Base gallery. Lateral/Underside. Alive insect.
Photo, and identified by: Yuri Semejkin. Image redone at the website
Date and time, location shooting/catching: 2009-06-16 00:00:00, Vladivostok, FEBRAS Botanical garden
04.09.2015 10:43, Vasiliy Feoktistov Corrected data.
Not identified → Celastrina / Confidently identified / Yuri Semejkin.
07.12.2014 11:44, Irina Nikulina
Olga, the second name - a subspecies of copper-butterfly Celastrina sugitanii (Matsumura, 1919) (http://sunyou.co.kr/gallery/?offset=75&cate1=&searchkey=&searchvalue=), inhabiting just only in one region of the Russian Federation, Sakhalin - C. s. sachalinensis (Esaki, 1922).
07.12.2014 2:43, Olga Titova
I, too, in the archive the same copper-butterfly is not defined from Sakhalin. She found that in Sakhalin only Celastrina ladonides d'Orza, 1869 and copper-butterfly seaside
[sachalinensis Esaki, 1922]. The first is not suitable, but the second?
20.11.2014 12:52, Alexandr Zhakov
No, Yuri, this picture is deleted as it is impossible. We look forward to further development in the study of this kind.
20.11.2014 12:20, Yuri Semejkin
No, Alexander, though, and returned to it several times, but opinion has not changed. . Yes, it really looks like Celastrina ladonides, but only .. seems shabby and not particularly. Want -perenosite in inaccurate, and it is better to remove.
19.11.2014 18:03, Alexandr Zhakov
Yuri, the opinion has not changed? :)
04.02.2014 1:36, Irina Nikulina
No, Eddie, in Primorye only minimus and argiades. This is definitely one of the coastal species Celastrina.
03.02.2014 20:50, Eddy Verfaillie
In my opinion, it looks more like a Cupido species. I think it is alcetas but I don't know if it flies in the Primorye region.
31.03.2013 22:48, Peter Khramov
Okay, gentlemen, let's have the truth and the round, if there is a new disk imaging, and chewed all the same.A brief summary for those who are interested, that in view of the fote, but who is not master reading all the comments (or, like me, will be mastered, but Nitsche not understand): several users have shown that this can be attributed to FautuaCelastrina ladonides @ @ (inaccurate definition), but the author photo believes that data are insufficient even for the inaccurate determination.Therefore, for the time being Fota remains uncertain, to illustrate the benefit of that kind there are other pictures.
31.03.2013 18:26, Yuri Semejkin
I do not understand on what basis you put all of our discussion into question? Do you want a 100% guarantee determination, it just can not be (in this version). Special literature, as you write, difficult for an amateur Alexander, the theme on the matter in general is closed, so in poreshali agent Ira.But few will answer your questions. I do not doubt your determination. As you yourself said, in this case, 100% is impossible to define, but it was discussed more than once. Regarding the reference to the atlas, like the 2004 edition. All images are made on the film, quality video because I'm low and results in this example ..... I will not continue this topic, so as not to load the page.infoy not required. For me it is better to use the necessary literature, despite its complexity (I would like to modernizing sometimes it helped), or did not participate in the discussion at all. If we provide links, the sources for quality, not just ...I hope to answer no sooner had offended and, of something to say, and not always in the form of a smooth, but not me, not the sides never hurt each other. Now here before, to write something, we have to zadumyvatsya, and whether it is necessary. You can even remove the page or the top part of it, or leave it as is. To et al.It could see no need to conduct a dialogue. Ps not required to answer, and so there is already a lot of off-topic written
31.03.2013 17:28, Alexandr Zhakov
Yuri, say, their opinions have not changed, and specify. from "not argiolus" to "ladonides, inaccurate determination." The discussion considered all possible options. I do not understand on what basis you put all of our discussion into question? Do you want a 100% guarantee determination, it just can not be (in this version).Special literature, as you write, for an amateur difficult, and popular, where very often mistakes and outdated information, it is the truth.
So it is very difficult to come to concrete results.
I am very gracious to you for a large number of interesting photos from the Far East, the species that is rarely seen.But it is not necessary in this case to bring the situation to absurdity.
Peter. do not arrange dies. :). Strife is not present, there is a lack of understanding and acceptance of the views of others. As an exception to put some kind of three authors, Germans lepiforume do that.
To arrange such discussions under each photo inaccurately determined, it is too.Yuri, require that at least each photo for each definition, the result on the basis of which it was made, is not correct, if not clear, should be requested to specify the differences, and determined already decided to explain or not. Just do not always time and sometimes useless as an example here.No one wanted to offend and all have great respect for.
28.03.2013 18:12, Irina Nikulina
I am not going to add anything, but apparently will have to answer in detail to avoid misunderstandings and grew a tendency to "red stamp". You're absolutely right - I'm always for the truth, clarified in the correct form. Therefore, I explain:
1. Jura, please read carefully - I have not referred to the opinion of Al.Zhakova on the species, and his words about the fact that the information is sufficient, and I quote your correspondence with him:
03.21.2013 0:07 Alexander Zhakov: Yes, like enough.
03.20.2013 23:53 Yuri Semeykin: I would not tolerate, at least for now. Like all came to the conclusion that of information in this case is not enough.
03.20.2013 18:50 Alexander Zhakov: Peter and the transferred.:)
In this regard, I wrote yesterday - "I like Al. Zhakov, I think that seems to be enough said on this page, and here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21521 »
2. "What is it you find that the views have changed?" The answer to that. My views have not changed. From the very beginning, as soon as you sent me a link, I suggested (02.19.13), it is not Celastrina filipjevi (on the underside). Next, I have deleted and Celastrina oreas, becausethey are very similar to filipjevi. From 4 previously discussed here remains the most likely types of 2. Then I found in the guide: butterfly with almost the same underside, and wrote about it below 3.18.13. Again quoting the post with the comments Al. Zhakova:
19.03.2013 0:07 Alexander Zhakov Irina, I fully agree that the Forum will keep a record of the volume of comment. :))
03.18.2013 22:46 Irina Nikulina: Do not give rest to this photo). Ure, the new guide: "Fauna of the Ussuri taiga", edited by AEVrischa which acquired, flying away from you, this kind of early spring is uniquely defined as Celastrina ladonides (copper-butterfly ladonopodobnaya). This atlas you probably have (including "Flora" is exactly)), see pages 116-117. Photo, by the way, Yuri Chistyakov
3. Realizing that it does not give full confidence in the determination of the species, I started to look in their photo archives and found Celastrina ladonides.Yesterday I gave you the link to this photo and comment under him write again: http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21521. There's no doubt in determining the form, because there is female lays eggs on the food plants lespedeza. I will not repeat, see comment. Comparing the butterfly on his photos, butterfly satin ed.Vrischa and butterflies on thine image, come, I think, the most probable conclusion - that this kind of photo Celastrina ladonides.
Actually, the same conclusion in appearance came earlier and more dvoe- Al. Zhakov and Eugene. Caroline (eschё17.02.13g)
Again I quote (not completely, so as not to prolong the post):
02.17.2013 15:48 Evgeny Caroline ... ..Netochny ladonides - the most obvious option ....
17.02.2013 15:35 Alexander Zhakov ... ..Privedennuyu pictured butterfly, I think you can put into the form ladonides inaccurate definition.
I suppose it meant Al. Zhakov when you wrote, "three members of the discussion came to the same opinion the most likely."Again, I agree with him that "on this particular photo can be no doubt, therefore, must make a determination (a type defined inaccurately)"
I do not see who and when to change opinion., As you write. In my opinion, it is such, and was at least 17.02. I have - especially since I have never been expressed here about any form except ladonides.And the question of how to transfer photos or not- that's really here just do not I decide, it's up to the moderators and it was suggested Alexander, I'm just reminded Peter, what kind of a question.
Here, perhaps, and all I can say about this, if no emotion.Sorry for the long post, I wanted to finally clarify his opinion, without insisting on its 100-% fidelity (especially because it is a question of determining the type of software image).
28.03.2013 14:50, Peter Khramov
And in the photo appeared red stamp: Apple of discord.
28.03.2013 14:15, Yuri Semejkin
Ira, when Alexander chё here? Here his point of view is. 03.21.2013 13:47 Alexander Zhakov:
Alas, Yuri, I have repeatedly expressed my opinion and a lot written on this page. three participant discussion came to one the most probable opinion, one does not come to what is not, but against it.You are right on this particular photo can be no doubt, therefore, must make a determination (a type defined inaccurate). With great respect to your opinion. Zhakov
As for you, you're very kind to say that to be the truth (no offense) But if you refer to it, I have a question for both. What is it you find that opinions have changed.It would be desirable for a variety of point of view and hear Alexander
27.03.2013 16:54, Irina Nikulina
Jura, "not to water it down" and not to repeat, at this point I will not add anything to the discussion. I, like Al. Zhakov, I think that seems to be enough said on this page, and here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21521.By their arguments / reasons I add is nothing, especially in this particular picture (And mind you, no one insists on the accuracy of the determination of the form). Perhaps other panelists still have something to say
27.03.2013 15:38, Yuri Semejkin
All possible options, such as indicated here, and inaccurate in nature can be transferred to whom that like it. Just me. -So do not understand that. It seems to have a job, where all agree that disk imaging to determine the underside only, at the moment is not enough, that it is necessary to gain materyal, in future, make it possible to determine the background.Yet, going from time to time, without evidentiary talk about anything.
I wish that something, somewhere to move. Maybe all the same arguments lead ...... as you can "water in a mortar to pound"
27.03.2013 14:10, Yuri Semejkin
I am against (at least for now) transfer. Or me and everyone. who participated in the discussions, you can not ask? Er, where are your arguments?
27.03.2013 12:43, Irina Nikulina
By Celastrina ladonides, Peter. Before he finally agreed)
27.03.2013 12:03, Peter Khramov
Hmm. So inaccurate something to someone?
21.03.2013 13:47, Alexandr Zhakov
Alas, Yuri, I have repeatedly expressed my opinion and a lot written on this page. three participant discussion came to one the most probable opinion, one does not come to what is not, but against it. You are right on this particular photo can be no doubt, therefore, must make a determination (a type defined inaccurate).With great respect to your opinion. Zhakov
21.03.2013 11:52, Yuri Semejkin
Alexander justify their point of view (without bush) and particular snapshot
21.03.2013 0:07, Alexandr Zhakov
Yes, like enough.
20.03.2013 23:53, Yuri Semejkin
I would not tolerate, at least for now. Like all came to the conclusion that of information in this case is not enough
20.03.2013 18:50, Alexandr Zhakov
Peter and the transferred. :)
19.03.2013 12:22, Irina Nikulina
It pleases) Alexander, I note - it would be nice if, and under other "unidentified object" set records). A lot of issues ... I understand that the Far Eastern species are not too familiar to most, but it is more pleasant to find the answers)
19.03.2013 0:07, Alexandr Zhakov
Irina fully sogdasen that forum will save a record in terms of comment. :))
18.03.2013 22:46, Irina Nikulina
Do not give rest to this photo). Ure, the new guide: "Fauna of the Ussuri taiga", edited by AE Vrischa which acquired, flying away from you, this kind of early spring is uniquely defined as Celastrina ladonides (copper-butterfly ladonopodobnaya). This atlas you probably have (including "Flora" is exactly))), see pages 116-117. Photo, by the way, Yuri Chistyakov
19.02.2013 16:53, Yuri Semejkin
Ira, what did you see, is one thing. But zde underside of a particular image, on the other. Place in which no one has proved that it is such a unique look.
19.02.2013 16:37, Irina Nikulina
On your request to substantiate a link reply http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21263 and http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21264. For fidelity definition warrant. Compare underside gives an unequivocal answer. Copper-butterfly Filipeva met three times in large numbers - they plastered all Prinsep in mid-August. (Sorry, do not immediately get a comment)
On your request to substantiate a link reply http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21263 and http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21264. For fidelity definition warrant. Compare underside gives an unequivocal answer. Copper-butterfly Filipeva met three times in large numbers - they plastered all Prinsep in mid-August.
19.02.2013 15:19, Irina Nikulina
Jura, thanks for the link, the debate is really interesting! What is immediately clear-NOT Celastrina filipjevi, I have seen enough of them you have enough)
18.02.2013 16:17, Peter Khramov
Do not, do not remove the boom!
18.02.2013 14:40, Lev Bely
Delete no need lost such a wonderful discussion.
18.02.2013 13:00, Yuri Semejkin
Thank you all! Perhaps now no one will disagree that to uniquely identify the type of data is not enough. In pritsipe picture can be removed-as useless.
17.02.2013 15:48, Eugene Karolinskiy
> But to quote the determinant LW T5 ch5, I probably is not worth it. And kind Celastrina oreas, is not there.
He is there. But like Maslowskia. :)
Inaccurate ladonides - the most obvious option; but Yuri said that did exactly the picture near ploskosemyannika - food plant oreas (and filipjevi), that would hint. :)
17.02.2013 15:35, Alexandr Zhakov
Yuri, see p. 143, it stated that in the Far East this species subspecies levetti, and in Japan it is replaced by a close subspecies ladonides. On the same page, two species of this genus sachalinensis and filipjevi.
The determinants of insect LW T5 ch5 on str.375 i376, we read:
C. ladonides de l'Orza (sachalinensis Esaki)
Hub., Cupid., Prim., Peninsula of Korea, SW China ....... C. l. ladonides
Sah., Yu Cours. ..... C. l. sachalinensis.
Hence, I think it follows that it was about Kurentsova C. ladonides.(synonym levetti, my assumption about synonymization, lit. instructions not found).
For other species of the genus Celastrina, where everything is not easy. But to quote the determinant LW T5 ch5, I probably is not worth it. And kind Celastrina oreas, is not there. Although his offer in the Russian spacecraft.
2. Yuri work Korshunova 1964, during which time many navorochat taxonomy.Celastrina argiolus and Cyaniris argiolus are not synonymous, and a combination of different kinds of species argiolus. This often happens initially Papilio argiolus, then Cyaniris argiolus, today Celastrina argiolus.
The initial view Celastrina argiolus ADVANCED several species and their respective habitats changed. Now examine the genes, and all will become even more difficult.Shown in the photo butterfly, I think you can put into the form ladonides inaccurate definition.
17.02.2013 15:21, Eugene Karolinskiy
Yuri! Here the key point - the year of publication in 1964, and (I think) 1970. lepidopterist does not stand still. As I understand it, somewhere to 70 it was considered that the type of C. argiolus - it Holarctic species inhabiting entirely Eurasia and North America. Polee modern isledovanija shown that it is not. All in.American researchers have gradually "destroyed" this complex 5 or 6 different species, and argiolus among them anymore. A similar story - in the Amur region and Primorye. Ie if satisfied state of science 40 years ago, we can assume that this argiolus. ;)
As for the generic names: simplistic - yes, it is synonymous.In fact, around the same time in the Soviet Union completely replaced the conventional classification of childbirth. Some names have fallen asleep in the Lord, some actually "moved" to another family (as happened to Cyaniris). (In fact, each of the generic name has the type species, that is just before us is the name used is incorrect.) Just look at the names of genera and Kurentsova at least compared to those on this website. In general, Linnaeus was one genus - Papilio. So if satisfied state of science 250 years ago - the butterfly on a picture called Papilio argiolus L.;)))
17.02.2013 4:44, Yuri Semejkin
There was a question about Celastrina argiolus.Ya seen in an Internet link that this butterfly in the Far East is not. It seems convincing? But:
1. The determinant Kurentsova, page 143 there is a description butterflies Cyaniris argiolus L (copper-butterfly spring). In an Internet it says that it is an invalid name. What kind of butterfly in question and how it is now called?
2. There are others. This article link http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/files/lib/Korshunov_1964.htm YPKorshunova Butterflies of Lepidoptera -yuzhny coast of Crimea. Where he writes: This article is supplemented appropriate (modern name) described in her Crimean species.
Then bring in the order [Celastrina argiolus] Cyaniris argiolus L. Is that synonymous? Ie Celastrina, -Modern name Cyaniris argiolus? ...... About the raprostraneniya: All of Europe, North Africa, small and Wed. Asia and Siberia to Japan.Therefore it is in the Far East is. For more information on the link, para 89
15.02.2013 5:02, Yuri Semejkin
Evgeny, sorry for any confusion. Comprehension repaired!
15.02.2013 2:43, Eugene Karolinskiy
Yury misunderstood my comment, no biggie. We seem to have repaired comprehension. :)
14.02.2013 15:58, Peter Khramov
Yury, Evgeny meant that he e-mailed you not to write it here, only that. There is nothing in his words about you e-mailing anyone.
Guys, lest we forget that the web communication often lacks mutual understanding. So take this into account and don't judge each other too fast...
14.02.2013 13:07, Yuri Semejkin
14.02.2013, Evgeny Karolinsky
"Yury, I e-mailed you not to flood the website. :)"
I didn't e-mail anyone about this discussion. All messages from me are here. What's going on? Petr! I've got an e-mail from Evgeny on skippers. Evgeny, is it yours? Or spam?
14.02.2013 11:56, Peter Khramov
Evgeny, if your e-mail had nothing personal, next time feel free to "flood" the website. I meant reaching record is good not bad.
14.02.2013 4:25, Eugene Karolinskiy
Yury, I e-mailed you not to flood the website. :)
14.02.2013 2:03, Peter Khramov
Yury, why "out of the question"? Not in the least. I said that the Community would be changed (though not many people commented that subj, folks are indifferent as always). Just it takes some time and I'm still finishing the collection soft. So something of a message board is sure to be, not tomorrow though, but in a fortnight or so.
14.02.2013 0:41, Yuri Semejkin
Petr! As I see, message board is already out of the question? Pity then. Still it would be a great thing to discuss doubtful cases, check different literature, clear out such things for everyone here. Don't be afraid that folks won't handle with engine like it was with Comstock's system, or IDs based on a certain spot or band. Eventually something new will appear on the website. Japanese, for one, sorted out everything in a perfect way, butterflies and moths. And what we've got?
13.02.2013 17:22, Peter Khramov
We seem to be reaching record number of comments to a photo...
13.02.2013 13:52, Yuri Semejkin
"13.02.2013 3:29, Evgeny Karolinsky
I'm familiar with Y. A. Chistyakov's publication, holding it in my hands now. Sadly there are several serious mistakes made on the identification by photo (blues and skippers)."
Won't comment the mistakes. As for skippers, everything seems right instead. So again words without proofs. Please give me the species and page, I'll see what you're talking about? And argue these "serious mistakes" you found out. You seem to see this clear, no doubt, no difficulties with skippers. Then explain it to folks, "knowledge to people", as Petr said before. Elucidate why you don't agree with some of the books IDs, which you deem as species wrongly identified.
As for the books, I scanned Kurentsov's book and part of the "Identification guide to insects of Russian Far East", though these appear kinda tough for an amateur. I'd like someone to help.
Also this. The moving of species seems kinda weird. Like some old and reliable user says something like "Can't name the species, but I know it's identified wrongly". Amusing though meaningless word play. Ok, there are some species that require detailed genitalia examination to be identified. But when it's not the thing, you get a similar reply like "There are no such species in your hood". That's all "knowledge to people" so far.
Sometimes it really feels like certain commentators are naturally out of subject. Hence I'd like to get some detailed resume in comments or discussion board or wherever else with analysis of the ID and reasoned conclusions. Let's sort out all issues. Sure, each case can't be treated as ideal, no time for that, but some at least.
13.02.2013 3:29, Eugene Karolinskiy
I'm familiar with Y. A. Chistyakov's publication, holding it in my hands now. Sadly there are several serious mistakes made on the identification by photo (blues and skippers), and these cases are way clearer than identification of Celastrina. The thing is that, as I see, the author isn't pro in butterflies but in some moth groups. Yury, so you decide for yourself whom you believe. :) Imho, one shouldn't believe blindly anyone; instead check different books, compare the info and make own conclusion.
12.02.2013 19:16, Peter Khramov
Yury, I corrected your comment, it didn't actually look like one of another author, just your name wasn't added to the comment...
12.02.2013 18:51, Alexandr Zhakov
Yury, there is no need to believe me, I actually have a very poor knowledge of lepidoptera of Russian Far East and Primorye particularly, this region is out of my interest. Also I'm not familiar with Y. A. Chistyakov's publication, which issue year you never mentioned. I just wanted to lay out the situation. I referred to the publication that summarized the research of all Russian lepidopterists, Sinev's Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Russia. If this publication doesn't seem competent, let's refer to the corypheus of the Russian Far East butterflies, A. I. Kurentsov and his work "The Butterflies of the Far-East USSR" that mentions Celastrina argiolus yet subspecies levetti. There are only two species of this genus in Primorye.
Open the next book "Identification guide to insects of Russian Far East", vol. 5, pt. 5, 2005, where Celastrina argiolus is mentioned in the north of the Amur region, Yakutia, Chita, Buryatia, Siberia (except north), Caucasus, European Russia northwest, China, Mongolia, the Himalayas, Iran (mountains), Afganistan, Central Asia, Western Asia, Europe (west and east), and also three species in Primorye. Check this book, should be in the library of the Botanical Garden, the systematics couldn't quite change over the past 8 years.
12.02.2013 17:08, Yuri Semejkin
My part begins with "As for the statement "There is no Celastrina argiolus in Primorye", please elaborate where it actually is? Lazy to che