Preparation of genitals

The message is not about preparation, but about preservation. I propose for public consideration my own method of storing the genitals of butterflies.

Thank you, Pavel! Interesting way! I'll have to try it.
- I've seen tubes of different outer diameters - which one do you use?
- Maybe it makes sense to cut the part of the tube that is under the pin diagonally? It will be easier to pierce and the tube will slightly shrink.
- And what is the risk of contact of glycerol with a pin?

If I understood correctly, the tube is open on both sides, and the glycerin is not leaking out due to surface tension forces?

This is not an option for long-term storage, as the glycerin will dry out in an open tube. Glycerin dries slowly, but it dries, and in a few years it dries completely.

The outer diameter of " my " tubes is 4 mm. The wall thickness is about 0.3 - 0.4 mm. But this is not a standard. I haven't experimented with large tubes. As an option (theoretically) - when carrying or transporting, it is possible to move the genitals inside the tube, but whether they are lying - the surface tension of glycerol is very good. In my tubes, nothing moved (transportation by train for 1.5 hours, and more than once, buses, etc.). Just once I bought 3 droppers at the pharmacy at once - what they gave, I use them. By the way, there aren't many tubes left! There's still work to be done. You can cut it diagonally, but it seems to me that the stability of the tube itself on the needle will decrease. Although - if the collection is still standing and not shaking... But, in general, an interesting offer! Thanks! If it is difficult to pierce (the pin is thin and bends), you can carefully "prick" with a stronger needle (I do this) and then pierce with the right one. I don't see any point in saving IVs for myself personally - they are not deficient for me (work saves ), and the material output (in my opinion) is large. For me personally, pins are a more scarce commodity! What is dangerous contact of glycerol with a pin can only show time. I don't like the contact itself. How much glycerin can contribute to metal oxidation I do not know - but out of harm's way... Here I'm afraid of experiments.
About the drying of glycerol. Quite possibly. I recently started boiling my genitals to argue... But I looked at the copies from two years ago - everything seems to be in place...

This post was edited by palvasru4ko - 15.07.2010 18: 44

I return to the question of the applicability of permanent drugs. In my group, I am a categorical opponent of them, because I have the courage to consider myself a morphologist.

Permanent preparations can only be used for structures that are flat and relatively simple. Look at the photo below - can such a structure be enclosed in a permanent preparation?

Pictures:

australasiae.jpg — (44.53к)

I return to the question of the applicability of permanent drugs. In my group, I am a categorical opponent of them, because I have the courage to consider myself a morphologist.

Permanent preparations can only be used for structures that are flat and relatively simple. Look at the photo below - can such a structure be enclosed in a permanent preparation?

In the case of lepidoptera, there is no alternative to permanent euparal preparations for a long time. This is a fact and it is not necessary to discuss it.

This post was edited by barko - 28.10.2009 00: 19

Regarding the drying of glycerol: you can make plasticine corks, but picking them out complicates the work process. The second end of the tube can be melted with a lighter and crumpled with your fingers - soldered in this way. But this is already some kind of sarcophagus!!! Alternatively, you can fill it with sugar syrup instead of glycerin. If you need to look at the genitals, remove the tube from the pin and put it in hot water. "Karamelka" breaks up and... do whatever you want. But I haven't tried any of the methods yet - this is purely theoretical reasoning.

This post was edited by palvasru4ko - 15.07.2010 18: 44

K. A. Efetov once told me about one case when the museum (the city has forgotten, but if necessary, I will ask) communications broke and flooded everything, including boxes with glasses with permanent preparations. In general, the labels were washed away and which genitals belong to which specimen became a mystery.
Regarding the drying of glycerol: you can make plasticine corks, but picking them out complicates the work process. The second end of the tube can be melted with a lighter and crumpled with your fingers - soldered in this way. But this is already some kind of sarcophagus!!! Alternatively, you can fill it with sugar syrup instead of glycerin. If you need to look at the genitals, remove the tube from the pin and put it in hot water. "Karamelka" breaks up and... do whatever you want. But I haven't tried any of the methods yet - this is purely theoretical reasoning.

Pavel, your method is a well-forgotten old one, invented at the time by Hugo Andersson:
Andersson H. En snabb och billing metod att montera genetal-preparat i glycerin // Entomologen. — 1972. — Vol. 1, № 2. — P. 1-2.

Based on this method, an article was published in "E. O.":
Narchuk E. P. A convenient method for storing drugs in a liquid medium in a collection // Entomological review. - 1975. - Vol. 54, issue 3. - pp. 676-677.

Briefly - pieces of polyethylene tubes are filled with a mixture of alcohol and glycerin, then sealed with a small alcohol lamp and cold tweezers.

This method is used by many people, and I have been using it for almost twenty years and highly recommend it to everyone if it is suitable for a specific group.

P.S. And the open glycerin will really dry out.

"Your method is a well-forgotten old one, invented at the time by Hugo Andersson"

So this is beautiful! I didn't even claim the championship! I just haven't heard of him, that's all... I saw only holes, glasses, test tubes... And for the primary sources - thank you! Maybe someday there will be access to this literature - I'll read it.

I return to the question of the applicability of permanent drugs. In my group, I am a categorical opponent of them, because I have the courage to consider myself a morphologist.

Permanent preparations can only be used for structures that are flat and relatively simple. Look at the photo below - can such a structure be enclosed in a permanent preparation?

I won't take it upon myself to judge your group, but I am sure that flat drugs would be suitable there as well. This is firstly, and secondly, not all permanent preparations of the genitals of butterflies are flat, or rather not all of their parts. Yes, the abdomen and valvae should be opened and fixed in the same plane, but the aedeagus with the inverted vesica should certainly be voluminous.

Here is an example of aedeagus with an inverted vesica Eupithecia distinctaria while maintaining full volume

Pictures:

distinctaria.JPG — (104.41к)

How many people, so many opinions. But I'm still an incorrigible supporter of glycerin! If I am sure that I will not touch the drug, I will fill it with" caramel". In addition, the drying of glycerin is an extra reason to conduct a collection revision from time to time. Accordingly, there is less risk of missing kozheeds! And if the tubes are sealed at one end (where the needle is punctured), and the other end (with the genitals) is oriented with the hole up (almost all boxes stand vertically), then nothing will be lost even if the glycerin is completely dried.

How many people, so many opinions. But I'm still an incorrigible supporter of glycerin! If I am sure that I will not touch the drug, I will fill it with" caramel". In addition, the drying of glycerin is an extra reason to conduct a collection revision from time to time. Accordingly, there is less risk of missing kozheeds! And if the tubes are sealed at one end (where the needle is punctured), and the other end (with the genitals) is oriented with the hole up (almost all boxes stand vertically), then nothing will be lost even if the glycerin is completely dried.

The simplest method is sliced blisters from under tablets, you can squeeze them out of suitable plastic yourself, it turns out more aesthetically pleasing. Taped on top. The option is reliable, the only negative is that some people think that this is "unsightly". Personally, I don't care, this is my personal opinion, I don't impose on anyone.

The second option is separate storage. This option is preferred by many museums. Preparations in the retainer are placed in micro-tubes, I use eppendorfs, and placed in a large container with the same retainer. Each test tube must be accompanied by a full label and a unique number. The corresponding number is indicated on the additional label (or provided for when printing labels) and is pinned under the copy. By the way, I write labels in pencil. That's how retrograde I am.

I won't take it upon myself to judge your group, but I am sure that flat drugs would be suitable there as well.

Yes, they don't fit. If you look for the good side of everything, then the advantage will be that the fine structures of the genitals have been very little used in phylogenetic studies. So "I'll get more"

On the other hand, I don't absolutize. Surely there are structures where flat preparations will be appropriate.

"By the way, I write labels in pencil. That's how retrograde I am."

Is this in case of a flood?

Yes, they don't fit. If you look for the good side of everything, then the advantage will be that the fine structures of the genitals have been very little used in phylogenetic studies. So "I'll get more"  

On the other hand, I don't absolutize. Surely there are structures where flat preparations will be appropriate.

For scoops, flat preparations are necessary, namely for the valvae and abdomen. The structure of the scoop in the absolute majority of cases allows you to do this. The fact is that" flattening " the valvae can achieve so necessary edenticity in the preparation. The degree of pressure depends on the manifestation of some features that are important for determining and pseudo-signs disappear.
Aedeagus scoops must necessarily retain the volume after preparation, since it is on the inverted, voluminous vesica that structures important in terms of morphology are laid. Choracteric" sacs " of the deverticle serve as the most important morphological features. To flatten the aedeagus means to lose the value of an objective assessment. Therefore, aedeaguses in euparal "flat" preparations should still remain voluminous. It should be noted that the production of a high-quality drug with all the necessary signs preserved is not an easy task.

All of this applies to noctuids in the first place. Other groups have their own characteristics and how to take them into account when working with the relevant specialists.

Here is another example of a euparal drug with full volume retention.

ps You really are sorry that I appeal to you about the preparations of the scoop, but no one else responds

Can I ask you a question? What kind of fine structures do you consider morphologically important? Maybe it will be applicable in my work.

Pictures:

004.jpg — (87.43к)

To flatten the aedeagus means to lose the value of an objective assessment. Therefore, aedeaguses in euparal "flat" preparations should still remain voluminous. It should be noted that the production of a high-quality drug with all the necessary signs preserved is not an easy task.

Apparently, we are talking about the same thing from different positions. The main goals are minimal damage, the possibility of subsequent study, and the safety of the object. Obviously, for different groups and methods are different.

I work on cockroaches, earwigs, and a little praying mantis.

I can immediately say that I do not know the ideal method of storing drugs. At the beginning of his work, under the influence of his supervisor, he kept the preparations in glycerol, pinning bowls under the copy. Now I have gradually switched to alcohol - a small object can be stored as a whole, "disassembled into parts". But the requirements for tightness have also increased many times, because alcohol dries quickly. The main disadvantage of this type of storage is damage. Even with maximum care, after hundreds of cycles of pulling out/putting back in the test tube, the chances of accidentally damaging the object increase significantly. But I haven't found a better method yet.

As for the attributes, I think it depends on the group. Each group has its own patterns, although there are general rules. The main thing is that the stability of the structure of such features as genitals (endosomatic structures, in the sense of Severtsev, that are not directly controlled by the environment) correlates with the age of the group. A.V. Gorokhov has some developments on this topic, but I do not know what has been published.

Interestingly, I did not know that the genitals of lepidoptera are rolled up in euparal under glass.
I also make preparations for the genitals of millipedes on glass, I tried glycerin-gelatin, Canadian balm, euparal. At the same time, the structures remain bulky.
But that's not what I really wanted to write about. It's about looking at my genitals from both sides. Therefore, as I was taught, the drug should be done between two coverslips. Then such a double glass is glued with PVA glue on a slide with a label and stored.
So I wonder if any entomologists do this? Well, you know, share your experience and so on))

This post was edited by AlexEvs - 10/30/2009 21: 17

 
But that's not what I really wanted to write about. It's about looking at my genitals from both sides. Therefore, as I was taught, the drug should be done between two coverslips. Then such a double glass is glued with PVA glue on a slide with a label and stored.
So I wonder if any entomologists do this? Well, you know, share your experience and so on))

Yes, I saw it. preparation of earwigs ' genitals between two coverslips glued under the specimen. Still bad, in my opinion. Even the flat genitals of earwigs have to be rotated and moved during the study process. If, of course, you REALLY STUDY them. Unfortunately, the outline of the main structures is still often roughly drawn.

Clearly, it has its own specifics.
With diplopods and woodlice in this case it is easier - they have paired genitals. I orient one of the "halves" of the kiwsaks frontally (so that it can be viewed from the front and back), and the other laterally (from the sides, respectively).

Today I tried, for the first time, to blow out bags at the carabuses. And, to my great surprise, it turned out!!!
It turns out that this is not so difficult!!! Thanks to Igor Solodovnikov for such an accessible description.
However, I did not use a tile for drying, but a regular household hair dryer.

On gas, it dries very quickly and efficiently with experience, since sometimes two hands are busy and you can choose different temperatures - you will understand with time. With a household hair dryer, there are problems - this is a lower temperature and a strong jet of air. But everyone gets used to their own method, or rather to the one that works best. There are a lot of nuances for each subgenus of Carabus and even a group of species. I described a bit of the technique above, but I'll repeat it here

It is often necessary to blow with water, then suck it back with the syringe, and replace the syringe with a dry one immediately for drying, this allows you to blow out complex or old bags. But this requires having 2 or 3 syringes. Sometimes the blowing itself goes with a syringe to 60 cubic meters., and drying to 150 cubic meters.

This post was edited by I. solod - 10.01.2010 18: 36

Surely, during the preparation, many people encountered all sorts of strange "extraneous things" in the abdomen of butterflies. So now in the abdomen of the Chinese Eupithecia liberata, as many as 5 characteristic forms of formations were found. A dense shell. They look hollow inside. Of course, after cooking in an alkaline solution, some of their internal structures may simply dissolve, but still they are rather hollow. Some have a through hole. Interesting to know what it is? Where you can read about such formations.

very large compared to the belly of a butterfly




cut sideways and open abdomen

Were they attached to the walls of the abdomen from the inside out?

No, they were not attached to the walls of the abdomen, but floated freely in the abdominal cavity. However, it is necessary to make allowances for the presence of alkali, as it dissolves many internal structures during cooking.

I'm afraid there's no way to find out now. In fact, the same parasitofauna of insects is almost not studied. that is, of course, it has been studied in several dozen species of economic importance/usually kept in laboratories.

Last year, I recorded the contents of the intestines of cockroaches brought from Indonesia and passed the material to a specialist in gregarins. Alas, the result is zero, due to the" field fixation " of the source material.

I'm afraid there's no way to find out now. In fact, the same parasitofauna of insects is almost not studied. that is, of course, it has been studied in several dozen species of economic importance/usually kept in laboratories.

Last year, I recorded the contents of the intestines of cockroaches brought from Indonesia and passed the material to a specialist in gregarins. Alas, the result is zero, due to the" field fixation " of the source material.

"Field fixation" for beans is drying. There's nothing you can do about it.
And yet it is interesting that these "strangers" are so large compared to the size of the butterfly's abdomen and so numerous.

Dear friends!!!
Experts in history!!!
And who and when first suggested that the genitals of insects should be examined for a systematic purpose, and not just for sex determination. I'm interested in your last name, publication name, and year. Ideally, a scan or link (oh, I was dreaming...). I just want to know who was the instigator of the" genital revolution " in entomology. Thank you to all who responded!

Dear friends!!!
Experts in history!!!
And who and when first suggested that the genitals of insects should be examined for a systematic purpose, and not just for sex determination. I'm interested in your last name, publication name, and year. Ideally, a scan or link (oh, I was dreaming...). I just want to know who was the instigator of the" genital revolution " in entomology. Thank you to all who responded!

Dreams come true Here is something about the history of the issue http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/html/455/...0/45513910.html

Friedrich Zacher (F. Zacher, early years of the last century) was the first to note the diagnostic nature of the genitals of male earwigs. The first taxonomic work based on the structure of male genitalia, involving extensive material, belongs to Malcolm Burr (M. Burr, the second decade of the last century). I don't remember the exact dates, but I don't want to guess.

For the first time, the structural features of the genitals of cockroaches (males and females) were used for taxonomic purposes by F. Mackittrick (1964). McKittrick's work is fundamental, and it is the beginning of the modern cockroach system. Separate signs were indicated earlier, for example, G. Y. Beibienko indicated diagnostic differences in the form of separate well-marked structures.

If you are interested, I can provide bibliographic data.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 07.04.2010 12: 56

Friedrich Zacher (F. Zacher, early years of the last century) was the first to note the diagnostic nature of the genitals of male earwigs. The first taxonomic work based on the structure of male genitalia, involving extensive material, belongs to Malcolm Burr (M. Burr, the second decade of the last century).

I don't know what to think about it. There is one interesting book. Here's the title page:

Years: 1879-1901. The entire family of thick-headed butterflies in it is represented in color tables not only by imago drawings, but also by wing venation schemes and drawings of MALE GENITALIA. For example, see table 114:

We should probably dig deeper...

We should probably dig deeper...

Somewhere (I don't remember exactly where) I read that one of the pioneer breeders (for Lepidoptera) was Reverdin. He was working on fatheads. It was about 100 years ago. And now it turns out that even earlier.

In the paper cited by barko, we are talking about the special technique of eversion of the vesicles - a much younger sport.

He was the first to note the diagnostic nature of the genitals of male earwigs...

For the first time, signs of the structure of the genitals of cockroaches ...

not a lepidoptera

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 07.04.2010 21: 35

not a lepidoptera

I was generally interested. Of course , if the method "rolls" for "not a lepidopter", then you can (not the fact that it will work, but you can) try it on a lepidopter. The time difference between" le... "and" not le... " should probably be small. So far, it turns out that it is necessary to dig in the XIX century...

So you were interested in the methodology, not the background of the issue?

With the method, everything is very bad. Initially and, unfortunately, often still, everything was rolled up in permanent preparations (Canadian Balm). From my point of view, this is mostly damage to the material, often irreversible. Permanent preparations based on more gentle substances, for/euparal, etc. are better, since they are more or less reversible and less damage the object.

An alternative is to store in test tubes filled with a fixative, usually glycerin, alcohol, or a mixture of the two.

As for the preparation, the methods are very different in different groups, because the anatomy of the object is different.

So you were interested in the methodology, not the background of the issue?

No, I was interested in the BACKGROUND of THE QUESTION. Apparently, I expressed myself incorrectly about the migration of the methodology and the emphasis changed... This must have been the case: someone now forgotten came to the conclusion that the genitalia of different species of the order "so-and-so" differ and this can be used in taxonomy. An article (or book) was written, everyone read it and frantically began to apply the method in their group. This is how the works and/or research results described above appeared (almost SIMULTANEOUSLY). I still have the impression that only those who read the "work" of the discoverer and applied it to their group were listed, but the name of this discoverer is still behind a veil of fog (no matter what group he was engaged in). It is quite possible that there is no" first " at all - several researchers could have come to this at the same time. report the results at the general congress, and the methodology was picked up by enthusiasts... You can fantasize a lot, but you want to KNOW for sure, so I asked-does anyone know? But all that I have written here does not detract at all from what was written in previous posts. Personally, I didn't know all this and it was very interesting! Thank you all! If something new appears on the history of the issue - IT would be VERY interesting to read!

No, I was interested in the HISTORY of THE ISSUE.<...> If something new appears on the history of the issue - IT would be VERY interesting to read!

And here's what I had at hand:
1. B.Petersen (photo 32-17a) the title speaks for itself even to those who do not know German. Drawings – in the text (f 32-17b);
2. His other work (f 33-12a), rather, is related not to the history of the issue, but to the "prehistory". Here the figures are both in the text (f 33-12b) and on separate "tables";
3. An article by N. Ya. Kuznetsov (f 84) describing a new species from the Crimea (Kusnezov N. J. F new species of Hipparchia Fabr. 1807 (Satyrus Latr. 1809) from the Crimea / / Yearbook of the Zoological Museum Imp. AN. Vol. 14. 1909. SPb., 1909. pp. 140-144) contains two tables: on one – the actual butterflies, on the other- (f 85)

Pictures:

33_12a.jpg — (15.93к)


32_17b.jpg — (21.39к)


32_17а.jpg — (18.59к)


33_12b.jpg — (22.95к)


84.jpg — (7.75 k)


85.jpg — (11.97 k)

This must have been the case: someone now forgotten came to the conclusion that the genitalia of different species of the order "so-and-so" differ and this can be used in taxonomy. An article (or book) was written, everyone read it and frantically began to apply the method in their group. This is how the works and/or research results described above appeared (almost SIMULTANEOUSLY).

Not exactly. Large-scale works also appeared, but no one rushed to apply them feverishly in taxonomy. The people are quite conservative and are wary of such "innovations". From the first works to direct application, it took up to several decades (at least in Zhukov).

Here are a couple of major and significant works, so to speak, from the first:

Verhoeff, 1893. Veragleichende Untersuchungen über die Abdominalsegmente und die Copulationsorgane der männlichen Coleoptera, ein Beitrag zur kentnis der natürlichen Verwandschaft derselben // Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, Heft 1, S. 113-170 + 5 Taf.

Sharp D., Muir F. 1912. The comparative anatomy of the male genital tube in Coleoptera // Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, : 477-642.

And another one :
Zia Y. 1936. Comparative studies of the male genital tube in Coleoptera Phytophaga // Sinensia, 7(3): 319-343.

Genital variability was met with hostility by the German school. Almost until the 1930s, no one used it here. Moreover, German classics rarely made mistakes in the descriptions of new species. they had an eye...
Now we need to learn how to make drugs from Barko. This is first class. I'm not cheating. These are perfect drugs!

  
Now we need to learn how to make drugs from Barko. (...) These are perfect drugs!

I haven't seen all of his works, but judging by what is displayed in this topic (post # 99, # 129, etc.), this is probably the case...
By the way, what about large, or" branched " genitals, such as in the male Hipparchia pellucida (Stauder, 1923)? I can't imagine how they can be "rolled up" in euparal? Although, to be honest , I myself have NEVER tried to work with euparal, and I have no right to judge, since I have only seen it in a bottle... I'm still a "caveman" ...

I haven't seen all of his works, but judging by what is displayed in this topic (post # 99, # 129, etc.), this is probably the case...
By the way, what about large, or" branched " genitals, such as in the male Hipparchia pellucida (Stauder, 1923)? I can't imagine how they can be "rolled up" in euparal? Although, to be honest , I myself have NEVER tried to work with euparal, and I have no right to judge, since I have only seen it in a bottle... I'm still a "caveman"...

Dear Pasha, almost all people born of a woman are cavemen compared to Barko. What I have seen is a high class of drug manufacturing. Believe me, I've seen a lot. But yesterday Oleg (Barko) showed excellent options!!!! This is exceptional! I'm not lying. I think that Barko could organize a master class - because his preparations are great

almost all people born to a woman are cavemen compared to Barko. (...) This is exclusive! (...) his drugs are great

I suggest you call Barko "Lefty" from Budapest! By the way. if we believe in reincarnation, then maybe the soul of our Russian Lefty moved into Barko at birth? A joke, of course, but this at least somehow explains the origin of the talent