Hesperiidae

Well, let's assume that Alveus is not in the Crimea. And, due to its absence in the steppes of southern "mainland" Ukraine and in the Lower Don basin, this seems quite natural. We will wait for Okoem to write a note about this, along with other Crimean novelties, which can be included in the book by Nekrutenko (1985).
Among such meadow species, which are not found in the Crimea, but are, after a break in the southern steppes, in the Caucasus, only from the thick-headed C. flocciferus, C. palaemon, H. morpheus...

Well, let's assume that Alveus is not in the Crimea. And, due to his absence ... in the Lower Don basin, it seems quite natural.

There's a mistake about the Lower Don basin. Very rare, but alveus is found, see genitalia in the post URL #156. Or is there any doubt that this is Alveus?

We will be waiting for a note from Okoem about this, along with other Crimean novelties

My notes have been published regularly for the last three years. But how do I remove it from the lists? Should I tell you that everyone who brought it is wrong? Then, in order not to be unfounded, it is necessary to check and refute all available indications, but there is not the slightest desire for such bad work.

#156. Or is there any doubt that this is Alveus?

No doubts

My notes have been published regularly for the last three years. But how do I remove it from the lists? Should I tell you that everyone who brought it is wrong? Then, in order not to be unfounded, it is necessary to check and refute all available indications, but there is not the slightest desire for such bad work.

Volodya, well, argyrognomon was "excluded" . .. The situation is 100% the same.
And at the expense of books, they have more effect, of course, but also annoy colleagues from numerous mistakes in them. wink.gif

Volodya, well, argyrognomon was "excluded" . .. The situation is 100% the same.

But in my opinion, the situation is fundamentally different.
In the case of plebeians - I did not exclude the species from the fauna, all previous instructions remained in force. I just redefined "argyrognomon" in idas.
In the case of pyrgus from bearded times, both types are given. But how to prove that all these were errors of definition? Or maybe once upon a time Alveus really met with us?

  
In the case of plebeians , I did not exclude the species from the fauna,

Even in the annotation in Russian in white: "... excluded from the Crimean fauna Plebejus argyrognomon "

Obviously, the situation is the same for Crimea...

P.armoricanus:

1.♂, 02.06.1972, Crimea, Sevastopol, Balaklavsky district, Rodnikovskoe village (Mahat), gen. prep. No. 13-2009, 05. XII. 09 (located at Ivy Ivy)
2.♂, 16.07.2006, Crimea, Leninsky district, Cape Kazantip (Gerasimov River), gen. prep. No. 08-2009, 20. XI. 09
3.♂, 25.07.2009, AR Crimea, Alushta, Verkhnyaya Kutuzovka village (M. Nesterov), gen. prep. No. 12-2009, 05. XII. 09 (located at Ivy Ivy)
7.♂, 22.09.2008, AR Crimea, Belogorsk, Belaya Skala (Village Trotsenko), gen. prep. No. 05-2009, 19. XI. 09

Actually, all that I have is brewed from the Crimea. The probability is 99%, of course, no more.

By the way, Yu. I. Budashkin was in Kiev at the zoo museum and observed with his own eyes the Crimean collections of P. carthami.

Even in the annotation in Russian in white: "... excluded from the Crimean fauna Plebejus argyrognomon"

Yu. I. Budashkin designed the note and, perhaps, the phrase given above is not entirely correct, since in fact it was redefinition that took place.

in the zoomuseum, P. carthami observed the Crimean gatherings with his own eyes.

Did anyone cook these fees? And who is the importer?

  
Did anyone cook these fees? And who is the importer?

Oh, Vova, I don't know who the collector is. As for cooking , they didn't cook it, apparently. I saw Yu. I. briefly, he was already leaving, and Kostyuk already told me about the Pigruses. It was Friday night, and the funds were already closed, so I didn't see the copies myself. But they'll be easy to find - so I'll get out there in a week, of course. But I think that Yu. I. can hardly be mistaken in the definition - the views (with seratule maps) differ in appearance, and I learned this very well after the winter events. If you have any doubts , I will definitely cook it.

Pyrgus carthami (Hubner, [1813])
From Aktobe region of Kazakhstan

Pictures:

1_Pyrgus_carthami_m1_Leninskoe_7_06_07_новый_размер.JPG — (64.54к)


1_Pyrgus_carthami_m1a_Leninskoe_7_06_07_новый_размер.JPG — (58.51к)


1_Pyrgus_carthami_m3_Bestamak_24_06_07_новый_размер.JPG — (67.95к)


1_Pyrgus_carthami_m3a_Bestamak_24_06_07_новый_размер.JPG — (59.19к)

Pyrgus carthami Rostov region, Gornaya station

Pictures:

Pyrgus_carthami_верх.jpg — (99.2к)


Pyrgus_carthami_низ.jpg — (77.95к)

Those from whom the genitals are removed

I'm sorry, but this female is pure serratulae!

  
2-P. serratulae, Moldova, Razeni 03.07.07

This is still malvae.

I'm sorry, but this female is pure serratulae!

In my opinion - the same. At least that's what Crimean serratulas look like.

Carcharodus lavatherae
Moldova, Rezina district, Sakharna village, 30.07.2007
[attachmentid ()=29513][attachmentid ()=29514]

This is definitely not lavatherae, but most likely orientalis.

  
I will add a female and model P. serratulae 29.07.07, Kiev, Ivankovsky district, the valley of the river Teterev near the village.Khocheva .These birds should preferably be given with
the model[attachmentid ()=26637]
[attachmentid ()=26638]

I disagree - according to the underside (the basal spot is almost square, not rounded, the veins are more yellowish than the background) and the shape of the wings, this is armoricanus.

Exactly.

This season, a population of serratulae was found in the Kharkiv region (confirmed genitally).

As for carthami, last season I photographed one male (the place is not the same as serratulae, and it is quite different in its habit - huge and light), but then I did not collect it, including because at that time I had no doubts about its species affiliation.   And now they are, to put it mildly, there.

So I look forward to seeing the results of your research!

Evgeny, I can assure you that this copy of yours is a real carthami. The size, color of the top and underparts, and the shape of the front fenders are just classics!

I disagree - according to the underside (the basal spot is almost square, not rounded, the veins are more yellowish than the background) and the shape of the wings is armoricanus.

Damone cooked for a long time - armoricanusy You are right

I'm sorry, but this female is pure serratulae!

Did I glue the genitals from another butterfly?

Evgeny, I can assure you that this copy of yours is a real carthami. The size, color of the top and underparts, and the shape of the front fenders are just classics!

Thank you.

In fact, not so long ago I found in the Kharkiv Entomological Society a small series of maps from the collections of 30+ years ago. To clear my conscience, I cooked one male - it was confirmed.

Here are your gentlemen morphologists and underparts (as well as genitals). And now please explain to me, a peasant, what is the difference between habitus? I only see differences in the genitals. The morphology completely overlaps.

The morphology completely overlaps, because they are the same species-serratulae! Alveus and serratulae differ quite simply in their underparts, where the genitals only muddy the water. By the way, about the latter-in this forum some time ago I demonstrated what confusion there was with the species Apatura ilia and A. metis-and all from the fact that many people relied too much on the genitals, which incredibly confused the very simple situation itself. I'm a stickler for genitals, but experience has taught me that this is just as much a morphological trait as appearance: in some cases it works, in others it doesn't - or even fails. Both appearance and genitals are subject to variability - such is the nature!

This post was edited by Zed-02.03.2010 11: 20

Did I glue the genitals from another butterfly?

Genitals are changeable - if you don't know this, then you haven't cooked enough of them.

This post was edited by Zed-02.03.2010 11: 19

Summary: in such dubious cases, it would be good not to draw a conclusion from one instance at a time... it would be nice to have a series. And then genitals with a wing pattern like those swan, cancer and pike... IMHO...

In this case, I am inclined to the opposite idea, that the water is muddied by the habit of a fairly shabby butterfly. Or let's spit on the genitals and follow Staudinger.

Summary: in such dubious cases, it would be good not to draw a conclusion from one instance at a time... it would be nice to have a series. And then genitals with a wing pattern like those swan, cancer and pike... IMHO...

This is good when a series is caught, and in this case only the male and female are caught.

Genitals are changeable-if you don't know that, then you haven't cooked them enough.

I have made several thousand genitals in 30 years of work. And I know the limits of variability well.

This post was edited by bora-01.03.2010 23: 06

Zed: This mallow is really weird. I thought about what he was doing. It's probably just an aberration. I should have my genitals boiled.
It's the same with lavarentalis - you need to cook it, and so, of course, saying something about thick heads is an empty matter.
I also have sipmotny pyrgus from Arkhyz, but also not boiled.

This is good when a series is caught, and in this case only the male and female are caught.

If there is no series, then IMHO, this is just an argument in favor of the fact that the photo shows a serratula. Scuffs have nothing to do with it, the shape of the spots and the shade of the background are too characteristic. I collected a lot of serratulas, both fresh and flown. However, I cooked only males, and the genitals of female pyrgus, as it seemed to me, are too similar for a confident (my) definition. Here, in my opinion, you just need to cook a series.
If these two butterflies in the photo were collected by me in the Crimea, then I would definitely identify them (by appearance) like armoricanus and serratula. These species, although very rare, are found together in our country. I would also like to add that I checked the genitals of such stray armoricans (they were males) just in case.

I should have my genitals boiled.
With lavarentalis the same - it is necessary to cook,......
I also have sipmotny pyrgus from Arkhyz, but also not boiled.

We are waiting patiently-p.

If there is no series, then IMHO, this is just an argument in favor of the fact that the photo shows a serratula. ...
I would also like to add that I checked the genitals of such stray armoricans (they were males) just in case.

And I, then, having digested the lost pair-a male (similar to armoricanus) and a female (similar to serratula) - they, by the way, drew my attention by the fact that they were much larger than the accompanying serratula and armoricanus(I showed the photo), and seeing the genitals of the alveuses, I had to convince myself that the genitals were a mess, and most importantly, to consider the dots and specks on the wings?
And not according to the habit and specks were identified "lime" alveuses in the Crimea?
And what to do with the data of PG-18, which says:
"At altitudes of 2000-2200 m, in the vicinity of the village of Aragats, ... butterflies with armoricanus genitalia. I have not yet seen any clear distinguishing features from the Alveus wing pattern. These butterflies are very changeable..."?
And the opinion of PG-18, that he has no doubts about the fact that this is Alveus, is also not worth taking into account?
And, in general, why would the Ripper cook genitals, if he was already told that it was malvae?
Or is there a policy of double standards: someone has the right to rely on genital analysis as the leading method, and someone should only look at pictures and believe smart uncles that genitals have nothing to do with it, and most importantly spots?

This post was edited by bora-02.03.2010 12: 23

And I, then, having digested the lost pair-a male (similar to armoricanus) and a female (similar to serratula) - they, by the way, drew my attention by the fact that they were much larger than the accompanying serratula and armoricanus(I showed the photo), and seeing the genitals of the alveuses, I had to convince myself that the genitals were a mess, and most importantly, to consider the dots and specks on the wings?
And not according to the habit and specks were identified "lime" alveuses in the Crimea?
And what to do with the data of PG-18, which says:
"At altitudes of 2000-2200 m, in the vicinity of the village of Aragats, ... butterflies with armoricanus genitalia. I have not yet seen any clear distinguishing features from the Alveus wing pattern. These butterflies are very changeable..."?
And the opinion of PG-18, that he has no doubts about the fact that this is Alveus, is also not worth taking into account?
And, in general, why would the Ripper cook genitals, if he was already told that it was malvae?
Or is there a policy of double standards: someone has the right to rely on genital analysis as the leading method, and someone should only look at pictures and believe smart uncles that genitals have nothing to do with it, and most importantly spots?

There is no need to argue at this level. Note that I do not dispute the significance of the male genitals at all: I maintain that the sclerotization of the female genitals indicated by you does not have taxonomic significance in THIS CASE, unlike the color of the underparts. And it's easy to check. I offer you the following plan of action:

1) Establish whether there is a correlation between the coloration and shape of the spots of the underside of the hindwing, and the genitalia of MALES of alveus and serratulae. A fairly large series is taken, preparations are made, on the basis of which the series is divided into groups. What are the signs of the underside of the hind wing within these two groups? Special attention should be paid to 1) the costal margin, 2) the white spot in the subcostal cell, 3) the veins Rs and M1, and 4) the marginal edge of the wing.
See the picture at the end of the post.

This has already been done, in particular by De Yong. Male genitalia of the alveus/armoricanus type correlate with the following characteristics:
- the costal margin is white or clearly light along almost its entire length,
- the subcostal spot is almost always trapezoid in shape, often with rounded corners, due to the light color of the subcostal vein, it passes smoothly into a light costa
- the veins are light in color, stand out slightly against light spots,
- the marginal edge without a clear light band of the same width - the dark background reaches all the way to the edge of the wing.

Serratulae genitalia correlate with the following traits:
- the costal edge is darkened for the most part or even completely by a dark coating, the color is closer to the dark background than to light spots.
- the subcostal spot is always elongated oval, completely surrounded by a dark background color,
- the veins are clearly dark, contrasting,
- a clear light band of the same width passes along the marginal edge - the dark background does not reach to the very edge of the wing.

So, it has already been established that, in contrast to your statement, the signs of the underside of the hind wing correlate with genital signs, i.e. they have taxonomic significance. This conclusion, I hope, will not be disputed, your results also confirm it IN TERMS OF MALES OF the serratulae. Let's move on:

2) The next step is to show whether already proven useful signs of ICP correlate with signs of sclerotization of the FEMALE genitals. Since the signs of ICP in pyrgus retain their species specificity regardless of gender, such a correlation is quite expected. But there is no such correlation here, as you noticed.

At the moment (without further research), we have the following choice: either accept that the shape of the sclerotized area in the genitalia of female serratulae has no taxonomic significance, or (as you are inclined to think) that it has the most significant meaning. In the latter case, we must reject either the proven fact that the hind wing ICP characteristics of serratulae correlate with the genital characteristics of MALES, or the equally proven fact that the ICP characteristics of pyrgus retain their species specificity regardless of sex (i.e., we must believe that for some reason in serratulae the male icp correlates with the genitals, but the underside of females is NOT correlated!).

Which option is logically more likely? And so please cook your genitals for your health, if you have the desire and time. Just please don't kick the signs of foreign morphology just because Staudinger used them wilfully.

This post was edited by Zed-02.03.2010 13: 24

Pictures:

alveus_serratulae.jpg — (98.48к)

they, by the way, drew my attention to the fact that they were much larger than the accompanying serratula and armoricanus(I showed the photo), and when I saw the genitals of Alveusov, I had to convince myself that the genitals were a mess, and most importantly, dots and specks on the wings.?
And not according to the habit and specks were identified "lime" alveuses in the Crimea?
And what to do with the data of PG-18, which says:
"At altitudes of 2000-2200 m, in the vicinity of the village of Aragats, ... butterflies with armoricanus genitalia. I have not yet seen any clear distinguishing features from the Alveus wing pattern. These butterflies are very changeable..."?

I did not suggest distinguishing the alveus/armoricanus pair by wing pattern. As for the serratula, they are usually noticeably larger than the armoricanus.
Otherwise, I agree with Zed.

OK, so as not to waste time, we will assume that genital analysis for alveus females is not applicable. Maybe when I'm free, I'll cook the genitals of female serratulas for my health, and maybe I'll find abnormal sclerotized areas.
In the meantime, I will be content with the only male alveus for the Rostov region.

I did not suggest distinguishing the alveus/armoricanus pair by wing pattern. As for the serratula, they are usually noticeably larger than the armoricanus.
Otherwise, I agree with Zed.

But we have serratula and armoricanus of the same size:

Pictures:

Pyrgus.jpg — (146.42к)

OK, so as not to waste time, we will assume that genital analysis for alveus females is not applicable. Maybe when I'm free, I'll cook the genitals of female serratulas for my health, and maybe I'll find abnormal sclerotized areas.
In the meantime, I will be content with the only male alveus for the Rostov region.
But we have serratula and armoricanus of the same size:

I almost did not cook females, because for faunal research there were always enough males - pyrgus in our country (with the exception of Sids) do not occur singly, if one is seen, then there will definitely be more nearby. However, I personally treat the definition of females by genitals very cautiously, I mean not only females of thick-heads, but females in general (and diaries, and raznoustykh), because I have the opinion that in many close species they are very, very similar and at the same time intraspecific variability cannot be excluded. Thus, when determining females, for me (except for genitals), appearance is also of considerable importance.
As for the Crimean serratula, they also come in the size of armoricanus, but still this is not too typical.

However, I personally treat the definition of females by genitals very cautiously, I mean not only females of thick-heads, but females in general (and diaries, and raznoustykh), because I have the opinion that in many close species they are very, very similar and at the same time intraspecific variability cannot be excluded.

I don't really like messing around with females myself, very shaky genitals, and signs too. However, it should be borne in mind that a number of species differ precisely in the genitals of females, for example, Callophrys. I only take into account qualitative differences, such as 2 rounded areas of sclerotization or one large rectangular one. It's just that I've never seen Alveus ' genitalia in serratulas, and at least this female was different in size. Unfortunately, the series will not work right now, I have only one female. And serratul cooked a lot of females. I don't know, maybe it's a hybrid of some kind. The male was nearby, so there is a species. And what is rare, so lavatherae, for example, manages to catch no more than 1 specimen. for 2 years.

The male was nearby, so there is a species. And what is rare, so lavatherae, for example, manages to catch no more than 1 specimen. for 2 years.

As for rarity, this is an interesting question for me. After all, if the species is rare, then it means either stealthy, or flying, or it flies well and has a sparse population. You can't call pyrgus secretive, so it turns out that there is a population somewhere not too far from the place of your discovery. Or, like Sida, it has a sparse population. In this case, to collect the series, you must either find the population/place from which you were introduced, or find the place where individuals of a sparse population gather (for example, the population of the population that was introduced). by the water or on flowers). Thus, all the Crimean species that I managed to find at least once, I then found more than once without much difficulty (already knowing both the habits and biotopes).
The only exception so far is lavater, which I met only once, but was not collected. Although it may not have been him, there is no complete certainty about the definition. Also, according to recent information, it looks like I was just looking for it in the wrong place.

In this case, to collect the series, you must either find the population/place from which you were introduced, or find the place where individuals of a sparse population gather (for example, the population of the population that was introduced). by the water or on flowers).

Undoubtedly, especially since in those places I necessarily leave the meadow stations for the dry steppe, since I am mainly interested in certain types of pigeons. You will need to go to the Seversky Donets river.

  
And the opinion of PG-18, that he has no doubts about the fact that this is Alveus, is also not worth taking into account?

What passions...
I can only vouch for specific male genitalia and their owner (the butterfly). I agree that the right copy looks a lot like a serratula. I have not tried to distinguish pyrgus by female genitalia. But men's signs work better than external signs, and the final verdict can only be made on them.
Serratulas, in particular Armenian ones, are very variable in size. The drawing is relatively stable, but sometimes I managed to confuse it with ...cinarae (not straightened when the underside of the cr is closed).

And here is this pyrgus from a height of 3900 m, from the very top of Aragats. Shoddy of course, but still who, in your opinion? August 8, 2005

This post was edited by PG18-02.03.2010 22: 15

Pictures:

08_11_Арагац_к_вершине_Ругдиѕ_с1.јрд — (180.98 k)


08_11_Арагац_к_вершине_plant_07a.jpg — (341.39 k)

By the way, are the reports of Muschampia cribrellum found in Crimea reliable? Nekrutenko doesn't have it, Efetov doesn't have it, but Chikolovets and Plyushch have it...