Sphingidae Hawkmoths

Community and Forum → Insects images → Sphingidae Hawkmoths

Pages: 1 ...19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27... 30

Likes: 16

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

Likes: 10

Likes: 6

Likes: 14

Likes: 8

Likes: 6

Likes: 5

Likes: 7

Likes: 5

Likes: 7

Likes: 11

12.11.2014 18:27, collector

List of views to the photos posted above:

1 - Marumba spectabilis
2 - Pyllosphingia perundulans
3 - Marumba irata
4 - Daphnis hypothous
5 - Theretra sp. ???
6 - Cechenena lineosa ??? - 1
7 - Marumba pyras
8 - Sphinx sp. ( 8-1 )
9 - Ambulyx sericeipennis
10-Clanis bilincata
11-Marumba cristata s.str
12-Acosmeryx naga
13-Acosmeryx shervillii
14-Acosmeryx pseudonaga
15-Ambulyx pryeri
16-Ambulyx substrigilis
17-Acherontia lachesis (самец)
18-Cechenena lineosa ??? - 2
19-Acosmeryx ancens
20-Acosmeryx sericens
21-Meganaton analis
22-Acherontia lachesis (самка)
23-Ambulyx subocellata
24-Ambulyx sp. ???
25-Theretra nessus
26-Cechenena helops
27-Megacorma oblique
28-Megaton rugescens
29-Ambulyx canescens
30-Agrius convolvuli - 8

Please forgive me for any possible blunders in writing the names.

This post was edited by collector - 26.11.2014 18: 22

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 26

Likes: 16

27.12.2014 22:11, John-ST

[size=7]

Dear colleagues! I submit my version of the Sphingidae system for your consideration (this is not an article). For discussions, comments, and so on. Please be loyal. As the author of the work, it is advisable to submit your advice and comments together with the material. And I will not refuse simple but effective comments. Welcome! Who is interested in downloading, write. I'd appreciate it.
George Petrov. 26.12.2014. 18:12 [attachmentid()=214544]

It's a rather strange piece, although I'm not particularly aware of taxonomic perturbations in the hawk moth family.
For the first part (The problem "Hemaris, Cephonodes - - - Macroglossum"):
There is a long discussion about the difference between bumblebees and cockatiels, but in the end it is concluded that they belong to different groups and cannot be combined. In your final hawk moth structure, the bumblebees are in the tribe Dilophonotini, and the yazykans are in Bombyliini, in the subfamily Bombyliinae. I didn't understand what the problem was?
1) Bombyliinae and Bombyliini are the corresponding taxa of the buzzed fly family Bombyliidae, what they do in hawkmoth, what you are not satisfied with Macroglossinae and Macroglossini (maybe I missed something, then link to the source).
2) unless bumblebees and yazykans are already bred into different taxa, your "new" system for these two groups is fundamentally no different from the one I know, if you replace Bombyliinae and Bombyliini with Macroglossinae and Macroglossini.
3) Bombyliina-Deilephilina, we replace Bombyliina, with Macroglossina, Deilephilina, this taxon is not familiar to me, but if we replace it with Choeracampina, then we come to a familiar system
4) someone combined bumblebees and tongues into one group (tribe, subtribe) I do not know this, please give a link to the source, if no one combined what is the essence of the problem?
On the second part (Taxonomic problem of the tribe Sphingulini):
Here I'm not in the topic, you need to first read Yu. A. Derzhavets (Google on request gives out the design of machine parts, they would give a source) and Nakamura (source).
For both parts:
1) how strange it looks to compare entire groups (especially in the second part) based on the comparison of individual species pulled out of the general context of these groups.
2) almost complete absence of factual material
3) complete absence of references to sources
4) lack of literature analysis

Discussions and comments.
Discussion and comments on what? What do they have to do with the above, some kind of shnyaga, based on them it can be argued, for example, Nymphalis is also a nocturnal genus, I personally flew to the light of urticae and io, as well as about a similar phenomenon in relation to some species of the genus I know from personal messages of other people who caught the light. It's more like, " What did I think of or remember about hawkmoth?"

The Sphingidae system.
What is the basis for building this system, if all the above is written, then I see almost no logical connection between the main part of the work and the system built as a result.

About P.S.
"I did what I could, as it turned out ... I see it that way", already initially hints that your opinion is the main thing for you, and you are not going to consider the rest, why then it was necessary to offer a job for discussion.

I had a chance to teach at the institute for some time, if a student brought me an abstract compiled in this way, I would drive it with piss rags, and here is a claim to some scientific work, so please do this work and make it digestible, and not express a couple of thoughts and somehow illustrate them with pictures from the magazine "Murzilka" and obscure text. Dixi.

Likes: 1

28.12.2014 1:14, Pavel Morozov

Dear Georgy Yuryevich,
The opinion about your opus, in my opinion, should not be unambiguous.

I Regarding the design and style.
1. Goal. Tasks. Results. Discussion. Conclusions.
You can write a thesis at the beginning of the work. If you use the discussion and comments as conclusions, then the solution to the problem (if there was one) is not visible in them. And if there is no solution, then why not map out the paths to solution
2. pay attention to the language - if you write with a claim to scientific work, then it should not contain emotional inserts. What is the point of replacing "banal" with "popular"? Neither one nor the other word is used in this case. There are much more suitable ones: common, common, numerous, background, after all. Believe me, for the layman, even the "popular" D. elpenor will be like "not a fig to yourself moth! yes, and pink!"

I will repeat the remark of John-St. Materials and methods. Literature. I won't go into more detail.

The third important component is novelty. So what's your problem? According to the text, it turns out that the whole novelty lies in the fact that "I decided the other day to look at the hawkmoth, looked - and, here they are on! Evona how!"
And, here: don't open America with words about the combination of genetic and morphological methods.

But in general, it is clear that the person tried, was not too lazy and was not afraid.
Read, watch, collect and organize.

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

29.12.2014 0:08, vys

Hello, dear George. I've carefully reviewed your work. The impression, let's say, leaves much to be desired. This text (you can't say otherwise) cannot claim not only the title of an article, but also the title of a work at least at the school level. As I understand it, not the least role was played by the lack of sufficient knowledge in this area. Perhaps if you take the trouble to fill in the monstrous gaps, then in the future you will be able to write quite good works. But at the moment, everything is exactly as written above. Let me explain why.

First, the language and terminology itself. It is immediately obvious that you do not understand systematic terms and do not know how to apply them. This is simply an UNREALISTIC minus for you as a taxonomist. Tell me, where did you get such a phrase as "The opinion of Yu. A. Derzhavets could be considered as taxonomically valid"? Don't you, as a person who writes a systematic work, know that only a nomenclatural name can be taxonomically valid, and certainly not an opinion? In addition, a huge number of clumsy and illiterate phrases like "In principle, the shape of the head capsule and shagreen covers in such a systematic scenario probably do not make much sense" reduce the entire scientific component of your work to nothing. What kind of systematic scenario are we talking about? Why isn't the problem and overall relevance of your work clearly identified? Why should such a system be adopted and what exactly is it based on? You understand that when comparing tribes, it is a good idea to start from the type genera in order to outline the circle of variability of characters, and not just pull something out from somewhere at your discretion. Apart from photos and a clumsy description, your work, alas, has nothing to offer. Lack of references to literature, stating facts instead of a reasoned and evidence-based explanation, and much more. I believe that it is useless to evaluate this work, because, as I said above, even school essays are often more informative and competent than your manuscript here.

29.12.2014 1:24, vys

Let me ask you what makes you think I don't know much about the taxonomy of hawk moth per se. I clearly wrote to you-it is necessary to use STANDARD GENERA, that is, initially all your work loses its meaning, because you considered what you considered to be truly correct by some command. You persist in not answering a question about the relevance of your work. At the moment, it seems to me absolutely meaningless. You need to understand one simple thing, which is, however, fundamental-there are signs that are phylogenetically important for some constructions, and there are also some that are not very informative and can be ignored. In your case, I would first study the question of the importance and role of harpal growth in the genitals of males in the Sphingulini, Smerinthini, and Sphingini groups in order to understand its phylogenetic significance and the polarity of this trait, then you need to look at the degree of development of the apical spike of the aedeagus, then the presence of stridulyonic scales on the valvae, and the morphology of the primago-and then a lot would be done. it became clear without any speculation. Your work, I repeat, is just a collection of thoughts and phrases that have little claim to scientific research. And another question:why do you have several tribes marked with a question mark? And on what basis do you separate Leucophlebediini from Claniini?

Likes: 2

29.12.2014 3:37, John-ST

Latin epithets are taken from the book by V. Zolotukhin "Brazhniki of Vietnam"... But you have to put up with, for example, a name like Bombyliini. It is quite valid.

Bombyliinae and Bombyliini are valid names of groups of the family Bombyliidae (Diptera), and in accordance with the ICZN cannot be valid for hawk moth, if these names are still valid for hawk moth from the point of view of the ICZN, then they should be replaced for buzzards. I can't find any source for such a fundamental renaming of taxa. except for your reference to Zolotukhin's book, which is not available to me. If these names are valid for sem. If Sphingidae is proved by Zolotukhin in this work, then such a global renaming of taxa from two families and two orders would be reflected in other sources, especially since two years have passed since the publication, or this proof is incorrect or insufficient, or the ICZN commission has left everything as it is, respectively, for hawk moth these names are not valid.

... Then everything is clearly written and illustrated above...

The whole problem is that what is written and illustrated has almost nothing to do with the system you have built, so nothing is clear.
George, even if we discard your fundamentally rough "work" and consider only the proposed system of hawk moth (this does not depend on the degree of awareness in their taxonomy), it looks simply like a set of taxa placed according to one principle that you know, and any "... effective suggestions and questions regarding the Sphingidae system ... " You do not need who can't give. If you expect that you will reasonably (that is, with the involvement of materials and literary sources) refute or confirm these constructions, then you are very wrong no one will do your work for you. All those who have spoken above are trying to convey this idea to you.
P. S. " ... the experience of writing articles ..."maybe you do, but you probably don't have any experience writing articles.
P. S. S. maybe you just wanted to troll us

, no offense, happy

new year

Likes: 1

29.12.2014 21:00, vys

Finally, thank you so much!!! Please excuse me.... I'll take your criticism to heart. Thank you for understanding my draft. I'll look at this work of mine, because I wrote from images, and we'll talk to you later. The systematic position of the tribes: Smerinthini, Sphingini-is quite clear to everyone. Namely, Sphingulini should raise questions, since Sphingulini cannot be evolutionarily associated with tribes in the Smerinthini subfamily. Although this tribe has homology with the caterpillars of Smerinthinae, nevertheless, in Acherontiini (Cocytius, for example), a caterpillar with a shagged cuticle and a triangular-conical head capsule is also present, and the taxon Sphingulini is referred to the subfamily Sphingini by the "genetic method" (mitochondrial DNA). Therefore, I placed this tribe in this subfamily once again, as in the system of Yu.A. Derzhavets, 1984. Some still argue about the taxa Hemaris, Cephonodes, placing them in the tribe Bombyliini (= Macroglossini), they should be in Dilophonotini (Hemaris and Macroglossum are pure convergence). Leucophlebiini?-"I took it from the V. V. system.Zolotukhina, S. Ryabova, the book "Brazhniki V Nama". There they are in question, as they require serious revision. I'm sorry again, these "colleagues" gave me such a hard time......

Then a logical question arises. What is your personal contribution to this work, apart from the fact that you "kicked a few pieces" from the work of Derzhavets and Zolotukhin? By what principle do you systematize in general, speaking about Hemaris and Cephonodes, referring these taxa to the Latin American tribe Dilophonotini, not at all embarrassed by this fact and showing complete disregard for zoogeography as such? What is the basis of your conclusion regarding Hemaris and Macroglossum? Besides. You constantly appeal to the work of V. V. Zolotukhin, in almost every question. You, as a taxonomist, should have your own opinion, and these excuses are " well....Zolotukhin has it like this.."they look like excuses from a first-year student who didn't prepare for class properly. You should be responsible for yourself, and not constantly blame yourself from a sore head to a healthy one, hiding behind the last name of another person.You make a request that you are ready to offer a NEW SYSTEM. However, you don't have any thoughts of your own on this issue and you can't explain this or that decision. Why didn't you work out the question regarding the validity of Bombyliini yourself? Don't you know that you should check everything YOURSELF, and not plagiarize someone's work and then happily refer to the author?

Likes: 1

Pages: 1 ...19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27... 30