Euphydryas and Melitaea

Nana type

Pictures:

nana_Staudinger_Melitaea_trivia_MNHU_2A.jpg — (58.45к)


nana_Staudinger_Melitaea_trivia_MNHU_1B.jpg — (57.96к)


nana_Staudinger_Melitaea_trivia_MNHU_1C.jpg — (62.47к)

Nana type

In the original description, the type locality is designated as Southern Turkey( Turc. m.), while in your case it is Macedonia. Why?

In the original description, the type locality is designated as Southern Turkey( Turc. m.), while in your case it is Macedonia. Why?

Because then it was part of the Ottoman Empire, i.e. Turkey.

Do you think that Macedonia, as part of the Ottoman Empire, can be called the South of Turkey? As the cat Martroskin used to say: "This is too much."

If you divide the former Turkey only into north and south, then Macedonia is in the middle, you can say that the south. But this question should be asked to someone who wrote so in the original source. We also need the original label of a typical copy.

Do you think that Macedonia, as part of the Ottoman Empire, can be called the South of Turkey? As the cat Martroskin used to say: "This is too much."

I will answer you with a quote from my published article:

"Melitaea trivia nana Staudinger, 1871

It was described as a variation of M. trivia ([Denis et Schiffermüller], 1775) from Turc.[ia] mer.[idionalis]; etc» [Staudinger, Wocke, 1871: 18]. The model series consists of 5 specimens collected in various locations in the Balkans. At the end of the 19th century, part of the Balkan Peninsula belonged to the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), but now the Balkans are no longer part of its territory. The nominative subspecies M. trivia lives on the territory of modern Turkey (Hesselbarth et al., 1995). Thus, it becomes necessary to limit the type locality of the nana taxon to the Balkan Peninsula, which can be done by designating the lectotype".

It is crucial to read the authors of the original descriptions in full and understand their texts literally: Staudinger writes about Southern Turkey and other places (etc), i.e. the typical location is not limited to Southern Turkey only. In this sense, it is often simply impossible to understand without studying the typical series, especially if the typical location is designated as a vast territory. Standard material may have more precise labels. In this case, the designation of the nomenclature type and the corresponding change in the type location clarify a lot. Early Staudinger generally quite often indicated regions very extensively, later he "corrected" them, although in the terra incognita of Europeans (for example, Central Asia) very often the location indications were not only blurry, but also extremely inaccurate. For example, "in den Gebirgen südlich vom Issyk-Kul" is from the Inner Tien Shan to the Himalayas inclusive, and this is exactly the case-to the Himalayas. It is very difficult to deal with such localities, especially if the taxon is little known.

Well said: "... a published article."
What's bothering me?
First of all, your photo" type " does not have Staudinger's signature that it is Nana.
Secondly, I find it difficult to imagine that Otto, having copies from Macedonia in his hands, wrote Southern Turkey as the type locality.
Third, in your opinion, it turns out that in Europe there is a typical subspecies, then, in the Balkans, anas, and then in Asia Minor again a typical subspecies?
There are still a few facts that need to be checked,but this is another topic.
Plizz, show me a copy with the place of collection labels and the epithet. Then, most likely, the question will be exhausted and for the designation of, say, Transcaucasian trivias, it will be necessary to look for another name.

Well said: "... a published article."
What's bothering me?
First of all, your photo" type " does not have Staudinger's signature that it is Nana.
Secondly, I find it difficult to imagine that Otto, having copies from Macedonia in his hands, wrote Southern Turkey as the type locality.
Third, in your opinion, it turns out that in Europe there is a typical subspecies, then, in the Balkans, anas, and then in Asia Minor again a typical subspecies?
There are still a few facts that need to be checked,but this is another topic.
Plizz, show me a copy with the place of collection labels and the epithet. Then, most likely, the question will be exhausted and for the designation of, say, Transcaucasian trivias, it will be necessary to look for another name.

In total, 5 copies are sold in Berlin under the bottom label Nana. Three of them are labeled "Origin", these are types. The first one in the row, with the number 1/5, was chosen by me as the lectotype. If you want to see for yourself the typical or non-typical status of this particular instance , go to Berlin. The Staudinger and Bang-Haas draughtsmen have been moved to new boxes with an Oorshot, and it is very pleasant to work with them now. The original order of the Staudinger collection is preserved. Drawers are located in cabinets to the left of the entrance at the end of the second row, two lower cabinets. There, by the way, are also Euphydryas. Don't confuse it - there are satirids in the first row.

As for "a typical subspecies lives in Europe, then anas in the Balkans, and then a typical subspecies again in Asia Minor" - look at the map attached to this message. Why shouldn't a peninsula separated from main land by high (relatively) mountains have its own subspecies? And why shouldn't the nominative be widespread on the continent? I don't see any obstacles to that.



It may be hard for you to imagine, but Otto had perhaps the largest private collection of butterflies in the history of mankind. Only the Lord Rothschild collection and the Le Moult collection could compete with it. The amount of material in Otto's collection is huge; and he collected not only day animals, but also night, and even micra. Descriptions in the catalogues, due to the format of the publication itself, were provided with very short and formalized areas - these are not typical locations, make no mistake. In those days, there was no such term. That is why catalog type localities (i.e. areas), as a rule (exactly so!), differ from what is written on the labels of specimens.

And one last thing. I have no desire or intention to mislead anyone by posting certain images. Including on this forum. I have already worked in Berlin 5 times, and I can say that I studied the Palaearctic part of the collection well, and took a lot of pictures. If I post a picture like nana , then this is it, and nothing else. If in doubt , go ahead and check it out, don't troll it.

rhopalocera.com Stanislav, but still in Transcaucasia and Central Asia should have its own subspecies.

rhopalocera.com Stanislav, but still Transcaucasia and Central Asia should have their own subspecies.

Oldest suitable name for this territory:
Melitaea trivia pseudodidyma Rebel, 1905. Described from Serai-Dagh near Konya.

Hello Gentlemen !

I am very interested in your opinion on fees in Bulgaria.
Butterflies are conventionally grouped in pairs and collected in approximately
the same place (a difference of 4 km), both places are very dry.
Really pair-03, collected in copuli.
At the beginning of the training camp, 04.06, there were quite a few of them and they flew along some
beams where there were signs of former moisture, near the edges and were
identified by me as M. phoebe right in the field. And then their number increased noticeably (by mid-June), there were a lot of them and they "ground up", so that I stopped paying
attention to them. The photos "top" and" bottom " show the same
specimens. In photo 04, the male immediately looked unusual, even in flight it was striking.

This post was edited by cleobis - 03/15/2016 18: 02

Pictures:

01_DSCN3487_edd.jpg — (293.46к)


02_DSCN3488_edd.jpg — (298.63к)


03_DSCN3481_edd.jpg — (305.94к)


04_DSCN3485_edd.jpg — (297.44 k)

Still all the wonderful phoebes

Still all the wonderful phoebes

Thanks ! I had them all signed like that, except for a couple of "in copuli" (there was a glimmer of hope that something else).
I will also post M. trivia, but this is so, rather for interest. There, the females of trivia and didyma are practically indistinguishable, except for the size.

Hello everybody!
Promised M. trivia and M. didyma Shared photo for size comparison.
"Top" and "bottom" are given the same instances. The last butterfly,
which is very broken, from a different place and a slightly different time. She was
alone, with a huge number of males of the newly released M. didyma and the complete
absence of M. trivia.

This post was edited by cleobis - 16.03.2016 21: 41

Pictures:

DSCN3505ed.jpg — (292.64к)


02_small_DSCN3508edd.jpg — (293.72к)


01_big_DSCN3505ed.jpg — (288.2к)


03_DSCN3520ed.jpg — (286.54к)

Where's Didyma?"

It also seems to me that these are all trivialities.

Everything, I will collect checkers=)

It also seems to me that these are all trivialities.

Hello Valentinus !
And so ? I repeat, the two left-hand butterflies flew, in general, in one place, in Balchik. There were a huge number of M. didyma males, and I didn't see a single female in 3 weeks ! Except for this bat, which is still untitled.
Two medium-sized females flew among M. didyma, but there were also M. trivia, presented in the previous photos. Two right-handed butterflies were caught during the beginning of the mating game, but this cannot be considered proof. This happens with different species and individuals of the same sex (although not for long). I sincerely want to find out. Should I ask a friend from Bulgaria ? He recently posted Zygaena carniolica aberrative here ?

Pictures:

DSCN3532.JPG — (303.73к)

Upper left - didyma. the rest are trivialities.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that trivias have a pale speck that distinguishes them from didyms. The surest way to double - check is to cook the genitals. Better than males, and then again "new species" will climb

Thank you very much Valentinus !
No, they won't ! With males, everything is clear. So where are the didyma females ?
There were an incredible number of didyma males and very few M. trivia males.
Maybe I'll post a little more trivia, please.

Hello everybody! Just for reference.
Left row "nashi" M. trivia. Topmost: Moldova on August 26 (back in the USSR)
All others - Volgograd region, mid-May.
Middle row-Bulgaria, all from the same place, at the same time.
Right row of M. didyma - Leningrad region.

Pictures:

DSCN3534ed.jpg — (290.31к)

What fattened trivia females live in Bulgaria! Long ago I would have straightened out what was lying on the mattress

What fattened trivia females live in Bulgaria! I would have straightened out what was lying on the mattress long ago

There was no room and no hands. There's a lot left over..

Everything, I will collect checkers=)

The right decision !!

Please help me with this meliteika

Kuraminsky hr., per. Kamchik 14.06.1996

Melitaea minerva, phenotype of palamedes

Melitaea minerva, palamedes phenotype

Thanks!

Hello everybody!
As promised, I post Turkish M. trivia. They all flew at about the same place, at the same time. The earliest version is from June 03. They also flew much later, until the end of June, but they became completely overflown. The biotope is normal for M. trivia - the most dusty places, the most dusty dirt roads in Turkey. Height - from 50 to 200 m. (Giant females of M. trivia from Bulgaria, flew in the biotope and together with males of M. didyma, on dry grassy meadows).
I would be grateful to clarify the Turkish taxon M. trivia.

Pictures:

M._trivia_Turkey.jpg — (305.85к)

Oh, an article about the names around and around Phoebe:

http://nl.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=5929

Saratov region. Caught in June in a meadow near the forest. Unfortunately, it didn't work out well.

Pictures:

IMG_2614_Edit_copy.jpg — (288.45к)


IMG_2647_Edit_copy.jpg — (295.05к)

Saratov region. Caught in June in a meadow near the forest. Unfortunately, it didn't work out well.

Such butterflies can be accurately identified only by genital analysis, looking at where and how exactly the caudal process of the valva is bent. That's why you don't need it. If I say that it looks more like M. britomartis, I might be wrong. Just like any other.

So is it either M. aurelia or M. britomartis? Or are there more options?

This post was edited by psih - 23.06.2016 21: 40

I. e. is this any M. aurelia or M. britomartis? Or are there more options?

Most likely yes. But we can't rule out Atalia either. The fourth is not given.

99% britomartis

Judging by the very wide apex of the forewings, this is definitely not M. aurelia.

Melitaea punica Oberthür, 1876
Caterpillars of Morocco, Ifran, 10. IV. 2017, Zhuk leg.
Butterflies came out 22. IV.

This post was edited by Zhuk - 26.04.2017 18: 29

Pictures:

IMG_20170411_122116.jpg — (623.82к)


punica_pupa.jpg — (125к)


punica_imago2.jpg — (287.75к)


punica_imago1.jpg — (344.25к)

Gentlemen, please show me some good photos of this group's genitals. I can't figure out how to lay them out for photographing.

This has already been discussed...???

https://naked-science.ru/article/sci/v-izra...109-let-otkryli

In Israel, 109 years later, a new species of butterfly was discovered...

Vladimir Lukhtanov, an entomologist at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), has discovered a new butterfly species from the genus Melitaea.

This has already been discussed...???

https://naked-science.ru/article/sci/v-izra...109-let-otkryli

In Israel, 109 years later, a new species of butterfly was discovered...

Vladimir Lukhtanov, an entomologist at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), has discovered a new butterfly species from the genus Melitaea.

Here is the normal link:
http://compcytogen.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=12370

Phoebe (Melitaea phoebe), MO, North-West of Lukhovitsky district, on the border with Kolomna district, near the railway track, a clearing near a mixed forest. June 4, 2012, June 13, 2013, June 19, 2012

Pictures:

__ph.JPG — (297.65 k)


DSC_0951.JPG — (300.42к)


DSC_0479.JPG — (284.52к)