Parnassius phoebus kolesnichenkoi, Churkin & Yakovlev, 2025

4. Parnassius phoebus kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova.

Fig. 2: 6−8, 12 (upperside); 15−16 (underside).

Holotype: male, Russia, Irkutsk reg., 475 км NW Irkutsk, Nizhneudinsk distr., Uda R., Bolshoi Uk loc., 9− 16.06.2011.

The holotype is deposited in the collection of SDM with the number: main collection ОФ 20925- 004.

Paratypes: 5 males, 9 females, same data ; 5 males, 1 females, same loc., Mara st. , 7− 14.06.2006, S. Vaschenko leg. ; 2 males, 4 females, same data, 10− 26.06.2006, S. Vaschenko leg. ; 3 males, same loc., Kurjaty st. , 6.06.2006, S. Vaschenko leg. ; 3 males, 8 females, same loc., 8− 12.06.2011, A. Kryukov leg.

Description

Holotype FW length – 33 mm, male and female paratypes 30−35 mm ( 32−34 mm, as usually). Antennae, palpi and body colouration seem to have no taxonomically valuable characters.

Male.

The upperside is milky white, the veins are often not outlined at all.

FW: The translucent dark marginal band is narrow, loose, usually barely reaching Cu1, if it is darker and thicker, lightening between the veins are noticeable. The fringes are white with sharp bleaching between the veins. The submarginal row of spots is usually either absent or very short; in a third of specimens it reaches Cu 1 in the form of diffuse blackish spots. Black spots in the cell and at its end are contrasting and of normal size. In the postdiscal row, two costal spots are developed, usually small, reduced (the lower one – up to complete disappearance); the upper spot may have a red patch.

HW with a diffuse basal-anal black suffusion and two small red spots; white dots are usually absent or barely visible.

The underside has the same pattern, the size of the spots is slightly smaller than on the upper surface. Red spots are sometimes lightened inside. The postdiscal Cu2−2A small triangular spot with a red patch is developed. The basal spots at the base of the wing are partially reduced – the lower two spots are often barely noticeable or completely absent ( Fig 2: 15−16).

Variability moderately weak. Sometimes the submarginal row is more developed, sometimes some of the spots in it have an arcuate shape, without acquiring a dense black color. HW red spots may have white pupils inside.

Occasionally, the lower basal spots on the underside are more developed.

Female.

All spots are enlarged, the marginal border is wider than in males and extends to the anal angle. All black spots are somewhat blurred, with diffuse boundaries. The submarginal dark band is widened and stretched to the anal end of the wing; inside there is a number of small, often disappearing light spots. Costal submarginal spots are expanded with red patches, as a rule, the third additional spot between them is undeveloped or very small. Almost the entire cell and the space up to the costal spots are light and whitish, as is the small zone around the postdiscal anal spot. The rest of the space is darkened – from a diffuse gray suffusion to a very dense black, in the latter case the butterfly looks very contrasting.

On the HW, the red spots are larger than in males, sometimes with barely noticeable white patches inside. The submarginal dark pattern on the HW is always developed and non-contrasting. In the postdiscal zone there are 1−2 additional spots. In light forms, almost the entire wing is whitish; in contrasting forms, only the zone from the base and cell to the red spots is whitened.

The underside have well-developed basal spots; the red patch are always developed in the postdiscal spots on both wings.

Variability clearly higher than among the males, but at the same time the females of this taxon are very recognizable. FW postdiscal spots sometimes with red patches; some of the whitish submarginal spots on the FW may be completely absent. In a third of females, a dark streak is visible between the HW red spots, sometimes it looks very contrasting (f. conjucta).

Diagnosis.

A deeply isolated subspecies, both geographically and in characteristics. In terms of the degree of reduction of the black pattern, it resembles the subspecies from Yakutia and Magadan. It differs from the group of subspecies phoebus-vaschenkoi in the absence of developed white pupils in red spots in males (and, with minor exceptions, in females) – light-colored representatives of both latter subspecies always have large white pupils and a sharp reduction in the submarginal band. From subspecies of the fortuna group it differs also by the contrasting fringes (white with black inserts), diffuse and reduced submarginal pattern, lightened or contrasting females.

Some males closely resemble ssp. interpositus Herz, 1903 from Yakutia, the closest of the northern subspecies (however, the straight line distance to the nearest Yakutian populations is at least 2200 km, the new subspecies is easily distinguished by the absence of white pupils in red spots, interpositus females are almost entirely whitish on the upperside.

In general, the males of kolesnichenkoi relates with interpositus, while new females relates with sedakovii group.

Ecologica Montenegrina , 83, 2025, 152-165

1 – Parnassius phoebus khangai ssp. nova, holotype, male, Mongolia, Bayanhongor aimak, Khangai Mts., Tuin-gol R., Erdeneztogt somon, 2300−2500 m, 21− 23.07.2009, Ts. Odbayar leg.

2 – P. p. khangai ssp. nova, paratype, male, Mongolia, Bayanhongor aimak, Khangai Mts., 45 km N BayanKnohgor, Tuin-gol R., 2200−2500 m, 21−25. 07. 2002, S. Churkin leg.

3 – P. p. khangai ssp. nova, paratype, female, same data as 1.

4 – P. p. khangai ssp. nova, paratype, female, same data as 2.

5 – Parnassius phoebus kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, holotype, male, Russia, Irkutsk reg., 475 km NW Irkutsk, Nizhneudinsk distr., Uda R., Bolshoi Uk loc., 9− 16.06.2011 .

6 – P. p. kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, paratype, male, same loc., 10− 26.06.2006, S. Vaschenko leg.

7 – P. p. kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, paratype, female, same data as 7.

8 – P. p. kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, paratype, female, same data as 6.

9 – P. p. fortuna ( paratype of badmaevi), male, Russia, Khamar-Daban Mts. (southern sl.), Tsakirka r., 1600−2200 m, 20− 29.06.2000, Yu. Glushchenko leg.

10 – P. p. fortuna ( paratype of badmaevi), female, same data as 9.

11 – P. p. khangai?, female, Mongolia, W. Khangai Mts. , Khukhu Nuur L., 20− 22.07.1966 , V. Soljanikov leg. 12 – P. p. kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, paratype, female, Russia, Irkutsk reg., 475 км NW Irkutsk, Nizhneudinsk distr., Uda R., Bolshoi Uk loc., 9− 16.06.2011 .

13 – P. p. khangai ssp. nova, holotype, male, same data as 1 (underside of 1).

14 – P. p. khangai ssp. nova, paratype, male, same data as 2 (underside of 2).

15 – P. p. kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, holotype, male, same data as 5 (underside of 5).

16 – P. p. kolesnichenkoi ssp. nova, paratype, male, same data as 6 (underside of 6).

Etymology. The new taxon is named after Kirill Anatolievich Kolesnichenko ( Moscow State University), the professional entomologist and best specialist of palaearctic Melitaea Fabricius, 1907 .

Bionomics. Cliffs, rocky outcrops. Food plant – Orostachys sp. (probably, O. spinosa (L.) C.A. Meyer, Crassulaceae ). Lives together with P. apollo and P. nomion . It is possible that there is one female in the series – a hybrid with apollo .

Distribution. Known only from the type locality.

Discussion

As noted, P. phoebus in Southern Siberia and Mongolia is represented by several subspecies complexes ( Fig. 3 View Figure 3 ).

Despite the similarity of the sedakovii complex taxa, we consider the idea of combining all three subspecies to be incorrect. Most specimens of each subspecies are easily identified, and – most importantly – by removing subspecies, we will lose the ability to describe both the processes occurring within the species and to conduct further research into the zoogeography and history of Siberia (due to the lack of an accepted system of names and associated complexes of traits/genes).

Let us note a very important fact from Khangai, where phoebus lives from 2000 m to 3000 m, without forming any special forms, the same phenomenon is known for Mondy village (Southern Buryatia), where butterflies become statistically slightly smaller and darker with increasing altitude. Even more serious work using mathematical methods was done by A. Martynenko and Yu. Glushchenko, who collected butterflies on the Dzhida River over several dozen kilometers with a large difference in altitude, and also did not discover any special high-mountain forms ( Gluschenko & Martynenko 2000; Martynenko & Glushchenko 2001). The butterflies become somewhat smaller and generally darker, but there is no change in subspecies characteristics.

This information brings us back to the taxa alpestris and phoebus , flying in Altai and representing two fundamentally different subspecies, the ranges of which currently intersect near Aktash village ( Russia, Altai Republic, Ulagan Distr.).

For a long time, the range of alpestris was considered too small, and it was therefore considered a "form" – a term that raises questions when used in taxonomy (Kaabak et al. 1997). It was later shown that the main range of alpestris and its related subspecies is the entire eastern macroslope of the huge Mongolian Altai, in comparison with which the range of phoebus seems small (Churkin 2003). The limitation of systematic constructions within the framework of state borders was the basis of the mistake made.

It is obvious that these two subspecies were formed during the glaciation in two different places: the foothills northern from Altai ( phoebus ) and the foothills of Mongolian Altai (eastern macroslope of the latter, alpestris ). Then, after the disappearance of the isolation barriers, the colonization of the open high-mountain territories began, which alpestris succeeded in doing – the reason for this must be its formation in harsher conditions, adapted for survival at altitude.

For the same reason, the fauna that formed in the harsh conditions of the Alai Valley populated the Eastern Pamir, spread into the Tien Shan and to the Darvaz Montains – in contrast to the northern Alai fauna, which survived the ice ages in more comfortable conditions along the edge of the Fergana Valley , whose ability to settle as the glaciers retreated was clearly weaker ( Churkin 2009).

The glaciers retreated and advanced again, which formed a very complex biogeographic structure of the Mongolian Altai ( Kamelin 2005; Yakovlev 2012). As a result, alpestris populated the highest mountain areas of the Altai system – and apparently, at some point, got to the Saur ridge in Eastern Kazakhstan and Northwestern China (where its own subspecies was formed: P. phoebus sauricus Lukhtanov, 1999 ) ( Lukhtanov 1999; Rubin & Yakovlev 2013, Huang 2023), the last assumption requires confirmation.

In addition, we suppose that ssp. phoebus (relates with Sedum – or Orostachys ) and ssp. alpestris (relates with Rhodiola ) quickly accumulated the differences during the glaciations because their host plants adopted for very different altitudes/conditions.

It is very likely that one more element needs to be added to the specified scheme for the formation of the subspecies structure – ssp. vaschenkoi , formed somewhere along the southern edge of the Tannu-Ola Ranges and the western part of the Khangai Mts. This could explain why the Khuhu Nuur material is so similar to vaschenkoi and so different from ssp. khangai . If this hypothesis is correct, then grouping phoebus and vaschenkoi together is incorrect.

Thus, we are now observing the hybridization and interpenetration of populations that differed very sharply in the past and were formed under different conditions within isolated areas.

The position of ssp. kolesnichenkoi in this system it appears to unite the northern representatives of the species with the group sedakovii. However, the situation may be significantly more complex due to the taxon's unusual biology and its current complete isolation.

The unusual reduction of some of the red spots on the underside of HW in males is also observed in many populations of male apollo in Siberia, but it has not been found in other populations of phoebus . The only working hypothesis to explain this unusual fact is horizontal gene transfer between apollo and phoebus , which in this case live together on the same food plant.

Despite its relative completeness, the subspecific structure of the species in Southern Siberia cannot be considered complete.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Kirill Kolesnichenko ( Moscow) and Tserenpil Odbayar (Ulan-Bator) for their assistance with the materials and information during our work. The study of Roman Yakovlev was funded by the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (project FZMW-2023-0006 “Endemic, local and invasive arthropods (Arthropoda) of the mountains of South Siberia and Central Asia: a unique gene pool of a biodiversity hotspot”.

References

Bang-Haas, A. ( 1912) Neue oder wenig bekannte paläarktische Macrolepidopteren. IV. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, Iris, 26, 103–110, 139– 162, 221–230, pls. 5–6.

Bryk, F., Eisner, C. ( 1935) Kritische Revision der Gattung Parnassius unter Benutzung des Materials der Kollektion Eisner [continued]. Parnassiana, 3, 47–62, 69– 75, 77–95.

Churkin, S.V. ( 2003) Taxonomic notes on Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) with the description of a new subspecies from South-West Mongolia (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Atalanta, 34 (1/ 2), 47–53.

Churkin, S.V. ( 2004) Notes on the hybridization between Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) and P. nomion Fischer von Waldheim, 1823 (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Helios, 5, 110–114.

Churkin, S.V. ( 2005) А review of Agriades glandon (de Pruner, 1798) from the Asian раrt of Russia and Mongolia with notes on the zoogeography of the complex (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Helios, 6, 3–38.

Churkin, S.V. ( 2009) Notes on Parnassius Latreille, 1804 from Tian-Shan and Alai. Part 1: Parnassius simonius Staudinger, 1889 – P. boedromius Puengeler, 1901 (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Atalanta, 40 (3/ 4), 461−478.

Churkin, S.V., Kolesnichenko, K.K. ( 2003) A review of Euphydryas iduna (Dalman, 1816) with descriptions of new taxa (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Helios, 4, 92–119.

Churkin, S.V. & Yakovlev, R.V. ( 2024) Short review of Siberian Parnassius apollo Linnaeus, 1758 with the description of the new subspecies and designation of the neotype of P. a. sibiricus (Nordmann, 1851) (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Acta Biologica Sibirica, 10, 1711–1725. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14468654

Elwes, H.J. ( 1899) On the Lepidoptera of the Altai Mountains. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 47 ( 3), 295–367.

Hirschfeld, G., Schaffer, O. ( 2004) Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Parnassius phoebus – Komplex und Beschreibung einer neuen Unterart (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). In: Notes on Papilionidae, Goecke & Evers, Keltern, 2: 1−2.

Huang, H. ( 2023) Contributions to the study of butterflies from Xinjiang - 1 the genus Parnassius Latreille, 1804 (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Atalanta, 54 (1/ 2), 146–209.

Gluschenko, Yu.N., Martynenko, A.B. ( 2000) Ecology-geographical variability of the bremeri-phoebus parnassian group in the south of the Far East and in Transbaikalia. In: A.I. Kurentsov’s Annual Memorial Meetings, 11: 63−96 [in Russian].

Gorbunov, P.Yu. ( 2001) The butterflies of Russia (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea): classification, genitalia, keys for identification (Lepidoptera: Hesperoidea and Papilionoidea). Ekaterinburg, Thesis, 256 pp.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ( 2023) Opinion 2488 (Case 3767) – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): usage conserved for the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 80, 71−73. http://dx.doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v80.a017

Lukhtanov, V.A. ( 1999) Neue Taxa und Synonyma zentralasiatischer Tagfalter (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). Atalanta, 30 (1– 4), 135 –150.

Lukhtanov, V.A., Cotton, A.M., Pelham, J.P., Calhoun, J.V. ( 2019) Case 3767 – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage of the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 76: 14−22. http://dx.doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v76.a007

Kamelin, R.V. ( 2005) New Flora of Altai (aims and conception of new floristic revision) Pp. 55 – 97. In: R.V. Kamelin, M. G. Kuzev, D. V. Tikhonov, D. N. Shaulo, A. I. Shmakov & R. L. L. Viane, Flora Altaica 1. Azbuka Barnaul [In Russian].

Korshunov, J.P. ( 1977) Diurnal butterfl ies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) of the Mongolian People’s Republic, II. The joint Soviet-Mongolian complex biological Expedition. Insects of Mongolia, 5, 649–681, fig. 1 – 2 [In Russian].

Korshunov, J.P., Soljanikov V. P. ( 1976) Diurnal Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) of the Mongolian People’s Republic. The joint Soviet-Mongolian complex biological Expedition. Insects of Mongolia, 4, 403–458 [In Russian].

Korshunov, Yu.P., Gorbunov, P.Yu. ( 1995) Butterflies of the Asiatic part of Russia. Ekaterinburg, Urals State University, 202 pp. [In Russian].

Korshunov, Yu.P. ( 2002) Butterflies of northern Asia. Moscow, KMK Press, 424 pp. [In Russian].

Martynenko, A.B., Glushchenko, Yu.N. ( 2001) A new subspecies of Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) from south Buryatia. Helios, 2, 35–45.

Ménétriés, E., [ 1850]. [ Description of new Parnassius]. In: [ Siemachko Yu.]: Russkaya Fauna ili opisanie i izobrazhenie zhivotnykh, vodyashikhsya v Imperii Rossijskoj [ Russian fauna or description and image of animals found in the Russian Empire], 17, pl. 4. [In Russian].

Miller, L.D. [ 1970] Nomenclature of wing veins and cells. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 8 ( 2), 37–48.

Nekrutenko, Yu.P., Kerzhner, I.M. ( 1986) On the species and varieties of Parnassius (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae), established by E. Ménétriés in the book of J. Siemashko “Russkaya fauna ”. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 65 ( 4), 769–779 [in Russian].

Tshikolovets, V.V., Bidzilya, A.V., Golovushkin, M.I. ( 2002) The butterflies of Transbaikal Siberia. Kiev-Brno, “Publ. by the author ”, 320 pp., 48 cpls.

Tshikolovets, V.V., Yakovlev, R.V., Kosterin, O.E. ( 2009 a) The Butterflies of Altai, Sayans and Tuva (South Siberia). Kyiv-Pardubice. 374 pp., 43 pls.

Tshikolovets, V.V., Yakovlev, R.V., Balint, Z. ( 2009 b) The Butterflies of Mongolia. Kyiv-Pardubice, 320 pp., 43 pls.

Yakovlev, R.V. ( 2012) Checklist of Butterflies (Papilionoidea) of the Mongolian Altai Mountains, including descriptions of new taxa. Nota lepidopterologica, 35 ( 1), 51–96.

Yakovlev, R.V., Doroshkin, V.V. ( 2006) On the fauna of butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) of upper stream of Kara-Irtysh river (W. Mongolia). Eversmannia, 6, 13–26. [in Russian].

Rose, K., Weiss, J.-C. ( 2011) The Parnassiinae of the World. 5. Goecke & Evers, Keltern, pp. 401–520.

Rubin, N.I., Yakovlev, R.V. ( 2013) Checklist of the butterflies (Papilionoidea) of the Saur Mountains and adjacent territories (Kazakhstan), including systematic notes about the Erebia callias group. Nota lepidopterologica, 36 ( 2), 137−170.

Weiss, J.-C. ( 2005) The Parnassiinae of the World. 4. The apollo-group. Hillside Books, Canterbury, U.K., pp. 237–400, 394 figs., 23 maps.

Weiss, J.-C., Rigout, J. ( 2016) The Parnassiinae of the World. 6. The Goecke & Evers, Keltern, pp. 521– 636.