Euphydryas and Melitaea

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.

"Melitaea turkmanica sp. nov" Higgins, L. G., 1940
When we edit the page, Gennady Kuznetsov will find the original description and avoid such questions.
Bye, Yura, as they say "to the milk".

turkmanica, no doubt.

I give up...

Yes, checkers are really cool!

In the Kherson region, I found 4 species (so far).

One of them, perhaps the most common - Melitaea didyma-Red checker:

15.07.2012, village of Kazatskoe, part of the steppe on the peninsula





15.09.2012, ibid.

Since no one has guessed the checker stick on the caterpillar, I'll show you the butterfly.
Options?

Perseus... subspecies. But if the tracks are a new species??!

It looks like Persea (if you look at the "Butterflies of the Caucasus"); is it a gynandromorph?

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 30.01.2014 15: 27

So far, one version is Perseus.
Is there more?

This post was edited by Valentinus - 30.01.2014 15: 39

Give me her pussy. It's a lottery of some sort." I would like to believe that this is Melitaea saxatilis, but I would like to see the genitals.

Give me her pussy. It's a lottery of some sort." I would like to believe that this is Melitaea saxatilis, but I would like to see the genitals.

It's good if it makes things easier.
Here's the thing. 2 females came out of identical caterpillars with different genitals!



This post was edited by Valentinus - 30.01.2014 19: 16

One is a mutant! Need a series!

One is a mutant! Need a series!

Where could I get them? It was necessary to decide on these two.
Moreover, there are photos of caterpillars and a forage plant, and this is important information.
By the way, I saw the same caterpillar in reports on Israel. But, unfortunately, without a definition.
And there are enough mutants among the females, maybe I'll show them later. So many new species can be described.

Since no one has guessed the checker stick on the caterpillar, I'll show you the butterfly.
Options?

trivia?

It's good if it makes things easier.
Here's the thing. 2 females came out of identical caterpillars with different genitals!

[attachmentid()=192563][attachmentid()=192564]

There's one drug that's clearly edeagus-related.

There's one drug that's clearly edeagus-related.

It's funny!
I wanted to answer in the same spirit, but I'm afraid you won't understand.

trivia?

Bravo!
There is a hit.

It's funny!
I wanted to answer in the same spirit, but I'm afraid you won't understand.

I don't think I'm stupid, you know.
Pictures of genitals, I basically skipped - it's very poor quality, almost nothing is visible.

I don't think I'm stupid, you know.
Pictures of genitals, I basically skipped - it's very poor quality, almost nothing is visible.

Yes, the quality is poor, I agree. This is not for publication. But the main sign is visible - vaginal plastic surgery.
I made a sign like this.


This post was edited by Valentinus - 31.01.2014 15: 36

The vaginal plate is visible, I agree.
But you can't see what it is like.

I thought trivia didn't have such caterpillars. But no! I found similar ones. In Israel! http://israel-nature-site.com/wp-content/u...-nana-larva.jpg.

Trivia... It was a non-trivial puzzle!

I thought trivia didn't have such caterpillars. But no! I found similar ones. In Israel! http://israel-nature-site.com/wp-content/u...-nana-larva.jpg.

Thank you so much!
The definition also coincided. So the thing that works is mDNA! Now I would like to decide on the subspecies belonging.

Melitaea trivia is a southern draughtsman from the Kherson region.

It is usually found in the same place as didyma.
The summer generation is usually the size of a golubyanka.

04.05.2013, near the Kamenka river, near Berislavskoe highway


01.07.2013, Shilova balka, central part, in the lowlands



06.07.2013, Korsunka village, island 2



07.08.2013, Kazatskoe village, steppe section on the peninsula


This post was edited by Wave Storm - 02/01/2014 00: 30

New images Melitaea persea
Azerbaijan, left bank of the Kura River opposite Tovuz

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.

Well, right away, to close the issue with Artemis-I attach a photo of its type.

[attachmentid()=193337]

[attachmentid()=193338]

This is the key for identifying Russian Euphydryas. I tried to make it as simple as possible.

I (II) The background color of the wings is white or whitish; orange bandages run along this background..........................................E. iduna (Dalman, 1816)
II (I) The background color of the wings is yellow, red, or orange; darker bandages (red, orange, or red) run along this background.
III (IV) On the lower surface of the hindwing, a submarginal ligature is usually without black rounded spots; if these spots are present, they are located in the anal part of the wing and there are no more than three of them............................... E. intermedia (Ménétriès, 1859)
IV (III) On the lower surface of the hindwing, the submarginal band always contains a complete row of black rounded spots; if this row is not complete, then there are always more than three spots.
V (VI) Ostium oval, small. The ostial trough is funnel-shaped, strongly expanding towards the posterior edge.................E. laeta (Christoph, 1893)
VI (V) The ostium is oval or elongated oval, large. The ostial trough is parallel or absent.
VII (VIII) The ostium is oblong-oval. The antrum is long and wide..................E. sibirica (Staudinger, 1861)
VIII (VII) The ostium is oval. The antrum is short and narrow.
IX (X) The antrum is smooth, without folds, the ostial groove is not pronounced; the edges of the cranial part of the antrum are angular....................E. discordia Bolshakov et Korb, 2013
X (IX) Antrum not smooth, with folds, ostial trough well defined; the edges of the cranial part of the antrum are rounded..............E. aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775)

This is the key for identifying Russian Euphydryas. I tried to make it as simple as possible.

I (II) The background color of the wings is white or whitish; orange bandages run along this background..........................................E. iduna (Dalman, 1816)
II (I) The background color of the wings is yellow, red, or orange; darker bandages (red, orange, or red) run along this background.
III (IV) On the lower surface of the hindwing, a submarginal ligature is usually without black rounded spots; if these spots are present, they are located in the anal part of the wing and there are no more than three of them............................... E. intermedia (Ménétriès, 1859)
IV (III) On the lower surface of the hindwing, the submarginal band always contains a complete row of black rounded spots; if this row is not complete, then there are always more than three spots.
V (VI) Ostium oval, small. The ostial trough is funnel-shaped, strongly expanding towards the posterior edge.................E. laeta (Christoph, 1893)
VI (V) The ostium is oval or elongated oval, large. The ostial trough is parallel or absent.
VII (VIII) The ostium is oblong-oval. The antrum is long and wide..................E. sibirica (Staudinger, 1861)
VIII (VII) The ostium is oval. The antrum is short and narrow.
IX (X) The antrum is smooth, without folds, the ostial groove is not pronounced; the edges of the cranial part of the antrum are angular....................E. discordia Bolshakov et Korb, 2013
X (IX) Antrum not smooth, with folds, ostial trough well defined; the edges of the cranial part of the antrum are rounded..............E. aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775)

Please show the signs that distinguish discordia from avrinia in the image that Oleg posted earlier. The text doesn't make everything clear.

Please show the signs that distinguish discordia from avrinia in the image that Oleg posted earlier. The text doesn't make everything clear.

In your picture without any doubt laeta.

Here is another problem that I would like to identify and close completely and irrevocably.
The taxon Melitaea roberti Butler, 1880, which is persistently attracted to the territory of the Russian Federation. In my deep conviction, this taxon does not exist in Russia and cannot exist - it is rather something else (if there is any sense at all to distinguish this something else as a separate species). I caught in the Volgograd and Saratov regions and a typical trivia, and what we call Roberts, in the same clearing. I think these are just extreme variations of the variability of one species. In order not to be unfounded, I put up a photo of the Melitaea roberti lectotype

[attachmentid()=193351]

[attachmentid()=193352]

This is the key for identifying Russian Euphydryas. I tried to make it as simple as possible.

I (II) The background color of the wings is white or whitish; orange bandages run along this background..........................................E. iduna (Dalman, 1816)
II (I) The background color of the wings is yellow, red, or orange; darker bandages (red, orange, or red) run along this background.
III (IV) On the lower surface of the hindwing, a submarginal ligature is usually without black rounded spots; if these spots are present, they are located in the anal part of the wing and there are no more than three of them............................... E. intermedia (Ménétriès, 1859)
IV (III) On the lower surface of the hindwing, the submarginal band always contains a complete row of black rounded spots; if this row is not complete, then there are always more than three spots.
V (VI) Ostium oval, small. The ostial trough is funnel-shaped, strongly expanding towards the posterior edge.................E. laeta (Christoph, 1893)
VI (V) The ostium is oval or elongated oval, large. The ostial trough is parallel or absent.
VII (VIII) The ostium is oblong-oval. The antrum is long and wide..................E. sibirica (Staudinger, 1861)
VIII (VII) The ostium is oval. The antrum is short and narrow.
IX (X) The antrum is smooth, without folds, the ostial groove is not pronounced; the edges of the cranial part of the antrum are angular....................E. discordia Bolshakov et Korb, 2013
X (IX) Antrum not smooth, with folds, ostial trough well defined; the edges of the cranial part of the antrum are rounded..............E. aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775)

I'll try again. Show us if you think there are any specific differences between the two specimens listed below and what they are.

Valentine, these are very different butterflies.

Oleg, here we still need to approach systematically. If the images are taken at different angles, then distortions are unavoidable when comparing them. That is why EVERYTHING that was done earlier on the genitals - I will re-examine at the first opportunity, using the method of B. V. Stradomsky. And, I must say, the results are sometimes quite interesting .

The whole point is that you COULDN'T catch both the typical trivia and what we call robertsii UVAROVI in the SAME clearing.
Well, if in a CLEARING, it was M. trivia fascelis.

Why couldn't he, if he caught it?
I only look at the phenotype .
And let's face it: what are trivia fascelis, trivia trivia, roberti, and uvarovi?
And the truth is very simple. We DON't know what it is-except for uvarovi, the paratype of which we can see here

http://szmn.sbras.ru/picts/butterfly/Nymph...aea_uvarovi.htm

and which, you will agree, in color and drawing is very far from robertsi, posted a few posts earlier, and robertsi, the lectotype of which I posted in this topic. Who has seen the fascelis type? Who has seen the trivia type? But these are the key types, not the uvarovi or roberti or even catapelia types. The variability of trivia is simply enormous. But on the genitals, they are all more or less uniform .

Oleg, here we still need to approach systematically. If the images are taken at different angles, then distortions are unavoidable when comparing them. That is why EVERYTHING that was done earlier on the genitals - I will re-examine at the first opportunity, using the method of B. V. Stradomsky. And, I must say, the results are sometimes quite interesting .

Stanislav, I am all for a systematic approach These drugs were removed as uniformly as possible. At least I tried to keep it that way.

This is the key for identifying Russian Euphydryas. I tried to make it as simple as possible.

Isn't Mathurna already a "Russian Euphydryas"? Or is it just not all kinds of work?

Isn't Mathurna already a "Russian Euphydryas"? Or is it just not all kinds of work?

Not all.
Only what can be confused with avrinia =). I.e. nominative subgenus

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 10.02.2014 17: 23

In addition to the phenotype, there is also biology (OOOOOH!!!!!)
These butterflies are separated in time and space!
So, you just didn't catch Uvarov, otherwise, you would have seen the phenotype, that's for sure.

Different generations are separated in time. And they can also be separated in space . Biology "plays" only where it can play - say, there is a good isolating factor. For example, in the mountains-the first generation of Parnassius apollonius in the foothills is in May, in the middle mountains in June, in the highlands in July-the difference in conditions is enormous, the butterflies are very different, but for some reason no one has the idea to describe these butterflies as different subspecies.

Remember the classic Linnean species Araschnia levana and Araschnia prorsa.

And then, in my opinion, even with the example of Polyommatus icarus - eros, B. V. Stradomsky showed how different the ECOLOGICAL forms of one species can be. So I don't believe in biology (or rather, ecological preferences, autecology, if you will) as a species difference. The differences should be morphological (no matter at what stage of development), clear, allowing you to breed different species without doubt. If doubts arise , it makes sense to doubt the independence of the species.