Lycaenidae

No, I was just joking - I took it out and put it in the snow

No, I was just joking - I took it out and put it in the snow

and I already thought : ) by the way, one copy of latonia in the vicinity of Budapest this year was met on December 7.

And we have some very early winter, coincided with the calendar.
Therefore, now butterflies are only used as pets.

Pictures:

IMG_9533.jpg — (113.69к)

Intersex color transitions in the pupa during development

Pictures:

callimachus_pupa.jpg — (120.75к)

The history of one hybridization.
In August, a male coridon and a female bellargus were crossed.
Of the eggs laid, 40% died, and 30% of the caterpillars also died at the first age, they simply did not start feeding.
Among the remaining living caterpillars, morphodogical pathologies were noted - uneven development of segments, violations of the uniform distribution of drawing elements, but all grew to pupae, although the development periods differed more than twice.
ONLY females emerged from the pupae. Examined the genitals (top of the postvaginal plate), turned out to be very unusual.
Almost all the females were spent on genital and genetic analysis. One left to live as a pet, put a knitting needle and flowers. And then she suddenly (without any mating) began to lay eggs! Eggs without mating for a pigeon - this is the first time I've seen it. The female laid 30 eggs and turned out to be a centenarian-she lived for 1 month and 1 day! Unfortunately, all the eggs dried up (yesterday), which, in principle, is not surprising, but another thing is surprising-that it began to be laid at all.
Now about genetics: I made 2 nuclear genes. I expected to get heterozygotes, but surprisingly it didn't work out that way. The ITS2 gene turned out to be from Bellargus, and EF-1a was from Corydon. This can only be explained by the data provided in N. Shapoval's abstract: in hybrid species, some of the chromosomes are inherited from one species, and some from another.

Pictures:

larva_1_2.jpg — (75.05к)


larva_1_4.jpg — (65.62к)


larva_5_4.jpg — (73.81к)


Lysandra_______3.jpg — (68.9 k)


Lysandra_______4.jpg — (70.97 k)


Lysandra_female.jpg — (77.3к)


ovum_2.jpg — (83.92к)


ovum_______.jpg — (86.83к)


___________.jpg — (257.03к)

Eggs without mating for a pigeon - this is the first time I've seen it.

Last season I collected a fresh female P. daphnis, which laid a few eggs, but they all shrunk. Apparently it was sterile...

ONLY females emerged from the pupae.

Sorry for the stupid question, am I guessing correctly that the males are the ones that died?

Sorry for the stupid question, am I guessing correctly that the males are the ones that died?

God knows, but it could very well be.

Colleagues,
I ask for your help in nomenclature issues with Callimachus.
I have photos of the types and some interesting notes on my hands. One of them is this:
unfortunately, I only have this piece here, without a title and without, what is a pity, a list of references - I would be grateful if you let me know what it is. This photo is important in terms of what is written here - the lectotype was designated by Nekrutenko in 1995. And if the lectotype is marked, then the type locality is fixed - that's what I mean. I climb to watch the work of Nekrutenko in 1995... And I don't find it. In 1995, he wrote a brief note on the Codex, which is clearly not about identifying the lectotype, and the second one (co-authored with Chikolovets) is based on the descriptions of Balint from Central Asia, which is also not in the topic. Okay, maybe a person peed himself, and we are talking about the work of 1985, in the Crimea - but there is no allocation of the Callimachus lectotype in it. Can someone help you figure it out, especially those who are interested in literature on pigeon beds?
But that's not all.
The original description says about a typical place (I'll give it in Russian and not literally) -
in the steppes between the Lower Volga and the Ural River, and Kindermann collected it the previous summer in Georgia, in the vicinity of Helenendorf, as quite ordinary.
I look at the labels of the standard series. The part bears the label Georgia, which is consistent with the second part of Eversmann's sentence, and the lectotype and a few other paralecto - this strange one. I'm used to Eversmann's handwriting, but I can't decode these labels. Can someone help you if you've encountered such localities? I guess so. that it's somewhere in Western Kazakhstan. Please help me.

Pictures:

ptotolog.jpg — (249.47к)


labels.jpg — (186.32к)

Colleagues,
I ask for your help in nomenclature issues with Callimachus.
I have photos of the types and some interesting notes on my hands. One of them is this:
unfortunately, I only have this piece here, without a title and without, what is a pity, a list of references - I would be grateful if you let me know what it is.

Это из: Tuzov V.K., Bogdanov P.V., Churkin S.V., Dantchenko A.V., Devyatkin A.L., Murzin V.S., Samodurov G.D. & Zhdanko A.B. 2000. Guide to the Butterflies of Russia and Adjacent Territories. Vol. 2. Sofia, Moscow. p. 122.

Это из: Tuzov V.K., Bogdanov P.V., Churkin S.V., Dantchenko A.V., Devyatkin A.L., Murzin V.S., Samodurov G.D. & Zhdanko A.B. 2000. Guide to the Butterflies of Russia and Adjacent Territories. Vol. 2. Sofia, Moscow. p. 122.

Thank you, Boris Vitalievich, but may I ask what kind of work Nekrutenko 1995 is quoted there?

This post was edited by dim-va - 12/21/2013 13: 29

Here is the literature on Nekrutenko from this volume.
I looked at Nekrutenko's articles on Tomares.
I didn't find anything similar.

Pictures:

1.jpg — (286.45к)

Thank you. So that's what I'm saying. So, the lectotype is not selected, and what is written everywhere about the type habitat of callimachus is a constantly quoted mess.

That's right, the lectotype was identified by Nekrutenko in a three-volume book on Turkey by Hesselbarth et al. (1995):

That's right, the lectotype was identified by Nekrutenko in a three-volume book on Turkey by Hesselbarth et al. (1995):

So the typical area of Kallimaha is the Khanlar neighborhood. It is not far from Ganja in Azerbaijan.

Thank you to everyone who responded.
But I really ask you to tell me WHERE on the label of the lectotype selected by the respected Yuri Pavlovich, it says GRUSIEN??????????
It turns out that the lectotype is just from the Lower Volga!!!

Pictures:

img_003.jpg — (285.64к)

This question is already fundamental, because if JUPITER was wrong (you never know, he clearly focused on his notes from 1982, and by 1995 (descriptions) the memories of this series should not have been so vivid, then the typical area "somewhere between the Volga and the Ural River" according to this unreadable map). the Transcaucasian population automatically becomes a subspecies of epiphania, the author should be specified, there are many authors in the applicants, from Herrich-Schaffer to Boisduval.
So it's not all that simple.

This question is already fundamental, because if JUPITER was wrong (you never know, he clearly focused on his notes from 1982, and by 1995 (descriptions) the memories of this series should not have been so vivid, then the typical area "somewhere between the Volga and the Ural River" according to this unreadable map). the Transcaucasian population automatically becomes a subspecies of epiphania, the author should be specified, there are many authors in the applicants, from Herrich-Schaffer to Boisduval.
So it's not all that simple.

Vadim, are you sure that there is no such butterfly with a label from YUP? Maybe it's worth it somewhere, and you'll change the type locality?
Or maybe some geezer took the copy?

Why, there is 1 paralectotype with the label "Grusien", but without other accompanying labels specified by the SC in the designation of the lectotype. And there "Grusien" is read unambiguously. And 2 more butterflies, paralecto, with the same "unreadable" labels, I put them up a few posts above.
And another butterfly from Indersk (coll. Eversmann)
and another butterfly, for some reason also with the label YUP "paralektotip", but from the call. Yershova!!
That is, it clearly indicated paralectotypes from memory, which could lead to such errors.
I'm not changing anything yet, I'm just trying to figure it out. JUPE usually worked very clearly and professionally.
But the lectotype - and it's always the same-is still there in ZINA, and it's really well preserved.

Pictures:

Grus.jpg — (124.27к)

Well! Three days of searching and the answer is found!
I remembered another species with the same label, described as "from the Lower Volga". The label reads "Kalmuk" = "Kalmyk", which led us earlier to misinterpret the label as "Kalmykia". It was necessary to think about the "Kalmyk steppes", just between the Volga and Ural rivers. This is an abbreviation of the city of "Kalmyks", which is just between these rivers - here is information about it from the pre-revolutionary dictionary.
"Kalmykov, a county town of the Ural region, 280 km from Uralsk, on the right bank of the Ural River. The name is derived from the Kalmyks who crossed the Urals (then Yaik) in this place during their mass flight from Russia back to China. 1988, including 1369 military and 619 non-military estates. Animal Fair, with sales of up to 50,000 rubles. The main cattle are rams (sheep). Kalmyks lie only on 0.5 fathoms. above sea level. Grapes have recently been successfully bred near K."
I will now try to find its current name, but it seems obvious to me that TL callimaha is not Khanlar.

Pictures:

232.jpg — (244.96к)

 
I will now try to find its modern name, but it seems obvious to me that TL callimaha is not Khanlar.

Does it make sense to change the TM? Can you identify a lectotype with the same label as Hesselbart's? And then nothing will need to be changed in the established system?!

We can't, because the lectotype has been fixed. But we can adjust the typical terrain. At the same time, there are no problems here. Well, the wrong one was entered incorrectly. We looked at it and corrected it. Nothing changes. And the view's interpretation remains valid. if only you knew how many species still have their type locality misinterpreted! And even more people write "type locality unknown"! It is necessary once these rubble razgr***. We are moving slowly across the Volga-Urals, but we have practically done it - we will publish it soon.

Sorry, last question. And on the color tables in "Butterflies of Turkey" the lectotype of Callimachus, by any chance, is not depicted? If so, this instance will have to be "preferred".

Sorry, last question. And on the color tables in "Butterflies of Turkey" the lectotype of Callimachus, by any chance, is not depicted? If so, this instance will have to be "preferred".

Checked - not shown.

Sorry, last question. And on the color tables in "Butterflies of Turkey" the lectotype of Callimachus, by any chance, is not depicted? If so, this instance will have to be "preferred".

No. There all images are only from the territory of Turkey.

By the way, I have just looked at V. Chikolovets ' book on butterflies of the Caucasus. There is a phrase that the photo of the lectotype is in the work of Chikolovets for 2000.
Judging by the bibliography, this is "The Butterflies of Uzbekistan"

Thank you to everyone who responded.
But I really ask you to tell me WHERE on the label of the lectotype selected by the respected Yuri Pavlovich, it says GRUSIEN??????????
It turns out that the lectotype is just from the Lower Volga!!!

Vadim, couldn't you just mix up the lectotype label and pin it to another butterfly? Judging by the number of punctures, it was removed from the pin more than once.
Put it back in its place!!!

I would like to discuss an interesting new article:
Kuznetsov, G. V., Stradomsky, B. V., and Fomina, E. S., 2013 Detection of a population of Callophrys chalybeitincta Sovynski, 1905 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in the Volgograd region (Russia), Kavkazskiy entomol. bulletin 9 (2)



 Callophrys_chalybeitincta_________________________.pdf

size: 1.21 mb
number of downloads: 380







It addresses a burning issue - Callophrys chalybeitincta/C. rubi in a zone where both species theoretically live.
From previous publications by ten Hagen and B. V. Stradomsky, it became clear that the mtDNA (COI) of these two taxa is the same, and the nuclear ITS2 shows significant differences.
In a new article, I was interested in this cladogram:

5. Callophrys spp.: phylogenetic tree based
on the analysis of differences in ITS2 DNA sequences using
the minimal evolution (ME) method.
So what happens?
It turns out that the Volgograd instance differs from the Caucasian one by the same amount as the Caucasian halibeitincta differs from ruby? I.e., the Caucasian one differs from ruby by 1%, and the Volgograd and Rostov ones by 3%?

I would like to discuss an interesting new article:

So what happens?
It turns out that the Volgograd copy differs from the Caucasian one by the same amount as the Caucasian halibeitincta differs from ruby? I.e., the Caucasian copy differs from ruby by 1%, and the Volgograd and Rostov copies by 3%?

No, Valentine, not by the same amount. Here we need to calculate the sum of the valleys of ALL horizontal lines connecting two taxa.
Here the logic of calculation is completely different
The difference between A and C = c+d+a
The difference between A and B = a+b

This post was edited by bora - 04.01.2014 11: 27

Pictures:

1.jpg — (12.96к)

I would like to discuss an interesting new article:...

The article says: "Thus, taking into account morphological and molecular genetic studies, it should be recognized that ..."
But in the text there is not a word about the morphology of the genitals, they are not described in any way and a comparison of their structure in different species is not given, only photos are given. In my opinion, this is an omission.

Because this is all repeatedly sucked in previous articles.
There is absolutely no desire to be a parrot ass.
If someone has not read the previous articles, then they don't need it, and if they have read it, and they need it , then they know these questions and why waste paper in vain.
No one will always describe the morphology of, for example, an admiral when a new population is discovered.

This post was edited by bora-04.01.2014 12: 50

Because this is all repeatedly sucked in previous articles.
There is absolutely no desire to be a parrot ass.
If someone has not read the previous articles, then they don't need it, and if they have read it, and they need it , then they know these questions and why waste paper in vain.
No one will always describe the morphology of, for example, an admiral when a new population is discovered.

I looked through the list of references and didn't find a suitable link in it. In what previous article was it discussed about the structure of the genitals of females of these species?

I looked through the list of references and didn't find a suitable link in it. In what previous article was it discussed about the structure of the genitals of females of these species?

Here's a step-by-step link given in:
Stradomsky B.V., Vodolazhsky D.I. 2011. Callophrys rubi (Linnaeus, 1758)
and C. chalybeitincta Sovynski, 1905 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): a
comparative analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences.
Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. 7(1): 79–80.
there is a link to:
Stradomsky B.V. 2005. A new subspecies of Callophrys chalybeitincta
Sovinsky, 1905 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from the lower Don river //
Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. 1(1): 85-86 (in Russian).

In addition, the actual photos of the genitals are given and it is written:
Analysis of the genitalia of females from this population also showed their similarity to C. chalybeitincta (Fig.

I don't understand what else to represent here.

This post was edited by bora - 04.01.2014 16: 04

Here's a step-by-step link given in:
Stradomsky B.V., Vodolazhsky D.I. 2011. Callophrys rubi (Linnaeus, 1758)
and C. chalybeitincta Sovynski, 1905 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): a
comparative analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences.
Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. 7(1): 79–80.
there is a link to:
Stradomsky B.V. 2005. A new subspecies of Callophrys chalybeitincta
Sovinsky, 1905 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from the lower Don river //
Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. 1(1): 85-86 (in Russian).

In addition, the actual photos of the genitals are given and it is written:
Analysis of the genitalia of females from this population also showed their similarity to C. chalybeitincta (Fig.

I don't understand what else to represent here.

Thank you for your clarification. I just wasn't familiar with the 2005 work, it really shows everything.

I would also point out some "omission". The fact is that the first indication of C. chalybeitincta for this region is probably the book by V. K. Tuzov et al. (2000). There is a subspecific nomen nudum (photos of butterflies without a description or diagnosis as such) called eitschbergeri Dantchenko, 2000, TM-Astrakhan region, Krasny Yar.

I would also point out some "omission". The fact is that the first indication of C. chalybeitincta for this region is probably the book by V. K. Tuzov et al. (2000). There is a subspecific nomen nudum (photos of butterflies without a description or diagnosis as such) called eitschbergeri Dantchenko, 2000, TM-Astrakhan region, Krasny Yar.

We were just discussing this. And since this is nomen nudum, we decided to ignore this naked name.

We were just discussing this. And since this is nomen nudum, we decided to ignore this naked name.

Quite logical neglect )

Of course, the nomen nudum of the subspecies should be ignored, but the fact of the first indication of the species should not be.

Nomen nudum subspecies of course should be ignored, but the fact of the first indication of the species-should not be.

Let me ask you something.
In what connection, in your opinion, should Danchenko, Tuzov and the Astrakhan Region be mentioned in an article devoted to the Volgograd Region's faunistics?
And all references of unclear origin to this species in the Volgograd region were made.
But they immediately get you to Danchenko, Tuzov, and the Astrakhan region.

Let me ask you something.
In what connection, in your opinion, should Danchenko, Tuzov and the Astrakhan Region be mentioned in an article devoted to the Volgograd Region's faunistics?
And all references of unclear origin to this species in the Volgograd region were made.
But they immediately get you to Danchenko, Tuzov, and the Astrakhan region.

Yes, at least in this regard:

[attachmentid()=190864]

The region is listed broadly, and both the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions are included. And although this indication is from the category of "blurred", however, it cannot be ignored.

Funny.
The Lower Volga region also includes the Saratov region. And this is only one thousand kilometers along the Volga.
If for some reason there is no particular difference between the Saratov, Volgograd and Astrakhan regions, then for me it is, and this difference is quite significant.
Alas, this is not an indication. This is an indication from the category: "Kyrgyz steppes" or "from the fence to sunset".
Usually, when there is nothing to write, they write: "Lower Volga region" or "South of Russia".