Lycaenidae

Warm-up for taxonomists.
Try to identify pigeons.

And here is a counter question (photo from Gennady Schemberger).

Pictures:

DSCN0115.jpg — (76.51к)

Well, chalybeitincta is so apparently, despite the yellow head a la danchenkoi and yellow hairs on the anal lobes.

Well, chalybeitincta is so apparently, despite the yellow head a la danchenkoi and yellow hairs on the anal lobes.

It appears to be a natural hybrid of rubi and chalybeitincta. The series was bred from a female caught at the very border of the chalybeitincta nigra and rubi ranges. Here are the butterflies from the same place.

This post was edited by bora - 01.11.2012 15: 30

Pictures:

Callophrys.jpg — (63.95к)


_____________.jpg — (106.49к)

Warm-up for taxonomists.
Try to identify pigeons.
The definition of the structure of the genitals made and will write later.

Congratulations to Gennady Vasilyevich and Boris Vitalyevich on a 100% hit.
Indeed, these are arguses! Moreover, such forms flew together with ordinary arguses!
Maybe such different phenotypes are determined by food plants of caterpillars

or by heat

or the heat

Duc all on one clearing flew. Krpnye with white underparts and ordinary small with grayish.
30.05.2012 Elista

Indeed, these are arguses! Moreover, such forms flew together with ordinary arguses!

In my opinion, everything is simpler - light ones are fresh, and grayish ones are flown (light scales have already flown). There, the grayish one doesn't even have a fringe anymore
In addition, the fringe of Argus is very "wide" and very noticeable, light, therefore, with its loss, the butterfly begins to look smaller.

This post was edited by okoem - 01.11.2012 21: 33

In my opinion, everything is simpler - light ones are fresh, and grayish ones are flown (light scales have already flown). There, the grayish one doesn't even have a fringe anymore
In addition, the fringe of Argus is very "wide" and very noticeable, light, therefore, with its loss, the butterfly begins to look smaller.

No way!
Here is a picture of the straightened arguses in proportions.
On the left is argus, which is common in the North Caucasus, and on the right with a different phenotype.

Here is a picture of the straightened arguses in proportions.
On the left is argus, which is common in the North Caucasus, and on the right with a different phenotype.

Yes, now you can see the difference between these two specific instances (which does not contradict the fact that the circled ones are getting darker).
According to my observations, large light Arguses are quite common in the Crimea. In general, the species is quite variable, both large, small, and medium-sized fly, the background of the undergarment can also vary from instance to instance, within grayish-bluish-whitish shades. Extreme forms of the genitalic phenotype do not differ (varil). I think, if desired, you can build a whole series of transitional phenotypes. (Crimean Idas and Pilaons are no less variable). Perhaps, indeed, the reason is different forage plants.

No way!
Here is a picture of the straightened arguses in proportions.
On the left is argus, which is common in the North Caucasus, and on the right with a different phenotype.

Ha. But to give them to some Russian taxonomists-I'm sure they would immediately describe a new species. After all they fly sympatrically with a typical Argus

Ha. But to give them to some Russian taxonomists-I'm sure they would immediately describe a new species. After all they fly something sympatric with a typical argus

Or maybe it will. Vladimir Lukhtanov picked up the legs for the spoon.

Boris Vitalievich! In the new definition of Sochivko and Kaabaka butterflies, the taxonomy of pigeons is indicated without taking into account your publications. Should this be regarded as a flaw in the authors ' work or ignorance?The areas are also poorly developed.

Boris Vitalievich! In the new definition of Sochivko and Kaabaka butterflies, the taxonomy of pigeons is indicated without taking into account your publications. Should this be regarded as a flaw in the authors ' work or ignorance?The areas are also poorly developed.

Unfortunately, very many Russian authors limit their knowledge at best to books by Tuzov or Chikolovets, which are either outdated or published outdated. It's easier this way and you don't have to strain your brain.

But to give them to some Russian taxonomists-I'm sure they would immediately describe a new species.

Or maybe it will. Vladimir Lukhtanov picked up the legs for the spoon.

I've already demonstrated this material before. Their genetics are the same. In addition, 2 and 4 are generally children of the same mother.

This post was edited by bora - 02.11.2012 14: 34

Pictures:

1.jpg — (213.68к)

And this (about the effect of food on habit), it seems, has already been demonstrated. But you can also repeat it in the topic.

Pictures:

2.jpg — (308.79 k)

And in general, the variability of some

This post was edited by bora - 02.11.2012 14: 43

Pictures:

Lysandra_corydonius.jpg — (192.74к)

To the same topic. Here are the eros. The differences are even smaller than in the examples presented. The molecular and genetic characteristics are virtually identical. But a significant part of entomologists stubbornly consider them to be good species. I.e., a clear picture of double standards.

This post was edited by bora - 03.11.2012 06: 17

Pictures:

map.jpg — (38.78к)


eros.jpg — (152.86к)

Gerard Talavera, Vladimir A. Lukhtanov, Naomi E. Pierce and Roger Vila. 2012. Establishing criteria for higher-level classification using molecular data: the systematics of Polyommatus blue butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) // Cladistics. 1–27.
Here is a part of the cladogram containing palearctic species

This post was edited by bora - 05.11.2012 06: 46

Pictures:

Polyommatina______.jpg — (158.47к)

Or you can use a larger Pliz

And you can have a bigger Pliz

I would love to, I tried several times, but the forum itself cuts down on the size.
I can only do it like this:

File/s:



 2012_Talavera_et_al_Polyommatus.pdf

size: 151.04 k
number of downloads: 800

Gerard Talavera, Vladimir A. Lukhtanov, Naomi E. Pierce and Roger Vila. 2012. Establishing criteria for higher-level classification using molecular data: the systematics of Polyommatus blue butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) // Cladistics. 1–27.
Here is a part of the cladogram containing palearctic species

A good, useful article.

It is not clear why the authors accept as valid the generic name Kretania Beuret, 1959 instead of Plebejides Sauter, 1868 - the latter has priority.

A good, useful article.

It is not clear why the authors accept as valid the generic name Kretania Beuret, 1959 instead of Plebejides Sauter, 1868 - the latter has priority.

The year of the description of Plebejides is not 1868, but 1968.
In this article, Kretania zamotajlovi is sometimes listed as a species (in the text), then as a subspecies of K. eurypilus (This, by the way, was also noticed by Brezomsky).

The situation with the correct spelling of the genus Plebejus or Plebeius is unclear. In some works, the name Plebejus is considered obsolete, while in others, the opposite is true.
Can someone explain situevinu?

The year of the description of Plebejides is not 1868, but 1968.
In this article, Kretania zamotajlovi is sometimes listed as a species (in the text), then as a subspecies of K. eurypilus (This, by the way, was also noticed by Brezomsky).

I also noticed that they were probably taken first as different species in the selection, and in the process it became clear that these were only subspecies.

Well, there Kretania ordubadi appears as K. zephyrinus, Polyommatus erotides as a good species - in general, the authors are not familiar with the Vodolazhsky-Stradomsky molecular model.

In this connection, it remains to repeat the mantra-publish in human language in the scientific press, and not in savage in the district.

The situation with the correct spelling of the genus Plebejus or Plebeius is unclear. In some works, the name Plebejus is considered obsolete, while in others, the opposite is true.
Can someone explain situevinu?

This topic has already arisen here.

Plebejus.

This topic has already arisen here.

Plebejus.

If you believe the original source (that is, Kluke's book of 1780) and still accept the action of the first auditor (Tutta), and not idle gossip, then Plebeius.

The code helps a lot in such cases.

I'd like to see more of this idle gossip... Does anyone have one:

Plebeius Kluk, 1780 or Plebejus Kluk, 1802?
Z Balint, CS Guppy, NG Kondla, K Johnson, CJ Durden - Folia entomologica, 2001

It seems that the network does not have an electronic version in principle.

Gerard Talavera, Vladimir A. Lukhtanov, Naomi E. Pierce and Roger Vila. 2012. Establishing criteria for higher-level classification using molecular data: the systematics of Polyommatus blue butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) // Cladistics. 1–27.
Here is a part of the cladogram containing palearctic species

Just in case: the full version of the article is available via sci-hub.

I'd like to see more of this idle gossip... Does anyone have one:

Plebeius Kluk, 1780 or Plebejus Kluk, 1802?
Z Balint, CS Guppy, NG Kondla, K Johnson, CJ Durden - Folia entomologica, 2001

It seems that the network does not have an electronic version in principle.

They can suffer as much bullshit as they want. Hesselbarth et al. in 1995 clearly wrote who is right and who is wrong. What Balint and his friends did there 6 years later is no longer interesting to anyone.

If you believe the original source (that is, Kluke's book of 1780) and still accept the action of the first auditor (Tutta), and not idle gossip, then Plebeius.

The code is very helpful in such cases.

Allow me to contribute a couple of kopecks of my own. Yes, indeed the ICZN helps a lot!
In fact, the situation is as follows. In the original description of the genus, Kluk used two spellings Plebeius and Plebejus. Obviously, one of them is incorrect Original Spelling (Inorrect Original Spelling). There is no need to apply the action of the "first auditor", especially since no one noticed it and in 1954, by its Opinion No. 278, the generic name Plebejus Kluk, 1780 was included in the Official List of Scientific Names in Zoology (Opinions and Declarations, 1954, v. 6: 135-178). Consequently, the name Plebeius Kluk, 1780 turns out to be a junior objective synonym and a junior homonym of Plebejus Kluk, 1780, and therefore twice objectively invalid! Use only Plebejus Kluk, 1780!

.. and in 1954, by its Opinion No. 278, the generic name Plebejus Kluk, 1780 was included in the Official List of Scientific Names in Zoology (Opinions and Declarations, 1954, v. 6: 135-178).

Here you can see this Opinion:

http://www20.us.archive.org/details/opinio...clar6195455inte

But there's Plebejus Kluk, 1802...

Ten Hagen, W. 2012. Beschreibung neuer Unterarten des Genus Callophrys Billberg, 1820 aus Iran (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Nachr. entomol. Ver. Apollo, N. F. 33 (2/3): 49–56.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0CiYULVPFOMzW...0aus%20Iran.pdf

Well, there Kretania ordubadi appears as K. zephyrinus, Polyommatus erotides as a good species - in general, the authors are not familiar with the Vodolazhsky-Stradomsky molecular model.

In this connection, it remains to repeat the mantra-publish in human language in the scientific press, and not in savage in the district.

Vlad, is this also in Savage?
http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1543/eje_107_3_325_Wiemers.pdf
I agree, ordubadi is not here, but erotides is quite available.
Faunaeuropaea doesn't care about wild-area publications either.
http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=440941

PS. In general, savagery and melkomestechkovost in the head and does not depend on the locale of the individual and its language.

This post was edited by bora - 06.11.2012 06: 32

Vlad, is this also in Savage?
http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1543/eje_107_3_325_Wiemers.pdf

Well, this one is just known to them-in confirmation of my words.

Well, this one is just known to them-in confirmation of my words.

Only here it is not taken into account (at least with respect to erotides)

Allow me to contribute a couple of kopecks of my own. Yes, indeed the ICZN helps a lot!
In fact, the situation is as follows. In the original description of the genus, Kluk used two spellings Plebeius and Plebejus. Obviously, one of them is incorrect Original Spelling (Inorrect Original Spelling). There is no need to apply the action of the "first auditor", especially since no one noticed it and in 1954, by its Opinion No. 278, the generic name Plebejus Kluk, 1780 was included in the Official List of Scientific Names in Zoology (Opinions and Declarations, 1954, v. 6: 135-178). Consequently, the name Plebeius Kluk, 1780 turns out to be a junior objective synonym and a junior homonym of Plebejus Kluk, 1780, and therefore twice objectively invalid! Use only Plebejus Kluk, 1780!

It has already been fairly noted here. that we are talking about a name with the date 1802. But it is the junior primary homonym of the name of 1780., whatever spelling to adopt, since both titles were also used in 1780. I.e., in any case, cannot be used; at the time of writing the opinion, the Commission did not take into account the work of Cluck published in 1780. Meanwhile, both works exist and are only: 1780-first edition, 1802-second publication of the same book. Differences in the spelling of the same title (and there is more than one such difference) are most likely due to the fact that we take for a published work its proofs (proofs), or an additional edition released later; we should also not exclude the possibility that the book was printed from several matrices, and which of them was the original (primary), and which was its inaccurate (with typos) copy, can not be decided now. Since few books have been preserved, and there are no signs that can confidently distinguish a valid publication from an invalid one (see the Code, chapter "Publication Criteria"), the issue can be resolved: A) By the opinion of the Commission; C) by the actions of the first auditor. This solution belongs to Tutt, was published in 1906, and has been repeatedly (or rather, repeatedly) supported in the literature.; The Commission's opinions establishing priority for names published in 1802 have not been published; The opinion concerning names published in 1802 has no practical application in this context, since the principle of priority is automatically triggered. This Opinion would have been valid if the names of 1802 had taken precedence over the names of 1780.

Boris Vitalievich! In the new definition of Sochivko and Kaabaka butterflies, the taxonomy of pigeons is indicated without taking into account your publications. Should this be regarded as a flaw in the authors ' work or ignorance?The areas are also poorly developed.

Miracles used to be ridiculed by worthy books of V. Chikolovets, and now the funny pictures of this book are called the proud word DETERMINANT. You will somehow decide on priorities and correctly identify the real determinants.

Boris, thank you very much for your SCIENTIFIC and VISUAL justification in the eros group. And after all, what kind of garbage it turns out - we publish an article - they don't know it over the hill (or rather, they DON't WANT to know - they probably think that we still catch butterflies with tulle nets and poison them with dichlorvos, then placing them in boxes of the Skorokhod factory), and if they have it, we don't know it at all!?? Where is the truth, gentlemen entomologists? And this is in the age of the Internet... kick-ass... This is what should be understood by the formula: the old can no longer - and the young do not want to yet???

I'd like to see more of this idle gossip... Does anyone have one:

Plebeius Kluk, 1780 or Plebejus Kluk, 1802?
Z Balint, CS Guppy, NG Kondla, K Johnson, CJ Durden - Folia entomologica, 2001

It seems that the network does not have an electronic version in principle.

Here is the article:



 2001_B__lint_no_108_small.pdf

size: 387.87 k
number of downloads: 1943








I just don't understand why nothing is said about Tutt (1906). Is Tutt the first auditor? Can someone post an article:
Tutt, J. W. 1906. A Study of the Generic names of the British Lycaenides and their close allies. - Entomologist's Rec. J. Var. 18: 129-132.

Thanks to the courtesy of Gennady Kuznetsov, we now have all the necessary articles.:



 Tutt.djvu

size: 134.77 k
number of downloads: 242








If I understand the code correctly:


Then Tutt is not the first reviser. Although he gave Plebeius as a generic, he did not give a second Plebejus, and thus did not choose one of them.
If we take Hesselbarth, then, oddly enough, it is Hesselbarth G., Van Oorschot H., Wagener S. (1995), according to the same code, who are the first auditors, since they gave both names and chose one of them, referring to Tutt.


Thus, it turns out that the article Z Balint, CS Guppy, NG Kondla, K Johnson, CJ Durden, although it recommends that the commission choose Plebejus as the correct one, has no legal force, since there is already a first auditor and there is a name Plebeius.

Please correct me if anything is wrong

This post was edited by Valentinus - 21.11.2012 19: 27