The expedition's zoological finds have been questioned by "experts"

The zoological findings during the expedition has been questioned by "experts"

How much confidence can be devoted to the zoological findings made during the frigate Eugenie's world sailing? Early on, many people perceived that the condition of collected material was not always the best. This view has since become an accepted truth. Thus, for example, Zimmerman in 1958 writes in his books “Insects of Hawaii. Vol 7 Macrolepidoptera” about the statement that Colias ponteni should have been collected in Hawaii:

“Like so many species collected on the expedition of the "Eugenie", the series of this striking and beautiful butterfly has been mislabelled as to locality. The types are in Stockholm; a pair is in the B.M.N.H. (!), and these are labelled "Sandwich Island" in red ink. Wallengren said that the species was taken at Honolulu in June and July by Kinberg. This species is either the same as Colias imperialis, or imperialis is a race of it. Colias imperialis comes from Port Famine in the Straits of Magellan and it is allied to Colias minuscula from Chile” Evidently Colias ponteni is one of the rarest butterflies in collections.”

Elwood Curtin Zimmerman, an American entomologist, is mostly known for his two volumes of Hawaiian insects published by the University of Hawaii Press. During my investigations I have

unfortunately not contacted any institutions in Hawaii. On the other hand, these institutions have not shown any interest in my studies even though they should have known of my interest in the butterfly and my studies of them. Amongst others Lama's stolen images from Insectifera over 20 years ago of the syntypes at the Natural History Museum in Stockholm and also the picture of me and Lars Hedström in the journal “Wallace” in 2003 when I found two new Colias ponteni and a pupa. Perhaps this is due to my lack of interest in the fact that I am not, or never have been, affiliated with any known institution, but merely a happy amateur? I have certainly not found Zimmerman's and the other “experts” attitude to this journey worthwhile, such that an exchange of views with them would have added anything important or new to what I had already found during my studies of the species over such a long time. But I can of course be wrong. Then it is only a matter of time. As an amateur, one also has an important civilian job to take into account.

But back again to the question of the collecting of insects during Eugenie's world voyage and Zimmerman's condescending comments. It is certainly true that a great deal has to be said about the order of collected material during this scientific expedition, which at any rate did not have the collection of insects as their primary target. Some comments regarding Zimmerman's bantering words on at least three incorrect descriptions in this short piece of text must nevertheless be answered, as he must have been considered an expert on the Hawaiian archipelago's butterflies.

Wallengren's description shows that Kinberg and Pontén together collected these strange Colias butterflies in Honolulu on the island of Oahu and not Kinberg alone. The archipelago of Hawaii was still called by many at the time, as I previously pointed out, by the old name Sandwich Islands. However, Zimmerman's work above that a pair of Colias imperialis are “labelled” with red ink "Sandwich Island" is incorrect. It is of course true why anyone understands which islands he means, but the German spelling of the islands when written as "Sandwitsch Inseln" shows that the butterflies have a German connection, which is very interesting. The claim that Colias ponteni would be "allied to Colias minuscula" is also very strange. From careful studies of these two species, I cannot find any connection whatsoever between them! Please dear reader, see below and form your own opinion! The only would possibly be that Colias wauthierii also has androconial patches, but very small.

Male and female of Colia's ponteni to the left. To the right of C. ponteni: Colias vauthierii vauthierii, C. vauthierii cunninghamii and Colias vauthierii cunninghamii f. minuscula. Photo Göran Sjöberg.

Colias vauthierii butterflies were collected by Hiroshi Hara apart from the female of C. vauthierii cunninghamii which was captured by my friend James Stewart during his visit to El Calafate a bit north of the Bachelor Peninsula. The butterflies are all depicted with correct size relationships. Now maybe someone will point out that Zimmerman cannot defend himself since he is deceased, but also Kinberg, Wallengren and Pontén were attacked by Zimmerman, so I easily take this attitude.

The claim that the butterflies are mis-labeled may, of course, stand for Zimmerman. There is no information from anyone that Pontén or Kinberg would have collected this remarkable butterfly at Port Famine. It is therefore rather surprising that Zimmerman could be so sure that Port Famine must be the correct locality for the species! Zimmerman further claims that Colias ponteni would be related to Colias minuscula. This is also most surprising! Colias minuscula is a small doubtful “form” of the much larger Colias vauthierii found in southern Chile. The differences between Colias ponteni and Colias vauthierii are, as all can easily see, very significant between the respective sexes of the species and considering a number of morphological details. Here I can only briefly mention the antennal clubs, the genitalia, the extension of the borders that in Colias ponteni run along the entire front edge of the front wing down towards the wing base. We also have the large dark spot in the hind-wing's pale area and the extremely strange structure of what should be the predecessors of the more modern androconia near the costal-area of the upperside of the hindwings. As I see it, it is quite astounding that Zimmerman can say that they are related, especially with the small form “minuscula”. I wonder if he had actually seen any of the species? Zimmerman's statement in the debate about Colias ponteni’s origin and relationship must almost be classified as something completely meaningless.

Detail of discal cell and the adjacent sector just below the costa on the upperside of the hind-wing of a male of Colias ponteni. Photo Göran Sjöberg.

From all these differences, claiming that Colias ponteni is related to Colias (vautierii) minuscula must of course be up to Zimmerman but it seems to me that, based on a predetermined position on the question where the specimens were collected, he seeks arguments for his own opinions. Colias vauthierii minuscula is only half as large and also its female is yellow-white in colour in comparison to the orange-brown female of Colias ponteni. Zimmerman's question about “imperialis” possibly being a race, i.e. a subspecies of “ponteni” also seems very far-fetched. In that case, this would mean that both of these populations would probably have been eradicated after they were discovered, and in different places for why would they otherwise be concerned with two races? The term "race", now a

politically incorrect expression, was often used in the past instead of the now more accurate concept “subspecies”, with which we mean a population in a specific delineated geographical area that shows consistent morphological differences, which means that the subspecies should be able to be determined even if one does not know its exact collection place. Zimmerman then thinks with his statement about different races that one can see such differences between Wallengren's “ponteni” butterflies and Butler's “imperialis” butterflies. If so, he would probably be alone in that. Based on the images of the specimens at BMNH in Verhulst's fine books, it is also not possible to see any significant difference between Lord Rothschild's own butterfly and the three that Butler described as “imperialis”. In this context I also cannot refrain from quoting my old mentor Forester Yngve Christiernsson whose statement about so-called experts "who are happy to talk at great length about all sorts of things they hardly even know the name of". I think Yngve, after all Zimmerman's negative writings about this voyage, would think that here his laconic phrase was quite right. I may well be, because I write this dangerously close to "throwing stones in glass houses" especially as we, if we are lucky, may be able to get answers to all our questions about where this butterfly was collected within a few months if the DNA analysis answers adequately the questions so many asked as to where Colias ponteni originated. But I take the risk as I find it so simple to be a hard critic about what other people under quite different conditions nearly one hundred years earlier have done (1860 to 1958).

Considering the number of expeditions that visited the islands since they were discovered by James Cook, it is not particularly remarkable that Lord Rothschild also received a specimen of Colias ponteni for his extensive natural collections. For me, however, it seems more likely that Rothschild in some way, perhaps via Felder, which I speculated on earlier, received this specimen from the population collected on the Eugenie expedition. Whether this happened directly from Wallengren, which he proved to have exchanged with, or probably more likely via Felder, who certainly also had contacts with Wallengren, I have had no opportunity to investigate more closely, but this question is very interesting. However, the fact that Felder had been involved in this transfer seems quite clear from the label on the pin to this specimen: "Felder collection Ponteni Wallengr."

Another butterfly expert who obviously over a long time thought about where Colias ponteni could have been collected is Professor Arthur M. Shapiro of the University of California. Shapiro has in several articles and books described the butterflies in the Andes and especially in Chile. He has also written about the mysterious Colias ponteni. In 1993 he wrote:

“The true type-locality of Colias imperialis Butler and its senior synonym C. ponteni Wall remain unknown. Butler supposed it came from Port Famine, based on the type-series being housed in the British Museum with material collected there by the Adventure expedition. Wallengren gave the typelocality of C. ponteni as Honolulu, which is very improbable, but the Eugenie expedition had also stopped briefly at Port Famine and G. Lamas inferred that the types were probably collected by that ship´s naturalists on an expedition to Cerro Tarn. However, neither the vegetation nor the climatology, nor the published narratives of both expeditions, supports these inferences. If this is true a Magellanic insect it probably was taken in steppe habitat father north, perhaps at the classical”Cabo Negro” locality or near Punta Delgada. This species is so important for phylogeny reconstruction that every effort should be made to rediscover it.”