Hesperiidae

Devyatkin A. L.
Review of the thick-headed species of the genus Carcharodus Hbn. (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae) of the fauna of the USSR
/ / Entomological Review 1990. 4. С.925-940.
DjVu

So I changed the angle a little (the focus just got lost) - is that what you meant?

I meant the border of the" main"," solid " part of gnathos. These photos show that on the right side of the red line there are thin connecting structures that pass into the scapium. It seemed to me that the border of gnathos in the Growth butterfly is much to the right. Perhaps this is just my delusion due to the lack of visibility of details when viewing the image. Try to consider the structure of the gnathos of your butterfly from this point of view.

I meant the border of the" main"," solid " part of gnathos. These photos show that on the right side of the red line there are thin connecting structures that pass into the scapium. It seemed to me that the border of gnathos in the Growth butterfly is much to the right. Try to consider the structure of the gnathos of your butterfly from this point of view.

So it is in my last photo. The drugs are very similar.

This post was edited by bora - 10.04.2011 04: 22

Pictures:

IMG_5190.jpg — (238.63к)

So it is in my last photo. The drugs are very similar.

Similar, even very similar. I agree.

Crimean peninsula of the Sevastopol
region 10-12. 08. 2011 (leg.Max Kovalev)
Very shabby copy.
Cooked
First found one rice.the genitals.(Lvovsky, Morgun)
And just now, on this page.post # 517 more...











Verdict-C. orientflis ?

Crimean peninsula of the Sevastopol
region 10-12. 08. 2011 (leg.Max Kovalev)
Very shabby copy.

Verdict-C. orientflis ?

And where is the notch in the distal part of the lateral surface of the postvaginal plate?

If you abstract from the place of collection-pohoizhe more on flocciferus. But I have a minimum of experience with these types, so of course I can't make any judgments. On the female and in general would be wary of drawing conclusions. For males, please, no problem.

Thymelicus hyrax.
Krasnodarskiy kr. okr. g. Anapa 23.6.2011 leg.Shemberger G. M.

This post was edited by Gennady Shemberger - 18.01.2012 16: 51

Pictures:

IMG_2072.JPG — (121.51к)


IMG_2073.JPG — (123.04к)

Darvaz, okr. per. Haburabad, the lower reaches of the Outpost. 4.07.2011
If anyone knows what kind of view, I will be glad. It doesn't look like alaika because of the light spots on her underparts.

Why, in my opinion, is quite an alaika. There is still a stigma, but it is completely different.

alaica without any doubts

Is it normal that she has white spots on her underwear? Since everyone from other places did not have them, and the overall size is slightly larger.

This is some nedopyatna Me similar instances in Varzob came across. There are no options other than alaiki.

Muschampia tessellum.
Krasnodar region of Novorossiysk, males 31.5. -1.6.2011. female 8.7.2011.

Pictures:

IMG_1934.JPG — (114.86к)

To the pile...

M. "proto"
August 8, 2011, Kharkiv region, Volchansky district, Bochkovo

Pictures:

S.__proto___m___8_08_2011__Kh__Vol__Bochkovo___1.jpg — (114.49к)


S.__proto___m___8_08_2011__Kh__Vol__Bochkovo___2.jpg — (113.7 k)

Литва (55° 23' 55.92", 25° 15' 35.29)
01-Carterocephalus silvicola (Meigen, 1829) 2009.05.29
02-Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer, 1808) 2009.07.09
03-Pyrgus alveus (Hübner, 1803) 2009.08.09
04-Pyrgus malvae (Linnaeus, 1758) 2010.05.15
05-Ochlodes sylvanus (Esper, 1777) 2009.06.13
06-Thymelicus sylvestris (Poda, 1761) 2008.07.13
07-Heteropterus morpheus (Pallas, 1771) 2008.07.19

Pictures:

01.jpg — (116.23 k)


02.jpg — (114k)


03.jpg — (125.04 k)


04.jpg — (115.11к)


05.jpg — (116.2 k)


06.jpg — (119.77 k)


07.jpg — (135.43к)

M. proto Greece, Peloponesos

  M. proto Greece, Peloponesos

Oleg, and a butterfly in the appendage...

Oleg, and a butterfly in the appendage...

I forgot about the butterfly ... Sorry.

Last year I collected several caterpillars in Talysh. When they were growing up, I thought it was some kind of unknown Muschampia, because the caterpillars were very different. Protoid butterflies were hatched. They are somewhat lighter than the Dagestani ones. I don't know what it is yet. Sent the legs for gen. analysis.
Dagestan

Talysh

Muschampia tessellum, male. Surroundings of Oryol, Luzhki settlement. 26. 06. 2011

Pictures:

DSCN5168.jpg — (88.87к)


1.jpg — (73.07 k)

Three members of the family from the Eastern Sayan:
Pyrgus maculatus (Bremer & Grey, 1853)
June 3, 2012, h=1650 m



Pyrgus chapmani Warren, 1926
June 8, 2012, h=1900 m



Carterocephalus argyrostigma (Eversmann, 1851)
June 3, 2012, h=1650 m
butterfly from the category of elusive)) very small and very fast, it is not easy to notice it against the background of last year's dry grass, and it is also difficult to catch it, especially if you have already startled it.

Carcharodus lavatherae, Pyrgus sidae, and Pyrgus carthami. All - 02.06.12, Tatarstan, Bugulminsky district. These are rare things.

Pictures:

_________1.jpg — (200.15к)


_________1______.jpg — (163.19к)


____1.jpg — (241.93к)


____1______.jpg — (235.42к)


_______2.jpg — (227.94 k)


_______2______.jpg — (227.99к)

Identified as a female sylvicola, but I doubt something, maybe such an aberrant palemon?
Apologies for the picture, not mine. There is no better way.
The butterfly was collected in Kabardino-Balkaria.

Pictures:

Silvicola_niz.jpg — (135.48к)

Juan L. Hernández-Roldán, Juan C. Vicente & Miguel L. Munguira.
Natural history, immature stage morphology, and taxonomic status of the threatened skipper Pyrgus cinarae (Rambur, 1839) in the Iberian Peninsula (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae).
PDF

Good shots of the egg. Space!
But this is not the first article I see where they avoid specifying the number of ages in caterpillars. Is this done on purpose or just can't count?

Caterpillar of Carcharodus(Esper, [1780])
May 30, 2012. Crimea, Azov region, Kamenskoe village.

Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer, 1808)
June 5, 2012. Crimea, the outskirts of the village of Primorskiy.

Pyrgus armoricanus (Oberthur, 1910)
May 11, 2012. Crimea, eastern shore of Lake Donuzlav.

Kharkiv region; wingspan 24 mm. A copy from the collection of D. Moskalenko (now stored in the Kharkiv Entomological Society).

I don't know what to think...

Pictures:

P._cf_alveus__fm___Kr._Volna__UP_1.jpg — (214.49к)


P._cf_alveus__fm___Kr._Volna__UN_1.jpg — (215.62к)


P._cf_alveus__fm___Kr._Volna__genit_1.jpg — (87.46к)

Do I understand correctly that this is Pyrgus armoricanus?
Saratov region, Engels, early August. The butterfly is very shiny on both top and bottom:

Do I understand correctly that this is Pyrgus armoricanus?
Saratov region, Engels, early August.

Looks like. Yes, there is no one else. To be sure, you can cook it.

After receiving data on the landing, we decided to assign butterflies from Talysh to Muschampia proteides.

After receiving data on the landing, we decided to assign butterflies from Talysh to Muschampia proteides.

Wonderful! The situation is beginning to clear up! It's just a pity that something European wasn't sequenced...

After the first debate here on proto/proteides, I sent our copy to Devyatkin. But it wasn't long before his untimely death... so he didn't have time to see it...

PS: Valentine, I looked more closely at the information on the site, and there was a misunderstanding. There is a cladogram that does not quite correspond to what was written. Three clades were also identified there, and the Crimean specimens were assigned to proteides, and the Volgograd specimens were even assigned to two: proteides and the "mysterious" blue one... What would that mean?

And what about the genitals? You write "comparison of genitals revealed no differences"; and what is shown in the picture by arrows? Is this noticeable in the series?

It is a pity that the Kharkiv ones were not included in this analysis. I sent my butterfly to the wrong place, as it turned out...

PS: Valentine, I looked more closely at the information on the site, and there was a misunderstanding. There is a cladogram that does not quite correspond to what was written. Three clades were also identified there, and the Crimean specimens were assigned to proteides, and the Volgograd specimens were even assigned to two: proteides and the "mysterious" blue one... What would that mean?

Most likely, the cladogram indicates a significant intersection of the areas of proteides and the "mysterious" blue, and the latter is clearly not proto (this should be specially noted). It would be very interesting to study just the Volgograd populations - there is a joint habitation of two genetic lines. A detailed study of them would explain a lot.

proteus lectotype, if that helps in any way

[attachmentid()=187597]

[attachmentid()=187599]

[attachmentid()=187600]

[attachmentid()=187601]

[attachmentid()=187602]

[attachmentid()=187603]

[attachmentid()=187604]

[attachmentid()=187605]

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 19.11.2013 09: 19

Roc. of Novorossiysk, 2013.

This post was edited by Gennady Shemberger - 19.11.2013 09: 53

Pictures:

DSCN1060.JPG — (240.78к)

PS: Valentine, I looked more closely at the information on the site, and there was a misunderstanding. There is a cladogram that does not quite correspond to what was written. Three clades were also identified there, and the Crimean specimens were assigned to proteides, and the Volgograd specimens were even assigned to two: proteides and the "mysterious" blue one... What would that mean?

And what about the genitals? You write "comparison of genitals revealed no differences"; and what is shown in the picture by arrows? Is this noticeable in the series?

It is a pity that the Kharkiv ones were not included in this analysis. I sent my butterfly to the wrong place, where it was necessary, as it turned out...

In my mind, the picture is that proteides is a mountain species (1600 and higher), which is characterized by a more developed white pattern, relatively small size and mottled color of caterpillars. In the genitals, I did not find any qualitative features that would distinguish it from proto. However, only two copies were analyzed.
As for the other Caucasian populations, judging by the caterpillars (seen from Novorossiysk, Dagestan, Absheron and the Lesser Caucasus) and the morphology of the imago, we can assume that all this is one other species. And if it weren't for mtDNA, then I would confidently say that proto.
At the risk of saying something stupid, it seems to me that analyzing the results of one mtDNA may lead us to incorrect conclusions. If mtDNA is passed down the maternal line and has nothing to do with the exchange of genes within a species, then why can't there be a situation where different lines can exist within the same species, which differ, depending on the bifurcation time, from 0 to 3%?
Zhenya, you can ask Volodya Lukhtanov to sequence your material, but what are the conclusions?

At the risk of saying something stupid, it seems to me that analyzing the results of one mtDNA may lead us to incorrect conclusions. If mtDNA is passed down the maternal line and has nothing to do with the exchange of genes within a species, then why can't there be a situation where different lines can exist within the same species, which differ, depending on the bifurcation time, from 0 to 3%?

If everything goes well, then next summer I can try to make a nuclear ITS2 for this group. Only you will need more un-soaked copies from Portugal-Spain-France