Euphydryas and Melitaea

Pavel, it's great that you finally gave us such accurate information about this species. Instance definitions in snapshots are correct. But I have to fix one persistent bug right away before it messes up the taxonomic situation too much. For the first time, the fact that two species of the phoebe group live in eastern Europe was noticed by Z. Varga in 1967. As is customary in the West, its publication was completely ignored for almost 30 years. Hesselbarth, Oorschot & Wagener (1995) noted that the same situation exists in Turkey as described by Varga, but they incorrectly assumed that the second taxon found in Turkey and the Balkans is conspecific with Melitaea phoebe punica Oberthur, 1876, a superficially similar taxon described from North Africa. The latter, however, is genetically almost identical to phoebe, while" punica " from Lebanon differs very strongly from phoebe, as Wahlberg & Zimmermann 2000 (Pattern of phylogenetic relationships among members of the tribe Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) inferred from mtDNA sequences) found. However, they made the same mistake as Hesselbarth, Oorschot & Wagener 1995, which I reported to Wahlberg many years ago. The error was fixed in their newest publication. A taxon found in Hungary, the Balkans, Turkey, the Caucasus, and the Near East, as well as in the steppes of the European part of the BSSR, is Melitaea telona Fruhstorfer, 1908, described from Jerusalem. Its species independence is also confirmed on the basis of a DNA study of my specimens from Bulgaria, which will be published in the near future. I also comment on this confusion on my page: http://www.butterfliesofbulgaria.com/meltelbg.html.

Zdravko! I am glad that the situation is becoming clearer. But do not forget about the taxon ornata Christoph, 1893 (described from the Guberninsky Mountains, where he caught" telona " and Phoebe in the same area). Ornata is now the most senior candidate for the species rank...

I wonder if you can say something about these? okoem suggested that it might be telona.

28 / V / 2009, Ukraine, Kharkiv region, Dvurechansky district, river bank Oskol, at the foot of sedimentary slopes with chalk outcrops (I rewrote the biotope to make it more precise; actually, no butterflies were found on the slopes).

This post was edited by Kharkovbut - 11.03.2010 17: 51

Pictures:

M_phoebe_m_5_28_2009_Kh_Novoml.JPG — (143.8к)


M_phoebe_m_5_28_2009_Kh_Novoml_2.JPG — (140.46 k)

1 / VI / 2009, Ukraine, Kharkiv region, Dvurechansky district, river bank Oskol, at the foot of sedimentary slopes with chalk outcrops.

This post was edited by Kharkovbut - 11.03.2010 17: 52

Pictures:

M_phoebe_fm_6_01_2009_Kh_Novoml.JPG — (131.76к)


M_phoebe_fm_un_6_01_2009_Kh_Novoml.JPG — (143.46к)

..but to be honest, it seems to me that phoebe is still in my pictures. I will be grateful for your comments.

I'll join you. IMHO phoebes, but one head is good ...
Luhansk region, all caught almost at the same time but in different places.
1. Floodplain Forest Meadow, June 1



2. Pine planting in the sand, the same day.




3. Steppe gully near the forested area


PS: please explain how the genitals of Mellicta atalia/brithomartis/aurelia females differ? And if you can still illustrate it, I'd be very grateful.

Question to the community. Trying to find fairly reliable signs of differences between athalia and aurelia, I noticed that on all sites for athalia, the wingspan is indicated in the range of 36-47 mm, and for aurelia-28-34 mm. How reliable is this feature based on data from your collections?
And more. The lighter diamina individuals, which have many spots on the lower wings, are easily distinguished from atalia/aurelia by noticeably striped and strongly "stepped" whiskers.

span is not a sign. Unless, M. B., in large series.

Question to the community. Trying to find fairly reliable signs of differences between athalia and aurelia, I noticed that on all sites for athalia, the wingspan is indicated in the range of 36-47 mm, and for aurelia-28-34 mm. How reliable is this feature based on data from your collections?
And more. The lighter diamina individuals, which have many spots on the lower wings, are easily distinguished from atalia/aurelia by noticeably striped and strongly "stepped" whiskers.

You should not count on the size - usually atalia is really somewhat or even noticeably larger than aurelia, but in dry places, and even then just where there are a lot of aurelia, I occasionally met atalia the size of a pigeon, smaller than almost all the aurelias I caught in that very place! Genitals should be looked at...

Surprisingly, isn't there any drawings of sexual apparatuses of these species in Lvovsky's book, Wink, 2007? What is easier to buy this book and the classic edition of Yu. P. Korshunov, 2002 in izdatelstvo KMK.

Surprisingly, isn't there any drawings of sexual apparatuses of these species in Lvovsky's book, Wink, 2007?

Of course, there is. But-males. There are no issues with the males. And we were interested in the females just now. There are also images, but, unfortunately, there are no clear comments on them, so there are doubts about what differences are, let's say, diagnostic.

There are also images, but, unfortunately, there are no clear comments on them, so there are doubts about what differences are, let's say, diagnostic.

Atalia on the male genitalia is easily distinguished from all Eastern European melitae by the shape of the apical process of the valva, which bears 3 (rarely 2) non-curved teeth at the apex.
Aurelia is more likely to be confused with britomartis, from which the male genitalia reliably differ in the reduction of gnathos branches and the second flat cornutus sticking out of the aedeagus (see Lvovsky and Morgun, 2007: 110).
In our country (in the Southern Urals), Aurelia is generally lower with a more noticeable ochre tint in the tone of the underparts of the Western cr. Here is a typical instance:

Pictures:

573_M_AURELIA_NEW_SIZE.JPG — (140.37к)

Don't take me for a parrot, but I will repeat myself again, in case I was misunderstood: what about the genitals of FEMALES, can I say something specific? There are no problems with males, everything is obvious.

...what if I was misunderstood

All right. I read it inattentively... I won't say anything specific about the females.

In a fresh specimen of Aurelia (see photo), the typical ochre color of the underparts is very clearly visible and pay attention to the reddish-ochre tips of the antennae.

Cool!!! Still would imago, which of them came out...

M. fergana fergana
Kyrgyzstan, Alai, Kyzyl-Eshme, 15.07.2009, 2700 m

Euphydryas asiatica alexandrina
Kyrgyzstan, Sary Jazz River, 06.06.2009, 3300m

Dear fans of checkers games. Did I correctly recognize the males Aurelius and Athalia ? Lower right athalia, the rest of the Aurelians.

Pictures:

IMGA0032.JPG — (214.53к)

Dear fans of checkers games. Did I correctly recognize the males Aurelius and Athalia ? Lower right athalia, the rest of the Aurelians.

IMHO, we need to cook them. Otherwise-fortune-telling on coffee grounds. The wing pattern of these species is very variable.

Melitaea didyma
1. 12.06.10 Female of the first generation. 50 km south-east of Samara. Floodplain of the Samarka River (forest-steppe).
2. 11.07.10 Male and female of the 2nd generation. PTZ on the Luzhkov side (forest).
3. 17.08.10 Male and female of the 3rd generation. Orenburg region, coast of the Iriklinsky vdhr. (steppe).

Pictures:

IMGA0040.JPG — (204.4к)

I present you one of the most impressive high mountain Rhopalocera we have - Euphydryas cynthia leonhardi (Fruhstorfer, 1917). Photos taken earlier this month just 100 meters below the highest top in Bulgaria - Musala , Rila Mts. ( 2925m. ( 2960m. ) ) - I photographed it at 2850m.

This post was edited by Viktor Gashtarov - 20.08.2011 03: 54

Pictures:

P8080112.JPG — (342.32к)


P8080114.JPG — (291.15к)


P8080111.JPG — (185.08 k)

Melitaea elisabethae З. Pamir, Rushansky district, Khuf village district, 15-17. VI. 2011

Good time of day.
Please tell me if I'm right in my assumption about the definition of my athalia or aurelia.
Caught 5 males and 2 females on August 23-25, 2011; Ukraine, Transcarpathian region, Khust district, Shayan village, edge of a beech forest, mixed grasses.
On many sites I found information that both athalia and aurelia fly in the same generation, but athalia flies from mid-May to the end of August, and aurelia in late May to mid-July.
Since I know that in most cases these two species are better cooked, but I don't know how to do this , would it be correct to assume, based on the date of capture, that I have all the athalia butterflies? The size of butterflies varies from 31-33 mm. (males) and 34-37 mm. (females).
P.S. The butterflies are in perfect condition, not flown. A second generation is possible.
Thank you very much, in advance.

This post was edited by Musson max - 12/14/2011 15: 41

2."?"Ukraine (similar butterflies in [Nekrutenko and Chikolovets, 2005: 167, Fig. 175c])". Also, without any doubt-this is not ornata.

It's true. However, I note that some data from Ukraine are mentioned in the work of Thoth and Varga: M. ornata capreola Varga, 1967: Kiwerce, Ukraine. This is, paradoxically, in Volhynia. IMHO, not the most suitable place for this view (although I have not been there, I may be wrong, of course). The description of capreola seems to be here: Varga, Z., 1967. A Melitaea phoebe délkelet-európai populációinak taxonómiai elemzése, két új alfaj leírásával. Acta biologica Debrecina 5, 119–137. Maybe someone has this work in progress? It would be interesting to see.

Until the type material of telona and punica is re-examined and the neotype of phoebe is identified, the status of these three taxa cannot be determined with certainty.

Well, for now, let's carefully say " view A "and" view B", in the photos of Gennady, respectively, on the left and right. IMHO, the fact that these are different types is beyond doubt, and re-examining the types will only clarify how these types are correctly called.

Maybe that's what we're talking about...
Although I was not talking about the status, but about incorrect instructions.

genitals are not listed. what's the job?

On many sites I found information that both athalia and aurelia fly in the same generation, but athalia flies from mid-May to the end of August, and aurelia in late May to mid-July.

I think that the timing of summer can significantly shift depending on the height of the terrain and other conditions. In this case, I would not consider the definition of the time of summer reliable.

Until the type material of telona and punica is re-examined and the neotype of phoebe is identified, the status of these three taxa cannot be determined with certainty.

More to the question of type material: for telon, it is illustrated in this paper: Russell, P., Tennent, W. J., Pateman, J., Varga, Z., Benyamini, D., Pe'er, G., Bálint, Z., Gascoigne-Pees, M., 2007. Further investigations into Melitaea telona Freshstorfer, 1908 (=ogygia Frushstorfer, 1908 = emipunica Verity, 1919) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), with observations on biology and distribution. Entomologist’s Gazette 58, 137–166. Alas, the genitals are not depicted.

Without genitalia, these works are just a formal designation of the neotype, or an illustration of types, which does not allow us to fully solve the problem. Someone has to draw them-just typical ones. And then it will turn out as with Phengaris and Maculinea.

There is a possibility that the genitals of the neotype are teratological and then the problem can become very serious. Therefore, the future neotype first had to be cooked. It is not clear why the authors did not do this. The first author is a museum employee and should understand such simple things.

I saw a great photo from the botanists-Didyma Ili is interesting....

http://www.plantarium.ru/page/image/id/62694.html

didyma turkestanica

Euphydryas aurinia, May 12, 2012, Novoazovsky district, Donetsk region, Ukraine. The biotope where it was taken. I haven't met anyone in the Azov region before, thanks to A. F. Kovalchuk for taking me on a field trip that day.

Pictures:

100_5176.JPG — (431.67к)


100_5178.JPG — (183.86к)

Here's an interesting view!
The devil will break his leg in his taxonomy.
We will wait for new articles by Bolshakov and Korb.


This post was edited by Valentinus - 05/26/2012 15: 13

Here's an interesting view!
The devil will break his leg in his taxonomy.

This is more likely not a matter of taxonomy, but of its enormous variability. Here are very different looking instances from the same area.

This post was edited by bora - 26.05.2012 15: 41

Pictures:

Rostov_on_Don__Matveevo_Kurgansky_distr..jpg — (67.27к)


Rostov_on_Don__Belokalitvensky_distr..jpg — (66.16к)

This is more likely not a matter of taxonomy, but of its enormous variability. Here are very different looking instances from the same area.

Very interesting! Still would understand why butterflies look so different?
Whether there is a connection with ecology or forage plants.
According to personal observations, it turns out that some populations in the Caucasus are monophages.

Very interesting! Still would understand why butterflies look so different?
Whether there is a connection with ecology or forage plants.

The variability even in one population is very strong, both in size and color. In my opinion, it depends, as with other draughtsmen from our area, on the conditions and" quality " of the feed.

In the Rostov region, just the same populations differ, but within the populations they are quite homogeneous.
One population is in the stony steppe without signs of chalk, and the other is on the contrary in the cretaceous.

Pictures:

Matveev_Kurgan.jpg — (295.3к)


Kalitva.jpg — (296.4к)

In the Rostov region, just the same populations differ, but within the populations they are quite homogeneous.
One population is in the stony steppe without signs of chalk, and the other is on the contrary in the cretaceous.

I also have an idea that populations differ significantly, especially if they are sitting on different food plants.

I also have an idea that populations differ significantly, especially if they are sitting on different food plants.

Boris Vitalyevich has repeatedly shown what happens to the appearance of butterflies (pigeons), if they are fed on different plants. I think all the points will still put the DNA test. In the case of European Euphydryas, you can't do without it.