Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

"and external signs, as well as genital ones, are not the best way to identify them." (C)
Golden words! I'm fucking talking like a tape recorder about the same shit skoka knows.
I have received in practice indistinguishable externally individuals of butterflies bred in captivity - different subspecies.
The source subspecies at the same time were from points that are separated by thousands of km.
I don't agree about "old Myr". It did not show unshakable criteria of the type, because for example, there are cases that do not fit into the e-layer definitions in any way.
Wolfgang Hagen described the cada jokes in Turkey: at some points in the overlapping ranges of two" species " of pigeons, they interbreed and give transitional forms (stable-whole populations). And you can dig up a lot of such examples if you want.
So in fact, here you need to enlarge and not minify. No one, for example, has proved that Apollo and Phoebus are different species. They give fertile offspring and when re-crossing just move on to more developed genetic schemes (although there are subtleties of "mom-dad" when crossing - this should be studied). That is why areas often overlap. That's how they overlapped coming together-a question (for faunalists by the way - this is purely their task).
By the way, Kotbegemot in fact never objected to Dmitry and clarified the problem raised by him (for which both respect)! Stanislav gave a definition, but this is not a definition, because the term "category" itself is not shown - its criteria.
If we talk about this, then we need to show the reasons for the dominance of genes that determine a particular subspecies and shape (and the difference if it eats such). Otherwise it's blah-blah-blah - Dmitry is right.

Where did you show them? You have declared it.
The difference is not visible between them! What do you need to look at in" them"?
"they won't until we've studied at least half of the planet's biodiversity."
??
Why half, where is this percentage taken from? What does learn mean? Let's describe how someone got it into their head without having clear criteria and it will suddenly become clear?

What are "intrapopulation structures"?
I repeat -
If we are to talk about this, then we need to show the reasons for the dominance of genes that determine a particular subspecies and form (and the difference, if any).
So what's the difference? Reasons for dominance.
You don't need to send me anywhere, you need to be able to argue your words. You stated the following -
"I will explain the difference as clearly as possible" (C)
I objected. Question - above. So?

"Talk about the reasons for the dominance of genes? And what makes you think that it is necessary to talk about them? Or maybe about the causes of recessiveness? Or in general, about linked heredity?"
*
What else is it about??? that's what it's all about in the first place! What does a subspecies define as non-genes?
What is the use of these "capital truths"?
Or do you think science is purely descriptive? I perfectly understand the postulate about the "subspecies", but for some reason you don't see the idea of the Cat-Behemoth directly.
You're also offended...
What can a description of a bunch of subspecies do for understanding the mechanisms of Evolution???
Well, yes, the conditions in which populations live are different, so different genes dominate (adnak selection). Exactly the same principle applies within the population. So what? Well, there is a dependence of the stability of the phenotype on the number of individuals similar (even the pancake formulas were derived for calculation).
And what-the train doesn't go any further?
It's one thing not to cover up recessive genes, but it's another thing for the immune system to root out the gametes of an alien species as enemy agents. So much for the near-future view.
What kind of morph is there?..

Yeah... got carried away by adnaka )))

selection is relevant to the formation of subspecies, but it is not relevant to the formation of species.
well, it's off...
I'll put the faces of some of the tracks up here for rehabilitation.
Just do not throw sneakers for the quality of the photo-then the camera was not at hand decent and did in a hurry.

Here's the question - cats and dogs. They are not found in nature - they are all bred by humans. All are called breeds - i.e. "subspecies" - right? But what a huge difference there is between a Great Dane and a Chihuahuit. However, as far as I know, many breeds can interbreed and produce fertile offspring? But is that all? And what position in taxonomy can be distinguished among them?
As far as I know, if you stick to crossing only one breed, you get purebred dogs that show signs of only one breed (take some subspecies of apollo that does not cross with other subspecies-or even species, probably because it does not reach them in its ranges or habitats), but if you cross one breed with another, you will not be able to cross with then it turns out something average or even third. I think many people have observed mongrels that combine different signs in themselves-polutaxa polukhrendvornyazhnaya, etc.?
So the question arises on the basis of this, what if many subspecies and even species are not worth a penny, since they look different only because they cannot interbreed, but in fact they are one species, simply having different forms due to different ranges.
And another question is when these populations push out of bounds, when a new species or subspecies arises, and not just a form. What is considered a species or subspecies in this case, and what verification methods can be devised for this?
I was interested in the post of babochnik that Phoebus and apollo can give a transitional form. Really, what if it's 1 view ? 0_o That is, in theory, they should once have been one species, like all Parnassians. But then different species became different only when something so radically different appeared in their structure (genes) that it could not mate with other species in the group - it would be interesting to understand what it is..

The Genebank already contains 1,378,838 Canis lupus familiaris sequences.
But the entire family Lycaenidae is only 3334.

What does this mean? 0_о

About how researchers of DNA barcodes need to work. And not only dogs to explore, but also butterflies

This post was edited by bora - 23.01.2010 20: 17

Boris!!! Explain about dogs in a popular way, please, as a geneticist

What exactly are you interested in about dogs? I'm not good at dog training.

Boris!!! Explain about dogs in a popular way, please, as a geneticist

Here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_familiaris

Here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_familiaris  

The data of comparative mtDNA analysis, although not completely reliable, do not contradict the archaeological record of the appearance of the first dogs.

This post was edited by swerig - 23.01.2010 23: 56

The data of comparative mtDNA analysis, although not completely reliable, do not contradict the archaeological record of the appearance of the first dogs.

Yes, I was just joking.

I searched and found: australis-hyale from a very old work for this topic: Brunton, C. F. A. 1998. The evolution of ultraviolet patterns in European Colias butterflies (Lepidoptera, Pieridae): a phylogeny using mitochondrial DNA // Heredity 80, 611-616 (1998).
Hyale/alfacariensis differences-2.7%

This post was edited by bora - 27.01.2010 17: 09

Pictures:

australis_hyale.jpg — (90.61к)

assuming that crocea and erate are different species.

Certainly different, and do not hesitate.

Certainly different, and do not hesitate.

Extremely well founded statement

This is an extremely well-founded statement

and made with an open visor

[...]assuming that crocea and erate are different species.

We can still assume that this is one type...

We can still assume that this is one type...

So we assume! And, as okoyem - san Giordano correctly pointed
out, the bases are listed in previous posts (page 3).

Pasha! It would be necessary not to wait, but to try to raise either a number of hybrid generations, or offspring from one mother, but on different feeding and in different temperature conditions, and see the reaction rate of the twins. Who would do that?

Who would do that?

I'm going to grow it. However, different conditions and different feedstuffs are unlikely to be provided - for technical reasons. In addition, the hyale/alfacariensis pair is primarily of interest.

Who would do that?

Can try...

This post was edited by palvasru4ko - 28.01.2010 19: 08

to sdi:
Sergey, I will specially post a series of my" nersky " myrmidons. What there just isn't!

And among the Nersky myrmidons, there is no sockeye salmon... delicious, at a time

And among the Nersky myrmidons, there is no sockeye salmon... delicious, contagious

In some males, the background of the forewing approaches the color of sockeye salmon meat.
True, infection, delicious (I'm talking about sockeye salmon)))

Here, by the way, is a worthy and popular topic for dissertation.

I've been telling Tikhonov that for a long time. He watched such tricks with both "species" growing them...
And in general, this applies not only to these two yolks.
About Parnassus, I have already written that their fertility is sexual when recrossing-male hybrids are fertile, but females are not (this is Phoebus with Apollo and the females of tianshanikus are also exactly the same, I did not mate males, I will have to try).

... ... ...
And in general, this applies not only to these two yolks...
.... ...

Well, duc and I about what-see post #134...

I don't just mean the Kolias.
The principle of maintenance is the same everywhere.

In the Western Caucasus, I encountered both napi and bryoniae in the mountains. But for some reason, I didn't meet any transitional forms, except for the blackness variations of females, which fit perfectly into bryoniae one way or another. Where both species were observed on the same ridge, there was a high-altitude gap between their habitats, a certain zone of isolation, where instead of transitional forms, there was a complete absence of any forms. Roughly speaking, napi is at the bottom, no one is higher, and bryoniae is even higher.
In the Odessa region (on the Black Sea coast in the Ovidiopol and Belgorod-Dniester districts), I came across both crocea and erate in the same places. I haven't seen any transitional forms, except for variations that somehow definitely fit into one of the types.

So you're out of luck. In Karachay-Cherkessia, the higher in the mountains, the greater the severity of bryoniae, but against its background there are also less pronounced forms, up to the typical napi and even pseudorapae, and copulate pairs in arbitrary combinations. To track all this, you need to stay there all the time (I spend 2 months a year in these mountains, and consistently in the same places, observations since 1975).
But in the Rostov region, Stavrapol'ya, Karachay-Cherkessia, and presumably in the Crimea, there is a wave of transitional forms of crocea-erate. In some places there is more than pure erate, which is always in a minor key to crocea.

This post was edited by bora - 30.01.2010 08: 28

All this is true, but you will note that bryoniae occurs only in the mountains and, as you yourself noticed, disappears as the altitude decreases, and this is very easy to explain, at least by the fact that at high altitudes the temperature is always lower, sharp temperature changes are not uncommon, the degree of ultraviolet light is different, etc. In many species (I speak from my own experience), the lower the temperature, the darker the color. The color is also affected by humidity, which is also not the same in the mountains and in the steppe. So we get a gradual change in color (transitional forms) as we climb the mountains to darker colors, so your example with mountain butterflies does not fit, unfortunately. With the same success, you can reduce the same Phoebus, nomion, tienshanikus to the apollo forms (http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=214757&st=300 and so on, because they also interbreed themselves, the offspring are fertile, and their DNA should be very close to each other (especially if you check for the DNA of hybrid butterflies), and your example with Pieris napi and the form bryoniae explains the variability
As for the egg yolks, let at least one forum member post a photo with an erat-like crocea from populations where there is no erate itself. After all, the connection of various transitional forms with the southern territories, where there are both types, is very clearly observed. During the entire time of co-existence in the same territory, these species could interbreed an infinite number of times, and if the hybrid offspring are fertile, then erate signs can appear in subsequent generations and vice versa, crocea signs from the offspring of erate females. If they naturally interbreed without problems, then in such populations in general, all offspring can be hybrid. From here and such close DNA in 0.5-0.1% discrepancy. By the way, a question for those who posted the DNA analysis data, do you have label data for the butterflies taken for research?

This post was edited by Jarik - 30.01.2010 15: 41

Yarik, and I am sure that all the types of the apollo group will be reduced to one type.
The same goes for yolks.
What Stradomsky wrote above is, in my opinion, an absolutely correct idea - to study dominance by changing the growing conditions. Only this is quite a hemorrhoid task (purely executive chore). I discussed exactly the same topic with Tikhonov last spring.
I generally believe that if a hybrid is obtained, then the parents are one species.
Just why there is no fertility of offspring in some cases, this is what needs to be studied-what is happening with recessive genes and mitosis.
But after all, the female's immunity does not kill the sperm in the bud during hybridization.
So he considers it his own species.
Cohabitation of different forms, or as in the case of crocea and erata , is just the task for faunalists. And morphometrism of the wings and other jokes to deal with in my opinion to no avail. If you do not take into account the parameters that set different forms (as Boris Vitalievich said above).

As for the egg yolks, let at least one forum member post a photo with an erat-like crocea from populations where there is no erate itself. After all, the connection of various transitional forms with the southern territories, where there are both types, is very clearly observed.

... what prevents you from saying "where are both forms"?
Argynnis paphia and Argynnis paphia f. valesina - in the Crimea, there are practically no valesins, and in Kharkiv, valesins make up about 20% of all females. So, to declare valesina a separate species, distinguishable exclusively by females?
Personally, I think that it is necessary to divide into types according to some more significant features than the color option. In Crimea, 17 different color forms of Zygaena ephialtes are known - what should be divided into 17 separate species?

For some reason, the argument of the twin brothers from the movie Shirley-Myrli about the origin of Jesus came to mind:
- What does it mean: the father is a Jew, the mother is a Jew, and the baby is Russian?
"Daddy's a PIGEON!"

This post was edited by bora - 30.01.2010 17: 12

In Crimea, 17 different color forms of Zygaena ephialtes are known - what should be divided into 17 separate species?

Zygaena ephialtes is "ephialtes" everywhere, because approximately the same forms are found everywhere, only in different proportions. For example, let's compare Crimea and the Balkans. There are three subspecies of Ephialtes in Crimea. The first (medusa) is represented by "red ephialtoid" (more than 95%) forms, the second (taurida) is represented by "yellow ephialtoid" (more than 95%), and the third (tarkhankutica) is represented by red (more than 90%) and yellow (less than 10%) forms with an "ephialtoid/peucedanoid" ratio of approximately 60/40. Now let's take the Balkans. There, the subspecies pannonica has a similar characteristic to the subspecies taurida, the subspecies medusa corresponds to the subspecies corcyrica and tymphrestica, and the subspecies tarkhankutica corresponds to the subspecies smolikana. That is, it is the same here and there, but geographically isolated from each other. And in the case of crocea-erate, the trouble is that ONLY crocea is found in the western part of the range, and ONLY erate is found in the eastern part, and hybrids are supposedly found ONLY in the overlap zone.:

Or maybe the problem is that these are not hybrids at all, but just a "hybrid" form (and we call it a "hybrid")? Like the already mentioned Argynnis paphia f. valesina. In Kharkiv it is common, in the Crimea it is extremely rare. You can spend your whole life crawling around the Crimea and not meet. So it is with this form ("hybrid") - perhaps in other parts it just hasn't been found yet.
And here's another "thought" that came to mind. Is it possible that two genetically almost identical species emerged in Eurasia, one in the west (crocea) and the other in the east (erate)? But not only did they arise, but they also began to expand their range. Moreover, it is extremely slow, and therefore imperceptible to us. For centuries, crocea species "crawled" to the east, and erate "crawled" to the west. And so they met, and due to genetic and anatomical identity, a site with "hybrid" individuals in the population appeared. The theory may be delusional and unsubstantiated, but why not? Jaundice may not be migrants like hawkmoth and nymphalids, but they can also fly!

Yellow Field, for example migrant

And in the case of crocea-erate, the trouble is that ONLY crocea is found in the western part of the range, and ONLY erate is found in the eastern part, and hybrids are supposedly ONLY in the overlap zone:
Or maybe the problem is that these are not hybrids at all, but just a "hybrid" form (and we call it a "hybrid")? Like the already mentioned Argynnis paphia f. valesina. In Kharkiv it is common, in the Crimea it is extremely rare. You can spend your whole life crawling around the Crimea and not meet. So it is with this form ("hybrid") - perhaps in other parts it just hasn't been found yet.

Everything would be fine if the local form was monotonous. And we have a palette of transition forms.
The occurrence of genetically almost identical species in different territories is very unlikely. Rather, the range of one species was once torn apart, for example, during the last glaciation. Two morphologically distinct subspecies have emerged, but genetics has not yet diverged before their genetic isolation. Then the barrier disappeared, the subspecies began to expand and met, and they can cross freely, because they are genetically almost identical.

Erate in the east of the range, i.e. polygraphus is quite homogeneous. As well as in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and the south-west of the Altai Territory.