Genus Cychrus F., 1794

Hackel says the following:
aeneus aeneus Fisher-Waldheim, 1823 AR GG ST TR
granulatus Motschulsky, 1850a: 91
inessae O. Berlov, 1997a: 32
rosti Roeschke, 1907a: 248
sharovae O. Berlov, 1997a: 32
signatus Faldennann, 1836a: 13
volkovi O. Berlov, 1997a: 28

aeneus anatolicus Motschulsky, 1865: 310 AR TR

aeneus baiburtensis Breun, 1975a: 48 TR

aeneus starcki Reitter, 1888a: 19 GG ST
ballionis Retowski, 1888: 244
belousovi O. Berlov, 1997a: 35
makarovi O. Berlov, 1997a: 35
milyaevi O. Berlov, 1997a: 37
tillyi O. Berlov, 1997a: 37
zamotailovi O. Berlov, 1997a: 35

It seems that there is no point in waiting for Kirill Makarov's answer.
It has noticed differences, but does not consider them sufficient for the species/subspecies.
M. Haeckel also believes this, although the taxa anatolicus, baiburtensis, and three Devonian subspecies are not included in the list of synonyms of the "polytypical species" Cychrus aeneus.

As can now be seen, the situation with Caucasian Cychrus has reached a typical taxonomic impasse.
In many groups there are such dominant species with a huge range, and accordingly, with great morphological variability. After accumulating a large amount of comparative material from as many points as possible, the whole picture becomes visible ,and local views are absorbed. There is also the human factor, regional entomologists are more likely splitters (crushers), and let's just say that the metropolitan ones are uniformists (unifiers).
K. Makarov proves that Cychrus in the Caucasus did not evolve by isolating individual populations, but gradually and consistently occupied the territory as the glaciers retreated.
The amount of material analyzed is impressive - 1800 copies from 170 points!

K. Makarov proves that Cychrus in the Caucasus did not evolve by isolating individual populations, but gradually and consistently occupied the territory as the glaciers retreated.

Not convincing.
At a minimum, it was necessary to consider the "populations" from Armenia and Turkey.

More information to think about -
let's take a look at the "polytypical species" Carabus odoratus for comparison.
How much do endophallus representatives of different subspecies of this species differ?

This post was edited by Bomka - 08.06.2010 16: 45

In any case, Kirill clearly closed the topic of Russian Cichruses from the Caucasus. Quite convincing.

In any case, Kirill clearly closed the topic of Russian Cichruses from the Caucasus.

Then I apologize for taking up so much of your time.
But I didn't see your answers to my questions here.

Yes, if only the DNA of the Caucasian Cychrus could also be decomposed...

Here, by the way, for several individuals from the Caucasus there is a tree of one mitochondrial gene, they call Caucasian individuals the D3 Line,

I accidentally found this drawing (scroll up a bit):

http://books.google.com/books?id=rN48vfQ2d...0aeneus&f=false

They find two branches (for this purpose, like 4 beetles are used) inside one Caucasian species. These branches, as they write, were divided relatively long ago, and mofologically do not differ!


It is a pity that the book is not complete, there is no 8th chapter on "invisible" evolution, it seems to be a favorite hobby of the authors, but there is a chapter on Tsihrini.

Molecular phylogeny and evolution of carabid ground beetles By Syozo Osawa, Shōzō Ōsawa, Zhi-Hui Su, Yūki Inmura, Y. Inmura

This post was edited by amara-08.06.2010 17: 32

 These branches, as they write, were divided relatively long ago, and mofologically do not differ!

They easily differ in the morphology of the endophallus.
See above my pictures of Cychrus volkovi and Cychrus starcki.

They easily differ in the morphology of the endophallus.
See my pictures of Cychrus volkovi and Cychrus starcki above.

You should get acquainted with these authors.
In a note to Table 5.1, it is written that one of the Caucasian species used was from the North. East of Turkey. (Su et al. 2003c)
And this job would be interesting to get:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...54f4136b7db1793

This post was edited by amara-08.06.2010 17: 43

Boris, thank you!
Let me give a short excerpt from the table:
- - - - - - - aeneus anatolicus (Georgia)
------ - aeneus anatolicus (Northeastern Turkey)

------aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)
------aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)
--aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)
--aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)

Conclusion: the taxon anatolicus differs significantly from starcki,
and the representatives of the latter were also divided into 2 groups by the Japanese.
And it is not for nothing that the name of the aeneus species is highlighted in greenish color -
the "polytypic species" is doubtful...; -))

This post was edited by Bomka - 09.06.2010 02: 49

Boris, thank you!
Let me give a short excerpt from the table:
- - - - - - - aeneus anatolicus (Georgia)
------ - aeneus anatolicus (Northeastern Turkey)

------aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)
------aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)
--aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)
--aeneus starcki (Zap. Caucasus)

Conclusion: the taxon anatolicus differs significantly from starcki,
and the representatives of the latter were also divided into 2 groups by the Japanese.
And it is not for nothing that the name of the aeneus species is highlighted in greenish color -
the "polytypic species" is doubtful...; -))

Really interesting.
Just about the highlighted color, my fault, generic and specific name laid in the search, and used the cash option when displaying (so that you can search less with your eyes on the page).