Lycaenidae

In this case, it would be necessary to ask P. Y. Gorbunov where he got the information from the Volgograd region - by the way, this is one of the few references in his book (2001), which is cartographed relatively specifically, in contrast to many cases of incorrect continuous filling of areas over vast spaces. The members of the expeditions with Danchenko I know caught this species only in Astrakhan.

It's funny, the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia (Sinev, 2008) is not even mentioned... why did you write it???

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".

As funny as it sounds to you, this is still an indication. What is the difference in the instructions of, say, Staudinger or Tuzov? The region is outlined. And in general, it is outlined correctly, which is also confirmed by your data. Tell me where I'm wrong, and I'll personally devour this page from Tuzov in front of the camera and post the video on YouTube.

It's funny, the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia (Sinev, 2008) is not even mentioned... why did you write it???

Really, what the fuck?
The problem with this catalog is that in one relatively small book they tried to cram the non-stuffed. At the same time, the accuracy of instructions suffered greatly - solely because of the format.
That's exactly why it is mentioned quite rarely.

The most interesting thing in this article is not that the species is given for the fauna of the Volgograd region, but that it gives rise to a discussion of the most complex problem - the boundaries between very close taxa in the contact zone.
Everything is very complicated there and Gennady himself could tell us about it

The region is outlined. And generally outlined correctly

Yes, there are enough draftsmen, but there is no benefit from such drawing.
I'll repeat myself. A thousand kilometers is not an indication.
The first acceptable indication for me is Gorbunov, 2001. Where this data comes from, I don't care. In addition, nowhere does it proclaim that "this is the first time that this view is being presented for the region".
And one more thing. Unlike all the previous instructions, I can take anyone who wants to go to the place where this species is caught.

At the moment, ALL my material on Callophrys is at the disposal of Anatoly Krupitsky.

It would be good for Anatoly not to put it off in a long box and please us with his conclusions. Very interested in the variability of the genitals of local females.

Just now I'm preparing photos, I'll post them soon.

So, Volgograd Callophrys. The butterflies kindly given to me by Gennady are clearly divided into two phenotypes in appearance - chalybeitincta-shaped ones from the Leninsky district and classic brown rubi from other places (Volgograd, Krasny Tug, Mikhailovka).
A pair of females and their antrums.

In general, the picture is not very clear to me yet, while all the externally viewed "halibeitinct" butterflies have quite typical Ruby genitalia, I will continue to look.

The problem with this catalog is that in one relatively small book they tried to cram the non-stuffed. At the same time, the accuracy of instructions suffered greatly - solely because of the format.
That's exactly why it is mentioned quite rarely.

IN that FORMAT, there are "regions" - even if they are mostly artificial, but often close to real biogeographic or federal districts. The authors of this work had to do two elementary things: 1) write the types known to them in a column, and not according to the system, but according to the alphabet; 2) put crosses in the "regions". If about 70% of the authors coped well with the first task (of course, except for the unfortunate ropalocerologists-they are generally the worst, as well as the unfortunate listovertochniki), then only a few coped with the second task by "5" or "4+". Because they took up an alien, difficult and uninteresting task-raking regional faunistics. Therefore, the Catalog is cited, but only in those elements that actually summarize previously published facts. Or it is quoted only to indicate what cannot be taken into account.

And yes - as far as I understand, butterflies of different phenotypes do not occur sympatrically.

And yes - as far as I understand, butterflies of different phenotypes do not occur sympatrically.

They should be timed to the feed base. For rubi in this region, it is most likely broom, for another-probably loch.

They should be timed to the feed base. For rubi in this region, it is most likely broom, for another - probably loch.

I agree. But at the borders of biotopes, theoretically, they could intersect.

They should be timed to the feed base. For rubi in this region, it is most likely broom, for another - probably loch.

Wrongly.
I know only one population of ruby associated with broom, it is on Golubinsky Sands. All others are connected to the turn.
Not a sucker. (So far).

The article is written differently:
"Studies of genetic markers (COI and ITS2), as well as genitalia of specimens of an isolated population of butterflies of the genus Callophrys in the Volgograd region indicate that it belongs to the species C. chalybeitincta Sovynski,1905. The population lives sympatrically with C. rubi (Linnaeus, 1758)."
And how many females did you cook, Anatoly? Is there any variability?

And, about the lack of sympatricity, I made conclusions only on the fees of Gennady, rubi with labels like chalybeitincta is not there. I have looked at 10 specimens so far (they have already been prepared by Gennady), I will look again, the variability is within the normal range (mainly manifested in the size and shape of the lateral lobes of the antrum), but, I repeat, I have not yet found typical genitalia of chalybeitincta.

I do not know how things are going in the Volgograd region. I only held 2 chalybeitincta from Gennady in my hands. But in the Rostov region, chalybeitincta lays eggs on vetch and gravilat, in the mountains of Karachay-Cherkessia - also on vetch. And here is Ruby in RO on various woody plants and broomsticks. In places where they live together, by the way, females often have transitional genitalia (both ruby and chalybeitincta), and the habitus is of a transitional type. Last year, I actually grew natural hybrids. By the way, I immediately came across the Volgograd chalybeitincta with typical genitals.
But this is what the Rostov ones look like.

Pictures:

IMG_9407.jpg — (520.18к)

In Dagestan, the development was noted on shrubs: bubble and hold-tree.

Based on the results of the discussion, a reasonable question arises: how different are these types?
It turns out that the genitals do not always work, the phenotype is variable and it is not yet clear what determines it. mtDNA is the same. Only the loci of nuclear genes differ and they float in different populations.
As for me, I would (without the code) accept the term of Boris Vitalyevich-ecological and genetic race. It reflects the state of affairs as accurately as possible.
Within a single species, Collophrys rubi could distinguish between several such races...

So far, it looks very much like it's rubi.

Even in the Nizhny Novgorod region, I met both of these phenotypes - small brown and larger black ones. It makes sense to fish and cook, although I am 100% sure that these are both rubies, they just eat different things.

As for me, I would (without the code) accept the term of Boris Vitalyevich-ecological and genetic race. It reflects the state of affairs as accurately as possible.

Everything would be so if there were no hybrids that combine the characteristics of both parents. I grew them on a broom tree, but I got not a brown ruby, but dull brown butterflies with black veins, but without bluish splashes, like halebeitincta. Such things cloud the whole logic of ecological races for me. Most likely, some speciation process occurs here with an obvious massive introgression. On the Don, I first found halibeitincts about 15 years ago in a tiny corner of the delta, where they came from is unclear. But during this time, they have completely occupied the entire delta, swallowing Ruby, and are located on the border of Rostov.
Now about genetics. The genetic locus in mountain chalybeitincta is closer to ruby than in lowland chalybeitincta to the same ruby, but the changes are consistent and follow the following sequence: ruby-mountain chalybeitincta - lowland chalybeitincta. It looks like a geographical loop of a nuclear gene mutation has been created. Yes, and the Volgograd butterfly's mitochondrial structure is already different from Ruby's. That is, the situation here is very model-interesting.

Most likely, some speciation process occurs here with an obvious massive introgression. On the Don, I first found halibeitincts about 15 years ago in a tiny corner of the delta, where they came from is unclear. But during this time, they have completely occupied the entire delta, swallowing Ruby, and are located on the border of Rostov.
Now about genetics. The genetic locus in mountain chalybeitincta is closer to ruby than in lowland chalybeitincta to the same ruby, but the changes are consistent and follow the following sequence: ruby-mountain chalybeitincta - lowland chalybeitincta. It looks like a geographical loop of a nuclear gene mutation has been created. Yes, and the Volgograd butterfly's mitochondrial structure is already different from Ruby's. That is, the situation here is very model-interesting.

Absolutely amazing things to write! 15 years of population monitoring!
And if one species consumes another, isn't that proof that they are conspecific?

And if one species consumes another, isn't that proof that they are conspecific?

Maybe it is absorbed, maybe it is displaced - I can't say for sure, but there are definitely hybrids (do you remember the photos from the year before last?).
But the fact of hybridization does not mean conspecificity (for example, bellargus and corydon). Such hybridization can also lead to the formation of new species.
Returning to bellargus-corydon, I remember that a few years ago there was a link on the forum to a certain Ukrainian site, where the authors even (contrary to the Codex) gave a description of a "new" species - specimens of which were constantly present in the valley of some river (they were obvious products of hybridization of bellargus and corydon). It is impossible to say on the basis of this that Bellargus and Corydon are conspecific (but their COI is the same in our region, by the way, as in Ruby and chalybeitincta.

This post was edited by bora - 06.01.2014 19: 53

Pictures:

rubi_chalybeitincta_nigra.jpg — (63.95к)


F1.jpg — (76.51к)

Hi everybody. Now in Berlin, where I found a couple of very strange butterflies in the spare boxes. This information will be important primarily for those who are well versed in and interested in the taxonomy of pigeons.
Both types come from old collections obtained long before the war, and even the First World War. The first butterfly, designated eroides, came to the museum from the Balkans and was collected by a certain Frivaldsky. Does this remind you of anything? The only copy is a male (according to the register, also 1 copy), a photo of the butterfly and its labels is attached. It is from Frivaldsky and from the Balkans that the receipts are recorded in the museum's ancient register.
The second butterfly-4 specimens are listed in the register, but 2 males and 1 female are kept-came to the museum from the collector Kindermann, was collected in the village of Sarepta and bears the definitive label boisduvalii. This may all be just a coincidence, but I find such coincidences annoying.
I will get acquainted with your opinions with interest – the opinion of rhopalocera and bora is especially interesting, you can probably write to the PM. There is a photo of the underwear.

Pictures:

buaduvalii_HUB_if_TYPUS.jpg — (305.98к)


eroides_HUB_if_TYPUS.jpg — (287.95к)

Vadim, very interesting, thank you!
I write in PM.

So far, these are the best candidates for neotypes.

As far as I understand, the type is eroides there is.
But Boisduval should be singled out.

Frivald's caudate-Ahlbergia frivaldszkyi (Kindermann in Lederer, 1853)

They seemed to know each other very well...

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%80%...%BC%D1%80%D0%B5

http://omflies.narod.ru/RB/frivaldszkyi.htm

Frivald's caudate-Ahlbergia frivaldszkyi (Kindermann in Lederer, 1853)

They seemed to know each other very well...

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%80%...%BC%D1%80%D0%B5

http://omflies.narod.ru/RB/frivaldszkyi.htm

Ahlbergia frivaldszkyi I have identified the lectotype.
Article in the Entomological Review. While there is silence (the article has been there for six months).

What Vadim discovered is undoubtedly the Gerrich-Schaeffer type and the Frivaldsky paralectotype. They also appear in his book (see the first volume, p. 121) - first Eroides from the Southern Balkans, then Boisduvalii from Southern Russia.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 09.01.2014 10: 08

As far as I understand, the type is eroides there is.
But Boisduval should be singled out.

Personally, I'm not sure that a valid lectotype is selected. Judging by the labels, it's something on the left.

Pseudophilotes bavius
04.05.2013, Ukraine, Kherson region, near the Kamenka river



This post was edited by Wave Storm - 09.01.2014 22: 00

In the first photo sage K. R. G. - this type of your places??
On the second is a very interesting steppe plant... I don't remember exactly something mountain in the name...

Penzyak, I can't say for sure, because I wasn't looking for caterpillars.
But I think that most likely-yes, this sage is fodder. According to the book "Denny panicles of Ukraine", the food plants are Salvia nutans( this is it), Salvia officinalis, Salvia verbenaca

Here's another photo I found:


And I think that Baviy can live on this too:


There is a lot of such sage:

And I think that Baviy can also live on this:
There is a lot of such sage there:

This is Salvia nemorosa. In the Crimea, Baviy lives on it.
Caterpillars should be looked for in inflorescences about two to three weeks after the start of the mass butterfly summer. I found many adult caterpillars on May 30. Mowing is also collected.

I will then show you this copy from the same museum in Berlin.
And I know that the neotype of Damocles is marked and stored in the ZINA.
For example, I have doubts that the photo here is a synth type. I'll have to think again.

Pictures:

damocles_HUB.jpg — (295.95к)

Some Chukchi pigeons

Chervonets Lycaena phlaeas ssp.
and Agriades glandon wosnesenskyi (Menetries, 1857)

Pictures:

DSC08226.jpg — (310.13к)


DSC08227.jpg — (285.59к)


DSC08228.jpg — (285.73к)

Some Chukchi pigeons

Chervonets Lycaena phlaeas ssp.

ssp. polaris Courvoisier, 1911

Again, some kind of mess - either in the news, or about another kind.... I remember in Southern Europe on geraniums there were finds of a similar pigeon...

http://www.gismeteo.ru/news/klimat/iz-za-t...i-s-kontinenta/

I would like to continue the story with this caterpillar.
Let me remind you that it was discovered in Pyatigorsk and fed on the flowers of mountain bird (Polygonum aviculare).
The caterpillar successfully overwintered. After coming out of hibernation, it did not feed and pupated. A butterfly hatched today.
Only one suggestion was made that it is Celastrina argiolus, which was made by Vladimir Savchuk.
I will say that another butterfly has been bred.
Are there any other suggestions?
Contest of the best expert!

A feeding caterpillar. 13.09.20013


Wintering caterpillar.

Are there any other suggestions?

Then I'll assume something polyvoltine, early-flying, like Lycaena phlaeas.