Lycaenidae

Input Data File: C:Downloads111.fas
Number of sequences: 34 Number of sequences used: 34
Selected region: 1-618 Number of sites: 618
Total number of sites (excluding sites with gaps / missing data): 549

Sites with alignment gaps: not considered
Number of variable sites: 107

=========== Haplotype Distribution ===========
Number of haplotypes, h: 23
Haplotype diversity, Hd: 0,9626

Hap_1: 6 [1 26 28-29 33-34]
Hap_2: 2 [2-3]
Hap_3: 1 [4]
Hap_4: 1 [5]
Hap_5: 2 [6-7]
Hap_6: 2 [8-9]
Hap_7: 1 [10]
Hap_8: 1 [11]
Hap_9: 1 [12]
Hap_10: 1 [13]
Hap_11: 1 [14]
Hap_12: 1 [15]
Hap_13: 1 [16]
Hap_14: 1 [17]
Hap_15: 1 [18]
Hap_16: 1 [19]
Hap_17: 2 [20 32]
Hap_18: 2 [21-22]
Hap_19: 2 [23-24]
Hap_20: 1 [25]
Hap_21: 1 [27]
Hap_22: 1 [30]
Hap_23: 1 [31]

Hap_1: 6 [N. N_rufina|COI-5P|FJ66 N_eckweileri|COI-5P| N_eckweileri|COI-5P| N_kasakhstana|COI-5P N_kasakhstana|COI-5P]
Hap_2: 2 [S. S.]
Hap_3: 1 [S._w-album|COI-5P|HQ]
Hap_4: 1 [S._ilicis|COI-5P|HQ0]
Hap_5: 2 [S._pruni|COI-5P|HQ00 S._pruni|COI-5P|HQ00]
Hap_6: 2 [S._spini|COI-5P|HQ00 S._spini|COI-5P|HQ00]
Hap_7: 1 [S._ilicis|COI-5P|HQ0]
Hap_8: 1 [S._esculi|COI-5P|AY5]
Hap_9: 1 [S_hyrcanicum|COI-5P|]
Hap_10: 1 [S_titus|COI-5P|FJ808]
Hap_11: 1 [S_titus|COI-5P|FJ808]
Hap_12: 1 [S_liparops|COI-5P|FJ]
Hap_13: 1 [S_acaciae_abdominali]
Hap_14: 1 [S_eximia|COI-5P|GU37]
Hap_15: 1 [N_tengstroemi|COI-5P]
Hap_16: 1 [N_iliensis|COI-5P|FJ]
Hap_17: 2 [N_oschi|COI-5P|FJ663 N_baidula|COI-5P|FJ6]
Hap_18: 2 [N_olga|COI-5P|FJ6638 N_olga|COI-5P|FJ6638]
Hap_19: 2 [N_sinensis|COI-5P|FJ N_sinensis|COI-5P|FJ]
Hap_20: 1 [N_rufina|COI-5P|FJ66]
Hap_21: 1 [N_davidi|COI-5P|FJ66]
Hap_22: 1 [N_submontana_submont]
Hap_23: 1 [N_medea|COI-5P|FJ663]

Right now, I'll smorozhu stupidity, but is it really so now according to modern ideas, including those supported by the dendrogram, that the original genus [Satyrium+Preferences] Nearctic origin, formed there and penetrated the Palearctic a SECOND time, probably through Beringia, although, who knows, maybe along the western bridge (or there were 2 waves at the same time, along the western isthmus and along the eastern one, it doesn't matter), where due to intense radiation it formed what no one can now group by birth? So the Palearctic taxa are young and probably still actively evolving?? But it is believed that the Neolicene is generally a genus of Scythian or Central Asian origin. Here's the mess started again...

I have not seen any publications that even sketched the history of this Ichnotaxon. Only Zhdanko wrote that Neolycaena originates from the Turan arid center - but this is not true. The origin of the Neolycaena conglomerate should be associated not with arid, but with humid formogenetic centers : adaptation to arid habitats is secondary, which is proved, among other things, by a very small number of arid species (although widespread enough). The center of origin of the group as a whole is Central Asia. It is very difficult to say from which formogenetic center the hypothetical ancestor of the group originates - first of all, you need to determine the age. It is not necessary to dance from Beringia - it has been there many times, and it is not clear how many times the first ancestors came to the Nearctic. Some idea is given by the distribution of permafrost boundaries, which often coincide with the distribution boundaries, let's call it Satyrium - that is, the age of the genus can be roughly indicated as 1.5 - 1.7 million years. But if you dance from this, then the picture turns out to be very harmonious, and the center of origin is obtained in the area of Lake Issyk-Kul-Dzungaria-Turfan Depression (because ancient reservoirs blocked migration in the direction of north-west and north - east-only the southern direction remains... glaciers interfered to the west, expansion could only be carried out to the east and north to Bukhtarma). In general, here you first need to build trees of the evolution of the pattern, it will be clear who has the most primitive pattern (so far it is Rhymnaria, but I have not seen all of those who are included in satyrium).

Obviously, it still makes sense to divide this group into 3 genera: Satyrium (which includes the only species of non - Arctic origin in the Palearctic-pruni; in this case, the species is 40-20 thousand years old), Neolycaena, and Norsmannia.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 30.05.2014 06: 27

Yes, there is clearly not enough non-Arctic material. There are a lot of species there, but there are only a few of them in the GenEbank...

Yes, there is clearly not enough non-Arctic material. There are a lot of species there, but there are only a few of them in the GenEbank...

Physically, too. It would be possible to make a number of nuclear genes based on freedom.

OK, I think I'll get a dozen species in the fall.

Neolycaena different would also be necessary.

Neolycaena now collect. The first submontana is already there, then we will see how it goes - I will have to spend the second half of June in Europe, and this is the peak of the neolithic summer (((. Something was on the mattresses, you need to look.

Yes, I will be in Nizhny Novgorod from June 10 to June 15, I will arrange for mattresses.

Thank you for the discussion. The above scan, although not 3D, but, as it seems to me, more logically and, most importantly, consistent with morphology, gives another version of the relationship between the groups of species under consideration (the definition of one species that turned out to be divided into different branches can simply be clarified). Can I specify in which program the tree was built and using which algorithm?

4 programs were used.

1. MEGA6 for preparing and aligning sequences, creating a FASTA file.
2. BioEdit Sequence Alignment Editor 7.1.11 for fine-tuning sequences and visual control (this program has a much more convenient interface and has numerous settings for visualizing sequences, which makes monitoring the results much more convenient and accurate - I have been checking them with my eyes for a year now before doing anything with sequences - it happens that some left-hand "nucleotides" (W, B, U, Z - I don't know where they come from) "get into" the files, they have to be removed manually, since MEGA does not know how to remove all the left ones automatically for some reason.
3. DNA Sequence Polymorphism 5.10.01 for haplotype analysis and conversion of the sequence to Roehl file format.
4. Fluxus Network 4.6.1.2 for building a haplotype network based on the resulting Roehl file.

To build the network, the Median Joining algorithm was used as the most suitable one for building a network of closely related taxa with an emphasis on reconstructing ancestral relationships.

Finally, for the first time in many months, there was an interesting discussion.
Although the absurdity of including palearctic taxa in the American genus Satyrium was obvious to Stanislav and me for a long time, and we have never accepted such a combined interpretation.

...is it really so now according to modern ideas, including those supported by the dendrogram, that the original genus [Satyrium+Preferences] Nearctic origin, formed there and penetrated the Palearctic a SECOND time, probably through Beringia, although, who knows, maybe along the western bridge (or there were 2 waves at the same time, along the western isthmus and along the eastern one, it doesn't matter), where due to intense radiation it formed what no one can now group by birth? So the Palearctic taxa are young and probably still actively evolving?? But it is believed that the Neolicene is generally a genus of Scythian or Central Asian origin. Here's the mess started again...

The combined interpretation of Satyrium is not a modern concept, but an indicator of the progressive degradation of Pindos-West European ropalocerology, its desire to return to the times of Staudinger. The Palearctic regions have been separated from the American (subboreal! not at all Arcto-boreal), which are separated at least at the generic level. The question is only in the interpretation of Palearctic macrotaxons (genera-subgenera).

Today's event

[attachmentid()=201244]

And a week ago

[attachmentid()=201245]

bora, rhopalocera.com, dim-va-thank you for an interesting discussion!!!

Glaucopsyche laetifica (Püngeler, 1898)

SE Kazakhstan. Almaty region, 40 km from the island.Balkhash, 1 km SE from Kuraksu village. The sands of Kushikjal. [08-05-2014]
Male


Female



in nature (photo by A. Stolyarov)


biotope

Plebejidea cyane (Eversmann, 1837)
in nature, on its own forage plant (Goniolimon speciosum L.)
Omsk region, 16.06.2014

A wonderful kind of diary for KK-da and K. R. G. rare!

An article on biology has been published Athamanthia japhethica.



 _______.pdf

size: 3.51 mb
number of downloads: 424

Good article, thank you.

Taxonomy of Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera Papilionoidea) of south of Russia: molecular genetic and morphological aspects

File/s:



 Taxonomy_of_Lycaenidae_of_south_Russia.pdf

size: 704.74 k
number of downloads: 587

Here I fully agree with Stanislav that despite the optimization of variants by the machine, it is necessary to somehow impose the obtained variants on the morphology of the group. And I do not agree that the wing pattern, and especially in diurnal butterflies, is all unimportant, changeable, and should not be used.

I was collecting material for gene analysis here and couldn't help but remember the quote. That's how the wing pattern of diurnal butterflies "works". But here are not just related genera, but different subfamilies!

This post was edited by bora - 19.07.2014 09: 43

Pictures:

Polyommatinae_Theclinae.jpg — (241.12к)

Or here in the volume of one kind

This post was edited by bora - 19.07.2014 08: 22

Pictures:

Nacaduba_kurava_cyanea.jpg — (108.75к)

Amazing collections!

I anticipate the objections of opponents:
"And who decided that this is one genus?"
Or even cooler:
"The type is not set."

I was collecting material for gene analysis here and couldn't help but remember the quote. That's how the wing pattern of diurnal butterflies "works". But here are not just related genera, but different subfamilies!

Mimicry, vestimo. Вот что пишут: "The genus Danis occurs in New Guinea and surrounding islands, as well as northernmost Australia. More widespread taxa formerly included in Danis are now separated into the genus Psychonotis. According to Parsons (1999), members of both genera are distasteful and engage in mimicry with one another and other New Guinea lycaenids." A source: http://tolweb.org/Danis/112177

Mimicry, vestimo.

OK! There the drawing is bright, you can mimic it. And here? Different " sections "(i.e. subtribes).

This post was edited by bora - 19.07.2014 14: 03

Pictures:

Pithecops_et_al.jpg — (199.91к)

OK! There the drawing is bright, you can mimic it. And here? Different " sections "(i.e. subtribes).

Yes, there is very unlikely mimicry here. And which of the three of them are in different "sections"? All?

Boris, I may have been misunderstood - I am not opposing you (i.e., I am not defending the wing pattern as the basis of taxonomy).

))) Yes, this is me "opposing". And I will defend the wing pattern as one of the foundations of taxonomy. Not everything is done and understood only on the basis of molecular data. In the end, from the previous dialogue about Satyriums, all parties, I hope, also learned useful information. So jokes like "type not studied" are not clear to me here and look absolutely inappropriate.
And in the bora collection, you can see a great example of inter-generic circular mimicry-that's for sure. This is a great example. But the question of childbirth is already a question for taxonomists and an absolutely subjective thing.

Yes, there is very unlikely mimicry here. And which of the three of them are in different "sections"? All?

Eugene, Pithecops is the Pithecops section. And Neopithecops and Lycaenopsis are a section of Lycaenopsis (subtribe Lycaenopsina), to which our Celastrina belongs.

This post was edited by bora - 07/20/2014 04: 47

))) Yes, this is me "opposing". And I will defend the wing pattern as one of the foundations of taxonomy. Not everything is done and understood only on the basis of molecular data. In the end, from the previous dialogue about Satyriums, all parties, I hope, also learned useful information. So jokes like "type not studied" are not clear to me here and look absolutely inappropriate.
And in the bora collection, you can see a great example of inter-generic circular mimicry-that's for sure. This is a great example. But the question of childbirth is already a question for taxonomists and an absolutely subjective thing.

Well, from the previous dialogue about Satyriums, conclusions are still very far from being drawn. For me, at least. It's not so clear there at all. I have already made several tests on the genes of our animals, and Neolycaena is again grouped with pruni, despite the drawing.
What about circular mimicry: So how did the Hawaiian Udara manage to mimic Holarctic Callophrys?

This post was edited by bora - 20.07.2014 05: 12

Pictures:

Udara_blackburni.jpg — (104.44к)

And here are some more representatives of Udara. And where is the commonality of the drawing?
By the way, representatives of Udara are united in one genus according to" subjective " genital characteristics.

This post was edited by bora - 20.07.2014 05: 14

Pictures:

Udara_drucei.jpg — (111.5к)


Udara_meeki.jpg — (120.99к)


Udara_sibatanii.jpg — (139.83к)

In general, I have the impression that, at least in pigeon-eaters, there are several inherent" patterns " of the wing pattern, which can break out in many non-closely related groups in parallel in accordance with the conditions of existence. There are a lot of examples to give. Accordingly, the figure has a very indirect relation to taxonomy.

I don't want to start a debate right now about what everyone sees differently, but I don't see any contradictions in what I've said. In the Udara shown above, the pattern (we are talking about the underside of the wing) in all 3 species is absolutely the same, and consists of the same elements, even localized in the same places of the wing. The degree of their expression is another question, but the expansion or reduction of individual elements not only does not contradict what has been said, but only indicates the direction of its evolution. But there are" templates " of drawings, and they usually work in different groups at the level of tribes and subfamilies, and this is observed in almost all families, including nocturnal ones. The best examples are probably the diagonalization of a drawing or the merging of its individual elements with the formation of eye spots or their analogues.
And on the drawing of pigeons and its evolution, there are also works started by Shvanvich and his school. Just interesting to read.

In the Udara shown above, the pattern (we are talking about the underside of the wing) in all 3 species is absolutely the same, and consists of the same elements, even localized in the same places of the wing. The degree of their expression is another question, but the expansion or reduction of individual elements not only does not contradict what has been said, but only indicates the direction of its evolution. But there are" templates " of drawings, and they usually work in different groups at the level of tribes and subfamilies, and this is observed in almost all families, including nocturnal ones. The best examples are probably the diagonalization of a drawing or the merging of its individual elements with the formation of eye spots or their analogues.
And on the drawing of pigeons and its evolution, there are also works started by Shvanvich and his school. Just interesting to read.

What about the fourth (i.e., first), green one? Is this also the severity of the drawing?
I have read works on the evolution of the pigeon pattern, but they do not prove anything.
And here is one from Celastrina. Do Celastrina and Udara have a parallel evolution to greening (Celastrina only not fully completed)?

This post was edited by bora - 20.07.2014 13: 24

Pictures:

Celastrina_ogasawaraensis.jpg — (101.71к)

no, in the fourth, that is, the first, the drawing is masked, and no elements of it can be distinguished, just like in our raspberries. For me, it's just parallelism, like color convergence. Here you just need to think about what is considered a "working" pattern-it depends on the position of the butterfly's wings at rest. In pigeons, this is clearly the lower side, so there is nothing to look at the top. And the hypertrophy of green pollination (or bluish, not the fact that they look different in ultraviolet light) is simply associated with the development of cryptic coloration, under the leaves.

And here is a group from different sections and even tribes. Is there also a color convergence here?

Pictures:

Anthene_et_al.jpg — (159.97к)

Boris Vitalievich, are you really against the fact that the trends of pattern changes are linked to the general evolution of taxa? I agree that the wing pattern does not work for 100% of the examples, but it characterizes the directions of evolution of the main lines. I won't say anything about the color here, it's the same, and the drawing here (I'm just talking from my own point of view) is clearly quite primitive, because it is full, and weakly transformed into an ocular one, although it bears-and this is the second, obvious defects of specialization, which is expressed in its camouflage, giving the butterfly a dismemberment contour (from the light-shadow series), and third, giving a false eye, distracting the attention of predators from more vital organs.
I'm not against molecular genetics, I use it myself, but I've accumulated a lot of cases when different species, and even different genera, suddenly become neighbors within the same phylogenetic cluster in terms of DNA. You can think about this-how and why, and you can immediately give, as Western colleagues do very often - immediately an article from the series, oh, look!, but this is all one genus or one species. But the question is only in the interpretation of the results. The more points from different aspects are involved, the more logical the tree will be.

I just see with my eyes a huge number of examples where the drawing is misleading and contradicts not even genetic, but genital analysis, which I generally trust.
It is a fact that the genetic analysis sometimes breaks, but it breaks when the selection of markers is one-sided. For example, you can't use only CO1 software above this type. I also took ITS2 - it compares favorably with the fact that the protein is non-coding and does not actually undergo purposeful evolution, but changes spontaneously by a random mechanism + it is very variable and does not even give the probability of returns. Now I'm also making nuclear protein-coding genes. And I compare all this with a genital analysis. In general, for Polyommatinae, it turns out very well, although sometimes with surprises, but these surprises coincide well with the genitals. But the external morphology is often very blatantly flawed. Hence my skepticism.

This post was edited by bora - 07/21/2014 03: 37

Regarding the wing pattern of pigeons and skepticism about its use. I attach to this post one of Schwanwicz's works directly related to the family; he published many other works in the same vein (part in German, one or two in English).

And about Udara blackburni - it can also be blue on top, with wide black edges (males), in your picture a female. Sexual dimorphism can occur both from above and below (or generally everywhere)))

http://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/L/udar...i_specimens.htm

As for Hooke's remark, I knew who it was addressed to. And you are a touchy young man: D. trivia = fascelis = uvarovi in the latest revision of checkers, the question is closed.