Euphydryas and Melitaea

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.

Everything is clear with you. You can't write anything intelligible. Only nasty stuff. I'm very disappointed in you.

Everything is clear with you. You can't write anything intelligible. Only nasty stuff. I'm very disappointed in you.

You should ask normally. And then I imagined myself to be the devil knows who, raised screams, having only a very unprofessional website behind my soul. Give His Highness the arrows."
You were still crawling under the table when we were already celibately doing what you're starting to do now.

What a tin can. This is not a scientific forum - is it really impossible to explain the differences in a popular way for amateurs?

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

From a letter from a good friend of mine:

"Gena Kuznetsov collected a large series of Astrakhan-Volgograd callimakhs (now this is no longer exotic for us through his own efforts). One of our well-known taxonomists said that it smells like a description of a new subspecies, since they do not look like Dagestani, Crimean, or anything else. Kuznetsov grows a lot of butterflies, many of his photos and observations are published by Tikhonov on the Caucasian website. There are some interesting things, I compare him to Jean-Henri Fabre, who is also painstaking and unhurried. Here he is well done, he found 2 good new types of checkers in our region-Thelon and Robertsey, I enclose his articles, if you haven't read them yet."

This is about guk-e-Gennady Kuznetsov. Respected by many people. A real field entomologist, a researcher who writes worthwhile things.
Even if someone is not respected, poking and calling a scribbler is ugly. It's not respectable.

This post was edited by Wild Yuri - 09.12.2013 14: 39

Judging by the number of downloads, forumchane read the first description. Please give me your opinion. This is necessary for you and me to understand how to make first descriptions and how to relate to those that have already been published. Please answer some simple questions:
1. Do you consider the authors ' evidence for the existence of a new avrinium species in the Caucasus to be convincing?
2. Is it possible to define a "new species"based on this article?

I even screwed up the pictures so that the differences could be seen.


2 guk
Genanalysis may not yield anything. By the way, he is currently in the process. To describe the species, you do not need to go somewhere and grow some caterpillars. This is paranoia. While you're driving there and growing caterpillars, someone will have time to make a formal description, and you will get into synonyms with your tracks and trips. As my dad says, snotty people are kissed on time.

According to the Code, a brief diagnosis is sufficient. Images illustrating the view are recommended. The article is full of images. There are also plenty of links to where you can find alternative images. What is the problem? You take Higgins and compare it. Or you take us and compare us. In science, a lot is done with references to what has been done before us. If we keep trying to invent the bicycle , we'll end up inventing some nonsense. Do you want to? I am no.

Bravo, Lavr Valeryevich! Vivat, Lavr Valeryevich!
....You are far from "Perfect", and you have very specific knowledge gaps.

Yes, " there is no perfection in nature at all.
All your screams are just the completely incompetent nonsense of a philatelist who imagines himself to be a philatelist, put in his proper place. Yes, I can agree with Yuri that you work well in the field, I supported your work myself, but at the exit we have only a paranoid idealist in your face. It is necessary to join at least a little scientific knowledge. As I see it, they are close to zero. And where did you see a new species described necessarily by genetics (this is another bluff after karyosystematics, which is rapidly being "lowered" at the present time), and even more so with a trip to the type location? You would say this to all generations of entomologists, starting with Linnaeus and ending with the current employees of ZIN and other institutions.

I wonder who even considers Mr. Bolshakov a scientist?
What is the interesting name of a person who undertakes intelligent biological reasoning, but does not know biology in principle?

And they immediately started hiding behind the guest account.
In the face of the ssykotno probably ask?

And they immediately started hiding behind the guest account.
In the face of the ssykotno probably ask?

It is necessary to prohibit writing on the forum "from under the guest" as it is done on most forums/sites.

What a tin can. This is not a scientific forum - is it really impossible to explain the differences in a popular way for amateurs?

These two big scientists do not accept the word "amateur". Only "philatelists" and "yunnats". The basic ethics of communication is also alien to them. It is necessary to "put in their place" - this is the credo from which they are ready to communicate.

I even screwed up the pictures so that the differences could be seen.
2 guk
Genanalysis may not yield anything. By the way, he is currently in the process. To describe the species, you do not need to go somewhere and grow some caterpillars.

According to the Code, a brief diagnosis is sufficient.

Stanislav, isn't that your phrase: "In taxonomy, features are used in a complex way, and one feature does not have absolute importance." And in the new description - the same. Why not wait for the results of the gene analysis? Why such haste? And suddenly the difference will be confirmed, and at least the "relict pro-aurinia" will pass! It would be nice to have a better look at trophic connections... Hurry up with the next article - the Code allows, and we, "yunnats", and so swallow?
We found 12 females collected in different years by different collectors in the region and differing genitally in the direction of the maturna group. Males do not differ from aurinia in any way. Even if we put in this article a clear comparison, which is disputed here, is the diagnosis sufficient for a new species?

To describe the species, you do not need to go somewhere and grow some caterpillars. This is paranoia. While you're driving there and growing caterpillars, someone will have time to make a formal description, and you will get into synonyms with your tracks and trips. As my dad says, snotty people are kissed on time.

Great. Just a motto!
Now I understand your credo in entomology. In other words, you don't care about the readers at all, the main thing is to stake out a taxon and enter history on a dashing horse, and those who are trying to figure it out are young people who don't understand their place. Perfectly! It's good that you don't spend much time in the Caucasus. Good luck to you!

To enter history on a dashing horse of primary descriptions is nonsense. How many original writers does history remember?

No, I'm trying to make history based on what I've been harshly criticized for-historical zoogeography, the genesis of faunas. However, despite the criticism on the one hand, on the other, my achievements are quoted and used by those who have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As for the reference to "philatelists" - please forgive me, but most of my "philatelic" statements concerned the overwhelming majority of representatives of two taxa - Colias and Parnassiinae. I don't see the point in putting myself as a sort of guru, pahan, doyen from the taxonomy - it's not just wrong, it's also stupid. It is impossible to embrace the immensity.

However, having been digging Euphydryas, Phengaris, Chortobius and some other diurnal genera for several years, I can confidently say that I began to understand something about them. A Introduction to the primary material (types) this understanding has greatly strengthened. When developing the regional fauna of the Northern Tien Shan-one of the most difficult regions of the former Soviet Union, if only because it is a mountain - I can confidently say that I also understood this fauna, and - most importantly - again not without the help of experts.

And as for the "credit" - well, according to your measure, let it be done to you, as the Scripture says. The descriptions may be different - some people don't like them, others like them. Understanding problems, terminology problems, hangover problems (sometimes) - all have their own problems. I try to write as simply and clearly as possible, but it doesn't always work out ). The comparison in our key went exactly with the species of the maturna group, since it is to them that the female genitalia of the new species are closer. The differences between them and Avrinia's genitals are so obvious that there was simply no point in dwelling on them. Yes, and in the text it is written in black and white about the proximity to Mathurna, and not to Avrinia - and, accordingly,the comparison with it. It's like a rule of thumb - don't compare a horse with a shrew, if it's closer to a donkey?

To enter history on a dashing horse of primary descriptions is nonsense. How many original writers does history remember?

No, I'm trying to make history based on what I've been harshly criticized for-historical zoogeography, the genesis of faunas. However, despite the criticism on the one hand, on the other, my achievements are quoted and used by those who have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As for the reference to "philatelists" - please forgive me, but most of my "philatelic" statements concerned the overwhelming majority of representatives of two taxa - Colias and Parnassiinae. I don't see the point in putting myself as a sort of guru, pahan, doyen from the taxonomy - it's not just wrong, it's also stupid. It is impossible to embrace the immensity.

However, having been digging Euphydryas, Phengaris, Chortobius and some other diurnal genera for several years, I can confidently say that I began to understand something about them. A Introduction to the primary material (types) this understanding has greatly strengthened. When developing the regional fauna of the Northern Tien Shan-one of the most difficult regions of the former Soviet Union, if only because it is a mountain - I can confidently say that I also understood this fauna, and - most importantly - again not without the help of experts.

And as for the "credit" - well, according to your measure, let it be done to you, as the Scripture says. The descriptions may be different - some people don't like them, others like them. Understanding problems, terminology problems, hangover problems (sometimes) - all have their own problems. I try to write as simply and clearly as possible, but it doesn't always work out ). The comparison in our key went exactly with the species of the maturna group, since it is to them that the female genitalia of the new species are closer. The differences between them and Avrinia's genitals are so obvious that there was simply no point in dwelling on them. Yes, and in the text it is written in black and white about the proximity to Mathurna, and not to Avrinia - and, accordingly,the comparison with it. It's like a rule of thumb - don't compare a horse with a shrew, if it's closer to a donkey?

Well, at least it's honest and honest.
Fans do not just put copies in boxes (although there are some). Taxonomy is booming, changing every single day, and everyone wants the truth. If amateurs are not engaged in describing taxa and naming lectotypes, they are nevertheless just as enthusiastic and interested people. When there is no agreement in the ranks of domestic specialists (we are not even talking about Western taxonomy), a certain chaos begins. This is generally normal, since it leads to a scientific discussion. And in the discussion, the main thing is mutual respect and evidence-based dialogue. It is important not to break down and not offend the interlocutor.

Taxonomy is booming, changing every single day, and everyone wants the truth. If amateurs are not engaged in describing taxa and naming lectotypes, they are nevertheless just as enthusiastic and interested people. When there is no agreement in the ranks of domestic specialists (we are not even talking about Western taxonomy), a certain chaos begins. This is generally normal, since it leads to a scientific discussion. And in the discussion, the main thing is mutual respect and evidence-based dialogue. It is important not to break down and not offend the interlocutor.

Yes, so. But here the whole "discussion" began precisely with a loud "discontent". Well, all right, some "Jupiter" would have scolded - and then after all, the most that neither is "bull". Let him try to scold the work of those doctors of biological sciences who are trying to edit his site in some places - he will show his "integrity".

... "press the plate" the female must learn.

And why press the plate, because it is flat in eufidrias? On the contrary, let it remain in its natural state in order to avoid artificial deformations. For a better view, the 7th tergite can be bent up by cutting the side membrane.

UPD OP2337f 34mm Euphydryas sp. Russia, Buryatia, Mondy, valley Tunkinskaya, July 2006, coll. O. Pekarsky



This post was edited by barko - 10.02.2014 13: 47

And why press the plate, because it is flat in eufidrias? On the contrary, let it remain in its natural state in order to avoid artificial deformations. For a better view, the 7th tergite can be bent up by cutting the side membrane.

Beautiful pictures, however, as always.
Now it would be in this angle a picture of a new view, maybe there would be less questions.
Well, I was dreaming...

Beautiful pictures, however, as always.
Now it would be in this angle a picture of a new view, maybe there would be less questions.
Well, I was dreaming...

Valentine, I'd like to clarify something.

Without justifying the manner in which the authors of the article responded to you, let me note that nevertheless, the tone was set by you. Starting a discussion by announcing the work of colleagues is zilch, not the best thing to do.

Valentine, I'd like to clarify something.

Without justifying the manner in which the authors of the article responded to you, let me note that nevertheless, the tone was set by you. Starting a discussion by announcing the work of colleagues is zilch, not the best thing to do.

I agree that I overreacted in choosing an epithet to evaluate the article, but in fact it is. After all, as Stanislav explained to us, the authors 'desire was not to deal with this "species", but to stake out a new species as soon as possible. The article was made in a hurry without a clear diagnosis and without adequate pictures of the genitals.
And the very description of the new species on the genitals of females is very doubtful. I compared the genitalia of females of such difficult-to-diagnose species as Melitaea interrupta, M. persea, M. didyma, and M. trivia. It turned out that the genitals of females in this group do not work. And if we accept the position of the authors of the new description, then we need to split these types into a series of "new"ones. And what will happen? Total chaos. You can't rush it. You can't jump to conclusions without studying the full range of features, including those that are now available.
I just really hoped, probably due to the lack of understanding about the authors, that they would be able to clarify the complex problem of the subspecies composition of Euphydryas aurinia in the Caucasus. I sent them stuff. And as a result, this species is a double, which even according to their article cannot be distinguished.

I agree that I overreacted in choosing an epithet to evaluate the article, but in fact it is. After all, as Stanislav explained to us, the authors 'desire was not to deal with this "species", but to stake out a new species as soon as possible. The article was made in a hurry without a clear diagnosis and without adequate pictures of the genitals.
And the very description of the new species on the genitals of females is very doubtful. I compared the genitalia of females of such difficult-to-diagnose species as Melitaea interrupta, M. persea, M. didyma, and M. trivia. It turned out that the genitals of females in this group do not work. And if we accept the position of the authors of the new description, then we need to split these types into a series of "new"ones. And what will happen? Total chaos. You can't rush it. You can't jump to conclusions without studying the full range of features, including those that are now available.
I just really hoped, probably due to the lack of understanding about the authors, that they would be able to clarify the complex problem of the subspecies composition of Euphydryas aurinia in the Caucasus. I sent them stuff. And as a result, this species is a double, which even according to their article cannot be distinguished.

Thank you for agreeing with me.
(Nasraybal answer to A4, then erased everything, deciding to limit himself only to gratitude)

... After all, as Stanislav explained to us, the authors 'desire was not to deal with this "species", but to stake out a new species as soon as possible. The article was made in a hurry without a clear diagnosis and without adequate pictures of the genitals.
And the very description of the new species on the genitals of females is very doubtful. I compared the genitalia of females of such difficult-to-diagnose species as Melitaea interrupta, M. persea, M. didyma, and M. trivia. It turned out that the genitals of females in this group do not work. .....

Well, first of all, you misunderstood Stanislav. Here we are talking about the identified differences after studying several dozen female "avrinii" from all over their range. As a result, the only local group where the genitals are completely different was revealed.
It also says that the appearance of this species differs from all populations from the Caucasus and is closest to the European nominative subspecies.
Secondly, only for the blind person, the presented differences in the genitals of females are not visible.
Third, it is incorrect - in many species of draughtsmen (perhaps, except for the Didyma group, and the Mathurna-intermedia pair, I just haven't compared them yet), the species differ in the genitals of females no worse than males, and in some cases even better. And even if there is a large variability (such as in avrinia proper in the form of an ostial trough), there can be no variability in the rhombs of one species at the level of another group of species, distinguished as a subgenus. And the genitals of males often do not work, and still-there is a kind of interruption, and nothing.
If you can't see the differences , don't flood them. All the same, we described and will continue to describe everything that is necessary, no one is going to ask your permission. Even if it's just "staking out" someone like you, it's already good.

I can't understand why you're fighting.
To facilitate identification, the description contains drawings.
And I don't see any point in breaking spears about it at all. Work on female genital variability in the Avrinia group is in full swing. They are cooked by the ton. It will be necessary to issue it in the form of an article - we will issue it. No, a paragraph in a new article is enough. What kind of nonsense is there about which signs work and which don't??? If you compare one instance, of course, there may be discrepancies when comparing with two. However, it is foolish to assume that we cooked one avrinia and one discordia. At the very least, this will be against statistics , a science that I respect and try to use in every possible way. Naturally, this is not so simple in morphology, but it is also possible-at least in terms of measurements. The problem is that there are no uniform methods for such work, which makes it extremely difficult to double-check it. That's why everything is written in general terms - but even this (something 2 times more than something, as an example) it is already enough, since such conclusions are made not on one or two drugs!!!

Melitaea britomartis(Assmann, 1847)
Moscow region,Serebryano-Prudsky district,Lishnyagi village, 8.06.2013


16.06.2013

I can't understand why you're fighting.

Waiting for the arrows!

These two big scientists do not accept the word "amateur". Only "philatelists" and "yunnats". The basic ethics of communication is also alien to them. It is necessary to "put in their place" - this is the credo from which they are ready to communicate.

Let's assume that they were overreacting. It will be hard for them to work without us as philatelists and young scientists. And put us in our place? The purpose of the forum is to promote entomology. You look at such scientists (without my basic knowledge) and entomology becomes uninteresting. You can't do much on your own, and pundits don't want to explain it culturally.

and the pundits don't want to explain it culturally.

Dmitry, I am always ready to explain everything to you culturally!!!
But I want to ask you a question too. Do you happen to have any undrafted pigeons of the subfamily Polyommatinae from Southeast Asia? I need 3 instances of the same species from the genera Candalides, Anthene, Cupidopsis, Una, Petrelaea, Nacaduba, Prosotas, Caleta, Jamides, Catochrysops and some others.
Very necessary for work.

This post was edited by bora-12/11/2013 09: 26

Boris Vitalievich! This definitely doesn't apply to you!!!
Golubyanok (as they do not think at all) I gave them all (I think I gave them to you from India). And there weren't many of them. If you need them from Malaysian Borneo, I'll try to catch something for you this winter.

Yes, Dmitry, I received from you in 2008 Zizula hylax and Zizeeria knyzna, my huge gratitude to you! They're in the works right now.
If you manage to get something to type in Borneo for me, I will be infinitely grateful to you!

I need to ask Stas if he still has my material from Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand. There was something similar.

I won't promise anything, but if there are any pigeons, they'll be yours. Zizula or Zizeeria (you can't make them out) should definitely be from Cambodia and Vietnam. If necessary, I'll take a look.

I won't promise anything, but if there are any pigeons, they'll be yours. Zizula or Zizeeria (you can't make them out) should definitely be from Cambodia and Vietnam. If necessary, I'll take a look.

If you can, please take a look. The butterflies are small, but I also take out the genitals for identification - part of the abdomen is already lost. From the first time, it happens that the concentration of DNA for a confident analysis is not collected. I have to repeat, but, you see, the material is already gone.

this is my first time on this forum. I have a question: does anyone take publications in Eversmannia seriously? this is samizdat, and it's also a little bit of a party. murzilka is. moreover, how can you take the first descriptions in it seriously?

this is my first time on this forum. I have a question: does anyone take publications in Eversmannia seriously? this is samizdat, and it's also a little bit of a party. murzilka is. moreover, how can you take the first descriptions in it seriously?

First of all, before making such loud statements, you should register and make yourself public. Otherwise, you will not be perceived very negatively for good reason.
Secondly, with such an unambiguous statement, you call into question the work of so many respected people whose articles are published in this magazine.
If you want to discuss - specify your thoughts!

this is my first time on this forum. I have a question: does anyone take publications in Eversmannia seriously? this is samizdat, and it's also a little bit of a party. murzilka is. moreover, how can you take the first descriptions in it seriously?

Let's try it objectively... Although after such a statement you want to use obscenities.

How seriously can you take the publications of Sinev, Sviridov, Pekarsky, Tatarinov, Krivokhatsky and many other famous Russian entomologists made in Eversmannia?

After you answer this question, I expect a logical answer to another question: how seriously can we treat primary descriptions in principle? I.e., nomenclature acts?

And the last question: what is NOT samizdat for you? The academic and non-academic press (but the scientific one) rests ENTIRELY on the shoulders of individuals who take on the work and responsibility of publishing and editing it. Even if the title of the publication says "Institute for the Study of Problems of Something".

I will also be happy to hear who you are.

this is my first time on this forum. I have a question: does anyone take publications in Eversmannia seriously? this is samizdat, and it's also a little bit of a party. murzilka is. moreover, how can you take the first descriptions in it seriously?

Who are you, the luminary of the first descriptions?

kg/am

Colleagues!
What kind of draughtsman do you think emerged from these caterpillars?
Collected in Talysh on norichnik in May.
I couldn't decide for a long time, because 2 females were bred.
Doubts were resolved only with the help of CO1.
Boris Vitalyevich (respect!) should not be prompted.

Something like that... Melitaea vedica.

On your website, it is listed as: Melitaea turkmanica vedica. Maybe a subspecies... Only it will be correct, as far as I know: Melitaea turkmEnica vedica.