The Apollo cult revisited

 

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?!

Bernard d´Abrera

Here is D´Abrera again. Is this a true or fair observation? "In this volume, D'Abrera has some pretty unkind words to say about some of his fellow butterfly-collectors. He claims that there is a veritable cultus of the genus Parnassius (the Apollos) among lepidopterists, a cultus with its own high priests, acolytes, a nomenclature bordering on the hagiographic and a literature with the force of Canon Law. Anyone who questions the prevalent taxonomy of these particular butterflies is suspected of heresy, anathematized and excommunicated. Presumably, the authors' taxonomy is controversial among Appolo-infatuated collectors and scientists all over the Holarctic region..."

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?

Yes, please.

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?

Ahem

 

Ahem...four things.

One: the Middle East (where the Bible originated) is also in Asia. 

Two: the apologists probably aren´t lying. They are just mathematically illiterate, confusing absolute numbers with percentages.

Three: Your apologia for mass immigration is ridiculous. And culturally illiterate. Tell that to the "Asians"!

Four: What´s up with the bad attitude for the past three postings or so? 

Is Christianity exploding in Asia? A critical thinking test

The braided stream

 

- Hmmm, I wonder how far back
 this "braided stream" really goes?

My conversation with ChatGPT om human evolution continues...

How far back does the braided stream concept of evolution go? Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus...?

Awesome follow-up—and yes, the “braided stream” model can be extended well before Homo sapiens. In fact, many paleoanthropologists now believe that this reticulated, network-like evolution goes at least as far back as Homo erectus, and probably even earlier.

Let’s take a look at how far back this evolutionary “braiding” might go—and what that means for our ancestors.

---

🧬 What Is the Braided Stream Model?

Instead of imagining human evolution as a simple tree (with clean branches separating species), the braided stream model suggests:

• Lineages diverge, but later interbreed or reconnect (like braided rivers),

• There’s ongoing gene flow between populations,

• Evolution is not strictly linear—it’s messy, regional, and dynamic,

• “Species” and “subspecies” boundaries are blurred.

---

🏞️ How Far Back Does It Go?

🔹 Homo sapiens (300k–present):

• Undeniably braided—multiple African populations, Neanderthal/Denisovan admixture, even “ghost” populations.

🔸 Homo heidelbergensis (roughly 600k–300k years ago):

• Probably already a highly structured species.

• Some populations gave rise to Neanderthals, others to modern humans, others to the Denisovans.

• Fossils across Africa and Europe show both regional traits and shared features.

❗ Many now view Homo heidelbergensis as a "catch-all" category for diverse Middle Pleistocene humans who probably formed a braided, interconnected set of populations.

🔹 Homo erectus (~1.9 million to 100,000 years ago):

• Spread across Africa, Asia, and Southeast Asia.

• Clear regional variation: compare Java Man (Indonesia) with Dmanisi fossils (Georgia) or African forms.

• Likely had interbreeding populations stretching from Africa to East Asia.

• No clear boundary between early Homo erectus and later transitional forms.

🔄 There's evidence of long-distance migration and possibly gene flow across continents over long timescales. That’s braiding on a global scale!

🔸 Even earlier? Homo habilis / Homo rudolfensis / early Homo (~2.4–1.6 mya):

• Highly diverse group of early humans in East and South Africa.

• Likely coexisted and exchanged genes, possibly representing a cluster of closely related populations rather than distinct, neatly separated species.

---

📚 What This Means

The further back we go:

• The less clear-cut the “species boundaries” become.

• Evolution looks less like a ladder or even a tree, and more like a tangled bush, or—yes—a braided stream.

• Our hominin ancestors were probably constantly migrating, mixing, adapting, and shaping each other’s evolution.

---

🧠 Analogy:

Instead of thinking of human evolution like a series of baton-passing runners in a relay race 🏃‍♂️➡️🏃‍♀️, Think of it like multiple rivers flowing, splitting, rejoining, and blending across a vast landscape 🌊🌍.

---

✅ Summary:

Time Period	Main Hominins	Braided Evolution?	Notes
0–300 kya	Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans	✅ Yes	Gene flow across Africa and Eurasia
300–600 kya	Homo heidelbergensis	✅ Yes	Source population for multiple later humans
600–1.9 mya	Homo erectus	✅ Yes	Spread across continents, high variation
2.0–2.5 mya	Early Homo (habilis, rudolfensis)	✅ Likely	Coexisting diverse forms in Africa

---

Would you like a visual “braided timeline” showing how these populations connect and diverge over time? It makes this even easier to see.

Can you tell me something about the "ghost populations" within the genus Homo?

Absolutely—“ghost populations” are one of the coolest (and slightly eerie 😄) concepts in modern human evolutionary genetics. Let’s break it down:

---

👻 What Is a "Ghost Population"?

A ghost population refers to:

A group of ancient humans (or hominins) that interbred with other populations, leaving genetic traces in our DNA,
but whose fossils have never been found, or whose identity is still unknown.

So we know they existed—but we've never directly seen them in the fossil record.

---

🧬 How Do We Know They Were There?

Geneticists detect ghost populations when they find:

• DNA segments in ancient or modern genomes that don’t match any known hominin (like Neanderthals or Denisovans),

• But are too divergent to come from known populations,

• Meaning: they must come from an unknown branch of the Homo family tree.

It's like finding a puzzle piece that fits, but doesn't match the picture on the box.

---

🧠 Major Examples of Ghost Populations:

1. "Ghost Archaic" in Sub-Saharan Africa

• Modern African populations carry deeply divergent DNA from a previously unknown hominin.

• Estimated to have split from other humans ~1–2 million years ago.

• Possibly a relative of Homo erectus or another early African lineage.

• No fossils matched to this lineage… yet.

2. Unknown Archaic Admixture in Denisovans

• The Denisovans themselves show signs of admixture with an even older hominin.

• Possibly Homo erectus or a close relative in Asia.

• So Denisovans are a ghost-hybrid in part!

3. "Ghost" Population in Melanesians

• Modern Melanesians and Papuans carry Denisovan-like DNA, but some of it doesn’t match the known Denisovan genome (from Denisova Cave).

• Suggests there were multiple Denisovan groups, one of which we’ve never sampled.

---

🕵️ Why Are These Populations Still Ghosts?

• Some lived in regions with poor fossil preservation (tropics, rainforests, etc.).

• Some fossils may exist but are misidentified or too fragmentary.

• Some may never fossilize at all—we’re talking hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.

---

🌐 Big Picture

These ghost populations:

• Show that human evolution was way messier than we once thought.

• Suggest that many hominin species were coexisting and interbreeding over the last 2 million years.

• Remind us that we’re only seeing a fragment of our true evolutionary past.

---

🤯 Bonus Thought:

The more ancient DNA we sequence, the more ghosts we seem to find. It’s very possible that many more unknown hominin lineages existed—and some of them live on in us, hidden in our genomes.

---

Let me know if you’d like a map of ghost populations and where they likely lived, or a chart showing how they fit into the Homo family tree. It's a fascinating web of ancestors!

Where do White people come from?

 

My race to make the blog an appendix to Artificial Intelligence continues, LOL. This time around, I asked the All-Knowing Systeme the Question of Questions: Where do White people come from?!

Do scientists know when humans first got a pale ("White") skin-coloring?

Yes, scientists have made significant progress in understanding when and how pale ("white") skin evolved in humans, especially in populations that migrated out of Africa.

Here’s what we know so far:

---

🧬 Key Genetic Mutations Linked to Lighter Skin

Human skin color is influenced by multiple genes, but several key mutations associated with lighter skin tones have been identified:

• SLC24A5

• SLC45A2

• TYR (tyrosinase)

• OCA2

• MC1R (less involved in Europeans, more in redheads/freckling)

These genes influence melanin production, the pigment responsible for skin, hair, and eye color.

---

🕰️ When Did These Mutations Arise?

📍 In Europe

• Pale skin evolved relatively recently in human history—only about 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, after early humans had already been living in Europe for thousands of years.

• Surprising fact: The first modern humans who migrated into Europe from Africa (~40,000 years ago) likely still had medium to dark skin.

• Ancient DNA from Mesolithic (hunter-gatherer) Europeans shows dark skin, blue eyes, and only later do we see the genes for light skin becoming widespread.

📍 In South Asia and the Middle East

• Similar light-skin mutations arose independently or spread through population mixing, particularly during the Neolithic (farming) revolution.

---

☀️ Why Did Pale Skin Evolve?

The most widely accepted explanation is vitamin D synthesis:

• In lower UV environments (like northern Europe), darker skin blocks too much UVB radiation, which is needed to produce vitamin D in the skin.

• Lighter skin allows more UVB penetration, improving vitamin D production in places with weaker sunlight.

This adaptation would be especially important in agricultural societies where dietary sources of vitamin D were less available.

---

🌍 Skin Color is a Recent and Adaptive Trait

• Skin color evolved after humans migrated out of Africa, making it one of the more rapid adaptations in human evolution.

• Different populations developed lighter skin independently, depending on latitude and UV exposure, which is why East Asians, Europeans, and some South Asians have different underlying genetics for light skin.

---

Summary

• Pale ("white") skin in Europeans evolved around 7,000–8,000 years ago.

• Early Europeans were likely dark-skinned for thousands of years after leaving Africa.

• The change was driven by adaptation to low UV environments for vitamin D production.

• Multiple genes and separate evolutionary paths contributed to lighter skin across different regions.

Let me know if you want a visual timeline or a map of how these changes spread—happy to make one!

Do we know where the so-called Caucasoid race came from? That is, populations with "Caucasoid" anatomical features? (Not necessarily including the pale skin, since some Caucasoids are dark-skinned!)

Great question—and you're absolutely right to distinguish "Caucasoid" anatomical features from just pale skin. The term "Caucasoid" comes from outdated racial classifications, but the concept points to a range of physical traits once thought to define populations from Europe, West Asia, North Africa, and parts of South Asia. These traits included things like:

• Narrow noses

• Orthognathic (flat) faces

• High cranial vaults

• Thin lips

• Variable skin color (from very light to medium-dark)

So, where did these features come from? Here's what science has uncovered:

---

🧬 1. "Caucasoid" Traits Are Polygenic and Ancient

These features didn't arise all at once in a single population. Instead:

• They're the result of natural selection acting on different traits over time, shaped by climate, diet, and sexual selection.

• The traits emerged gradually, across broad regions from the Levant, Anatolia, and the Iranian plateau, going back tens of thousands of years.

---

🌍 2. Geographic Origin: The Fertile Crescent and Surrounding Zones

The core region where "Caucasoid" features seem to consolidate genetically and anatomically is:

• The Fertile Crescent (modern-day Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran)

• The Caucasus region, which gave the outdated term its name

• Anatolia (modern Turkey) and parts of the Levant

This area was a key center of population mixing and innovation, especially:

• Post-Ice Age (around 12,000 years ago) with the rise of agriculture

• Neolithic period, when populations started expanding and mixing due to farming

---

🔀 3. Mixing of Ancient Populations

Genetic studies (e.g., from ancient DNA) show that modern "West Eurasian" populations—those typically labeled "Caucasoid" in the old model—descend from three major ancestral groups:

1. Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) – native to Ice Age Europe

2. Early European Farmers (EEF) – originally from Anatolia and the Levant

3. Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) – from Siberia and Central Asia

Their mixing, over time, produced the blend of features we now associate with many European and West Asian populations.

---

🗺️ 4. Spread and Variation

• These populations spread outward in multiple waves:

  • To Europe via Neolithic farmers and Indo-European steppe migrations.

  • To North Africa through Mediterranean and Near Eastern contact.

  • To South Asia, especially with Indo-Aryan migrations (bringing steppe ancestry).

• The resulting people across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and India share overlapping cranial and facial features—though they vary widely in skin color and other traits.

---

🧪 5. Modern View: Clines, Not Races

Modern anthropology and genetics have replaced the "Caucasoid" idea with the concept of population clines and admixture:

• Features change gradually over geography (a cline), not in discrete blocks.

• So-called "Caucasoid" features are just one cluster of variation among many, shaped by migration, isolation, and local selection pressures.

---

✅ Summary

• The features once labeled "Caucasoid" likely originated in West Asia and the Near East, especially around the Fertile Crescent.

• These traits are not tied to a single race, but to millennia of mixing and adaptation.

• Skin color is separate from many of these features and has evolved independently in different regions.

• Today, scientists avoid racial labels and instead talk about ancestral components and population structure based on genetics.

If you’d like, I can show a map or genetic ancestry diagram to illustrate this story visually!

I´ve read somewhere that the oldest skulls with "Caucasoid" features were actually discovered in Africa. Is this correct?

Yes, you're tapping into a fascinating and often overlooked part of human history: some of the earliest skulls with what we would now recognize as "Caucasoid" features—narrow faces, high nasal bridges, orthognathic (flat) profiles—have indeed been found in Africa.

Let’s break it down:

---

🧠 1. Key Examples: "Caucasoid" Traits in Ancient African Skulls

🏺 Nazlet Khater (Egypt, ~35,000 years ago)

• A nearly complete skeleton found in Upper Egypt.

• Shows a blend of traits:

  • Craniofacial structure with "Caucasoid-like" features (narrow face, non-projecting midface).

  • But also robust elements typical of earlier Homo sapiens in Africa.

🏺 Iwo Eleru (Nigeria, ~13,000 years ago)

• Mixes archaic and modern traits.

• Some anthropologists noted that its vault shape and face differ from recent Sub-Saharan African populations.

🏺 Jebel Sahaba (Sudan, ~13,000 years ago)

• A burial site with people showing morphological diversity, including skulls with high nasal bridges and narrow faces—features once labeled "Caucasoid."

🏺 Taforalt (Morocco, ~15,000 years ago)

• These individuals showed cranial traits intermediate between sub-Saharan and West Eurasian populations.

• Genetic evidence confirms a blend of African and "Eurasian" ancestry in North Africa before the Neolithic.

---

🧬 2. Ancient Gene Flow from Eurasia Into Africa

• Genetics now confirms that some West Eurasian (non-African) ancestry entered North and East Africa as early as 30,000–15,000 years ago, maybe even earlier.

• This resulted in African populations with Eurasian admixture—long before colonialism or the Arab expansion.

• That Eurasian gene flow likely came back into Africa from populations who had migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years earlier, then returned or mixed with groups near the Nile, Sahara, and Maghreb.

---

🌍 3. Africa Was Always Diverse

• Africa has hosted an enormous range of human physical variation for tens of thousands of years.

• "Caucasoid" traits are not exclusive to non-African populations, and some of them originated in Africa or emerged there through convergent evolution or admixture.

---

⚠️ 4. Modern Terms vs Ancient Reality

The word "Caucasoid" is outdated and problematic today. It was coined in the 18th century based on flawed racial models that tried to sort humans into rigid categories (like Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc.).

• Modern anthropology and genetics now emphasize continuity and admixture, not static races.

• Traits once called "Caucasoid" are now seen as variations on a spectrum—and many are found across multiple populations.

---

✅ Summary

Yes, some of the oldest skulls with "Caucasoid-like" features were found in Africa, especially in North and East Africa. This isn’t surprising given that:

• Africa is the cradle of humanity.

• Ancient humans moved in and out of Africa repeatedly.

• Physical traits varied widely within Africa long before written history.

So the idea that "Caucasoid features" = non-African is not only outdated—it ignores the deep complexity of African prehistory.

Let me know if you want illustrations or reconstructions of any of these ancient skulls—there are some pretty compelling visuals out there!