Hesperiidae

I don't understand anything. Portugal-type locality for M. proto!
Can't you see these butterflies?

I have them in London, so not now...

I looked at the book by Nekrutenko (1985) - there proto was described by Esper in 1805. In the Korb catalog (2005) - the same Esper. Korshunov (1972), Higgins and Riley (1978), and Tuzov (1997, more precisely, Devyatkin in Tuzov et al.) - Oksenheimer, 1808.
Funny...

LepIndex about proto.

Here is my free translation of an essay from Hesselbart's book:
"So far, this taxon has been noted by all authors due to too small differences in male genital structures as a subspecies of Muschampia proto. Nevertheless, the differences in the appearance of adults, the absence of transitional forms, the partial overlap of their ranges, and the different ecological behavior of both taxa justify the application of the species status for proteides.
Unlike proto aragonensis proteides butterflies have shorter forewings: the male is 13.6-14 mm, the female is up to 14.8 mm. The main color of the upper side is light brown; the wide fringed edge has a thin and lighter Scheckung (?); individual spots of the pattern are much larger and lighter; the underside is more brick-red or tinted-sand. Muschampia proteides-continental, Muschampia proto-Mediterranean species. In the Anatolian Highlands and in Lebanon, proteides is restricted to mountainous countries and mountains. In Taurus, proto aragonensis rises to a great height, and can sympatrically meet with proteides, as we saw in Geyik Dagi (Antalya). Both species fly here above 1500 m and are clearly distinguishable morphologically. "

I would like to understand what these "minor differences" in the genitals are all about. Valentin, are there any references to literature in the essay?

die Scheckung-mottled coloring
der Scheck - mottled animal

This post was edited by bora - 06.02.2011 21: 10

In general, it seems that the sample is selectively biased.
As for continental/Mediterranean, lighter/darker-PG18 has already, in my opinion, put everything on the shelves.
Another nth attempt to pass off the form as a view.

This post was edited by bora - 06.02.2011 21: 18

I would like to understand what these "minor differences" in the genitals are all about. Valentin, are there any references to literature in the essay?

There are no links to other articles on the status of this taxon. As I understand it, it is in this book that G. Hesselbarth, H. van Oorschot, and S. Wagener assign the species status to the taxon proteides, which was originally described by Wagner as a subspecies: "Hesperia proto nov. ssp. proteides Wgnr."
The range of the species is indicated as: the highlands of Anatolia east to Transcaucasia, Iraq and Iran, and the mountains of Lebanon.
As for our Southern European populations, they, according to the "Butterflies of Turkey", fall into the range of M. proto! But the editor there was Nekrutenko and he knew what our butterflies look like
Judging by your pictures in nature, pictures of V. Savchuk, in which the color rendition, in my opinion (maybe I'm wrong), is transmitted adequately and my collections from Dagestan, all our butterflies fit into the phenotype of butterflies that are given under the name M. proteides.
Caterpillars, photos of which can be seen on the website "Butterflies of the Crimea" and caterpillars from Dagestan are of the same type.
Probably we should agree with the opinion of I. Plyushch, D. Morgun and A. Lvovsky and leave the name Muschampia proteides to our butterflies.
It is possible that A. Devyatkin will express his opinion, but he has not yet responded to the letter.

Probably we should agree with the opinion of I. Plyushch, D. Morgun and A. Lvovsky and leave the name Muschampia proteides to our butterflies.

This is if Muschampia proteides is a good species at all.
And then, not for the Rostov and Novorossiysk butterflies, because they are very dark (I also have butterflies from Anapa). And then a strange area comes out-Scheckung.

This post was edited by bora - 06.02.2011 21: 37

Judging by your pictures in nature, pictures of V. Savchuk, in which the color rendition, in my opinion (maybe I'm wrong), is transmitted adequately and my collections from Dagestan, all our butterflies fit into the phenotype of butterflies that are given under the name M. proteides.

IMHO, they are still some kind of intermediate ... (and this speaks in favor of the fact that everything is one kind, because there is no clearly defined hiatus).

It is possible that A. Devyatkin will express his opinion,

That would be interesting!

Hesperiidae from a bird's eye view...

Warren, A. D., J. R. Ogawa & A. V. Z. Brower. 2009. Revised classification of the family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea) based on combined molecular and morphological data. Systematic Entomology 34(3):467-523.

http://rghost.net/4245137

I have them in London, so not now...

But I'll ask Vlad to bring the belly of the Portuguese male Muschampia proto from London if he can. I'll boil the genitals and photograph them next to our specimen. Then it will be possible to draw certain conclusions.

Just in case, I will give drawings of genitals

Photo of the genitals of the South Russian Muschampia proto in a hurry

This post was edited by bora-08.02.2011 09: 19

Pictures:

Muschampia_proto.jpg — (129.07к)


post_26386_1296949065.jpg — (67.84к)


post_26386_1296949078.jpg — (82.54к)

But I'll ask Vlad to bring the belly of the Portuguese male Muschampia proto from London if he can. I'll boil the genitals and photograph them next to our specimen. Then it will be possible to draw certain conclusions.
Photo of the genitals of the South Russian Muschampia proto in a hurry

OK, I'll try not to forget.

belly of the Portuguese male Muschampia proto

IMHO, it would be nice to have two or three. And then suddenly an atypical one gets caught - we compare

I once promised a long time ago to post my result of cooking a female serratulae... Posting:
26-27 / V / 2010, Luhansk region, Provalie (Village of Demyanenko)

Pictures:

Pyrgus_10_serratulae_1.jpg — (92.79к)


Pyrgus_sp_10_un__________26_27.05.2010.jpg — (137.9к)


Pyrgus_sp_10_up__________26_27.05.2010.jpg — (120.52к)

And a few comments to the previous post. Here we had a discussion, starting with post #323 and further (on the 7th page of the topic)... So, IMHO:

1) the drawings in the book of Lvovsky and Morgun are not very adequate (at least in the question of female pyrgus);
2) the drawings in the book of Nekrutenko are more adequate;
3) what the genitals of the female alveus actually look like-I am not yet clear (I did not come across them);
4) controversial copies from post #323 - according to the wing pattern of serratulae, and according to the genitals - IMHO, it is not quite clear;
5) I would very much like to see a female alveus with solid morphological features (both the wing pattern and genitals corresponding to some drawings or descriptions... )

This post was edited by Kharkovbut-09.02.2011 18: 49

And a few comments to the previous post. Here we had a discussion, starting with post #323 and further (on the 7th page of the topic)... So, IMHO:
4) controversial specimens from post #323 - according to the wing pattern of serratulae, and according to the genitals - IMHO, it is not quite clear;

Which instance are we talking about? 1-2 or 3rd?

Which instance are we talking about? 1-2 or 3rd?

1-2.

And a few comments to the previous post. Here we had a discussion, starting with post #323 and further (on the 7th page of the topic)... So, IMHO:

1) the drawings in the book of Lvovsky and Morgun are not very adequate (at least in the question of female pyrgus);
2) the drawings in the book of Nekrutenko are more adequate;
3) what the genitals of the female alveus actually look like-I am not yet clear (I did not come across them);
4) controversial copies from post #323 - according to the wing pattern of serratulae, and according to the genitals - IMHO, it is not quite clear;
5) I would very much like to see a female alveus with solid morphological features (both the wing pattern and genitals corresponding to some drawings or descriptions... )

Here are my alveuses from the highlands of Dagestan. The females were identified according to a drawing by Evgeny Tsvetkov (Saint Petersburg). Basically the same for Nekrutenko.
Male: 5.08.2009, Dagestan, upper Karakoysu river, Tleyseruh River, vicinity of Gilib village, 1800 m above sea level.
Female: 5.08.2009, Dagestan, upper Karakoysu, upper Tleyseruh river, 2600 m above sea level.
Drawing by Evgeny Tsvetkov (Saint Petersburg)

Here are my alveuses from the highlands of Dagestan.

Females would be cooked and photographed

Females would be cooked and photographed

Females cooked, but there is nothing to remove. Maybe when I go broke on ustanovochku
While Toko drawings. It's a shame, but what should I do?

Samok cooked
Until toko drawings.

Send - I will photograph

Here, in connection with the previous discussion, I wanted to find out which generic name should be used: Muschampia or Syrichtus?

В Butterflies and Moths of the World (Generic Names and their Type-species) said that Muschampia (and I somehow understood why: according to this version, the correct type species for Syrichtus is malvae...).

Но The Global Lepidoptera Names Index said that Syrichtus still has a proto type species (as Hemming wrote in 1967).

I know a lot about taxonomy... What should I believe? The Global Lepidoptera Names Index did not take into account something, or, on the contrary, new data appeared? Or something else I can't even begin to imagine?

Here, in connection with the previous discussion, I wanted to find out which generic name should be used: Muschampia or Syrichtus? ....

I keep reading Germans...
(Hesselbart et al., 1995) in my translation (if I lie, Boris Vitalievich will correct me)
"Using the generic name Syrichtus Boisduval, [1834] instead of the generic name Muschampia Tutt, 1906 is impossible, since the name Syrichtus Boisduval, [1834] is a junior objective synonym of Carcharodus Hubner, [1819].
and it is also written that when describing the genus Boisduval (Boisduval) By the name Malvarum, I did not mean Pyrgus malvae, but Carcharodus alceae Esper.
Such horseradish (horseradish is the shadow cast by a horseradish plant on other plants).

This post was edited by Valentinus - 10.02.2011 21: 11

"The use of the generic name Syrichtus Boisduval, [1834] instead of the generic name Muschampia Tutt, 1906 is impossible, since the name Syrichtus Boisduval, [1834] is a junior objective synonym of Carcharodus Hubner, [1819].
and it is also written that when describing the genus Boisduval (Boisduval) By the name Malvarum, I did not mean Pyrgus malvae, but Carcharodus alceae Esper.

That yes... But I just looked at Generic Names and their Type-species: the Commission made a decision on Carcharodus: consider alceae as a type species! So the Germans must be wrong (at least about the reasons for not using Syrichtus).

If I decided, I would say: Syrichtus should not be used, because horseradish (the same plant! ) He knows what the type species of Syrichtus is...

I am already confused in my own reasoning... The opening is not in the typical form of Carcharodus, but in Syrichtus itself. But in Generic Names and their Type-species they write (quoting Hemming) that Boisduval did not assign any type species (and all the problems came from confusion in the attempts of followers to assign a type species for Syrichtus).

Вот эта цитата: "Boisduval erected the genus Syrichtus for the whole of the European "Black-and-White Skippers", including the "Mallow Skippers" currently placed in the genus Carcharodus Hьbner, [1819]. The subsequent history of this genus has been unfortunate through defective type-selections."

This post was edited by Kharkovbut - 10.02.2011 21: 54

Females cooked, but there is nothing to remove.

If you have a camera with a small lens, you can take a photo simply by applying it to the eyepiece of the microscope. The main thing is to catch the light.

P. malva Hungary OP0668m




This post was edited by barko - 12.02.2011 01: 57

I will post some of my Crimean photos-30.04.2008, Crimea, Bakhchisarai district, Skalistoe village. I may have made a mistake somewhere in terms of types. If so, I will be grateful for corrections.

Carcharodus alceae (Esper, 1780)



Erynnis tages (Linnaeus, 1758)



Spialia orbifer (Hubner, [1823])

I may have made a mistake somewhere in terms of types. If so, I will be grateful for corrections.

No, you're not mistaken...

  

Is this by any chance a close relative of Pyrgus malvae in the photo?

Is this by any chance a close relative of Pyrgus malvae in the photo?

What relative? This is P. malvae.

What relative? This is P. malvae.

I was just confused by garpa...

I was just confused by Garpa...

The main thing here is that the uncus is forked (the "relatives" have a single one). And the garp of relatives is much longer.

The main thing here is that the uncus is forked (the "relatives" have a single one). And the garp of relatives is much longer.

So be it!!!

Yakshich's drawing of P. malva genitalia

Here is Alexey Levanovich Devyatkin's opinion on the status of M. proto / proteides:
"Both of these species have long been recognized as different (for example, in a book on Turkey).
I would like to assess the degree of difference between them myself.
I don't have a single instance of M. proteides. As far as I understand, it looks different with a whiter pattern on top and a more reddish background on the bottom. In the genitals, the differences, as I again understand, are mainly in the form of gnathos.
The distribution of M. proteides is more southern - the south of Fore Asia, Transcaucasia?, I would like to check the indications of the Lower Volga region myself.
Here is what little I can say without having the actual material.
If there's an extra one, can't I get it?"

In the genitals, the differences, as I again understand, are mainly in the form of gnathos.

I'd like a link... Or is it folklore and not published anywhere?

I'd like a link... Or is it folklore and not published anywhere?

Apparently this is what is hidden behind "IMHO".
And so it turns out that according to Devyatkin, we have a proto.

If I got it wrong, issue 4 of the Entomological Review for 2010 should have an article by E. Ilina and D. Morguna with a review of Hesperiidae and Lycaenidae of Dagestan. Supposedly there are proteides listed. Has anyone read the article? (Number 4 hasn't reached Kharkiv yet... only the 2nd one is ripe... )

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ur0816j3067006l5/

A similar publication by the same authors (FAUNA AND ECOLOGY OF MACE-WHISKERED LEPIDOPTERA (LEPIDOPTERA, HESPERIOIDEA ET PAPILIONOIDEA) OF THE CHONKATAU RANGE (DAGESTAN)) was found here (plantago, thank you!!!): http://herba.msu.ru/russian/journals/bmsn/115/115_1.djvu

Proteides is given. How the material was determined is unclear.

This post was edited by Kharkovbut - 02/15/2011 04: 13