Different wings for the underwing moths - what is the reason?

Don't these butterflies have different antennae for males and females?

Don't these butterflies have different antennae for males and females?

In fact, gynandromorphs are different, including mosaic ones, which have only separate sections of the wings - "of the other sex". And this is not so exclusive in nature. In the North Caucasus (near Kislovodsk) there is a population of Meleageria daphnis, in which almost the majority of females are like this. Maybe even these ribbon girls...
And by the way, the ribbon girls do not differ in their sawyers: both sexes have thread-like sawyers.

Well, that's what I expected, and what is often found. I honestly didn't know!
But to find out, we need more detailed and professional research, which I am not able to do. But generally quite interesting. I have two tapeworms of this type with this feature. There is another type of "normal".

A detailed professional study is a karyotype study that molecular biologists can do if they want to. Oleg Amosov once seriously wanted to take up gynandromorphs, but did not meet the interest of any of the relevant specialists to whom he applied. In principle, you can send a message to the "Search for collaborators" on the main forum. But first, you need to clearly formulate the research goal for yourself. If you just want to make sure that ginandromorph is in your collection or not, no one will fall for it: it's not an easy job. But if there is a topic for scientific work-then another thing.

Or maybe the reason is that one side of the pupa warmed up well, and the opposite side was in the cold, and therefore the variation in color in the imago? (about color variation from temperature, for example, http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/111/111547.htm)

Or maybe the reason is that one side of the pupa warmed up well, and the opposite side was in the cold, and therefore the variation in color in the imago? (about color variation from temperature, for example, http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/111/111547.htm)

It doesn't look like it (according to the photo of the ribbon girl). But I'm not saying that there is mass gynandromorphism-I just know that it is possible, so why not.

By the way, if there are so many hyandomorphs, are they prolific? Otherwise, the population will suffer greatly.

By the way, if there are so many hyandomorphs, are they prolific? Otherwise, the population will suffer greatly.

Gynandromorph and hermaphrodite are completely different things. The mosaic genitals are perfectly normal. In general, gynandromorphism is a rather poorly studied phenomenon. For the most part, collectors are interested in them. I have already told you with what interest Amosov tried to address this issue.

"A gynandromorph and a hermaphrodite are completely different things. The mosaic genitals are perfectly normal."
What is it - some parts of the body-like the opposite sex, and the genitals - only one sex and normal? Do I understand correctly?
In general, why they are not interested is strange, because after all, we are talking about the determination of sex, firstly, and about the interaction of cells during development, and secondly, this is only at first glance. And mine.
By the way, can hyandomorphs serve her Majesty evolution faithfully? That is, are there any known species in which such deviations have become the norm and they have taken something from it and turned into a new species? (group)

What is it - some parts of the body-as in the opposite sex, and the genitals - only one sex and normal? Do I understand correctly?

Exactly. It happens, of course, that the genitals are also "in half", but this is just very rare. More often - one wing of the "other sex", or even a spot on the wing.

In general, why they are not interested is strange, because after all, we are talking about the determination of sex, firstly, and about the interaction of cells during development, and secondly, this is only at first glance. And mine.

I fully share your opinion. I also don't understand why the relevant specialists are indifferent to this

As for the wing, I agree.The collection includes gonepteryx cleopatra.A typical male is only half the size of a female in terms of genitals,but in terms of wings.It must have been hard for the poor man.So, it's not enough to look at the wings,you need to look under the tail!

As for the wing, I agree.The collection includes gonepteryx cleopatra.A typical male is only half the size of a female in terms of genitals,but in terms of wings.

Congratulations!
Take care!

"As for the wing, I agree.The collection includes gonepteryx cleopatra.A typical male is only half the size of a female in terms of genitals,but in terms of wings.It must have been hard for the poor man."
The horror!!! Interestingly, what is it: the cells of the imaginal disk on one of the wings of a friend decided to become "female"? Why all of a sudden?

The horror!!! Interestingly, what is it: the cells of the imaginal disk on one of the wings of a friend decided to become "female"? Why all of a sudden?

Want to get busy?

Theoretically, yes. Practically-where?

Theoretically, yes. Practically-where?

Well, I don't know about "where"... I just don't really know how geneticists work, i.e. how realistic it is to muddy your own research project in the laboratory. Here it's simple: test the hypothesis (collecting material - for your own money) and publish it if it is confirmed.
As for the subject of study, I can tell you what the difficulty is. Gynandromorphs are rare and highly prized by collectors. Especially the" correct " lateral gynandromorphs, like G. cleopatra in Taler. Therefore, there is a difficulty with the material.
But I think that this issue can be solved in principle, although not quickly. If there is a real research interest.

Well, how to do: type ginandromorph, better in the field, and then something tells me that it is not a mutation, so the mutagen will not help, although you can think of something, then take their cells to isolate RNA, look for some sex-specific genes in it, taking for for example, a fruit fly or any other insect with more or less well-known genes, developmental pathways - it is quite likely that this ginandromorph will have something - in one cell the expression profile is like that of a male, in another-like that of a female... It does not work with RNA well, you can check the signaling pathways - that is, how isolated cells react to different signals in the form of proteins or something else. A lot of things can be mixed up here... True there are also enough difficulties: what if the gynandromorph cells are "slightly male" and this gives such an external effect? And there is also a problem with the material: ginandromorphs, even if they reproduce, will hardly pass on their "hyandomorphy" to their offspring exactly...

The post was edited by Chromocenter - 06/15/2006 00: 16

How can these gynandromorphs be studied if they are found once a year?.. rarely, in short? It's easier to cut off some kind of farm, or with fruit flies.

In the Kislovodsk region, there is a population of Meleageria daphnis, in which almost the majority of females are mosaic gynandromorphs. I will try to negotiate with a local entomologist Anton Biryukov to collect, preferably live for breeding (he can).

Helene, and if a gynandromorph is capable of reproduction, then it leaves "its own kind" in the offspring, that is, they have the same disorders as the parent? I wonder why it is near Kislovodsk? Radio background or something?

The post was edited by Chromocenter - 06/15/2006 00: 14

Helene, and if a hyandomorph is capable of reproduction, then it leaves "its own kind" in the offspring, that is, they have the same disorders as the parent?

It looks like yes - the sign is fixed.

I wonder why it is near Kislovodsk?

And figs knows it.

Radio background or something?

But this is unlikely. First of all, there is nothing like this by definition. Secondly, insects don't really respond to radiation at all. At one time, extreme pickers rushed to the Chernobyl zone: they thought that all the insects there were aberrants. And here are the figs! Nothing like that, just like everywhere else. But in the highlands (UV rays) aberrants are full.

My dears. Why do you think that if a female has blue scales, then she is necessarily a gynandromorph? Daphne in the south actually has ALL females with a greater or lesser degree of"salinity". Are they all mosaics? Then Celastrina argiolus females are all mosaics. Other examples can be given: often there are males of P. melamarina with strongly pronounced dark scales, almost more than half of the wing - are they also gynandromorphs? But if Daphne has the shape of one wing with cutouts, and the other-with weak teeth-I agree. And disorderly blue scales in females or dark in males do not mean anything at all.

My dears. Why do you think that if a female has blue scales, then she is necessarily a gynandromorph? Daphne in the south actually has ALL females with a greater or lesser degree of"salinity". Are they all mosaics? Then Celastrina argiolus females are all mosaics. Other examples can be given: often there are males of P. melamarina with strongly pronounced dark scales, almost more than half of the wing - are they also gynandromorphs? But if Daphne has the shape of one wing with cutouts, and the other-with weak teeth-I agree. A random blue scales in females or dark in males does not mean anything at all.

Well, how should I put it?.. Believe it or not, I've seen argiolus females... and daphnis females with a "greater or lesser degree of "salinity" (and not only in the south). And darkened males Lysandra spp, no matter how difficult it is to imagine, saw. Moreover, I even know that blue dusting occurs to one degree or another in females of very many species of pigeons (Polyommatus spp., Plebejus spp., Vacciniinia optilete... etc etc etc). And, quite surprisingly, I can tell the difference between a mosaicer and a blue female or a dark male


Of course, it would be nice to take a picture of the mosaic female daphnis... But I know I won't have time to do it soon...

This post was edited by Helene - 06.06.2006 14: 11

And on the basis of what OBJECTIVE parameters do you think that this pickled female is a gynandromorph, and which one just turned blue from grief? Do you, excuse me, look under the skirt of each scale? Moreover, the discussion above was actually about the mechanism of occurrence of mosaics and everyone said that it was necessary to solve the problem, because this is Terra incognito, the most advanced (without any hacks) suggested ways to solve a scientific problem. I.e., the problem has not yet been fundamentally solved. And you intuitively, apparently, can perform this operation. Not good. You either hide secret knowledge or go through the astral plane. Ommm mani padme hummm!

The problem has not been solved in principle, which is what we are talking about. I can agree that not all gynandromorphs are actually gynandromorphs. Especially mosaic ones.
An external sign of mosaicity in species with a well-defined sexual dimorphism is clearly delimited, randomly located areas with pollen of the "color of the opposite sex" (in the form of "splashes", "spots", or "blots"). In contrast to the "coated" forms, which have colored scales arranged correctly-more or less symmetrically. If, after the analysis, not all butterflies with "blots" turn out to be ginandromorphs, or not at all - well, this will be a scientific fact.
But what makes you think that I hold all the blue females of daphnis (daphne - actually mother - of-pearl) as gynandromorphs?

Excuse me, then we will call the pigeon Daphnis, and the mother-of-pearl-Daphne. I don't want to reproach you for the general ginandromorphization. But the criterion that you gave allows us to attribute several populations of Polyommatus (Meleageria) daphnis that I know of (let's write it so that God forbid we confuse it with mother-of-pearl) exclusively to gynandromorphic females with males completely unaffected by sexual inferiority. Which is strange in itself! However, I think that this fine spotting as evidence of gynanomorphy is very far-fetched. People who have birthmarks should then be classified as mosaic Afro-Europeans of varying degrees of severity? And women with sawyers, I'm sorry, are also gynandromorphs? Let's not complicate matters unnecessarily and include the sexual question where it doesn't exist.

"And women with sawyers, I apologize, are also gynandromorphs? "
To some extent-why not: after all, this is a male sign. However, when there is a lot of" ginandromorph", the question arises: what are the male signs, and what are the female ones? Maybe some sign is very changeable and occurs more often in females than in males (well, I don't know why). What should I do in such cases? However, if, say, a certain stripe is found in 99% of males and 1% of females, then the remaining 1% are clearly gynandromorphic for this trait (if such a term exists). Although it would still be necessary to find out that the strip or its absence is really a manifestation of" samtsovosti "or" samkovosti", and not something else.

"Helene, and if a gynandromorph is capable of reproduction, then it leaves "its own kind" in the offspring, that is, they have the same disorders as the parent?


It looks like yes - the sign is fixed.
"
So it turns out that this is not a pure malformation, but a malformation caused by a mutation, since it is inherited. Then the radiation background really has nothing to do with it (I once heard that in the mountains and especially where there is a mineral water outlet, the radiation background is increased). But it's strange, as I learned from you, there is a correlation with UV, but there is a correlation with radiation. UV is also a mutagen, although its mechanism is not at all the same as that of the radio background (little is known about its mechanism at all).

The post was edited by Chromocenter - 06/15/2006 00: 13

But the criterion that you gave allows us to attribute several populations of Polyommatus (Meleageria) daphnis that I know of (let's write it so that God forbid we confuse it with mother-of-pearl) exclusively to gynandromorphic females with males completely unaffected by sexual inferiority. Which is strange in itself!

I'm not saying it's not weird. Of course, it's strange - that's why it's interesting!
Yesterday I forgot to mention that the blue color of daphnis females is different from that of males (darker and dimmer). And the "birthmarks" are light blue and shiny.
Actually, mosaic gynandromorphs are a well-known thing, and someone must have looked down the scale's tail. But it is really quite common in North Caucasian daphnis, which makes them a suitable object for research (special for you-if their gynandromorphism is confirmed)

It seems to me (but I'm not sure, let the geneticists correct me) that in butterflies, in contrast to mleks, for example, sex is determined by the presence of two X chromosomes in females - i.e. XX, and in males XO (i.e. only one sex chromosome). During ontogenesis in females, a violation occurs - the" death "of one X chromosome, and then a part of the body becomes a "male". So mosaic gynandromorphs appear, and the male can have a doubling of the X chromosome - part of the body will be the female. But because these are somatic mutations. And it is unlikely that they will gain a foothold in future generations.
And I also wonder who is more among the gynandromorphs-males with areas of the female, or females with areas of the male?
I've only ever seen a ginandromorph in nature - it's a female pigeon named Icarus. Although "monstrously" straightened, I keep it as a rarity. If someone will seriously deal with this problem, I can provide it for study...

In drosophila, the gender will be determined as you wrote, I don't know specifically about butterflies, but it is quite possible that it is, although insects have a lot of differences in this matter. The chromosome is more likely not to "die off" (which could be the result of non-separation in some abnormal mitosis, when homologous chromosomes could link together as in myiosis-this happens), but to go through deactivation, as it happens in female mammals and creates "spotted" cats. The ability to deactivate is an inherited trait, but what determines it in certain cells is anyone's guess. The mechanism of "reading" the number of chromosomes remains unclear, so there may be violations in this mechanism, which may also be hereditary in nature.

In short, Sklifosovsky: Should I ask a Kislovodsk friend to catch spotted daphnis?

And then what do we do with them? There is no laboratory where all this can be studied. (That is, I do not know) But-I will remember that you, Helene, have such a friend-you never know what will turn out in life.

Helene:
Yes, I'll take a couple

Has anyone ever tried googling the word "hyandromorphs"? Type and look at the first result.

Typed (though not in Google, in another search engine), checked out

And from what's below, I liked this one:

Hmm, but this is interesting: after all, the ancient Greeks called hermaphrodites what we call gynandromorphs.