Euphydryas and Melitaea

I have to agree with Vadim, the article, unfortunately, does not prove anything. In Melitaea, there is a completely wild variation in COI differences - from 0.5 to 12 % for uniquely different species. I didn't look at the nuclear DNA, but the mitochondrial DNA was preserved (including for the Tajik robertsi), for example, there were 9.25% differences in COI between the close didyma and latonigena - and there were times when latonigena was considered almost an ecological form of didyma. Here, unfortunately, DNA alone is not enough-it is obvious, firstly, that the group is not monotypic, and it is necessary to use previously established genera (Dydymaeformia, Cinclidia, etc.), and secondly, that COI does not work in it, since such frenzied differences for similar species are just nonsense. Here, I think, we need to work out a different approach-while I'm still racking my brain which one.

By the way, regarding the systematic position of Robertsii, the article forgot to mention the Central Asian taxon Melitaea catapelia, which was described from a geographically closer place than Afghanistan (Prov. Samark.). The lectotypes of both Robertsii and catapelia were identified by me in 2013:

Com m e n t a r i y . M. trivia (Denis et Schiffermüller, 1775) (or M. catapelia
Staudinger, 1886, which is now almost unanimously accepted as a subspecies of the former) has been repeatedly cited for the Northern Tien Shan. We have never collected this taxon;
there is no information about its findings in the Northern Tien Shan and in V. Chikolovets (Tshikolovets, 2005: 335). For Central Asia
, the taxon catapelia, described from the vicinity of Samarkand, is usually given; in addition to it, the taxon roberti
Butler, 1880, described from near Kandahar (Afghanistan), has recently been frequently cited. It is equally important to note that the same taxon (robertsi) is also given for
the southern regions of Russia. Obviously, in this case, we have a clear confusion with names (and possibly with taxa),
resulting from the fact that the primary type material in this pair of taxa has not been revised. We are correcting this situation. We denote
the lectotype ♂ (Fig. 2: 27, 28) Melitaea trivia catapelia Staudinger, 1886 here, a specimen from the ZMHU collection with labels:
rectangular printed on pink paper " Origin."; rectangular printed on white paper, with handwritten insert of numbers " ex coll.
1/8 / STAUDINGER"; handwritten rectangular (black ink) on brown paper " Prov. Samark. / Hbh. 81"; rectangular
handwritten (in black ink) on white paper " Trivia var. / Catapelia / Stgr."; rectangular printed on yellow paper "GART / Exemplar
und Eti - / Ketten dokumentiert / Specimen and label / Data documented / 17.9. R0 [written in plain pencil] / 2002" rectangular
printed map on red paper with a handwritten insert of the taxon name " LECTOTYPUS ♂ / catapelia / Stgr. / S. K. Korb design. 17.04.2012».
We denote the lectotype ♂ Melitaea roberti Butler, 1880 (Fig. 2: 35, 36) here, a copy from the BMNH collection with labels:
rectangular printed (inkjet printer with slightly spread ink) on white paper "BMNH€ #983773"; rectangular
handwritten (black ink) on white paper " Candahar / 80×36 / Major Howland / Roberts / (illegible)"; round
printed "Type" on white paper with red border with handwritten insert black ink "Melitaea / robertsii [sic!] / Butler"; rectangular handwritten
with printed first two lines (label cap) " B. M. TYPE / No. Rh. 8301 / Melitaea / robertsii, / ♀ Butl."rectangular
printed on red paper" LECTOTYPUS ♀ / Melitaea roberti / Butler, 1880 / Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1880: 406 / S.Korb design. 2012».

I also think it is not superfluous to say that until the Esper type material is investigated, it is simply not correct to talk about the correct interpretation of the taxon fascelis - this is not such a simple case that it can be interpreted unambiguously. Either a valid lectotype is required (Esper types were found in SZM not so long ago - you should see if there is a fascelis type there), or a neotype - only in this case the status will be determined unambiguously.

I'll add a few words.

When I started taking samples for sequencing checkers, the idea was to make a system of our checkers based on DNA and genital structures. Failed miserably! For close groups - Mellicta, Euphydryas - everything is fine, the differences fall quite within certain boundaries, there are no special "jumps" (although there are exceptions-I don't disclose them yet, this is in the press, along with an article on the taxonomy of Euphydryas based on COI and analysis of the genitals of males, females, ecological preferences, wing growth drawing and some constructions based on the historical zoogeography of the group). But with Melitaea-a complete suture, although, in general, they form groups that are very, very clearly delineated by Higgins groups-but with such wild differences in COI that it is very difficult to think that they are all one genus (even within the group). It is not yet clear what to do with this - the analysis of haplotypes shows an extremely high number of divergences. Perhaps, in the case of the Volgograd trivia, haplotype analysis should still have been applied - I think the result would have been slightly different, and most likely more obvious.

As for nuclear DNA - there are no thoughts at all, I'm afraid to assume some mistakes: only two samples; it seems that in such cases you need at least two samples from the intended group in order to confirm the second one with one sample.

Pair of Melitaea didyma (Esper, 1778)
01.07.2014 Vladimir region, Petushinsky district, district, village Starye Omutischi, the edge of a pine forest (en masse). leg. Feoktistov V. I.

Male


Female

As expected, the fascelis type exists.

And what is written about robertsi-trivia-fascelis in the latest book about Melitaea

By the way, there are a lot of mistakes in the book, including regarding the trivial group. It is sad...

Melitaea punica (Oberthur, 1876) Bashkortostan, Yantyshevo village, 21.06.2014
Already finished their flight and were all pretty broken, and phoebes, on the contrary, just flew out and were fresh.

Pictures:

DSC02137.jpg — (302.94к)


DSC02138.jpg — (296.96к)

Melitaea punica (Oberthur, 1876) Bashkortostan, Yantyshevo village, 21.06.2014

M. punica is found in North America. Africa. In southern Russia, along with phoebe, M. ornata lives. This is stated, in particular, in the "Notes on taxonomy" to the species M. ornata on the website "butterflies of the Caucasus". The research was conducted in 2009-2011, and these data are more recent than from P. Gorbunov's book. If there have been any changes since 2011, please tell us about it.

M. ornata is a synonym for phoebe, while phoebe and telona live in the south of Russia. So write Van Orschot and Coutsis, who have seen all the type specimens. There is no less reason to distrust them than our specialists, who have not seen the standard copies, which means that they do not know what exactly Christof and Frustorfer described.

Special attention must be paid to the situation in the southern Urals. Gorbunov (2001: 172), in discussing what he calls the M. phoebe “complex?”, at one point states that in the southern tip of the Urals there flies, starting in May, a small but heavily marked form, succeeded in June by a large, more intensely coloured and lighter marked one, and that the two forms are found flying together during at least part of their respective flight periods. The author then makes reference to Tuzov et al. (2000) stating that in his opinion it is too early “to consider the two simultaneously occurring forms as separate species, as V K. Tuzov did”. Tuzov in this joint work of his indeed did split the M. phoebe “complex?” into two separate entities, namely Melitaea (phoebe) phoebe and Melitaea (phoebe) punica, the latter corresponding to what we now know as M. telona. However in his descriptions of these two taxa he refers to the former as being large, with well developed black markings, and to the latter as being smaller with less developed black markings, creating an obvious size reversal in relation to Gorbunov’s measurements. The figures in Tuzov’s joint work (pi. 46, figs. 12-14, as M. (phoebe) phoebe and figs. 15-17, as M. (phoebe) punica, fully support the latter’s views. The obvious question that arises now is whether the two authors are actually referring to two different sets of taxa, or, if not, whether Gorbunov was a victim of a lapsus calami.
In their morphometric study mentioned above, Toth & Varga (2010) examined, among many others, specimens from Magnitogorsk and Guberlya (S Ural) and concluded that the external and genital traits suggested that the specimens belonged to M. telona and could possibly be classified as a separate subspecies, M. telona ornata Christoph, which was described from Guberii (=Guberlya). Magnitogorsk is about 260 km north of Guberlya. Since they did not study the type(s) ofM. ornata, the supposed synonymy was apparently based on the locality only. In their next paper (2011), ap¬parently mainly based on the same set of specimens, the locality of Magnitogorsk is not mentioned, but they realized that M. ornata Christoph, 1893, is an older name than M. telona Fruhstorfer, 1907 (1908), and they synonymized the two.
Apparently independently Russell & Kuznetsov (2012) came to the same conclusion. They referred to Kuznetsov (2011); not seen by us), who found that specimens from the Volgograd region, attributable by external characters to M. ornata, emerged from larvae with reddish brown heads (as is the case in M. telona), instead of black ones (as is the case in M. phoebe). Although the type of M. ornata (not studied by them) originated from a locality far to the east (Guberii is some 1000 km east of the city of Volgograd), they supposed that the specimens of the Volgograd area belonged to the same taxon (and thus, that the type ofM. ornata originated from a larva with reddish brown head). As admitted by the authors themselves, the larval head colour of specimens from either the type locality of the M. ornata, or from elsewhere in the Orenburg province is not presently known. We studied two male cotypes of M. ornata from the type locality, captured by Piingeler and deposited in the Staudinger collection in Berlin. These specimens cannot unambigu¬ously assigned to either M. phoebe or M. telona and do not justify the synonymy of M. telona and M. ornata. In addi¬tion, we were also able to study two female specimens from the Staudinger collection, captured by Rangnow in 1913 in Kizilskaya, Ural Mts., and bearing on the label the name Piingeler, 1914. These were found to be similar to specimens ofM. phoebe from France, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Russia.
Therefore, it seems to us that the action by Toth & Varga (2011) and Russell & Kuznetsov (2012) cannot be con¬sidered as being devoid of all doubt, if only because in both cases it is supposed that there is only a single taxon flying in the southern Urals, while Tuzov et al. (2000) and Gorbunov (2001) decided there were two. Altogether we consider the supposed synonymy of M. ornata and M. telona as yet insufficiently supported and we are tentatively retaining the older nomenclatural arrangement (following Higgins 1941), pending further research into the matter.
A further problem is that the only features by which we can unambiguously identify the two taxa (colour of the lar¬val head, and molecular and chemical characters), we do not know these features for the types ofM. phoebe, M. telona, and all the associated synonyms, and thus the correct application of the names and the synonymy can only be based on the not fully reliable external characters. Since the type of M. phoebe was lost by fire, Tennent & Russell (2010) designated a neotype reared from an egg batch, so that for the neotype the colour of the larval head (black) is known. Deciding now, without knowing the crucial characters, upon which of the two species a given subspecies belongs to is a difficult task involving the study of type material and having knowledge of the butterfly’s provenance and habitat, but even so, the final result cannot be considered as being 100% foolproof/ With this in mind we have to apologize for any unintentional, bona fide misjudgments on our part.

M. ornata is a synonym for phoebe, while phoebe and telona live in the south of Russia. So write Van Orschot and Coutsis, who have seen all the type specimens. There is no less reason to distrust them than our specialists, who have not seen the standard copies, which means that they do not know what exactly Christof and Frustorfer described.

Interesting. But nothing follows from the above excerpt, except for stating the need for further research: two respected authors from faunaeur, it seems, did not have enough material from the south of Russia? A burnt phoebe type, the color of the head of caterpillars they hadn't seen... Okay, let's say so. What do you think is shown in the above pictures? Who leaves earlier by two weeks?

One thing is clear, two species living in the same place are very clearly traced, with different terms of summer, and one finishes, and the other just starts, but they overlap a little. And who they belong to is up to scientists to decide, based on the totality of differences or similar features!

One thing is clear, two species living in the same place are very clearly traced, with different terms of summer, and one finishes, and the other just starts, but they overlap a little. And who they belong to is up to scientists to decide, based on the totality of differences or similar features!

I'm willing to believe two. And the second one, judging by the timing, should be M. phoebe. Time will put everything in its place.

Gennady, your opinion, for those who are not vteme.

Genetics set it up.
The genitals were spread out.
Habitus set up.
Preimaginals have been set up.
We will wait for "time". This is a sweet (bitter, terrible, sacred) word "time"!

I'm not arguing with you, Gennady. There is your article from 2012 and explanations are given on the site. I was not convinced by what a well - known Guest brought us, at least not by what is said in this passage of the article by Western experts. Time will decide in any case, or leave it as it is, and there is no need to wait. Let the Guest have his own view and his own taxon, this is his right.

I'm not arguing with you, Gennady. There is your article from 2012 and explanations are given on the site. I was not convinced by what a well - known Guest brought us, at least not by what is said in this passage of the article by Western experts. Time will decide in any case, or leave it as it is, and there is no need to wait. Let the Guest have his own view and his own taxon, this is his right.

I didn't introduce myself, and I'm not going to. I'm curious to hear how well you know who I am. Remaining incognito is a nice bonus of this forum, which can be used to achieve two goals: collecting material (and it is published here in the mass, just have time to fix it) and conducting a discussion that is not burdened with titles, titles and regalia. Free communication, so to speak.

Regarding the telona-ornata - phoebe question: so I do not dispute that there are two taxa. I point out that our foreign colleagues know better which of the names to use for the second taxon from the territory of Russia, since they (unlike us) have seen the types. You will agree that in this group, without a clear idea of what Frustorfer and Christoph meant when they described their taxa, it is generally difficult to say anything confidently.

No, it's not a bonus.
And you know exactly what it's called.

To whom as; -).
Personally, I have always been amused, amused now, and will continue to be amused for a long time by this remarkable feature of Russian lepidopterologists who deal with diurnal butterflies (I can't say the same about those who work with moths and nocturnal ones) - constant bickering about something so small that usually in the West such occasions lead only to a friendly homeric the laughter of the disputants. Moreover, the Russian dietitian manages to cross paths with colleagues (remember the same Korb, although there is a brighter example - Bolshakov), defending the view that this butterfly has a longer pussy than that one, and therefore it looks one, and that - another. Come on, nature doesn't care what we think of it. And on our bones will feast dead-eaters, who do not sleep about where they have synapomorphies, and where they have parallelisms : - D.

I do not want to infringe on the people I respect who invest so much time in this, undoubtedly, extremely useful business for humanity-determining the color of the caterpillar's head or measuring the length of the imago's pussy.

Unfortunately, not everyone understands that taxonomy is not a thing in itself, but only a tool for working in other, much more important areas of biology. And it may happen that in the near future, hard-to-understand binary names will be replaced by truly binary (binary) taxon designation codes.

Ah, well, yes, well, yes.
It's familiar.

I'm glad you're familiar with this.
The main thing is not to overestimate yourself; -). And then, as Darth Tyranus used to say, " It's bad. The higher you turn up your nose, the harder you'll fall."

Personally, I have always been amused, amused now and will continue to be amused, I think, for a long time, by this remarkable feature of Russian lepidopterologists who deal with daytime butterflies.... the Russian day specialist manages to cross paths with colleagues (remember the same Korb, although there is a brighter example - Bolshakov), defending the view that this butterfly has a pussy it's longer than the other one, so it looks like one, and the other one looks like another. Come on, nature doesn't care what we think of it. ...

Just another voice from geyropeyskaya okolobabochnoy svaalki. You were even afraid to come up with some kind of "nickname" for yourself - do not be afraid, the "bonus" can be saved during registration (no one asks for a passport).
If your pussy does not enter the funnel, then you will agree that you will not be able to perform fertilization, and you will not continue the birth. And in butterflies, it (the funnel) does not "have the property of expanding"at all. Therefore, all science, including Western science, has been dividing species on this basis for a very long time, and not least of all diurnal ones. And by the way, I was not the first to measure the length of the notorious pussy, but Lorkovich (Yugoslavia), Reissinger (Germany), Mazel (France), and the others began to look after them. I just took a scientific platform, unlike the "majority", like the notorious "dung rose" (this is according to Yevtushenko).

Yperny babay - another non-fallow anonymous zappadnyuk has appeared!
And what is significant is that once again we are being taught the immaculate ananistic conception by the next Darth Vader! I want to ask - And what are you actually doing here? Catch fish in muddy waters!?

I'm arguing here

For Bolshakov:

Moderate your ardor, pussy measured a lot of people . You're not the first, you're not the last. Europe very often turns out to be right-the scientific school is affected. To think that only we, the Russians, are the center of the universe in science is stupid to say the least, but for the most part, it is also harmful. After all, science is not your sandbox, but a global asset. Therefore, even when measuring pussy, it would not be bad to look at others who have done this before; -) .

For Bolshakov:

...Europe very often turns out to be right-the scientific school is affected....

Name at least one example. And there is no "school"there. There are local schools around individual specialists. Everyone has their own cockroaches. And only during the day ... what school? it's been degraded for half a century.

German
English
French and other schools; -)

Thank you very much. It's convincing.
If you go back to the above butterflies from the south. It is difficult to tell clearly from the pictures what kind of mace of antennae and strokes on the underside are there, but it turns out that both Gorbunov and Chikolovets indicated the taxon "ornata" for this region, and in Tuzov's book it simply has not yet been separated from Phoebe.

German........ etc. schools; -)

I asked you to name not "schools" (you called those that were in the middle of the 20th century, but now a little differently), but an example (at least one), when the conclusions of Russian entomologists based on the "length of the pipisk" (but we don't have the same forum, so let's call it as it should be - EDEAGUS), were refuted by Z. Europeans?

I'm sorry, but what are we talking about? From Bashkiria?

Well, yes, from Bashkiria, from whose photos this difficult discussion began. As for Tuzov and Gorbunov (the latter, by the way, is a forum participant), I think that at that time their data was fresh and up-to-date, and their contribution to the research of diurnal butterflies is huge.

Two taxa! Your Masha... The only question is what name to use!
You sometimes read what others write, not just yourself. Debaters :-D.
Why couldn't it be, say, corythallia Esper, 1780 - described then from Sarepta. Or even one of the Bergstrasser taxa? Why did you put your horn to that name of Christoph?

No, it's not the same science in Russia today. Not that... They don't understand the prompts, and they react angrily to them. Ugh, be like that.

There are already three taxa?
And all in the Volga-Ural floodplain?
I will listen with interest to what taxa these are. While there was an argument about two.
About Sarepta: where does the data come from? The second type is calcifilic, there is a shaft of suitable biotopes there. But systematic fees - alas, no one really did. Therefore, you should not discount it.
As for Bergstrasser - you know, they were such entertainers in those days... And the geography was also very intricate. If I were you, I wouldn't be so hard on you - there are some things that happen to "well - known" taxa, such as phoebus - ariadna-avona, but our beetles are not so popular.

My God, how naive your thoughts are! Sarepta can be anything within a radius of 1 to 300 km from it - who collected there at that time and where exactly they collected it is unknown to us. All I see in your lines is mutton stubbornness (sorry for the allegory) and a blatant unwillingness to learn-it's amazing, this is the first time I've seen this. Usually, gentlemen who are pointed out mistakes or new ways for their own development, say "thank you". No, there's only one thing I keep reading: "I'm right because I'm right, and everyone else is wrong because I'm right." Amazing scientific approach!

Let it be known to you that the Esper taxon mentioned above is very similar to your favorite ornata. I highly recommend you to be curious about what it is all the same. At least for general development. But what am I talking about? The cowboy is always right :-).

You don't need to refer to my words, and you don't need to make a fool of yourself either. It is clear that it was (and is still being discussed!) about naming the second taxon (which you call non-phoebe or ornata). You surprisingly often turn on the fool - even my nerves couldn't stand it :-). And let's add a couple more taxa from the same group to this pile-so, for extras? And we'll throw in some more exotic stuff to make your indignation look more natural, huh?

In the clinical norm, everything is simple. There is a huge layer of names that a real expert should have been able to make out (there are at least 20 of these names for your particular territory and its surroundings). Are we going to wait for your analysis, or are we going to wait for some "real" scientist to publish it? And you use the most convenient name for you - it's so "scientific" - you don't need to search for old publications (which are not available online), compare, translate, think and draw conclusions.

For the future: the literature on central Europe (including its Russian part) describes everything. Absolutely everything. Just don't be lazy and search.

Oh, holy simplicity :- ). The Germans, yes, but as for their collectors, everything was mostly sad here. If everything was as you write, there would be no problems with the type localities for the mass of taxa. And so-assumptions from the category of "plus or minus 500 -1000 km". First of all, you should ask knowledgeable people - the same Zolotukhin you mentioned above. If I can't open your eyes , maybe he can do it.

Oooooh.... I feel like I'm getting hit right now.. so, for the company.
I can say the following about this fascinating dialogue:
1. there is a sense in any common thought that is worth listening to
2. anyone can make mistakes, so do not believe in your exclusivity in the rightness
of 3. basic. I have to work with primary descriptions as part of my "service", which means checking the spelling of a taxon, the spelling of a type locality, and generally checking what it is. And I was surprised to find that we have a couple of hundred day specialists in our country, and the list is still not correct, by and large. Here is a new foreign catalog released - and all at once with a bang for the local innovations, although (here is an erroneous point of view!) Most Europeans and all Americans DON'T WORK with types. One of them, Mr. Friese, in the revision of syntomids once gave a grandiose phrase - " I have not seen the types of these species, but I know exactly what they are.". and then it went on ....
So what am I talking about? We all focus on familiar names that have taken root. And we don't even think about the fact that some names are interpreted incorrectly - I'm talking about daytime now, and some are clearly not older valid ones, and some are misinterpreted. And attempts to somehow level the situation are met with such resistance.... I would not in terms of moralizing, but in terms of good advice, I would very much ask everyone who is trying to make real or similar taxonomic revisions, to raise the whole chain of names directly or indirectly related to this group, do not hesitate to look at old scientists. Believe me, not all of them were senile, and Fabritius is not to blame that Russian scientists do not know the butterflies he described 230 years ago from the territory of Russia. And here's another point - YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE! Even those names are misinterpreted in subsequent publications, let alone about magazines, pages, and typical localities ... and there's nothing to say. And also tolerance for other people's opinions.. that's what's missing. (((
PS. And why is corythallia from Sarepta described? From Southern Europe, it is actually ((((

For hooke

Not everything is so simple. There is a type, and it is not quite similar to what is depicted in his book. Don't forget that the old taxa are still dominated by types.

And one piece of advice. In addition to well-known works, see also what was published in those days on the biology of species. You will be surprised that even there, it turns out, new names were offered. And often they take precedence over those that are considered generally accepted.

In general, all this is still razgr*** and razgr***.

For Vadim

Described from Southern Europe. And the type is labeled " Circ. Sarep. Lep.". I'll send you a photo of the type if you give me your email address. The butterfly is interesting, definitely something that protects the Blacksmiths. And a couple more words in the same direction: either Schrank or someone else has an image of a red-headed caterpillar, with which some name is associated (but not a homonym). Now I can't remember offhand - I need to look at the literature, remember, and now there is absolutely no time for this. In any case, the taxon was described a long time ago, and it was described as a species. Just, as usual, with the light hand of "authorities" it was safely forgotten.

And there are quite a few such taxa, alas.

For Vadim

Of course, I'm interested - and not just out of idle curiosity. First of all, it's important to me which museum this type comes from - Esper types are fanned out across Europe, and I would like to find a couple of his types from the "Russian series". Secondly, when I read here yesterday that corythallia was described from Sarepta, I was shocked to miss such a species from our region! I went to the original source, but there is no indication of Sarepta. I can even say this: contacts with Beber, who was the FIRST to supply Russian materials to Esper, began with the latter only 10 years later. Therefore, you still need to deal with the standard locale. It may not be the original synth type. In any case, these new layers that are being opened up show a lot of work to be done.
My address v.zolot@mail.ru

Tables from this work.
He who has eyes will see.
I will refrain from commenting, although there is a lot to say.
It is interesting that initially one of the authors defined the material from the Urals as an independent type of "ornata", but at the last moment attributed it to Phoebe.[attachmentid()=213931]

I understand they don't know Phoebe from Ornata. But so many works have been published.

I understand they don't know Phoebe from Ornata. But so many works have been published.

I don't know about them, but I can tell Ornata from Phoebe even in flight from 3-5 meters away. There were no errors yet.

Several views from Primorye.
Melitaea sutschana

23.06.13 Lukyanovka village, Shkotovsky district

Melitaea scotosia

02.07.14 Chernyatino village, Oktyabrsky district

Euphydryas davidi

15.06.13 Sinelnikovo village, Oktyabrsky district

Clossiana perryi
10.09.14
p.Olenevod, Nadezhdinsky district.

Pictures:

DSCF6300.JPG — (447.66к)


DSCF6301.JPG — (454.06к)


DSCF6302.JPG — (447.79к)


DSCF6303.JPG — (345.35к)

Two big requests )
1. crop
2. bring the reverse side too.
Thank you.

Melitaea persea.
A couple of new photos of a female from the Vashlovansky Nature Reserve.
9.05.2014.
Such a beauty! Just hatched.