Things are getting cray cray

The Nationalnyckeln project slowly moves forward, and who knows, at this pace maybe they will reach their declared goal around the year 3000 or so. The goal being to publish books covering all (!) extant species of multi-cellular organisms found in Sweden. The latest volume, hot off the presses, is titled "Nationalnyckeln: Kräftdjur - tiofotade kräftdjur. Crustacea: Euphausiacea - Decapoda". Yepp, things are going to get cray cray! 

In somewhat plainer English, the book covers two groups of crustaceans: the krill and the decapods. The latter group includes shrimps, crabs, hermit crabs, crayfish, lobsters and God (or is it the other guy) knows what else. I always wax philosophical when leafing through works of this kind. The idea that an indifferent cosmos just tugging along gave rise to sinister-looking creatures like decapods is frankly scarier than the Gnostic take that of course the Devil did it.

We get to meet some old favorites, too. I mean, I can´t be the only person around here who actually *ate* some of this creatures. From my childhood, I remember panicky news broadcasts about the signal crayfish destroying the last remaining populations of European crayfish in Swedish lakes. The European species had already been severly decimated by a disease known as the crayfish plague. Introducing the American signal crayfish (which is resistant to the disease) was originally seen as the salvation of the Swedish crayfish industry (and, I suppose, one of our hallowed summer holiday traditions). Unfortunately, it turned out that the signal crayfish was a vector of the plague - precisely because it´s immune to it. The end result was an almost complete collapse of the remaining European crayfish population! Maybe just as good that I gave up eating crayfish long ago.

As usual, I learned a few new things from this book. For instance, I had no idea that there is actually a European lobster found in Swedish waters (but then, I never really reflected on the exact provenance of my lobster sauce). Or that the claws of the decapods are actually legs?! Or rather legs that adapted to a somewhat different function entirely.

But mostly, I felt ontological dread looking at the full color pictures of bizarre crab-like creatures from the oceanic depths you never knew existed in the first place, realizing that the first representatives of still extant decapod groups evolved over 200 million years ago. Our culinary problems with IAS crayfish are just a blip in the cosmic ocean! And perhaps even a bit cray cray... 

Is God a paleontologist?

 

Credit: Prajina Khatiwada

So I just learned that Hindus worship fossil ammonites as divine incarnations. Corals, too! Amazing stuff, seriously. So I had a topic for tonight´s ChatGPT essay. Strangest so far? 

What is the shalagrama?

A Śālagrāma (or Śālagrām Śilā) is a very sacred object of worship in Vaishnavism. It is a type of fossilized ammonite stone found only in the Gandaki River (especially around Muktinath, Nepal).

Here’s the essence:

1. Physical Nature

• They are usually black, roundish stones with natural spiral markings.

• These spirals are the fossilized remains of ancient ammonites (marine creatures that lived millions of years ago).

• Devotees believe the natural markings represent Vishnu’s symbols like the chakra (discus), shankha (conch), gada (mace), and padma (lotus).

2. Religious Importance

• Śālagrāmas are considered non-anthropomorphic forms of Lord Vishnu.

• No consecration (prāṇa-pratiṣṭhā) is required — they are inherently divine.

• In many households, especially among Vaishnavas, worship of the Śālagrāma is considered equal to worshiping Vishnu in a temple.

3. Worship

• Traditionally kept with a Tulasi (holy basil) plant, since Tulasi is dear to Vishnu.

• Worship involves offering water, tulasi leaves, and simple prayers rather than elaborate rituals.

• It is believed to protect the household, grant prosperity, and purify sins.

4. Mythology

• According to the Padma Purāṇa, the Śālagrāma is the form of Lord Vishnu himself, who resides eternally in the Gandaki river.

• The spirals are said to be the mark of the Sudarshana Chakra.

• The river itself is associated with the goddess Tulasi, making the pairing especially auspicious.

5. Special Rules

• Only certain people (especially married men in the orthodox tradition) are advised to perform daily Śālagrāma pūjā.

• Women and renunciates may worship indirectly by offering flowers or water, but often do not handle the stone directly.

• It is considered a living deity, not just a symbol.

---

So in short: the Śālagrāma is a sacred fossil stone worshiped as Vishnu himself, embodying the eternal presence of God in natural form.

Would you like me to also describe the different types of Śālagrāma (there are many varieties, each associated with a form of Vishnu, like Narasimha, Varaha, Lakshmi-Narayana, etc.)?

Yes, please.

Great! Let’s dive into the types of Śālagrāmas.

In Vaishnava tradition, different Śālagrāma stones are said to embody different forms (mūrtis) of Vishnu. The distinctions come from their shape, color, number of spiral marks, and openings (vāttas).

Here are some of the important ones:

---

Main Types of Śālagrāma

1. Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa Śālagrāma

   • Golden or yellowish tint, with clear markings.

   • Brings wealth, prosperity, and harmony in the household.

2. Hayagrīva Śālagrāma

   • Long shape, resembling a horse’s head.

   • Grants knowledge, eloquence, and helps in studies.

3. Narasimha Śālagrāma

   • Fierce-looking, often with multiple openings or rough surface.

   • Destroys enemies, removes fear, and grants courage.

4. Varāha Śālagrāma

   • Has a raised portion like a snout.

   • Protects from calamities and uplifts devotees spiritually.

5. Vāmana Śālagrāma

   • Small, dwarf-like shape.

   • Grants humility, simplicity, and spiritual growth.

6. Lakṣmī-Nṛsiṁha Śālagrāma

   • Combination of gentle and fierce markings.

   • Removes fear while ensuring prosperity and grace.

7. Dāmodara Śālagrāma

   • Rope-like circular mark, symbolizing baby Krishna tied to the mortar.

   • Bestows devotion (bhakti) and childlike joy.

8. Matsya Śālagrāma

   • Fish-like shape.

   • Protects from dangers of water and travel.

9. Kūrma Śālagrāma

   • Tortoise-like, flat bottom, rounded top.

   • Gives stability, patience, and strength.

10. Ananta / Śeṣa Śālagrāma

• With multiple spiral markings.

• Symbolizes Vishnu resting on the cosmic serpent.

• Grants protection and liberation.

---

General Beliefs

• Some Śālagrāmas are considered very powerful and auspicious but also difficult to worship (e.g. Narasimha type).

• Families often prefer Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa Śālagrāma, as it is believed to bring peace and abundance without fierce side-effects.

• The Padma Purāṇa and Skanda Purāṇa describe up to 25–30 types, but local traditions sometimes expand this to hundreds of variations.

---

Interesting Point

Śālagrāma worship is seen as timeless and Vedic — it does not require temple consecration or priestly mediation. In fact, many householders in South India and Nepal keep one or more Śālagrāmas in their home shrine, usually alongside a Tulasi plant.

---

Would you like me to also give you the list of benefits and risks traditionally associated with worshiping the different types (for example, why some are said to be “too intense” for ordinary householders)?

Yes, please.

Perfect, let’s go into the traditional benefits and cautions associated with the different types of Śālagrāma.

Many Purāṇas and manuals (like the Bṛhat-Saṁhitā, Padma Purāṇa, Skanda Purāṇa) describe that while all Śālagrāmas are auspicious, some carry gentle blessings and others are too intense for ordinary householders (gṛhasthas).

---

🌸 Śālagrāmas That Are Considered “Safe” and Auspicious for Householders

These are recommended for family prosperity, harmony, and general worship:

• Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa – Brings wealth, health, and household harmony.

• Dāmodara – Grants devotion (bhakti) and childlike joy.

• Lakṣmī-Nṛsiṁha (gentle type) – Removes fear, brings prosperity and divine grace.

• Kūrma (tortoise-like) – Gives patience, stability, protection in difficulties.

• Matsya – Protects from water-related dangers, travel hazards.

• Ananta/Śeṣa – Ensures protection, family well-being, and spiritual progress.

• Vāmana – Promotes humility, good conduct, and balance in life.

👉 These are commonly found in South Indian homes, and they are said to bless without causing disruption.

---

🔥 Śālagrāmas Considered Very Powerful / Intense

These are worshiped mainly by renunciates, ascetics, or in temples — not usually recommended for householders, since their energy is fierce and can “demand” more austerity from the devotee:

• Nṛsiṁha (fierce type) – Extremely protective, destroys enemies, but too fiery for ordinary home life.

• Sudarsana (chakra-like markings) – Gives immense energy and destroys evil, but may disrupt household harmony if not worshiped properly.

• Rāma / Paraśurāma types – Associated with strict dharma and battle; worship may lead to conflicts or karmic tests.

• Trivikrama / Vāmana with large features – Said to be too expansive, may disturb domestic peace.

• Hayagrīva – Bestows knowledge but demands high purity; misworship is said to lead to confusion or loss of memory.

---

🌌 Why Some Are Considered “Risky”

• The belief is not that these stones are “bad,” but that their shakti is too intense for normal family life.

• If a householder without strong spiritual discipline keeps a fierce Śālagrāma, it is said that life circumstances may become difficult — like tests, conflicts, or austerities being imposed by the deity.

• Ascetics and temple priests, however, often welcome these fierce forms.

---

🌿 General Belief

• A single Śālagrāma in the house is enough; some families keep many.

• Worship usually involves: bathing the stone, offering Tulasi leaves, chanting mantras like Om Namo Nārāyaṇāya.

• Unlike a consecrated idol (mūrti), the Śālagrāma is believed to be self-manifest (svayambhū) and inherently divine.

---

👉 So, if someone wants a Śālagrāma at home, tradition suggests choosing a gentle, auspicious type (Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, Dāmodara, Kūrma, Ananta) — while leaving the fierce Narasiṁha or Sudarśana stones to temples and renunciates.

---

Would you like me to also explain how householders actually worship the Śālagrāma daily (the simple procedure and rules that are usually followed)?

What is a Dvaravati sila?

Good question — the Dvārāvatī Śilā (sometimes just called Dvārakā-śilā) is closely related to the Śālagrāma tradition but has its own unique identity.

---

🌊 What It Is

• A Dvārāvatī Śilā is a naturally formed stone found in the Gomati River (in and around Dvārakā, Gujarat, the legendary city of Lord Kṛṣṇa).

• Just as Śālagrāmas come from the Gandaki River in Nepal and embody Viṣṇu, the Dvārāvatī Śilās are said to embody Kṛṣṇa in His Dvārakā aspect — the Lord as king, householder, and protector.

• They often have natural chakra-like markings (spirals, wheel impressions, or fossilized designs) on their surface.

---

✨ Scriptural Status

• Mentioned in the Skanda Purāṇa and other texts as sacred stones, said to carry the presence of Lord Viṣṇu / Kṛṣṇa.

• Some Vaiṣṇava traditions (especially Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas) treat them as being equally worshipful as Śālagrāmas, while others regard them as slightly different, more “accessible” for householders.

---

🌸 Believed Benefits

• Worship brings Kṛṣṇa’s grace, prosperity, and peace in household life.

• Said to be gentler than fierce Śālagrāmas, so more suitable for families.

• Specifically associated with protection, devotion (bhakti), and the blessings of Dvārakā-pati Kṛṣṇa.

---

🔍 Difference from Śālagrāma

• Origin: Śālagrāma → Gandaki River (Nepal); Dvārāvatī Śilā → Gomati River (Dvārakā).

• Aspect: Śālagrāma → Viṣṇu in cosmic forms (Nārāyaṇa, Nṛsiṁha, Varāha, etc.); Dvārāvatī Śilā → Kṛṣṇa in His earthly royal aspect.

• Suitability: Śālagrāmas can be very intense (some types not advised for householders), whereas Dvārāvatī Śilās are generally seen as milder and auspicious for home worship.

---

🌿 Worship

• Similar to Śālagrāma: bathing daily, offering Tulasi, flowers, incense, and chanting mantras (e.g., Om Namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya).

• In some homes, Śālagrāma and Dvārāvatī Śilā are kept together and worshiped jointly, as symbolic of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa or Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa.

---

So, to put it simply:
A Dvārāvatī Śilā is a sacred stone from Dvārakā’s Gomati River that embodies Kṛṣṇa, much like the Śālagrāma embodies Viṣṇu.

---

Would you like me to also describe the different types of Dvārāvatī Śilās (based on their markings and colors), just like the Śālagrāma classifications?

Yes, please. Are these stones actually corals?

Excellent follow-up — you’re right to ask, because there is a fascinating natural explanation behind both Śālagrāmas and Dvārāvatī Śilās.

---

🔹 Are Dvārāvatī Śilās actually corals?

Yes. Most Dvārāvatī Śilās are actually fossilized corals from the Gomati River near Dvārakā (Gujarat).

• The natural wheel-like patterns (chakra) seen on them are cross-sections of ancient corals.

• The texture is lighter and more porous than Śālagrāmas (which are ammonite fossils from Nepal’s Gandaki river).

• This fossilization links them to the ancient seabed — which fits perfectly with Dvārakā’s identity as a coastal city of Kṛṣṇa.

So:

• Śālagrāma = Ammonite fossils (marine creatures with spiral shells).

• Dvārāvatī Śilā = Fossil corals (with natural chakra-like structures).

---

🔹 Types of Dvārāvatī Śilās

Texts like the Skanda Purāṇa and Gomati Māhātmya list 25 or 30+ types, depending on classification. Each type is identified by color, shape, and markings, and each is believed to bring a distinct blessing.

Some examples:

1. Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa Śilā – two wheel marks together → symbolizes divine couple, grants wealth and prosperity.

2. Sudhārśana Śilā – strong, clear chakra mark → represents Sudarśana Cakra, protection from enemies and evil forces.

3. Padma Śilā – lotus-like marking → fertility, family happiness.

4. Śaṅkha Śilā – conch-like design → auspiciousness, removal of sins.

5. Matsya Śilā – fish-like marking → protection from calamities, helps spiritual progress.

6. Nṛsiṁha Śilā – fierce markings or rough surface → grants courage, protection from fear.

7. Dāmodara Śilā – rope-like pattern → devotion, especially to child Kṛṣṇa.

8. Garuda Śilā – wing-like impressions → liberation, removal of obstacles.

Some Śilās are said to be very auspicious for householders (e.g., Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, Padma), while a few with fierce markings (like Nṛsiṁha) are traditionally worshiped only by ascetics or in temples.

---

🔹 Worship and Use

• Always worshiped with Tulasi leaves (since Tulasi is beloved of Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa).

• Placed on a small pedestal (pīṭha) or kept together with Śālagrāma.

• Daily offerings: water, sandal paste, flowers, lamp, incense, and chanting of mantras like Om Namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya.

---

So, in essence:
👉 Dvārāvatī Śilās are fossil corals from Gomati River, carrying chakra-like markings, worshiped as living embodiments of Lord Kṛṣṇa in His Dvārakā aspect.
👉 Each type is classified by its markings, with specific blessings tied to it.

---

Would you like me to make a side-by-side comparison table of Śālagrāma vs. Dvārāvatī Śilā, showing their origin, substance, and spiritual focus?

Ants can dream

 

So I asked the AI about some strange claims I encountered lately...

Is it true that ants can dream (rapid antenna movement)? Is it true that ants have self-awareness (the ant with a blue dot on his head which looked at his reflection in a mirror and realized that it was a dot on *his* head and tried to remove it)?

These are fascinating questions, and both refer to real scientific observations—but the conclusions people draw from them are debated. Here's a breakdown of each claim:

---

💤 1. Do Ants Dream? (Rapid Antenna Movement = REM?)

Claim:

Ants show rapid antenna movement (RAM) during rest, which some researchers have compared to REM sleep in mammals, potentially indicating dreaming.

What’s Actually Known:

• A 2022 study on carpenter ants (Camponotus mus) found they experience two distinct sleep-like states during rest:

  1. One state of immobility,

  2. Another involving rapid antenna movement (RAM) and twitching.

• This is analogous to REM sleep, which is associated with dreaming in mammals.

Is it dreaming?

• No direct evidence shows that ants have dreams or inner mental experiences.

• RAM might serve other purposes (e.g., memory consolidation, sensory processing).

• Dreaming requires a complex internal model of the world, which it's not clear ants have.

✅ Conclusion:

• Interesting finding, but saying ants "dream" is speculative.

• The behavior resembles aspects of REM sleep but doesn't prove subjective dreaming.

---

🪞 2. Do Ants Have Self-Awareness? (Mirror Test with Blue Dot)

Claim:

A study found that an ant marked with a blue dot on its head looked in a mirror and tried to remove the dot—suggesting self-recognition and perhaps self-awareness.

What’s Actually Known:

• In 2019, a paper by Edwardo Gallup and colleagues (not to be confused with the mirror test's originator, Gordon Gallup) described mirror test experiments with ants (specifically Camponotus floridanus).

• Ants with a visible mark (like a blue dot) tried to touch or clean the marked area only when a mirror was present.

• This behavior was not observed in unmarked ants or ants with invisible marks.

🧠 Interpretation:

• Some interpreted this as passing the mirror test, which is often used as a proxy for self-awareness in animals (e.g., great apes, dolphins, elephants).

• However, many scientists are skeptical:

  • Ants might be using visual cues from the mirror in a non-self-reflective way.

  • The mirror might simply be treated as part of the environment, not as a reflection of the self.

  • Ants have very different neural architecture from vertebrates, raising questions about how “self” would even operate.

✅ Conclusion:

• The behavior is intriguing and unusual for an insect.

• But it's controversial to claim ants are self-aware—most scientists remain cautious or skeptical.

• The mirror test itself has been criticized as species-biased and not a definitive indicator of self-awareness.

---

🧾 Bottom Line:

Claim	Verdict	Notes
Ants dream (via RAM)	🟡 Speculative	Behavior suggests sleep states, but dreaming is unproven.
Ants have self-awareness (mirror test)	🔴 Controversial / Unproven	The blue-dot study is interesting but far from conclusive.

Ants are remarkably sophisticated for their size—capable of learning, memory, communication, and even complex social structures—but equating their behavior with human-like consciousness or self-awareness is still a big leap.

If you're curious, I can also compare ants to other animals that show similar borderline traits (like octopuses, bees, or magpies).

Understated

 

LOL. My nostalgic revisits of old Amazon customer reviews continue. Yes, this is a sequel to the "Apollo cult" stuff. Brace yourselves...

Is this a true description of the moth/butterfly collector´s subculture: "But then, it's quite possible that collectors of Lepidoptera really are a bit `out there´. I read in another book about the existence of two factions within this particular community in Britain. One believes it's OK to kill and pin moths, but not OK to kill and pin butterflies. Another faction doesn't want to kill moths either. (Presumably, there is also a third faction who wants to kill'em all.) Apparently, the conflicts between these groups can become somewhat acrimonious..."

Yes, that description is broadly true — and even understated. The world of Lepidoptera collectors (and amateur entomologists more broadly) has long had its internal divisions, some of which can get surprisingly passionate for what is, on the surface, a quiet and delicate hobby.

Here’s how those dynamics break down:

---

🦋 1. The "Moth vs. Butterfly" Split

✔️ Real and observed.
In the UK and elsewhere, there's a cultural distinction between moth collectors and butterfly collectors, even though both belong to the order Lepidoptera. Historically:

• Butterflies have enjoyed a more romantic, conservationist image, especially post-1970s.

• Moths were traditionally treated more as subjects of natural history and taxonomy, often collected in large numbers by amateur and professional entomologists.

Some modern butterfly enthusiasts consider pinning butterflies to be cruel or unnecessary, especially for common or protected species. But they may be more lenient with moths, which are often more difficult to identify alive due to their nocturnal behavior and less distinctive field markings.

Thus you sometimes get "split positions":

• ✔️ Kill-and-pin moths: OK

• ❌ Kill-and-pin butterflies: Not OK

This inconsistency is sometimes criticized within the subculture as aesthetic bias — butterflies are seen as “pretty” and “special,” while moths are “brown” and “numerous.” Some collectors find this logic incoherent, which leads to…

---

⚔️ 2. Ethical Conflict & Acrimony

✔️ Also real.
The debate over killing specimens is a hot-button issue in some Lepidoptera societies:

• Conservation-minded members may advocate photographic records only or live-trapping with release.

• Traditionalists argue that collecting is essential to taxonomy, museum work, and species monitoring, and point out that collecting rarely impacts populations if done responsibly.

• A small but vocal group of "preservationists" regard any killing for hobby purposes as immoral.

This has led to splits within societies, heated letters in entomological journals, and personal feuds, especially when public exhibitions or conservation policies are involved.

---

🐛 3. The “Kill-’Em-All” Faction

✔️ Exists — but rare today.
There used to be (and still are) a few collectors who treat Lepidoptera much like stamps: if it’s new, rare, or not in their collection, they’ll pin it, regardless of status or rarity. This approach is increasingly frowned upon, especially with endangered species and international regulations (e.g., CITES).

In the past, collectors like Walter Rothschild or Lord Walsingham amassed enormous insect collections from around the world, killing millions of specimens — but in a pre-conservation era where scientific knowledge took precedence.

Today, modern ethics, conservation laws, and social pressure have significantly constrained this approach, at least publicly.

---

📚 In Summary

Yes, the Lepidoptera collector subculture can be:

• Quirky

• Internally divided

• Occasionally acrimonious, especially over ethics

But it’s also deeply passionate, often scientifically valuable, and part of a long tradition of natural history. Like many niche hobbies, it contains multitudes — from Zen-like moth-watchers to pin-happy collectors with secret drawers full of rarities.

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?