Phylogeny and Biogeographic History of Parnassius Butterflies (Papilionidae: Parnassiinae) Reveal Their Origin and Deep Diversification in West China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied 239 imagoes of 12 Parnassius species collected from the mountains of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) and its neighbouring areas in China. We selected three mitochondrial gene (COI, ND1, and ND5) sequences, along with the homologous gene sequences of other Parnassius species from GenBank, to reconstruct the phylogenetic tree and biogeographic history of this genus. Our results show that Parnassius comprises eight monophyletic subgenera, with subgenus Parnassius at the basal position; the genus crown group originated during the Middle Miocene (ca. 16.99 Ma), and species diversification continued during sustained cooling phases after the Middle Miocene Climate Optimum (MMCO) when the QTP and its neighbouring regions experienced rapid uplift and extensive orogeny. A phylogenetic network analysis based on transcriptomes from GenBank suggests that ancient gene introgression might have contributed to the spread of the Parnassius genus to different altitudes. Ancestral area reconstruction indicates that Parnassius most likely originated in West China (QTP and Xinjiang) and then spread to America in two dispersal events as subgenera Driopa and Parnassius, along with their host plants Papaveraceae and Crassulaceae, respectively. Our study suggests that extensive mountain-building processes led to habitat fragmentation in the QTP, leading to the early diversification of Parnassius, and climate cooling after MMCO was the driving mechanism for the dispersal of Parnassius butterflies from West China to East Asia, Europe, and North America.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".