Argus or Idas?

Community and Forum → Taxonomy. Classification → Argus or Idas?

Nilson, 10.04.2006 8:12

Colleagues, please help us understand the differences between Plebeius argus and P. idas, which are from litzen. The butterfly was taken in North Karelia, male, looks eerily like both of them.

This post was edited by Nilson - 04/10/2006 10: 04

Comments

10.04.2006 15:40, Helene

Thank you.
It was necessary to look at the females, probably: they are like argus with less blue on the upper side of the wings. I don't remember exactly, there were some blue ones in the swamp, but I didn't catch any of them. And according to the phthalographs, the male argus seems to have a darker marginal border. I thought I could trace it geographically somehow, but argus reaches almost to the Arctic circle (there is a list of Norwegian butterflies), idas-even more so.

Females are VERY difficult to distinguish! Blue has nothing to do with it, it also happens in arguses.
From the external signs of males: the argus border is really wider than that of others, and so blurry. Idas has black half - moon spots bordered on his underparts-pointed, while argus has round ones. But this is in typical cases, and there is variability... There is also a good sign-the shape of the legs (with or without a spike), but I don't remember exactly who has how, I'm afraid to lie

Plebeians are generally a difficult group.

Likes: 1

13.04.2006 6:45, bora

The tibial spur on the front legs of argus is long, while in idas it is virtually absent. In argus: black border of the upper wings up to 3-4 mm, orange submarginal wells are not pronounced from the underside of the forewings, the costal process of the valva with teeth, the blades of the uncus at the end are bent up (dorsally), the juxta is three-branched. In idas: the black border of the upper wings is not more than 2 mm, clearly defined, often disappears in the north (then idas is confused with argyrognomon by habit), orange holes on the underside of the forewings are distinct, the costal process of the valva is without teeth, the juxta with two branches, the blades of the uncus are straight to the female edge. Due to the strong differences in genitalia, hybridization is unlikely.

Likes: 2

13.04.2006 16:03, bora

Well, I think butterflies are unlikely to look "in the face" of each other when mating. This can help to understand the human race when trying to mate randomly with a chimpanzee (also the DNA is not very different). There are enough types of butterflies that you can't tell the difference visually, at least from our point of view. They are more constructive, and in the truest sense of the word: match the designs of male/female genitalia as the key to the lock. Males with aedeagus simply do not get into the right hole (very, very rarely do-hybrids like bellargus with coridon and a number of others are obtained). Most likely, isolation primarily occurs at the level of differences in the structure of genitalia in isolated populations (or they were previously isolated, and then again converged geographically, but as different taxa). Changes in the genitals can occur both due to gene drift in isolates and due to environmental factors (mountain species sometimes form additional protrusions and hooks on the genitals of males for reliable fixation during mating).

13.04.2006 17:10, str

Ferromones and other chemicals - of course, for insects is the main factor of orientation. In addition, there is no doubt that the behavior is specific to this particular species. If you carefully observe pigeons (I know other groups worse) in nature, you can clearly see the difference in behavior (speed and manner of flight, localization in the narrow sense: plant, slope, humidity of the place; the manner of sitting on a plant or on the ground: how they sit, how they move their wings-argus, for example, can be immediately distinguished from idas, as well as argyrognomon, maracandicus and caspicis, which are related to the latter, are perfectly distinguished). In addition, very often males "stick" to "foreign" females, even hunt them, and with their beaks they will feel the female genitals and find out that it is impossible to cling to them in a normal way. But the wing pattern of the underparts in related species often overlaps, so a reliable definition is only based on the genitals.

14.04.2006 11:17, str

The wing pattern, especially its fine details, apparently does not actually play a role in recognizing a partner, since even old Yakhontov (as well as foreigners even before him) noted the heat and cold forms of butterflies (the effect on pupae), in which the wing pattern changes so much that you can't determine the species at all. And just in nature, there are often extreme "renegades", then the eyes disappear completely, then their number doubles, then the darkening along the edge of the wing expands 2 times or disappears altogether. Nevertheless, these individuals perfectly mate and give offspring. And the wing pattern serves mainly for the survival of the individual in the environment. Sometimes it merges with the background, then bright wings or spots on them distract attention from more vital organs, etc.

14.04.2006 16:27, Helene

Their genitals also work on the principle of a key and a lock. Maybe the male argus is trying to make a cage for the female idas, but it doesn't work!

But in the mountains of Central Asia, Coenonympha mahometana (gray-brown) and Coenonympha are found together in many places... here is mlin sclerosis, I started to gain-I remembered!!! in general, white. According to Tuzov, they hybridize in places where they live together. In Kyrgyzstan, we caught strange pure-gray mahometana in such a place - maybe it is? Whether these hybrids are fertile is not mentioned in the book.
Erebia ligea and E.(euriale) are also known to frequently mate in the north-east of the European part of Russia. Probably hybridize, but who would distinguish hybrids: there and the parent species are similar to the point of confusion (like argus and idas).