Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

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.

I wanted to write almost the same thing after reading okoema!
but now there is no point in repeating yourself. I can only fully agree.

I repeat a little...
I think that the task of faunistics is to study the conditions for creating forms and subspecies. That is, using this (vivid) example, to study the conditions for the appearance of different forms and the conditions for their convergence. Plus, at the point of overlap of areas, study "hybrids", their ratio, etc. Here, by the way, without laboratory persistent activity, there is nowhere. And the stump is too clear to do without studying the genetic material.
that is why I am most interested in what Stradomsky and Lukhtanov are studying now.
By the way, there are also a lot of interesting things with golubyanki that are almost identical in terms of questions and tasks!
For example, Agrodiaetus ciscaucasicus and Agrodiaetus shamil or a byword - Lysandra.

The Central Asian erata crosses perfectly with the alta and gives a bunch of transitional forms. I also observed erata - hyala hybrids.

Vo-vo!!! I grow - ahead of mega-consolidation. I think that's a great deal of information in synonyms. I have already written above why I think so.
Unfortunately, it is more difficult to hybridize pigeons or egg yolks.. purely technically, because they have a closed general apparatus. Here in sailboats, manual mating is easy to apply. Hybrids of maaki with xut, xut with swallowtail, swallowtail with maaki, etc.
have long been obtained. Maybe someone will need it in the lab.activities -

File/s:



 hybrids_papilio. pdf

size: 1.29 mb
number of downloads: 418

I also observed erata - hyala hybrids.

And how is it established that these are hybrids, and not dark/light colored individuals of these species?

Here. maybe this will be useful to someone -
*
Heterosis can be fixed in the offspring
http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/01_03/HETERO.PDF

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.

By the way, in the genetic examples that I gave above, the genes of Colias erate poliographus were studied, which is geographically very far from crocea,but genetically very close.

By the way, there are also a lot of interesting things with golubyanki that are almost identical in terms of questions and tasks!
For example, Agrodiaetus ciscaucasicus and Agrodiaetus shamil, or the proverbial Lysandra.

I've already scrolled through the data from the ciscaucasicus/shamil/altivagans genebank for Valentine. The differences between them are no greater than between subspecies of Icarus.
And Lysandra is daaaa!!!
And in general, for pigeons, a separate topic should be highlighted.

Pictures:

altivagans_ciscaucasicus_shamil.jpg — (211.67к)

And in general, for pigeons, a separate topic should be highlighted.

So here it is http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=104216&st=200

Vo-vo!!! I grow - ahead of mega-consolidation. I think that's a great deal of information in synonyms. I have already written above why I think so.
Unfortunately, it is more difficult to hybridize pigeons or egg yolks.. purely technically, because they have a closed general apparatus. Here in sailboats, manual mating is easy to apply. Hybrids of maaki with xut, xut with swallowtail, swallowtail with maaki, etc.
have long been obtained. Maybe someone will need it in the lab.activities -

But this does not mean that Maaki and ksut are the same species. Hybridization, especially under laboratory conditions, does not prove anything. And how plants "fornicate" ...

So here it is http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=104216&st=200 

I meant about the genetics of pigeons, there is enough for 2 forums.

well, we'll go over the pigeons there, although the essence of the conversation is not in them, it would be possible here...

But this does not mean that Maaki and ksut are the same species. Hybridization, especially under laboratory conditions, does not prove anything. And how the plants "fornicate"...

Why doesn't this prove it? And what does it prove?

But this does not mean that Maaki and ksut are the same species. Hybridization, especially under laboratory conditions, does not prove anything. And how the plants "fornicate"...

Negroids differ from Caucasians in much the same way... However, I feel that very soon I will throw out all the defining labels and leave only geographical ones

Well, how much can you say about things that you don't understand and haven't tried to understand?!!

Let's get serious already, there are enough examples right in this topic!

Cat, who was this addressed to?

Including you.

So write and justify your opinion. In the meantime, this is an attitude and nothing more.
If you're convincing, I'll easily agree. No question.

What is "systematic"? Are you talking about the phenomenon of "hybrid destruction"?
And what should be proved in this case?

Well, how much can you say about things that you don't understand and haven't tried to understand?!!

Let's get serious already, there are enough examples right in this topic!

All right, Vlad, let's get serious. I will try to understand issues when they will be written about not at the level of expert assessments, but at the level of facts. I understand when bora provides data from a genetic analysis or a Babochnik writes about the results of REAL breeding experiments. But I'm sorry, I won't take my personal OPINIONS seriously. Sorry, I was taught that. The scientific method implies a clear definition of the initial axioms, experimental conditions (boundary conditions) and reproducibility of the results. And what do we see here in numerous examples? As in the joke - where there are two lawyers, there are three opinions. I may not be an expert in any particular field, but this does not prevent me from seeing the systemic weakness of argumentation and evidence.
Let's take Lukhtanov's data given here by Stradomsky. Such things as the depth of analysis (not the complete genome, but its parts), boundary conditions (where the source material is taken from, its quantity), axiomatics (adequacy of determining the source material), methodology (how research was conducted, accuracy of the method and equipment), and the evaluation apparatus (models, methods, formulas)can be discussed here. In other words, there is something to discuss seriously here.
We take the data from the hybridization experiment. The same thing: conditions, material, results-there is something to talk about specifically.
And how do statements like (from the topic Genus Parnassius) "100% apollo", "ordinary apollo", etc. look against this background? By the way, all these are opinions based on not very high - quality photos, and even without specifying the size of the instance being determined. And there are plenty of such examples in our forum, and in the literature, too. I accept the obvious differences like " the medial cell is dissected (not dissected) by a longitudinal vein (H. fucicormis/H. tityus), but I refuse to focus on keys like "more elongated", "less cut out", etc. (too lazy to crawl on the keys at night). It seems that a similar level prevails in entomology as a whole. Yes, shamanism and quackery is nothing more.
Summary: No accusations of incompetence should be made until the criteria for competence are clearly defined.

yes, mathematics is also full of concepts, for example, a point or a plane.
Show me a point in real life!
As for the "apollo", of course, there are well-established forms.
And here we consider their boundaries and their inviolability (if any).
A fundamentally high-quality, unambiguous characteristic.

This post was edited by Babochnik - 31.01.2010 11: 16

it is a mistake to assume that a view is a constant category. from this postulate and need to push.

If you believe Plato, then there is no constancy in nature at all, and you can argue about what was once, will be or could be if... you can go on indefinitely. At the moment, there is a fact: Colias crocea (Fourcroy, 1785), Colias erate (Esper, [1805]) and period!!! Any assumptions based on guesses are useless demagoguery, and even more so baseless statements! If someone wants to challenge the fact of two types,they will set up an experiment and publish the results. I'm not a biologist, but a chemist, and I don't know all the nuances of the biology of species, but I think that the basis is still the same: an experiment (or a series of experiments) was set up as a result of which such and such data were obtained, on the basis of which we can draw a conclusion... I do not recognize other approaches (in which I fully agree with comrade mikee), since for any unsubstantiated argument " for "there will be at least one such unsubstantiated "against".

At the moment there is a fact: Colias crocea (Fourcroy, 1785), Colias erate (Esper, [1805]) and period!!! ".

Well, you give!!! You've got us stooges lined up here pretty well.

But seriously: there is no fact in this at all, but only nomenclature acts and the accepted point of view! And, as can be seen from the debate, it is far from generally accepted.
But it is the facts that are piled up to hell, and objective facts, many of them are based on chemical methods of analysis. Don't you like them?
And you can't be so categorical " ... period!!!" No one has ever appointed you a supreme judge, especially
since " I'm not a biologist, I'm a chemist, and I don't know all the nuances of species biology..."

I'm sorry, but there is a Chinese saying:
"When a rhino looks at the moon, it wastes the flowers of its spleen"

This post was edited by bora - 31.01.2010 09: 45

Well, you give!!! You've got us stooges lined up here pretty well.

But seriously: there is no fact in this at all, but only nomenclature acts and the accepted point of view! And, as can be seen from the debate, it is far from generally accepted.

+ 500!
I just want to add that the postulate is
"it is a mistake to believe that a species is a category". from this postulate and you need to push."(C)
has at least some meaning only after the definition of the concept of "view"is shown. As practice shows, Mayer's rule is incomplete and a new, complete one must be introduced. Someone is quite incomplete, someone is not.
In my opinion, this is a good litmus test.
As for professionalism, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the processes of memorizing and actually thinking. The first involves operating memory files in arbitrary combinations (fantasy in fact), the second - reducing the entire available range of possibilities to a single feasible one in a particular situation.
That is why in order to understand something (in matter) we need to be able to limit and generalize. And first distinguish, and only then - generalize on the basis of different features. So all the arguments are about the principles by which to distinguish. A professional scientist is a person who primarily thinks and, in addition, has a set of basic knowledge. The second without the first makes a person just an encyclopedia. The first without the second is a smart person but not an expert in this field.
Yaroslav, we don't need to believe anyone, you can just think a little to understand that there is nothing eternal in the universe except movement. But this does not change the stability of some laws and algorithms. Science (real science, not the one that shuffles "axioms" in different combinations) studies them. Everything else is a religion.

To bora:
I didn't hire myself as a judge, I didn't get personal, and my post concerns the whole dispute (just my opinion), since there is only DNA data on two pages of facts (I haven't yet seen information for butterflies taken for research, as well as photos that I asked for on the previous page). In a dispute, truth must be born, and such disputes often end up like in the time machine song "conversation on the train". If I offended you personally, I apologize!
Yes, it is possible that this is also: "... only nomenclature acts and the accepted point of view", but it is supported by documentation (material on the original description, paratypes, etc.), and this is already the result of some work performed by the same person! And there is no completed work on recording erata in the forms yet, that's all I wanted to say.
Categorical-not a vice in fact, it helps to live!

Get it, although you could have found it yourself if it was so interesting - the Internet is the same for everyone:

This post was edited by bora - 31.01.2010 16: 09

Pictures:

Lukhtanov_et_al_DNA_barcoding.jpg — (58.18к)


crocea_LOWA288_06.jpg — (164.43к)


crocea_LOWA529_06.jpg — (162.91к)


crocea_LOWA530_06.jpg — (151.65к)


erate_LOWA320_06.jpg — (154.62к)

Thank you for the label data! Here is just the nuance that I wrote about on the previous page: All crocea for the study were taken from the zone where the species ' ranges intersect. This fact may explain such close DNA results, since the blood of rabbits from these regions may well contain an admixture of erate from previous generations. Accordingly, the difference with the purebred erate is not noticeable. This is nothing more than an explanation of the results, which is why I agree with mikee, rhopalocera.com and kotbegemot says that in order to resolve this dispute, you need to take the issue more seriously and conduct more research and experiments.

I haven't seen the photos I asked for on the previous page yet).

Probably, no one just does not have such photos.

All crocea for the study were taken from the area where the species ' ranges intersect. This fact may explain such close DNA results, since the blood of rabbits from these regions may well contain an admixture of erate from previous generations.

By the way, the data for the elongation factor 1-alpha (EF-1a) gene that I provided for the crocea instance is as follows: country= "France: Flaine".
So where is all your reasoning after that?

This post was edited by bora - 31.01.2010 16: 46

Stanislav, here the concept of HOMOGENEOUS individuals can be interpreted very differently (morphologically homogeneous, genetically homogeneous, homogeneous in sexual preferences, etc.). In my opinion, it is necessary to clarify and also introduce the concept of VARIABILITY boundaries

This post was edited by bora - 31.01.2010 17: 18

Och. Chorus. So, indeed, the limits of variability are already secondary

This post was edited by bora - 31.01.2010 17: 23

Thank you Stanislav but not satisfied.
"The individuals included in the species form the individual of the highest possible order for genetically homogeneous individuals." (C)
Just because "its borders" are the defining indicator.
Until these boundaries and the conditions that define them are shown, this is not a definition.
This is a declaration. Because how can we talk about uniformity or heterogeneity in this case? By this definition, for example, you can't say for sure whether erata and crocea are the same species or not.

This post was edited by Babochnik - 31.01.2010 20: 02

Stanislav, I read carefully and didn't take anything out of context.
You didn't show the criteria for "uniformity". The definition will become complete when the mechanism of impassable isolation is clear. So far, this has not been disclosed (and this is exactly what needs to be disclosed).
He even explained it using the example of Crocea and Erata.
In lysanders, for example, the chromosome sets generally dance, but they cross in some cases (ten Hagen described this from points in Turkey).
And they give fertile offspring. And in other places they fly together and do not cross.
Where do you put this fact?
*
Let me not advertise my first and last name (I don't like being asked to do this - there are enough cops on the street). And as for my training, it's very average (I don't have a special biological education) and I didn't get caught up in learning new things. But at the same time, I fully share the position of mikee -
"I will try to understand issues when they will be written about not at the level of expert assessments, but at the level of facts"(C).
I have already written that science has nothing but zeros in the understanding database.
For example, in physics, the nature of none of the 4 interactions is still unknown. There is only a description of their manifestations and that's all.
In biology, even the concept of "species" is still not clearly defined (hence the mess in taxonomy), and the origin of life itself is a mystery. Otherwise, it would have been reproduced from scratch in the laboratory long ago. And the criterion of truth, as you know, is practice.
I don't pretend to be anything serious here, but just point out some things that a lot of specialists pass by in the past, as if they are taken for granted and as if they are understandable. This is surprising to me, although it is already familiar.
It is gratifying that there are people working on these issues.

Well, that's what we're talking about - "obvious things"...
If only it was just lysanders.
There are also mice-voles, circumpolar terns, North American toads, a bunch
of daphnia, etc.
I've been reading literature for a long time, because I don't have the time or desire to dig into other people's glitches. And even more so to determine by these glitches "spitting" and in general the norms of behavior (I have completely different criteria).
But this is a matter of taste, I sobsno and did not impose here to you in the interlocutors.

Speaking of chromosomes. The different number of them in different individuals of the same species does not mean anything, because there are B-chromosomes. Additional, fragmentary, non-functional chromosomes according to current concepts, sometimes formed due to meiotic disorders. And often their number is fixed in the population and a different karyotype is obtained for one species. M. Wiemers told me about such tricks in P. (A.) poseidon. Moreover, it is almost impossible to differentiate them cytogenetically. Their size is usually smaller than that of normal chromosomes. From there, there may be a whoosh of Lysandra chromosomes stuffed with point chromosomes.

As far as I remember, chromosomal sterility is mainly inherent in plants?
I wonder if the gender of the yellow and pigeon birds is heterogeneous?

Dear colleagues!
For all the questions asked to me earlier, I will answer the following: all these posts again prove the futility of this dispute, since everyone continues to give arguments "for" and "against" which will lead to nothing, even if these are facts. I do not dispute the probability of a single type, but only the methodology, since sitting here on the forum you still will not achieve anything even if all(!!!) forumchane agree with you. Take the example of Roman Yakovlev, who I have never seen in such disputes, as a person writes articles, books on entomology, actively conducts scientific work and goes on expeditions. Where are your articles on crocea-erate? Where are the numerous experiments and data on them? Any educated person can cling to words and compete in eloquence, and I just don't have the time (or the desire) for this. Personally, I am quite satisfied with the two independent types as they are now. You will reduce the erate in the form of crocea once-I will reprint the labels and do something!

The bora:

"By the way, the data for the elongation factor 1-alpha (EF-1a) gene that I provided for the crocea instance is as follows: country= "France: Flaine".
So where is all your reasoning after that?"
I'll answer, if you'll excuse me, with a counter-question: what competent conclusion can you draw from the fact of the gene analysis you gave, whether crocea and erate are one species or not? Please just answer "yes" or"no"!

Sincerely yours!
Jaroslav.

Yakovlev is currently sleeping

Summing up the morphological and genetic data, as well as the results of growing polymorphic offspring from one female, I will say that my opinion is "yes".
But this is just my personal opinion, not a taxonomic act.

At this point, I believe that I have already answered all your questions.
And you don't need to give anyone an example, we'll figure it out for ourselves.

This post was edited by bora - 31.01.2010 22: 17

Summing up the morphological and genetic data, as well as the results of growing polymorphic offspring from one female, I will say that my opinion is "yes".
But this is just my personal opinion, not a taxonomic act.
At this point, I believe that I have already answered all your questions.
And you don't need to give anyone an example, we'll figure it out for ourselves.

Molecular and genetic data.

Whatever you want.