LOL. I didn´t know Bernard D´Abrera was *this* notorious. Not only does ChatGPT know about him, there is even an entry on the man on RationalWiki (the link in orange below). So I can´t have been the only person who noticed his somewhat idiosyncratic butterfly books. And just as I suspected, D´Abrera had the reputation for being...shall we say...difficult. Still, the AI is actually a bit charitable to some of his observations here. The Apollo "cult" seems to be real?!
Yes, Bernard d’Abrera’s remark about a "cultus of Parnassius" among lepidopterists is real — in the sense that he did write things along those lines — but whether his observation is fair depends on how charitably one interprets his rhetoric.
🔍 Context and Interpretation
D’Abrera was known for his deeply opinionated style, often blending scientific observations with cultural, philosophical, and theological polemics. His statements about the Parnassius "cultus" reflect his broader frustration with what he saw as:
-
Overly rigid or dogmatic taxonomic systems
-
Scientific elitism or groupthink in entomology
-
Excessive splitting of species into subspecies or varieties based on minor morphological differences
He often described these behaviors in grandiloquent, sometimes sarcastic terms, borrowing language from religion — "high priests," "canon law," "heresy," etc. It’s colorful and provocative, but it’s also a metaphor, not a literal accusation.
🦋 Is There Any Truth to It?
Surprisingly, yes — at least partially. Here's why:
1. Parnassius Has a Complex Taxonomy
-
The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is notoriously difficult to classify.
-
Many populations are geographically isolated mountain dwellers with subtle but consistent morphological differences, leading to:
-
Dozens (or hundreds) of named subspecies
-
Frequent disputes over species vs. subspecies status
-
2. Strong Collector Enthusiasm
-
Parnassius is beloved among butterfly collectors, especially in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China.
-
The group is surrounded by a wealth of literature, specialized monographs, and highly detailed field guides.
-
Certain taxa can fetch high prices on the collectors’ market.
-
This leads to passionate debates and strong in-group consensus on classifications.
3. Conservative or Rigid Taxonomies
-
In some taxonomic circles, dissent from the prevailing views (especially by non-academics) is indeed treated dismissively.
-
This isn’t unique to Parnassius or entomology — scientific subfields sometimes develop cliques, especially around charismatic taxa.
So D’Abrera is using exaggerated, satirical language, but he's critiquing a real tendency in the butterfly community: the tribalism that can emerge around difficult or beloved genera.
🧠 Is It a Fair Critique?
Fair-ish, but laced with hyperbole.
-
Yes, because taxonomic debates can indeed become cliquish, politically charged, or stubbornly orthodox.
-
No, if interpreted literally as some kind of irrational religious cult. Most taxonomists are serious professionals doing their best in a difficult field.
💬 Final Thought
D’Abrera was a provocateur, but his critique of Parnassius scholarship reflects a genuine tension in taxonomy between:
-
Stability vs. revision
-
Professional vs. amateur contributions
-
Morphological vs. molecular approaches
It’s a poetic exaggeration, not a dispassionate analysis — but as a metaphor, it rings surprisingly true in some corners of entomology.
Would you like examples of famous Parnassius disputes or subspecies inflation?
You're absolutely right to ask. The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is famous—or infamous—among lepidopterists for one of the highest rates of subspecific and varietal descriptions in Lepidoptera, often leading to protracted debates and sharply divided camps.
Here are some well-documented controversies that illustrate why D'Abrera’s depiction of a Parnassius cultus is at least partially grounded in reality:
🧐 1. *Over 200–290 named subspecies of Parnassius apollo*
-
Parnassius apollo, the emblematic Apollo, has been described under more than 200 subspecies names, especially in Europe and Central Asia ResearchGateGöran Waldeck.
-
In the Carpatho‑Pannonian region alone, 26 subspecies were defined based on limited morphological traits like wing color and patterns SpringerLinkGöran Waldeck.
-
A 2024 morphometric study of 20 so-called subspecies in that region found virtually no significant wing‑shape divergence, suggesting that dozens of named forms may not merit formal taxonomic recognition SpringerLink.
🔬 2. Morphological discipline vs. molecular data
-
Traditional taxonomists relied heavily on wing color, pattern, and minor structural traits (plus location data) to name new subspecies.
-
Modern molecular studies (e.g., mitochondrial DNA barcoding) reveal that many of these subspecies lack genetic differentiation and may actually represent phenotypic variants within a single species MDPIOxford AcademicScienceDirect.
-
This mismatch has fueled divisions between "splitters", who emphasize morphological subtlety, and "lumpers", who stress genetic unity.
🌍 3. Geographic isolation and the naming frenzy
-
Many alleged subspecies inhabit extremely remote and narrow habitats (e.g. high-altitude Tibetan valleys, small Pamir peaks).
-
Collectors described new subspecies often based on single or handful of specimens from unique locales — sometimes accessed only by helicopter ZobodatEureka MagEureka Mag.
-
These small-isolated populations were quickly named, reinforcing the view of a taxonomic cult based on micro-endemism.
👥 4. Emotional and ideological investment
-
Parnassius butterflies are deeply beloved by collectors across Eurasia.
-
Some communities treat specific subspecies as prestigious or rare trophies, generating a parallel literature and community logic that can resist revisionist voices.
-
An outsider questioning a named subspecies may risk criticism in those circles — an effect reminiscent of the "heresy" rhetoric D’Abrera uses metaphorically.
✅ Summary: How fair is D’Abrera’s characterization?
| Claim | Scientific Justification |
|---|---|
| Parnassius has a cult-like subculture | Yes—intense collector and taxonomic interest across regions |
| Subspecies proliferation based on minor differences | Yes—hundreds of subspecies based on wing markings and location |
| Resistance to revision by questioning collectors | Yes, splitters vs lumpers dispute remains active |
So while D’Abrera’s tone is deliberately provocative, it captures a real dynamic in Parnassius taxonomy: entrenched subspecific naming, sometimes spectacular collector devotion, and a lively tension between morphological tradition and molecular modernity.
Would you like an outline of a few especially contentious Parnassius species-groups or further reading on the ongoing molecular-lumping efforts?
No comments:
Post a Comment