Interactions and natural occurrences

They are the ones who flirt with each other and then mate in the near future. And where exactly in the Pskov region was observed? There is now a minus and knee-deep snow.

It depends on how they circle and how it ends. Male nymphalis like to fight.

They are the ones who flirt with each other and then mate in the near future. And where exactly in the Pskov region was observed? There is now a minus and knee-deep snow.

Sabezhsky district. I can't be more precise yet.

It depends on how they circle and how it ends. Male nymphalis like to fight.

And in urticaria (the peacock eye debate was previously heated here), as I understand it, males also overwinter. (?)

They overwinter in polychromates, I won't say anything about hives, we don't have them. But I think it's exactly the same for them.

It depends on how they circle and how it ends. Male nymphalis like to fight.

Aglais urticae (Linnaeus, 1758)

There are other opinions on this matter. In terms of biology, Aglais and Nymphalis are twin siblings

They overwinter in polychromates, I won't say anything about hives, we don't have them. But I think it's exactly the same for them.

Sorry for the off-topic , but is there a place where there are no hives (without extremes)? - especially in Donetsk (!?)

There are other opinions on this matter. In terms of biology, Aglais and Nymphalis are twin siblings

There is a Code, and all opinions have only historical value.

And how does it normalize the endless cyclical activity of taxon rank up-and-downers? Like an article was published in a peer-reviewed journal and everything - from now on, everyone is required to take under the visor the promotion of the subgenus to the genus or the opposite? For example, I regularly come across publications stating that the rank of a particular taxon is controversial.

PS Not quite in the topic, but close: still, how did you solve the issue with Polistes gallicus / foereratus/mongollicus?

And how does it normalize the endless cyclical activity of taxon rank up-and-downers? Like an article was published in a peer-reviewed journal and everything - from now on, everyone is required to take under the visor the promotion of the subgenus to the genus or the opposite? For example, I regularly come across publications stating that the rank of a particular taxon is controversial.

PS Not quite in the topic, but close: still, how did you solve the issue with Polistes gallicus / foereratus/mongollicus?

The activity of "upshifters-downshifters" is a normal phenomenon in the taxonomy. But this does not mean that any opinion, even published in peer-reviewed publications, should be taken under the visor by everyone. It is necessary to approach such changes critically in each case.

As for the issue of sheets, I have definitely solved it for myself today: foereratus and mongollicus are junior synonyms of gallicus. The fact is that their divisions are based mainly on differences in color, and this is almost the weakest sign. Europeans, not having sufficient comparative materials covering the entire range of the species, rely on comparing specimens from local samples, which are often significantly geographically dispersed. But according to my data, based on materials from all over the USSR and neighboring countries, the degree of expression of color elements varies greatly. At the very least, I couldn't find any significant differences on the basis of which I could assign these taxa to different species.

Well, that's what I'm saying: some people think Aglais is a subgenus of Nymphalis, and I like that view. I, of course, am not an expert in butterflies, but the same polychrome and urticaria are very similar not only morphologically, but also bionomically. For what merits do they have different kinds?

Many thanks for the detailed answer regarding polysters! I also write "gallicus" everywhere for the time being, although I think that the morphology alone is not sufficient in this case to unambiguously solve the question of conspecificity. It would be very useful to conduct a comparative analysis of the bionomy in regions where two or three of these supposedly different species are believed to live together. Unfortunately, this is not the Donbass. Based on my material, I was convinced that the Schmid-Egger determinant based on color traits does not work here, although there can be no doubt about the conspecificity of all the individuals of Donetsk gallikus-like polysts I have seen, since their nesting behavior is quite uniform. But that article also mentions some supposedly significant differences in mitochondrial genomes. Unfortunately, I can't check them, so I have no other options than to stay with gallikus... Those Europeans who checked the DNA of Russian gallicus-like animals claim that this is P. mongolicus, which took Karharot under the visor.

The message was edited INO-03/31/2022 19: 36