Euphydryas and Melitaea

In the Volgograd region, these are quite dry places, and clay slopes, and sandy gullies, and chalk.
Where it is wetter, the variability within populations is not strong, but where conditions are harsh, the variability is strong, and much depends on the year.
But there is no significant difference between the populations; you can collect a complete set in any of the populations.

I wish I could add butterflies to my theses, there would be no price!
I hope that eventually it will be on the site

Here is aurinia from the Eastern Sayan Highlands, June 2011.

"Gossip Girls"
June 2, 2012, Moscow region, Istra district

Pictures:

IMG_0741.JPG — (122.99к)

Armenia, roc. Dilijan, 2700 m

Euphydrias cf. aurinia by lepidopterolog, on Flickr

Karachay-Cherkessia gorge. Gonachhir 2000 m 15 June 2012

This post was edited by bora - 16.06.2012 06: 16

Pictures:

Tumanlykol.jpg — (86.57к)

Help me figure it out. is it Trivia or Robertsey? 02.06.12, Tatarstan, Bugulminsky district, ostepnenny southern slope. Of course, trivia is more likely. But in terms of the timing of the summer, Roberts seems to be more suitable - the butterfly flew, it seems, for about two weeks. In addition, in the south of the Orenburg region (Akbulak district) on 08.05.12, mostly fresh males were found in the Cretaceous steppe.

Pictures:

______1______.jpg — (197.67 k)


______1.jpg — (211.63к)

On the northern border of the range, all draughtsmen have very dark forms...

For example, my Brenthishecate ([Den. & Schiff.], 1771) is distinguished by a rich purple darkening of the underside of the hindwing, which, according to literature data, corresponds to the subspecies described earlier in Lithuania – B. h. duxtina Kazlauskas, 1984 (which, in my opinion, is only the northern ecological form of this species).
For example, the Penza Melitaea trivia ([Denis et Schiffermüller], 1775) series was collected by me on June 21, 2012.
The females were quite fresh - the males were very well flown (they flew for at least 2 weeks, they have almost no fringe). Biotope - the steepened slope of the southern exposure beam... The behavior is very peculiar.

Pictures:

IMG_1240.jpg — (165.15к)


IMG_1241.jpg — (62.14к)


IMG_1249.jpg — (148.13к)

Experts! I find it difficult to distinguish between similar types of checkers. Help us determine whose party is shown in the following photos. All images are of the same group of butterflies on a sandy road.

Pictures:

IMG_4473.JPG — (248.92к)


IMG_4466.JPG — (326.8к)


IMG_4474.JPG — (345.75к)


IMG_4477.JPG — (344.01к)

c_clegg, thank you!

Melitaea phoebe (Goeze, [1779])
29.06.2010 Ivanovo region, Ivanovo district, vicinity of Afanasovo village, sukhodolny meadow


08.07.2008 Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, the vicinity of the village of Krasnoarmeyskoye, the edge of a mixed forest


15.06.2008 Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, near the village of Polki, sukhodolny meadow


Melitaea didyma (Esper, 1778)
05.07.2011 Ivanovo region, Yuzhsky district, vicinity of the city of Yuzha, roadside






Melitaea cinxia (Linnaeus, 1758)
Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, near the village of Polki, sukhodolny meadow
16.06.2010




26.06.2010


Mellicta athalia (Rottemburg, 1775)
Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, near the village of Polki, sukhodolny meadow
11.07.2008


24.05.2011


Mellicta aurelia (Nickerl, 1850)
20.06.2011 Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, near the village of Polki, sukhodolny meadow


04.06.2012 Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, Sergeyevo village neighborhood, dirt road shoulder


The estimated size of Mellicta aurelia is very small (no larger than Polyommatus icarus of the second generation)

Melitaea diamina (Lang, 1789)
16.06.2009 Vanovskaya region, Shuisky district, Polki village neighborhood, sukhodolny meadow

Pretty ones) I think this is exactly aurelia (especially the first one )

Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775)
20.06.2012 Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, Polki village area, mixed forest outskirts

]
04.06.2012 Ivanovo region, Shuisky district, near the village of Kleshchevka, the edge of a mixed forest


Euphydryas maturna (Linnaeus, 1758)
13.06.1998 Ivanovo region, Ivanovo, Pustosh bor microdistrict leg. Molodkin A. N.


This post was edited by TEMPUS - 12.12.2012 17: 07

A few draughts players of the past season.

Euphydryas aurinia 07.05.12 Orenburg region, Akbulak district





Melitaea roberti uvarovi 07.05.12 Orenburg region, Akbulak district



Melitaea ornata 07.05.12 Orenburg region, Akbulak district



Melitaea arduinna 08.05.12 Orenburg region, Kuvandyksky district



steppe Melitaea didyma: 17.06.12 Tatarstan, Bugulminsky district



22.07.12 Tatarstan, Bavlinsky district



Melitaea phoebe 17.06.12 Tatarstan, Leninogorsk district

Nail, can I find a point of sale in Akbulak district? What village?

An abandoned chalk quarry near the village of Melovoi Zavod, near some colony (apparently, the convicts dug this quarry).

Happy New Year gentlemen entomologists!
I will post a photo of two species from southern Primorye, which could not be identified.Maybe you can help me identify them.The first species was captured on 23.06.12,and the second-on 07.07.12.

Pictures:

DSCN2441.JPG — (220.85к)


DSCN2442.JPG — (196.49к)


DSCN2443.JPG — (205.27к)

Euphydryas davidi & Melitaea (Mellicta) ambigua

To PG18;Pavel, thank you so much for the definition. Also, if you don't mind,tell me how often these two types occur. We have been traveling with my son all over Primorye for the third season, and these butterflies were found only this year.

Melitaea trivia ([Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775)
May 10, 2012. Crimea, eastern shore of Lake Donuzlav. In the Crimea, the species is found very locally and rarely.

Pictures:

20120510_191420.jpg — (174.64к)

Good afternoon, draughts experts! Help us identify the types. All images are in the vicinity of Bryansk, dates are in the file names (I asked for help on a nearby forum http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...post&p=1372930. but I didn't get an answer - either all the specialists left to celebrate and still haven't returned, or no one can answer me in substance).

1, 3, 6, 7 - athalia ?
2 - phoebe ?
4 - diamina ?
5 - aurelia ?

Pictures:

1a_19.06.2012.JPG — (161.6к)


1b_19.06.2012.JPG — (183.68к)


2a_24.06.2012.JPG — (179.82к)


2b_24.06.2012.JPG — (188.57к)


3a_29.06.2012.JPG — (184.72к)


3b_29.06.2012.JPG — (191.62к)


4a_2.07.2012.JPG — (215.63к)


4b_2.07.2012.JPG — (231.76к)


5a_8.07.2012.JPG — (227.2к)


5b_8.07.2012.JPG — (184.23к)


6a_17.07.2012.JPG — (207.26к)


6b_17.07.2012.JPG — (199.87к)


7a_21.09.2012.JPG — (183.68к)


7b_21.09.2012.JPG — (183.35к)

Shashechnitsa intermittent (Melitaea interrupta).
Georgia, Atskuri, 20.08.2013.
Second generation! Shamka

Help with the definition.
1 - Moscow region, Ramenskiy district
2 and 3-Vladimir region, Krasny Mayak forestry
Date in the file name

Pictures:

1._2013.06.09_DSC08169.jpg — (197.69к)


2._2013.06.24_DSC08891.jpg — (199.96к)


3._2013.06.24_DSC08910.jpg — (190.75к)

The other day I started watching Caucasian Euphydryas aurinia collected this year. I wanted to see and compare it with the new species described this year from this group.
Here's my picture. Bad, of course, I apologize, but it shows signs.

Then I turned to the article: "Bolshakov L. V., Korb S. K. 2013 A new species of the group Euphydrias aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) from the Caucasus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)"
We review the diagnosis:
"However, the female genitalia of the new species differ markedly from the taxa of the E. aurinia group, showing
the greatest similarity with the Eurasian representatives of the circumboreomontane subgenus Hypodryas, especially with E. maturna and E.
cynthia. E. iduna (Dalman, 1816) (ssp. inexpectata Sheljuzhko,1934), which is known from the slightly higher elevation of the Teberda subalpine
, differs primarily in its stronger sclerotization and better "shaping" of the VII sternite,
as well as significantly longer antrum outgrowths. Finally,
the new species differs from the Asian species E. orientalis studied by us, but not properly represented in the literature, by a noticeably smaller development
of structures that are the prototype of the ostial trough and postvaginal plate."
Do you understand anything? I'm not.
Next, we look at the illustrations, hoping to find the desired diagnosis and see:

Again, I didn't understand anything. Guys, you can't work like this. This is a disgrace!
Lavr Valeryevich, if you have found signs in the structure of the female genitals that can be used to understand this group, then give them. Give a series of pictures with arrows, where the females of the new species and the classic avrinia would be represented. Is it really that hard?
Next, give a typical location: "S. Kavkaz, S. Teberda, R. Muhu." Well, look at the map. It has long been the city of Teberda. It's not a butterfly label.
This is followed by a description of a new subspecies of a new SPECIES
, and we look at the type place: "Georgia, Trialeti region, Akhaldaba, 2300". We look at the map and do not find heights of 2300 in the vicinity of Akhaldaba. Well, give us the geographical coordinates. The collector of the standard series (Alexander Chuvilin) is right next door.
And more. Photos of butterflies in illustrations should be labeled.
I apologize for my emotions. I had some hopes for this article, and the result is zilch

Help with the definition.
1 - Moscow region, Ramenskiy district
2 and 3-Vladimir region, Krasny Mayak forestry
Date in the file name

1 - Melitaea athalia
2,3 - Melitaea aurelia/britomartis

This post was edited by TEMPUS - 06.12.2013 20: 34

Good afternoon, draughts experts! Help us identify the types. All images are in the vicinity of Bryansk, dates are in the file names (I asked for help on a nearby forum http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...post&p=1372930. but I didn't get an answer - either all the specialists left to celebrate and still haven't returned, or no one can answer me in substance).

1, 3, 6, 7 - athalia ?
2 - phoebe ?
4 - diamina ?
5 - aurelia ?

1, 2, 3-Melitaea athalia
5, 6-also more like athalia
4 - Melitaea diamina
7-more like aurelia / britomartis

The other day I started watching Caucasian Euphydryas aurinia collected this year. I wanted to see and compare it with the new species described this year from this group.Here's my picture. Bad, of course, I apologize, but it shows signs.
Then I turned to the article: "Bolshakov L. V., Korb S. K. 2013 A new species of the group Euphydrias aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) from the Caucasus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)"
We review the diagnosis:
"However, the female genitalia of the new species differ markedly from the taxa of the E. aurinia group, showing
the greatest similarity with the Eurasian representatives of the circumboreomontane subgenus Hypodryas, especially with E. maturna and E.
cynthia. E. iduna (Dalman, 1816) (ssp. inexpectata Sheljuzhko,1934), which is known from the slightly higher elevation of the Teberda subalpine
, differs primarily in its stronger sclerotization and better "shaping" of the VII sternite,
as well as significantly longer antrum outgrowths. Finally,
the new species differs from the Asian species E. orientalis studied by us, but not properly represented in the literature, by a noticeably smaller development
of structures that are the prototype of the ostial trough and postvaginal plate."
Do you understand anything? I'm not.
Next, we look at the illustrations, hoping to find the desired diagnosis and see:

Again, I didn't understand anything. Guys, you can't work like this. This is a disgrace!
Lavr Valeryevich, if you have found signs in the structure of the female genitals that can be used to understand this group, then give them. Give a series of pictures with arrows, where the females of the new species and the classic avrinia would be represented. Is it really that hard?
Next, give a typical location: "S. Kavkaz, S. Teberda, R. Muhu." Well, look at the map. It has long been the city of Teberda. It's not a butterfly label.
This is followed by a description of a new subspecies of a new SPECIES
, and we look at the type place: "Georgia, Trialeti region, Akhaldaba, 2300". We look at the map and do not find heights of 2300 in the vicinity of Akhaldaba. Well, give us the geographical coordinates. The collector of the standard series (Alexander Chuvilin) is right next door.
And more. Photos of butterflies in illustrations should be labeled.
I apologize for my emotions. I had some hopes for this article, and as a result, zilch

New descriptions are not textbooks for young scientists. No one is required to draw" arrows " there, especially if the differences are obvious. Previously, the genitalia of European and other Avrinii was published many times, and the genitalia of Mathurna and others. Higgins has one. For those who are familiar with the topic, everything is very clear. And according to the photos you provided, including-we published the same ones at least 2 times. You haven't found anything new yet.
Further. The typical location is what is written on the original label. In both cases, including the item's status and height. And nothing more. Once Chuvilin calculated that there is exactly 2300 m, then we believe him. There are such heights there. You don't need to include labels for newly described taxa. They are given when lectotypes are found and isolated.
So first learn the experience of new descriptions, practice viewing genitalia, and then express your "emotions".

Succinct, clear, and informative!
And most importantly, everything fell into place and everything became clear.
Never before had I seen such a boorish response from any primary writer.
As if you described this kind of "tilka for yourself"
You do not distinguish C. sareptensis from C. alfacariiesis, A. metis from A. ilia, which raises the question of your overall competence.
The most amazing thing (vile) is that you easily and beautifully described a new species, but it will take years to confirm or deny all this.
But still, the times of devils and specks remained far in the nineteenth century, and we must still start living within the framework of the 21st century.

We can distinguish everything much better than you can.
Although sareptensis from alfakariensis began to be distinguished only a couple of months ago when the type was found.
And to confirm or refute - go study the standard series or catch it yourself.
You need to work in your own region yourself and not wait for your uncle to describe for you what you are passing by without paying attention

What, holivar again?

There are different descriptions. In our opinion, the view is easily deterministic. The description is a nomenclature act, not an MPD, and it must meet the Code's criteria.

What exactly is not clear to you from the description?

If you are too lazy to cook a female avrinia yourself , I attach genitals of both types. And stop playing the fool - it's not right.

[attachmentid()=188823]

And one more thing.

Stop using that archaic term "sample location" already. The place can be a table, and even a toilet! More correctly - "typical location", even more correctly it would be "typical locality" - this is how it will be translated from both English type locality and French localite-type.

fooling around — go crazy, go crazy, freak out, go crazy, get freaky, get mad, go crazy, behave recklessly, act recklessly, go crazy.
The last thing I want to do is fool around.
In addition to the letter "Codex", there is also the spirit of "Codex".
It seems that the article was made for a tick, it's like baking pies, and, moreover, the third thousand.
If you didn't think about respecting the reader, you should have thought about respecting yourself. Either you're doing work that you, the publisher, or the reader will never be ashamed of, or you're not doing it at all.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, just a summary. It would be interesting to know how many female specimens were submitted by the collector for research, and whether these specimens were studied in a complex, which is necessary to distinguish a species, especially a double species, or only by genital characteristics.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, just a summary. It would be interesting to know how many female specimens were submitted by the collector for research, and whether these specimens were studied in a complex, which is necessary to distinguish a species, especially a double species, or only by genital characteristics.

Read the article, satisfy your curiosity )

fooling around — go crazy, go crazy, freak out, go crazy, get freaky, get mad, go crazy, behave recklessly, act recklessly, go crazy.
The last thing I want to do is fool around.
In addition to the letter "Codex", there is also the spirit of "Codex".
It seems that the article was made for a tick, it's like baking pies, and, moreover, the third thousand.
If you didn't think about respecting the reader, you should have thought about respecting yourself. Either you're doing work that you, the publisher, or the reader will never be ashamed of, or you're not doing it at all.

Personally, I'm not ashamed of the article. You are slightly confusing primary descriptions and determinant atlases. In the scientific literature, it is NOT customary to publish the same texts or drawings twenty times (at least in the Soviet school, to which we still belong). The text contains links to sources where you can easily and easily view already published images. If you publish the same thing every time, a description of a new species in a fairly large group will result in a multi-page catalog of images of everything with which it should be compared "in theory".

.......It seems that the article was made for a tick, it's like baking pies, and, moreover, the third thousand.
If you didn't think about respecting the reader, you should have thought about respecting yourself. Either you're doing work that you, the publisher, or the reader will never be ashamed of, or you're not doing it at all.

Who would say... First, write something worthwhile yourself, then others. Ohaivayi. "Scribbler" of annual identical lists.

What exactly is not clear to you from the description?

If you are too lazy to cook a female avrinia yourself , I attach genitals of both types. And stop playing the fool - it's not right.

And what does this picture show us? If I press the plate with the glass, it will be the lower picture, if I don't press it and crumple it, it will be the upper one.
The text describes the butterfly itself very well. Why this was done is unclear. The diagnosis says that the butterflies do not differ in appearance, and the pictures are, unlike the genitals, quite good. But the authors, in my opinion, could not describe the main differences in the structure of the female genitals, on which the proof of the new species is based. It is not possible to understand this from a very mediocre picture.

And what does this picture show us? If I press the plate with the glass, it will be the lower picture, if I don't press it and crumple it, it will be the upper one.
The text describes the butterfly itself very well. Why this was done is unclear. The diagnosis says that the butterflies do not differ in appearance, and the pictures are, unlike the genitals, quite good. But the authors, in my opinion, could not describe the main differences in the structure of the female genitals, on which the proof of the new species is based. It is not possible to understand this from a very mediocre picture.

Both drugs were prepared according to the same method. Crumple up a couple of well-sclerotized genital plates for me personally - I'll be happy to see the result .

Both drugs were prepared according to the same method. Crumple up a couple of well-sclerotized genital plates for me personally - I'll be happy to see the result .

Well, now the signs appear - " well-sclerotized genital plates." So let's find out, through an exchange of pleasantries, what these signs are?
And the technique is just great, thank you!
As I understand it, the authors are not against publishing the publication itself.



 _____________________.pdf

size: 1.23 mb
number of downloads: 1117

What, holivar again?

Well, now the signs appear - " well-sclerotized genital plates." So let's find out, through an exchange of pleasantries, what these signs are?
And the technique is just great, thank you!
As I understand it, the authors are not against publishing the publication itself.



 _____________________.pdf

size: 1.23 mb
number of downloads: 1117

Remove this from public access. Only the publisher and editor of Eversmannia can publish materials published in Eversmannia.

In order to understand something, you must first ask.

Come on, let everyone read it. Youngsters who first decided to cook and "press down" a female for the first time in spite of the "school" need to learn.