Lycaenidae

Who is here and who, above has already united on the basis of cladistics to edrena grandmother?
We simply present data on the PROXIMITY (and not on the cladistics) of the structure of DNA molecules. If users had the necessary programs in their hands, it would be much easier and more visual to give the sum of aligned sequences, and so you have to disfigure and write out these dendrograms (By the way, if you group even more species, the porridge of alternations of neolicenes and satyriums will be even stronger).
PHOTOS of genitals and developmental stages are given, and the obvious similarity is shown, not the cladistics. A question is asked, not a request to speculate about the benefits or harms of cladistics.

Now I see.
The cladogram is very far from being taxonomically complete - I think that if it includes 80-90 percent of the available taxa, the picture will become much clearer.

Can you use illustrative material in this format?

Isn't it better to give the female's genitals as a whole, rather than just individual fragments? The overall view is very important. Is not it so?

It may be necessary, but in most cases, the bursa, ductus, and anal papillae in pigeons are not informative enough and will only distract attention from the significant part - the antrum with its ogudina. And if you give it in this format, then in the photos of the male's genitals, you should also give the ejaculatory duct, ligaments, muscles, and the achenes themselves. I think so.

By the way, the tinting of the female's genitals, at least in the above example, "blurred" a very important feature - the area of sclerotization at the top of the postvaginal plate. On the presented preparation, the dye is concentrated on the top and it is not visible whether there is sclerotization or not, and if there is, what shape the area is.
Here's an example:

As a specialist, you know more about the information content of individual parts. I'm talking about the overall appearance, the overall appearance. Individual parts may be uninformative, but together they make up something whole( whole), a single one - the female's genitals. In my opinion, they should be photographed entirely, which does not prevent of course to show the most significant parts separately.

For males, it may make sense to extract the aedeagus and photograph it separately. Valva will be easier to perceive without edeagus. It still closes the view.

Please indicate with the arrow where to look. Not all the features of the structure of the genitals of pigeons I know

By the way, the tinting of the female's genitals, at least in the above example, "blurred" a very important feature - the area of sclerotization at the top of the postvaginal plate. On the presented preparation, the dye is concentrated on the top and it is not visible whether there is sclerotization or not, and if there is, what shape the area is.
Here's an example:

Is it better seen in this photo? If not, I'll retake it later for verification.

I don't know how it is in Hungary, but in the Volgograd region korydons fly until September 22.

2205.2011г.
Ukraine, okr.g.Zaporozhye
Female nogel lays eggs in the inflorescence of astragalus.

Astragalus ponticus, but there are two populations of nogels in the OCD. Zaporozhye region, which switched to other types of astrogals.

I wonder which ones? As high as Pontic? Are these your observations?

It may be necessary, but in most cases, the bursa, ductus, and anal papillae in pigeons are not informative enough and will only distract attention from the significant part - the antrum with its ogudina. And if you give it in this format, then in the photos of the male's genitals, you should also give the ejaculatory duct, ligaments, muscles, and the achenes themselves. I think so.

I don't like to tell from photos, especially females, especially those who have been beaten by life. It may well be Corydon (in the photos), but more likely bellargus. It's a little late for Corydon, of course, and there are some subtleties in the edge holes.
Now, if the genitals were not painted, then it would be possible to determine the exact appearance by the shape of the sclerotization at the top.

Astragalus ponticus

the second type is still undetermined.

IMHO, the photo is not ponticus, but dasyanthus.
Why is there a problem with the definition? Do you have a photo?

But in this photo it looks like an attempt to lay eggs on a leaf of a plant, and not in an inflorescence

IMHO, the photo is not ponticus, but dasyanthus.

At the moment, probably everyone took a closer look at what I have in the photo-woolly-flowered astragalus. It is clearly visible that it does not look like a pontic one.
I can't imagine... if I had written about it in the original post...

Well, from the mountains of V. Sayan, only from the Mongolian side, July 2011, since there was such a binge