Euryades corethrus has one close biological "relative," Euryales duponchelii, which is found in the same countries but is even more rare. Duponchelii is a forest dweller. Wing scales form a pattern similar to corethrus's but even showier, while they last. Duponchelii even has "swallow tails"--small ones.
Photo from a paper by Osvaldo di Iorio, who made the mistake of publishing his paper at a web site that behaves badly.
As in several Swallowtail species, males tend to have more vivid contrasting colors, and females more subtle camouflage colors. Males can look black and white; females can look brown and beige. As the scales tend to drop off their wings, they fade to a translucent pale brown:
Noticed and admired wherever it's found, this butterfly's portraits have been used on the postage of several of its home countries.\
Stampdata.org shows three other stamps featuring pictures of Euryales duponchelii.
In Mexico, the nickname of "Big Greasy" for Australia's Cressida cressida has been extended to name South America's two scale-shedding Swallowtails. Euryales corythrus is the Coastal Greasy, Aceitosa de Litoral, and duponchelii is the Harlequin or Multicolor Greasy, Aceitosa Arlequin.
Harlequin is the name of a character, or set of characters, in European theatre. In his earliest forms he was a villain, sometimes a murderer, his name confused with Holofernes. More recently, he has been a clown, often mute, often infatuated with a girl who ignores him, and he has been known for his multicolor patchwork clothes. His efforts to attract the girl's attention suggested the name to a series of romance novels.
Though this species has a wide range, in which it's probably always been rare, it is so rare that it's been classified as "near threatened."
It eats vines in the genus Aristolochia, especially A. fimbriata, known in its home country as flor de patito (duckling flower).
"Duckling flower" photographed by Romina Galeota Lencina.
It can live on either of two other species in the same plant genus. All three plants are highly toxic to most living things. This makes the butterfly that ate them as a caterpillar toxic to most of its predators, and may, a new study "developed a machine learning model" to confirm, encourage other butterflies to evolve in the direction of looking more like duponchelii or like some other butterfly that eats Aristolochia.
At least the researchers claim to have funded this project themselves.
It's hard for biologists to write about this butterfly without mentioning the sphragis. Most butterflies don't have this body part, a solidified secretion produced in the mating process that adorns the posterior end of the mated female. Duponchelii have a sphragis and a half.
Photo by Mariposas de Bolivia.
The precise function of the sphragis is hard for humans to imagine. Butterflies release most of their viable gamete cells (sperm and eggs) in the first mating, which is the only mating for most individual butterflies. They will mate a second or third time, given the opportunity, but will produce fewer fertile eggs. They instinctively sense this; for several species even humans can tell how butterflies go about choosing virgin brides and bridegrooms. The butterfly with what looks like a ribbon bow on her tail end is less interesting to males than she was without it. If she wants to be left in peace to lay her eggs, the sphragis helps. Does she want to be left alone? Her DNA, as distinct from the male butterfly's DNA, is more likely to be preserved if she finds another mate, and she probably absorbs some key nutrients during contact with the male.
The sphragis has been seen as a "chastity belt" the male imposes on the female, preserving his DNA at the expense of hers. But it's not much of one, because a determined couple of butterflies can mate despite the sphragis. It takes longer, but the same body secretions that form the sphragis, when allowed to dry out, also dissolve it. Most female duponchelii seem to keep their original sphragides throughout their lives, and the sphragis does not seem to affect the female's life expectancy or interfere with any of her activities. It looks as if it would get in the way when she's laying eggs, but evidently it doesn't.
But it'd be hard to prove that she does not look complacently at female Euryades corethrus, if she meets them, and "say" things like, "Nice try, dear. Now this is what you call a sphragis!"
In many Swallowtail species females are bigger than males. Hippolyte Lucas, who first described duponchelii, initially assumed that this general rule applied to them, too. It doesn't. In the "Greasy" species males are bigger than females. Wingspans are between three and four inches.
In addition to confusing the sexes, scientists have also mistaken individuals with worn, transparent wings for at least two new species. And, although scientists claim to have watched female butterflies laying their eggs on Aristolochia leaves, nobody seems to have published a photo of an egg, larva, or pupa of this species on the Internet.
Which makes this an appropriate place to consider the need to replace a phrase that's become contaminated by intentionally deceptive use, "trust the science," with a new phrase: "DO the science."
The scientific method is a process of self-correction.
The first few studies of anything are likely to contain errors that will be corrected by subsequent studies.
Who needs to do the science? You do.
One reason why some countries remain poor is that people have become stuck in outdated, dysfunctional customs, such as the belief that only a few people should pursue any kind of formal education. When people who want to deceive and exploit others get a chance, they really prefer that the people they want to deceive and exploit never learn how to read. Honest people of good will always want education on every level to be available to anyone who is interested in it.
While some people who have made careers of teaching unpopular courses might be tempted to exaggerate the benefits of studying things like algebra or Sanskrit, those who say things like "Why would you want to study history (or whatever)? You'll never use it! You already know everything you really need to know. You ought to be able to drop out of school now," are not your friends. If any field of study interests you, you will find a use for it. You already have found a use for it.
How much formal training do you need to do science? That depends on what you want to study scientifically. If you want to work on genetic studies, you'll need to be trained to use the equipment, and finding out any of what you want to know is likely to cost you ten years teaching remedial general science courses. If you want to be the first to document the life cycle of Euryades duponchelii, all you need is a good camera and a valid reason to live in a place where it lives for a few years.
When too much of "the science" on a given subject is done by a small group of people, "the science" tends to become corrupted by those people's little biases. When it's only a bias toward a belief that, because many female Swallowtail butterflies are bigger than their mates, the larger of any couple of Swallowtail butterflies must be the female, that's relatively easy to correct. It only needed a few people to follow the butterflies and see which one lays eggs. When it's a bias toward a belief that a chemical that seemed "safe" when people were first exposed to it will not build cumulative effects on the body and become deadly, then you see a steady increase in all gastrointestinal disease, an increasing number of fatalities blamed on previously non-fatal celiac disease, and an alarming increase in deaths from colorectal cancers, and a lot of people squealing like cornered rats, "But it can't be the glyphosate, because most of the dogs who were exposed to glyphosate didn't show symptoms!"
This bigotry is, of course, the opposite of everything real scientists want science to do, which is why it's important that all of us do our own science.
Don't be one of the poor slobs who think "Climate change must be real, and just the way X says it is, because I admire X." Admirable people can be wrong. Don't be one of the poor slobs who think "Climate change is nothing but a hoax, because I despise X." Despicable people can make simple observations that are accurate. If Hitler said it was raining, it might have been a good idea to check, but Hitler's observation that it was raining did not cause the rain to stop. Don't worry about whether your friends are mistaken or your enemies happen to be right. Just set up a few digital thermometers in different places and observe where and how the climate nay actually be changing. Climate change does happen to be real, but it's not (at least not yet) verifiably global; it is verifiably local. Knowing this can give us a better idea of what to do about it.
Be full-time professional scientists, dear Nephews, only if you find that you actually like teaching remedial general science courses. But be scientists enough that, if you want to know what the chrysalis of Euryades duponchelli looks like, badly enough, you know how to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment