the largest butterflies in Europe, is often found in advertising, on postage stamps, posters, etc.

Representatives of Parnassiini are a commercial group of insects with all the ensuing consequences. Within the tribus, there are both «valuable» and not very «valuable» species – accordingly, with different approaches to covering their distribution. For example, the last of the described species of Parnassiini in all guides to butterflies of Kyrgyzstan has a very vaguely designated range. The reason for this is the desire to keep the locality unknown to most collectors for as long as possible, so as not to generate competition in the market. Although the type locality of this species has long been an open secret, the literature continues to conceal the location known to everyone.

Commercialization of the group makes relatively accessible (albeit very expensive) material for research, but it completely deprives the data on the distribution of particularly «valuable» species of confidence. The tradition of falsifying labels and even an entire series of specimens has existed for a long time and continues to this day.

It can be said that parnassiology is a fairly independent, complex, unpredictable, and at the same time very primitive field of lepidopterology, the evolution of which stopped at the study of individual variability. Even molecular studies continue to support the anachronistic taxonomy of the tribus, despite the obvious need for its reorganization following the resulting numerous and strikingly similar phylogenies. Alas, modern researchers prefer to remain in the arms of outdated, but widespread, traditions.

The world’s first Parnassiini system, proposed in 1855 by Ménétriès, was based on the red spots on the upper surface of the hind wing: their presence/absence and location. The genus was divided into a group with red spots on the wings and a group without them. Unfortunately, the system was not set nomenclatural: not a single new genus-group name was proposed. The first system of Parnassiini with scientific names was proposed by Austaut in 1889 and was based on the structure of the female sphragis, but it did not last long. The names had the formal form of family-group names, which is not applicable in the case of generic taxonomy. The next system, developed by Stichel in 1906, was based on wing venation, but Stichel did not divide the genus Parnassius s.l. into any groups other than those already identified by Austaut (in fact, Stichel borrowed the principle of forming names from him). Almost at the same time, a system based on the structure of the male genital structures and differences in the wing pattern began to be developed: it was made by Moore in 1902 and by Bryk in 1935). Ackery in his famous «Guide to the species and genera of Parnassiinae’ published in 1975 did not use generic names in the system he proposed, replacing them with the term «group»; this system was used for a long time in the works of most parnassiologists (and is sometimes used today). The last reformation of the subfamily system based on genital morphology was made by Korshunov in 1988 and 1990: he established 4 new generic group names, and also raised the status of the genus Parnassius sensu Ackery, 1975 to a tribus with the establishment of new subtribes Parnassiina, Koramiina, and Sachaenina, dividing them into genera and subgenera.

Collections. Main driver of parnassiology.

In addition to the systems listed above, there are minor modifications proposed by several authors such as Ford, Munroe, Eisner, Higgins, Hiura, Hancock, Igarashi, and Koçak. The most complete modern reviews of Parnassiini, published over the past quarter century, belong to Weiss and his co-authors Rose and Rigout, and to Sakai with his co-authors. In the beautiful books, written by these authors, they analyzed a huge amount of material from many private and public collections; however, the authors pay maximum attention to subspecies, often leaving taxonomy and systematics at the species and especially at the generic level almost without attention.

The use of the rank of «subspecies» in parnassiology has always been very controversial. Some authors ignore the taxonomic category of «subspecies», considering it (and not without reason) ecological, and there are authors who describe new subspecies from each meadow or each hill.

The determination of a subspecies is considered justified if all individuals of the population (according to another definition – at least 75% of individuals) differ from individuals of another population in characteristic features, and these differences are also genetically fixed. That means, the characteristic features can be traced at least in a series of several generations. However, this rule is very arbitrary and can be juggled very successfully – especially in cases where populations do not have reproductive barriers. For example, the range of a species is such that one population replaces another and there is a free gene flow; in such cases, it often turns out that the features changed gradually and continuously within the range (it’s called «clinal variability’), and at the limits of the range the characters turn out to be very different. As a rule, evidence of clinal variability is sufficient for synonymizing subspecies, but this general rule practically does not work in parnassiology. As Rose pointed out once in his paper about subspecies inflation in Parnassius, «The description of new subspecies is now becoming increasingly unclear, especially in the genus Parnassius».

The bulk of the described subspecies in the tribus Parnassiini were established between 1900 and 1950. At that time, subspecies of Parnassius s. l. were indeed described from almost every hill and every valley. Over time, the frequency of subspecies descriptions decreased, but since the end of the last century, it has begun to increase again – mainly due to Japanese collectors who began actively collecting in the Sino-Tibetan Plateau. The controversy over the categories of «species» and «subspecies» as terminal positions of zoological systematics has been going on for a long time, but there has been no balance either in favor of the species as a terminal taxon, or in favor of the subspecies as a terminal taxon. Most taxonomic theorists agree that a serious crisis is currently looming in subspecies systematics; unfortunately, it did not touch upon the tribus Parnassiini, and the reason for this is very simple: there are practically no specialist biologists working in parnassiology, this whole «science’ is based on the activity of amateurs. Amateurs are not familiar with the theory of taxonomy, they are not interested in its problems – they simply describe each micropopulation they find on the slopes of another mountain as a special subspecies, continuing to make «scientific’ names. But now a subspecies is described not simply as a set of individuals of unclear genesis, but as a completely understandable product of evolution, and formed as a result of the reconstructed event – the subspecies nowadays is a phylogenetic lineage as it was recently stated by Lukhtanov. On the contrary, subspecies that do not have such evolutionary prerequisites, described from different parts of the same range in the order of discovering populations, and not in the order of describing the evolution of a species as a polytypic entity, have no right to exist anymore. Indeed, if a subspecies does not have a genetic specification, it is not a subspecies.

As for the «old’ subspecies, everything is even simpler. The bulk of such «subspecies’ were described based on an extremely small number of specimens. The size of the type series for such descriptions often does not exceed ten specimens. Additionally, the extremely small size of the series was used for comparison – and you get an explosive mixture of conviction in novelty and an extremely weak possibility to prove it.

Why are these «subspecies» still in the Parnassiini system? For three reasons. The first reason is the indisputable authority of the old authors (even though it would be quite logical to double-check their conclusions based on a comparison of only a few specimens). The second reason is the high popularity of the group among collectors and, as a result, the simple desire of collectors to exhibit something «extraordinary» in the collection. The third reason is the enormous inertia of the collecting masses, who for the most part do not want to accept the fact of scientific progress, but want to remain in their usual and comfortable systematic-taxonomic positions. In general, I would describe the situation with subspecies in this group as archaic progress: on the one hand, descriptions of new subspecies are constantly appearing (progress seems to be happening), and on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of these subspecies are stillborn taxa, initially being synonyms (and, what is most unpleasant, the describers of such subspecies usually know this from the beginning).

Staudinger’s collection is a source of «old’ subspecies descriptions, but the number of used specimens is very small.