Genus Parnassius

But the authors of the article acted very wisely:

"Recent phylogenetic studies have shown that P. arcticus together with P. tenedius form the most basal, highly differentiated branch of Parnassius sensu lato, which confirms its belonging to a separate (sub) genus Sachaia (Michel et al. 2008; Zheng et al. 2018). It should be noted that despite differences in the morphology of the sphraga and genitalia, as well as pronounced differences in size, wing pattern, habitat selection, and food plants, these taxa were genetically similar. Phylogenetic reconstructions based on four genes (mitochondrial ND5, COI; nuclear Wingless, EF1-α) demonstrate the absence of significant genetic differentiation between P. arcticus and P. tenedius (Omoto et al. 2004; Chichvarkhin et al. 2004). This fact has led to the assumption that this pair of taxa is conspecific, but further studies based on additional material are needed to fully clarify this conclusion. The phylogenetic relationships of P. arcticus and P. tenedius are not analyzed or discussed in detail here due to the different focus of our paper and the limited number of currently available sequenced samples."

Pictures:

1.jpg — (91.7 k)

To all critics, read about the evolution of mitochondrial genes and what happens to COI. It is rather stupid to make a decision - "view-not view" - only on the percentage of distances, as well as to include commerce here. The guys described an "honest" subspecies, unlike most of the shameful writings that are published on Parnassus in our time. A lot of work has been done, there is nothing to complain about.

There are no differences in mitochondrial and nuclear genes.

The post was edited by kotbegemot - 15.09.2020 03: 34

Well, this geneticist (asked not to give his last name) expressed his opinion:

"Yes, the situation with arcticus-tenedius is very interesting… These two taxa are genetically very far from all other Parnassians. At the same time, there are almost no genetic differences between tenedius and arcticus. That is, from the point of view of standard genetic species identification, this is one species… But there are numerous "buts"here.
Current research shows that, at least in the Palearctic, genetic identification (when a single gene is examined) works for approximately 95% of Lepidopteran species. I.e., in 95% of cases, traditional ideas (based mainly on external morphology, genitalia, etc.) about taxonomy correspond to genetic data. However, in 5% of cases, this is not the case. And here either genetics is right, and morphology is wrong (for example, as in the case of twin species, when morphologically identical butterflies are actually completely different species, sometimes very distant genetically), or vice versa, morphology is right, and genetics is wrong. In the latter case, deep genetic analysis, when using many genes, a large (rather than one) number of copies, analyzes the material from different points of the range (the maximum possible), allows you to solve the problem and restore the true picture. Thus, offhand, I would say that with the proper approach, there are less than 1% of cases when it is not possible to understand what is wrong and how to interpret inconsistencies in genetic and morphological data.

Returning to tenedus-arcticus ... Yes, it has been shown that arcticus-tenedius have virtually no genetic differences, as you mentioned in your letter, probably referring to Chichvarkin's work of 2004 (of course, I know about it, and referred to it when I wrote our article... very good work). Despite the fact that as a molecular biologist, I should be on the "side of genetics", I am sure that tenedius and arcticus are different species. And this case fits into the 1-2% when genetics is wrong. There are a number of genetic phenomena that can lead to identity in one or more genes (as in the case of arcticus-tenedius), and a more thorough analysis that we plan to conduct, I hope, will allow us to find answers. That's why Roma and I try to collect material on Tenedus from the maximum number of possible points… Although the situation here is completely different than in the case of the gray and black crow..."

In general, we will wait for a new analysis.

There are no differences in mitochondrial and nuclear genes.

And "there" is where? and the differences between whom? tenedius and arcticus?
If so, then Tenedius was not analyzed at all in the new work.

In Chichvarkhin 2004? There are differences there... How significant they are is another question, but they are there.

Otherwise, you are too categorical and peremptory...

Latvian-American friends have conducted DNA and genitalia studies of more than 100 specimens, and are preparing an article, but the result of their research was such that elokata is only in the south of France, and in other places deduct. Although I doubt that in the south of France flies a different species from ours. Let's wait for the article.

Well, this geneticist (asked not to give his last name) expressed his opinion [...]

It's time to start a society of anonymous geneticists, that's what.

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 09/21/2020 02: 38

Tenedius and arcticus are the only taxa among the Parnassiinae that have a subcaphium in the male's genitals. This is a very ancient genus, Korshunov named it Sachaia.

As for "exceptions", entities that can not be "adjusted" to the existing paradigm in any way - then, as usual, everything is simple. If the group was not so popular - for example, fireweeds-then they would merge the dubious taxon by genetic distances into synonyms or, at best, into subspecies-and forget about it.

But here the case is different. The group is popular - so the garden is built, and the further you go, the higher and more intricate it becomes. Never mind, my article on the generic taxonomy of the Parnassians will be published soon (first), and then a book on them as well. Without unnecessary commercial distortions, strictly according to the facts. If for scoops, micras, or moths, genital differences are crucial for distinguishing between genera, then I don't see the point in departing from this remarkable principle in the case of sailboats either.

And I'll tell the haters this. In this world, the publication level, impact factor, and H-index decide. Let the opinion of collectors and merchants be published in pocket murzilki-only a few people will know about it. Global trends are formed by publications that are quoted. Acta Biologica Sibirica, Zootaxa, ZooKeys, Systematic Entomology, Nota Lepidopterologica, Journal of the Linnean Society, и прочие.

  
Let the opinion of collectors and merchants be published in pocket murzilki-only a few people will know about it. Global trends are formed by publications that are quoted. Acta Biologica Sibirica, Zootaxa, ZooKeys, Systematic Entomology, Nota Lepidopterologica, Journal of the Linnean Society, и прочие.

Yakovlev RV, Shapoval NA, Bakhaev YI, Kuftina GN, Khramov BA (2020) A new subspecies of Parnassius arcticus (Eisner, 1968) (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) from the Momsky Range (Yakutia, Russia). Acta Biologica Sibirica 6: 93-105.

Yakovlev RV, Shapoval NA, Bakhaev YI, Kuftina GN, Khramov BA (2020) A new subspecies of Parnassius arcticus (Eisner, 1968) (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) from the Momsky Range (Yakutia, Russia). Acta Biologica Sibirica 6: 93-105.

And I have nothing against this description, if you carefully read the forum. Doubts arise about the status of arcticus and tenedius, and the spears break down over just that.