Macrosystematics of Lepidoptera

bomba

something about Hepialoidea is not visible...

something about Hepialoidea is not visible...

Well, they are among non-Ditrysian.

Well, they are among the non-Ditrysian.

already guessed

what is it?!!

In my opinion, everything is perfect: the development went from the lower moles and having come full circle led to the appearance of new moles-scoop))) All these your nymphalids, hawkmoth, saturnia-no more than intermediate options))))
Nya!!!

Not everything is so simple.

In my opinion, everything is perfect: the development went from the lower moles and having come full circle led to the appearance of new moles-scoop))) All these your nymphalids, hawkmoth, saturnia-no more than intermediate options))))
Nya!!!

Well, scoops are considered the most highly organized of butterflies long before molekolekki...
It is much more interesting that the mace-moustaches came out in the midst of micro-lepidoptera!

Latest list of families
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/zt03148p221.pdf

yes, it would be necessary to move the discussion of the system from announcements here.

Well, scoops are considered the most highly organized of butterflies long before molekolekki...
It is much more interesting that the mace-moustaches came out in the midst of micro-lepidoptera!

And then there are computer cladograms based on mitochondrial DNA, where Nomo and Sus should be included in the same taxonomic group of the genus! According to this, Papilio and Micropterix should be groups of species!

And then there are computer cladograms based on mitochondrial DNA, where Nomo and Sus should be included in the same taxonomic group of the genus! According to this, Papilio and Micropterix should be groups of species!

Linnaeus was very perspicacious-he recorded everyone at once in Papilio))

Latest list of families
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/zt03148p221.pdf

I recommend ignoring the suggested list! To be honest, complete nonsense!

This is complete nonsense created by 50 major butterfly specialists. Therefore, we will not be able to ignore it - the West will not understand us.

And then there are computer cladograms based on mitochondrial DNA, where Nomo and Sus should be included in the same taxonomic group of the genus! According to this, Papilio and Micropterix should be groups of species!

I'll say something even more seditious: I guess Sesiidae is not monophyletic, and mimicry in Tinthiinae and other glassworms arose independently of each other! So there are more surprises waiting for us there! Just shhh, no one! =)

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 12/29/2011 21: 53

I'll say something even more seditious: I guess Sesiidae is not monophyletic, and mimicry in Tinthiinae and other glassworms arose independently of each other! So there are more surprises waiting for us there! Just shhh, no one! =)

and justify it?
although it is quite possible. mimicry is generally a thermonuclear thing

and justify it?
although it is quite possible. mimicry is generally a thermonuclear thing

In your favorite cell they are in different places vylaziyut

In your favorite fairy tale, they climb out in different places

let's be specific. I don't like people throwing shit at me.

let's be specific. I don't like people throwing shit at me.

Stas, go sleep it off already. You can't tell trolling from shit...

About the subject - all in the articles linked in the first post of this thread.

So trolling is it ^^.
As for the system... If 50/50 of our bright heads from ZIN and good molecular scientists, who do not deviate from the method one iota (Stradomsky, Vimers, Vodolazhsky, etc.), had entered the macro - systematics, then perhaps we would have built a system... And that molecular guano, which is now 80 % out of the Western press, will then have to be smashed by normal scientists, because it is based on old, soaked material. This is especially true for the Finnish-Swedish band - I was in museums in Helsinki and Stockholm and saw the material from which the samples were taken. Some of them (for groups of interest to me, of course) even took pictures. And now I understand perfectly well why there are so many synonymizations in this particular group: not so many mold fungi live on soaking butterflies that their DNA is very different :D.

By the way, this work is signed by two Russian entomologists - Zolotukhin and Yakovlev. It is strange that neither one nor the other takes part in the discussion. And it would be interesting to hear-first of all, why such a strange scheme for building a system was used (in fact, Hennig's cladistics, which seems to be unsuitable for building systems - we read Falkovich, Kerzhner and other taxonomists from ZIN in the Works of ZIN in the 90s), and one more question - who was its main compiler? It feels like the system was built by Wahlberg's computer based on molecular data.

By the way, this work is signed by two Russian entomologists - Zolotukhin and Yakovlev. It is strange that neither one nor the other takes part in the discussion. And it would be interesting to hear-first of all, why such a strange scheme for building a system was used (in fact, Hennig's cladistics, which seems to be unsuitable for building systems - we read Falkovich, Kerzhner and other taxonomists from ZIN in the Works of ZIN in the 90s), and one more question - who was its main compiler? It feels like the system was built by Wahlberg's computer based on molecular data.

- Nieukerken, van, E.J., Kaila, L., Kitching, I.J., Kristensen, N.P., Lees, D.C., Minet, J., Mitter, C., Mutanen, M., Regier, J.C., Simonsen, T.J., Wahlberg, N., Yen, S-H., Zahiri, R. - Основные авторы.

- Adamski, D., Baixeras, J., Bartsch, D., Bengtsson, B.Å., Brown, J.W., Bucheli, S.R., Davis, D.R., De Prins, J., De Prins, W., Epstein, M.E., Gentili-Poole, P., Gielis, C., Hättenschwiler, P., Hausmann, A., Holloway, J.D., Kallies, A., Karsholt, O., Kawahara, A.Y., Koster, S. (J.C.), Kozlov, M.V., Lafontaine, J.D., Lamas, G., Landry, J-F., Lee, S., Nuss, M., Park, K-T., Penz, C., Rota, J., Schintlemeister, A., Schmidt, B.C., Sohn, J-C., Alma Solis, M., Tarmann, G.M., Warren, A.D., Weller, S., Yakovlev, R.V., Zolotuhin, V.V., Zwick, A. - Специалисты по группам.

- you should send them a link to the thread. But they clearly depended on them, by and large, estimates of the number of taxa in "their" groups and nothing more.

"there's still Kozlov, even though he's in Finland.

- now taxonomy is generally the lot of molecular scientists and it will only get better in the future, genitals smoke pussy.

- Nieukerken, van, E.J., Kaila, L., Kitching, I.J., Kristensen, N.P., Lees, D.C., Minet, J., Mitter, C., Mutanen, M., Regier, J.C., Simonsen, T.J., Wahlberg, N., Yen, S-H., Zahiri, R. - Основные авторы.

- Adamski, D., Baixeras, J., Bartsch, D., Bengtsson, B.Å., Brown, J.W., Bucheli, S.R., Davis, D.R., De Prins, J., De Prins, W., Epstein, M.E., Gentili-Poole, P., Gielis, C., Hättenschwiler, P., Hausmann, A., Holloway, J.D., Kallies, A., Karsholt, O., Kawahara, A.Y., Koster, S. (J.C.), Kozlov, M.V., Lafontaine, J.D., Lamas, G., Landry, J-F., Lee, S., Nuss, M., Park, K-T., Penz, C., Rota, J., Schintlemeister, A., Schmidt, B.C., Sohn, J-C., Alma Solis, M., Tarmann, G.M., Warren, A.D., Weller, S., Yakovlev, R.V., Zolotuhin, V.V., Zwick, A. - Специалисты по группам.

- you should send them a link to the thread. But they clearly depended on them, by and large, estimates of the number of taxa in "their" groups and nothing more.

"there's still Kozlov, even though he's in Finland.

- from now on, taxonomy is generally the lot of molecular scientists and it will only get better from now on, genitals smoke pussy.

Vlad, I'm sorry, but any average user can download sequences from the genebank and upload them to a computer. And the computer will calculate the "system" itself. are you talking about this "taxonomy"? Nyunyu

Vlad, I'm sorry, but any average user can download sequences from the genebank and upload them to a computer. And the computer will calculate the "system" itself. are you talking about this "taxonomy"? Nyunyu

What's there to apologize for?

Can you get the genital preparations in euparal out of storage? or glycerin genitals? Or-horror - cook it yourself? Something tells me that there are a few more people who can do this...

Everything is correct, the more remote from, let's say, the subject, there will be a taxonomy, the more objectivesoti will be in it
Taxonomy is a classification, but in fact - sorting. And it is better to perform sorting by machine
You just need to decide probably what is going on, postoroenie phylogenetic system of organisms, or the war of clans of new and old schools )))))))

What's there to apologize for?

Can you get the genital preparations in euparal out of storage? or glycerin genitals? Or-horror - cook it yourself? Something tells me that there are a few more people who can do this...

And what prevents you from using both on occasion? And preimaginals, pheromones, and other fun things?
I don't understand you, to be honest. A true biologist understands that the most correct approach is a comprehensive one. And it also understands that a system built on different attributes will be different , so you need to build it on the maximum number of possible attributes. Otherwise, it will not have the maximum predictive properties. And this, as you know, is the MAIN task of taxonomy (building a system with the most predictive properties - a natural system). A DNA-based system does not have such properties, as does a system based on genitalia or venation. Only in the complex does such a system approach the natural one.

Here is a simple allegory.

3 systems of Christmas balls
The first system is based on the "color"attribute
The second system is built on the basis of the "size"
attribute The third system is built on the basis of the "material"attribute

We get
System 1 (Types)
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball

System 2 (Types)
- Big Ball
- Medium Ball
- Small Ball

System 3 (Types)
- Glass ball
-Plastic ball
- Paper ball

The predictive properties of these three systems are small. Now let's build a system that takes all three attributes into account. Of course, it will be somewhat more complex, but its predictive properties are approaching almost complete:

Type Plastic balls
Big Balls Class
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball
Class Medium Balls
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball
Small Balls class
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball

Type Glass Balls
Big Balls Class
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball
Class Medium Balls
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball
Small Balls class
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball

Type Paper Balls
Big Balls Class
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball
Class Medium Balls
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball
Small Balls class
- Red ball
- Green ball
- White ball
- Silver ball

At the same time, it is obvious that if the weight of the attribute changes, the system itself will change dramatically, but its predictive properties will not change one iota. That's why we're laughing about different systems right now, and why some people think that hCV is a panacea. This is another fetish, which will be replaced by something else. It's just that some people think that building a system based only on ribonucleic acids is the only correct option. But in fact, in the clinical norm, you also need to use cNA. And for some reason, such neo-taxonomists forget that the use of DNA is actually an ideal way to accurately identify a taxon first of all (it can only indirectly affect the system, such as the wing pattern or the structure of the terminal tergites of the abdomen), and it is in this direction that molecular scientists should work, and not build computer pseudo-systems in the future. in the tradition of Hennig's long-criticized cladistics.

Sorry for a lot of buk.

Tinplate))))
The modern system seems to be built on only one feature - phylogeny. "Balls" were in the time of Linnaeus

Everything is correct, the more remote from, let's say, the subject, there will be a taxonomy, the more objectivesoti will be in it
Taxonomy is a classification, but in fact - sorting. And it is better to perform sorting by machine
You just need to decide probably what is going on, postoroenie phylogenetic system of organisms, or the war of clans of new and old schools )))))))

You need to read a lot of theory. The biological system is not a box of oranges. The system is an ordered set of sets with a finite (discrete) element - higher - rank taxa absorb smaller ones, and so on-up to the initial level, basic, and elementary. Someone considers the basic level of the species, someone the population. Machine classification of such a set is hardly feasible - the machine simply cannot take into account all the elements of all sets (taking into account inter-set relations), as well as all the characteristics of all elements (and there may be millions of them). That is why smart people say that taxonomy is not a task for a computer, but for a person (we actively read Rasnitsyn).

Tinplate))))
The modern system seems to be built on only one feature - phylogeny. "Balls" were in the time of Linnaeus

I repeat once again - read, read and read. There are philistines, there are cladistics. Phylogeny is not a system, but a possible path of origin. The phylogenetic system of insects is unsubstantiated, since there is no sufficient number of fossils to justify it. A" science " based on guesswork, with all the resulting "sister taxa", "clades" and other bullshit that can't be proven. This is a fortune-telling on coffee grounds. The only correct system that can be proved primarily by predictive properties is the natural system. And the fact that you can calculate something with numbers and build dendrograms on this basis (although initially, in fact, a continuous graph is built, which the computer then interprets into a dendrogram - and it is not known how it will do this the next time it calculates even the same data) is not a system. This is called "calculating Euclidean (or some other) distances in the matrix" .

Recently, a friend told me that he "found a new species for science." He had never done this before, so I asked him for more details, not without interest. A friend, very pleased with himself, said that he sent a couple of dozen legs for DNA testing and was told that one of the samples was different from the others (already known species). Now the "discoverer" needs to master the technique of preparing genitals in order to characterize them in the first description and compare them with known species. That's how it works now. In principle, my semi-literate neighbor can "find new species for science." It's a funny situation, even a curious one. Who can be considered the author who highlighted the New Species? The one who mailed the samples to the lab, or the lab assistant who only saw butterflies in pictures?

Recently, a friend told me that he "found a new species for science." He had never done this before, so I asked him for more details, not without interest. A friend, very pleased with himself, said that he sent a couple of dozen legs for DNA testing and was told that one of the samples was different from the others (already known species). Now the "discoverer" needs to master the technique of preparing genitals in order to characterize them in the first description and compare them with known species. That's how it works now. In principle, my semi-literate neighbor can "find new species for science." It's a funny situation, even a curious one. Who can be considered the author who highlighted the New Species? The one who mailed the samples to the lab, or the lab assistant who only saw butterflies in pictures?

That's what I mean. Let the shoemakers make boots and the bakers bake bread.

I wanted to say that in the time of Linnaeus, the principles described with balls were relevant, because then the urgent task was to sort out the animals somehow.
And don't you know that if you build a classification based on a large number of features, then such a classification will degenerate into a large number of categories, so large that it will simply be unreadable and incomprehensible?
In the example with balloons, this is clearly visible.

Therefore, it is more logical to take one feature - origin, and build a system based on this feature, using the tools that best reflect the selected feature. And again-intersenee, I do not know who, but I am more interested not in morpho-anatomical similarity but phylogenetic kinship, when I look at a name like "sailfish family, swallowtail genus, maaka swallowtail species", I first of all think that the species in these categories are united by a common kinship, and only then that they are all they are somewhat similar to each other there. And kinship is more important than similarity.

I just don't understand what the goal is, to build a phylogenetic system, or just sort it as living taxonomists like?

Thank you for sending me to the library, and the same goes to you


PS
barko, and what, the toad crushes?
PSSP
I would be in the place of a "friend", having learned that I found a "new species for science" (heh), I would take it and say nothing to anyone - let the literate neighbors find it themselves-this is their vocation )))
But I know the main law of taxonomy - from the change of names, the essence does not change Of course, I would like to look at the REAL system, but so far in acc. If there is only snobbery in the circles, then I can only contemplate the inflating of balloons

This post was edited by Hierophis - 12/30/2011 21: 59

I wanted to say that in the time of Linnaeus, the principles described with balls were relevant, because then the urgent task was to sort out the animals somehow.
And don't you know that if you build a classification based on a large number of features, then such a classification will degenerate into a large number of categories, so large that it will simply be unreadable and incomprehensible?
In the example with balloons, this is clearly visible.

Therefore, it is more logical to take one feature - origin, and build a system based on this feature, using the tools that best reflect the selected feature. And again-intersenee, I do not know who, but I am more interested not in morpho-anatomical similarity but phylogenetic kinship, when I look at a name like "sailfish family, swallowtail genus, maaka swallowtail species", I first of all think that the species in these categories are united by a common kinship, and only then that they are all they are somewhat similar to each other there. And kinship is more important than similarity.

I just don't understand what the goal is, to build a phylogenetic system, or just sort it as living taxonomists like?

Thank you for sending me to the library, and the same goes to you

The goal is to build a natural system.
Origin is not a feature. Origin is a unidirectional process. Are you familiar with the basic biogenetic law? If it would be easy to build a system, but somehow it doesn't grow together :D.
And about attributes and categories... you forget that sets are formed from subsets that characterize elements of the same type (level, structure, whatever you want) - and that these subsets are nothing but elements in relation to the set itself. Therefore, there may not be so many categories .
I almost live in the library.

I wanted to say that in the time of Linnaeus, the principles described with balls were relevant, because then the urgent task was to sort out the animals somehow.
And don't you know that if you build a classification based on a large number of features, then such a classification will degenerate into a large number of categories, so large that it will simply be unreadable and incomprehensible?
In the example with balloons, this is clearly visible.

Therefore, it is more logical to take one feature - origin, and build a system based on this feature, using the tools that best reflect the selected feature. And again-intersenee, I do not know who, but I am more interested not in morpho-anatomical similarity but phylogenetic kinship, when I look at a name like "sailfish family, swallowtail genus, maaka swallowtail species", I first of all think that the species in these categories are united by a common kinship, and only then that they are all they are somewhat similar to each other there. And kinship is more important than similarity.

I just don't understand what the goal is, to build a phylogenetic system, or just sort it as living taxonomists like?

Thank you for sending me to the library, and the same goes to you
PS
barko, and what, the toad crushes?
PSSP
I would be in the place of a "friend", having learned that I found a "new species for science" (heh), I would take it and say nothing to anyone - let the literate neighbors find it themselves-this is their vocation )))
But I know the main law of taxonomy - from the change of names, the essence does not change Of course, I would like to look at the REAL system, but so far in acc. If there is only snobbery in the circles, then I can only contemplate the inflating of balloons

It depends on whether you are a gnostic, an agnostic, or a skeptic. It seems to me that you have the latter, and you will never see the real system :D

And what prevents you from using both on occasion? And preimaginals, pheromones, and other fun things?
I don't understand you, to be honest. A true biologist understands that the most correct approach is a comprehensive one. And it also understands that a system built on different attributes will be different , so you need to build it on the maximum number of possible attributes. Otherwise, it will not have the maximum predictive properties. And this, as you know, is the MAIN task of taxonomy (building a system with the most predictive properties - a natural system). A DNA-based system does not have such properties, as does a system based on genitalia or venation. Only in the complex does such a system approach the natural one.

I would like to point out that the results of today's molecular studies, which formed the basis of the list of Newkerken and Co., as a rule (in the discussion) also consider all the previous morphological baggage, emphasizing which morphological patterns observed earlier are confirmed by genetic analysis.

An example is the relationship between Herminiinae and Arctiinae, which has long been assumed by morphologists, but only thanks to molecular mechanics it has been formed nomenclatural.

You (and you are not the only one) try to present the current taxonomists-molecular scientists as the heroes of the joke "bring back the dog" - but this is not so.

The goal is to build a natural system.

I almost live in the library.

That is, phylogeny is not important?
Seriously, I understand the essence of what is happening as follows: previously, morphological / anaomic similarity was sufficient reason to assume kinship(not formal, because they are similar, but phylogenetic). And the molecular method has made adjustments to these rules.

It's good to live in a library.. there are probably plenty of scales in the books, I would shake them out and catch them, shake them out and catch them!!! What else is there to do???
)))))))))))))))

Recently, a friend told me that he "found a new species for science." He had never done this before, so I asked him for more details, not without interest. A friend, very pleased with himself, said that he sent a couple of dozen legs for DNA testing and was told that one of the samples was different from the others (already known species). Now the "discoverer" needs to master the technique of preparing genitals in order to characterize them in the first description and compare them with known species. That's how it works now. In principle, my semi-literate neighbor can "find new species for science." It's a funny situation, even a curious one. Who can be considered the author who highlighted the New Species? The one who mailed the samples to the lab, or the lab assistant who only saw butterflies in pictures?

The person who will make the description.