Arctiidae-dippers

With a mustache, as far as you can see from the photos-everything is in order. The antennae are photographed from the side of the LONG scallops. In S. lubricipedum, the long scallops are EVEN longer. Please see under the magnification the size of the short scallops (located on the front side of the tendril), they should be approximately equal to the thickness of the tendril shaft. And the wing pattern (complete absence of black spots on the hind wings even with a large number of black spots on the front wings) says that this is S. urticae. And the front fenders are narrow. And the genitals are the same as in S. urticae. So there can be no doubt.

Can you tell me if I correctly identified this series of 4 males and 1 female as belonging to the taxon Spilosoma mienschanicum streltzovi Dubatolov, 1996? Butterflies caught in the Jewish Autonomous Region at the end of May.

Pictures:

DSC00382.JPG — (172.22к)

Spilosoma lubricipedum (2 males) from the Far East (Jewish Autonomous Region).

Pictures:

DSC00389.JPG — (112.63к)

An obscure male Spilosoma from the south of the Jewish Autonomous Region. Is it S. lubricipedum with a reduced pattern, or is it S. urticae?

Pictures:

DSC00392.JPG — (173.23к)

I kindly ask forum participants to indicate specific places and dates for collecting butterflies. I prefer not to define instances that contain non-specific information about the collection location.

Vladimir Viktorovich, a series of spilosomes in post number 286 was caught on May 31, 2008 in the south-west of the Obluchensky district of the Jewish Autonomous Region (southern spurs of the Maly Khingan ridge). Butterflies from the next two posts were caught in the south of the Leninsky district of the Jewish Autonomous Region (Bolshye Churki ridge). S. lubricipedum was caught on June 2, 2008. A white specimen from the last post was caught on July 19, 2008.

This post was edited by Ekos-08.03.2010 13: 30

Yes, it is extremely sad when a person who wants to get advice is so eager to hide the labels! Especially when he has such information... Wasn't it possible to write the entire label? It's all very ugly...

Well, come on. In the first image, the males belong to the taxon currently named Streltzovia caeria streltzovi (Dubatolov, 1996). This is the former Spilosoma mienshanicum Daniel. However, mienshanica is now no more than a subspecies of S. caeria. There is an article on this topic:
Dubatolov V. V., Wu Ch. 2008 (Oct.). On the systematic position of Spilosoma caeria (Pungeler, 1906) and Spilosoma mienshanicum Daniel, 1943 (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae) // Atalanta. - 2008. - Bd. 39, Heft 1/4. - P. 367-374, 9 figs., pl. 15-17.

Due to the fact that the categories of genus and subgenus are purely subjective (in contrast to the category of species), it is possible that Streltzovia can be considered a subgenus of Spilosoma. But please note: in my opinion, Spilosoma s. str. and Spilarctria are more closely related to each other than to Streltzovia. Streltzovia's genitalia are too special. It's hard to say anything about the female at this resolution. The drawing is too much reduced. If you do not cook the genitals, then you need a much better image to determine. You also need a photo from below. The remaining photos show Spilosoma lubricipedum.

Vladimir Viktorovich, thank you very much for your good advice!
And I do not hide the labels, here is the most complete data:

Streltzovia caeria streltzovi (Dubatolov, 1996) – 4 males, (?) 1 female:
Russia, Jewish Autonomous Region, Obluchensky district, 2 km from Radde village, southern spurs of Maly Khingan, oak-broad-leaved forest, on light, May 31, 2008, Koshkin E. S. leg.

Spilosoma lubricipedum – 2 males:
Russia, Jewish Autonomous Region, Leninsky District, foothills of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug. Bolshye Churki, 7 km from the village of Churki, the vicinity of the bridge over the Listvyanka River, the border of an oak-broad-leaved forest and a swampy meadow, June 2, 2008, Koshkin E. S. leg.

Spilosoma lubricipedum – 1 male (white):
Russia, Jewish Autonomous Region, Leninsky District, foothills of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug. Bolshye Chocks, 4 km from Babstovo village, upper Vertoprashikha River, oak-broad-leaved forest, July 19, 2008, Koshkin E. S. leg.

Today or tomorrow I will try to post an enlarged image of the female flying with Streltzovia caeria. I will also post a photo of another female, it seems, of the same taxon, but with a more pronounced pattern and from a completely different place in the Jewish Autonomous Region.

It was me. Authorization failed in the system...

Here, I attach an enlarged photo of this female from Radde on both sides. The female is very large for a spilosome (wingspan 50 mm, forewing length 26 mm). It seems to me that this is Streltzovia caeria after all, the features of the reduced pattern resemble the pattern of males of this species.



I also attach a photo of another female, but from a completely different point of view:

Russia, Jewish Autonomous Region, Leninsky district, Daur village, 20 km from Bijan village, Talgoberov Klyuch ur., border of oak-broad-leaved forest and swampy meadow, on light, June 4, 2008, Koshkin E. S. leg.



The wingspan is 46 mm, the forewing length is 22.5 mm. Its pattern completely repeats the pattern of male streltsovii from Radde. Am I right that this is S. caeria streltzovi?

And do I understand correctly that this type of bear from the Jewish Autonomous Region was not known before?

Hello, Vladimir Viktorovich!
Please tell us which subspecies-Chelis maculosa (Gerring, 1780) lives in the Middle Volga region?

For the first selection , it is a somewhat strange approach for a specialist in a group - not to have a recently published book on the group, not to know it, and not to strive to acquire it. Moreover, books for Arctiidae are not published every year.
According to the second selection - Erich Bauer's magzin (www.insecta.de) much better - and the prices there are slightly lower (after all, that 90 pounds, that 95 euros-in terms of rubles get different prices), and delivery is cheaper and easier. And the books are all there.

Genera, subgenera, and subspecies... it is no longer science that operates, but the ICZN, and then only in names...
Stanislav, please... Can we here about ...TYPES ...BEARS, and not about our purchasing opportunities?
It's a pity that in the forum, in addition to the flower "thank you" (accidentally clicked), there is no thread like "I don't agree" ...

Many thanks for the data on S. caeria from the Jewish Autonomous Region. Based on the best quality photos of females, we can now say with confidence that this is Streltzovia caeria streltzovi. I couldn't make out the drawing on the small photo.

Now the answer to Stanislav Korb: I am afraid that you are in the overwhelming minority regarding the "objectivity" of genus categories in taxonomy. There are actually species (an objective reality caused by the lack of exchange of genetic information between species; we do not consider parthenogenetics - the situation there is special, and they are not yet known in bears). Above the species, only PHYLOGENY is objective, but it is really objective, so groups of species that we consider as genera, families, etc. can be OBJECTIVE. But at what level we make a cross-section of this phylogeny to create taxa of the genus, family rank, etc. - a purely subjective position of the researcher. Such a cut can be drawn slightly higher or slightly lower. Depending on this, the allocated labor may have a different volume. Example: how much the category of the genus has changed from the time of Linnaeus to the present day! At first, it was carried out almost at the level of modern family groups. That is why the category of genera, families, etc. is subjective, and the groups that we distinguish as genera, families can be objective (depending on the development of the system).

Now about Murzin's book. I didn't say ANYTHING bad about this book. It is certainly very useful for many people who deal with bears, as a reference. But there is NO NEW information for me personally (I now have a copy of the book)! The system, the structure of the genitals, the areas I know well, no worse than given in the book. Murzin's collection, on the basis of which the book was written, I looked through and wrote out information from it SEVERAL times. I copied the material on the bears from many other Moscow collections (including Tsvetaevskaya), which became the basis of Murzin's book. I have always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Sergeyevich, and I have always treated him with great respect. As a result, I named many more new taxa after him than after any other colleague. Therefore, I assure you that there are NO fundamentally new points in the distribution of dippers that I do not know. You probably don't use Lampert's book to identify daytime butterflies right now. But at one time, at least until 1980, this book was extremely useful for many people.

Now about the Volga Chelis maculosa. EVERYWHERE in Eastern Europe (from Ukraine), Kazakhstan and the south of Western Siberia, the subspecies Chelis maculosa honesta Tauscher lives. Previously, this subspecies was called Chelis maculosa mannerheimi Duponchel, but the latter name is younger. But in the Southern Urals, two more species of the genus Chelis are added - Ch. dahurica and Ch.caecilia.

Please excuse me, I may not visit the forum every day.

"There really are species (objective reality caused by the lack of exchange of genetic information between species)"
I really liked this idea, although it does not fully describe (again, parthenogenetics)
The concept of view is objective, and Tolkien's problem is that the person does not yet know enough or think well enough to accurately define this concept. Although some facts may completely refute our previous view of the species.
Representations of the same kind and so on cannot be objective. There are many reasons for this. For example, each new and old species, where one is the previous link, has too much in common that they can hardly be divided into two genera (although sometimes this can be done, but it is not a fact). Then what will be native for us? Well, let's take such a chain, destroy a couple of links in it (species then die out and branch), here we get a gap, there is no obvious direct connection, so we get a division into genera. I.e. branching into genera is more of a historical-geographical-intuitive-fun division-i.e. we choose signs for division and divide, which means it is subjective.

this makes sense

excuse me, I couldn't find what kind of view it is from India, thank you for your help .

Pictures:

nied__378_wiedzi__243_wka.jpg — (65.57к)

That's all... these are Crambinae-Heortia vitessoides

Pictures:

heortia.jpg — (46.54к)

Vladimir Viktorovich, is there any information on the collection of Rhyparioides metelkana (Lederer, 1861) in the European part of Russia??? In Anikin, Sachkov, and Zolotukhin (2000), the type is given only for the Astrakhan region, and even then with reference to the article Koenig (1985)!?? Here was information about the collection of this species in the Voronezh region, perhaps we have this species in the Volga region? Data on the biology and ecology of this rare species are very interesting. Thanks!!!

You are absolutely right: There is almost no information about the occurrence of Rhyparioides metelkana in European Russia. It was first found by the Village of Alferaki near Taganrog at the end of the XIX century. Copies from near Taganrog were also in the Duske collection, also of the XIX century. Recently, it was also indicated from Nedvigovka, Rostov region. For the Voronezh Region, this species is listed by Negrobov, Vodyanov, and Dubrovsky, but these are poor butterfly specialists. Negrobov is a dipterologist. One might recall the parable of the cobbler and the pies, the pie-maker and the boots. Of course, there is a possibility that he was not mistaken, but there is no photo of the butterfly from there... Some specimens of female Diacrisia sannio may be confused with female R. metelkana. Therefore, I believe that if a non-specialist cites a rare species, he is obliged to give an image of it. If the user makes a mistake in the definition, then others will use the photo to determine the exact view.

For the Astrakhan region, there is a single old reference from Koenig (1985) from Romania for the Volga Delta. I personally asked him in Gedolo in 1991 about the material, but he didn't remember anything.

There is also one specimen from Derbent in the ZIN collection, collected in 1928, but there are no more current data.

In the south-west of the Novosibirsk region, the species is constantly caught near the Krotovaya Lyaga Lake in the Karasuksky district. However, in the last 10 years, I have no fees from there. But I'm sure the species lives there.

There are also a few collection points in Ukraine (Dubno in Volhynia, Bobrovitsky district of Chernihiv region). But the most important place is the Dnieper delta in the Kherson region. They catch him there all the time.

But in the south of the Amur Region, in the Jewish Autonomous Region, in the south of the Khabarovsk Territory to Komsomolsk inclusive, as well as in Primorye, this species occurs constantly.

The biology of this species in Europe was "promoted" only by Koenig. Based on observations in Romania, he found out that this species lives on dense vegetation. Apparently, this is exactly the case in the Novosibirsk region. This should also be the case in European Russia. In particular, in the Amur region and Primorye, he lives in meadows. I fed the caterpillars only in Primorye, and they ate a standard set of herbs for bears - dandelion, plantain, legumes, etc.

Somewhere here on the forum there was a photo of metelkana from Chernihiv region. Ukraine. Oh yes, you've already seen it
So Negrobov and co. they may well be right.

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 05/21/2010 17: 50

Dear Vladimir Viktorovich, the report on the collection of Rhyparioides metelkana (Lederer, 1861) in the Voronezh Region was mine. I'm not an expert on bears, so I'm posting a photo below and asking you to confirm (or refute) my definition. Thank you in advance!

Pictures:

IMG_1905.JPG — (239.25к)

She, of course!

Thank you so much for the photo: yes, this is Rhyparioides metelkana. But it is very sad that the photo was not published earlier... This would have cleared up many questions long ago.

I looked at my database again: UNTIL TODAY, I knew ONLY references to the Voronezh Region in Negrobov's articles (2003 and 2004), as well as from the Inventory of Invertebrates of the Voronezh Region (2005), and the only point was different - "Bobrovsky, 18 km from Bobrov Island, "Listopadovka Village" is rare, only marked at one point. The edge of a mixed forest. Years in VI-VII". MANY THANKS FOR THE NEW POINT!

Volodya, there are new points for Eudiaphora turensis. Relevant?

Pictures:

Eudiaphora_turensis_0104_new_size.JPG — (84.68к)

Hello, Pavel! Of course, new points on Eudiaphora turensis are relevant. Unfortunately, I have already submitted to the press a Catalog of bears of Eurasia with point maps of their ranges. If the points are fundamental , I'll try to insert them.

Points in the western and central parts of the Syrdarya Karatau range and in the Syrdarya Valley in the Chimkent region. Not fundamental? From other dippers there came Syntomis cocandica, Eilema sp., Lacides spectabilis, Arctia festiva. Eilema take a picture, show. Maybe not her at all.

Freshly eaten (today's) Callimorpha dominula
caterpillar from May 1 from Chigasovo, Odintsovo district, Moscow region. I fed him nettles.

Pictures:

IMG_2893.JPG — (92.56к)

Dear forumchane!

A SENSATION!!! Tonight in Bychikha (Bolshekhekhtsirsky Nature Reserve) I caught a female Spilarctia alba Brem. et Grey (=robusta Leech)!!!!! As soon as I take a photo, I'll post it. I posted a photo of this species from China on page 6 of this forum. The butterfly is similar to the very large Spilarctia subcarnea, but there are BLACK DOTS on the tegulae! This species is widespread in Central and Southern China, but it has never been recorded north of Beijing. How long has it been since such sensational discoveries have been made among the bears? Now everyone needs to look for S. rubidum (=leucoptera), which is also the size of Chionarctia nivea, but the abdomen is completely red on top, and there are no black spots on the tegulae. The latter species must sooner or later be caught at least in the Southern Primorye! It is known in China from Tumen-Ula, about a dozen kilometers from the Russian border.

Freshly eaten (today's) Callimorpha dominula
...

and here is my freshly eaten

Pictures:

1.jpg — (98.29 k)


2.jpg — (49.94 k)


3.jpg — (60.68 k)

and here is my freshly eaten

freshly eaten, you mean?" )

Yes, just such a scoundrel once and I have instead of dominuli vyvelas

It's not a very good photo. If you need it, I can re-take it later.
Is it urticae? Compared to my lubrikiped series, the scallops on the whiskers are noticeably shorter plus there are no black spots on the hind wings.
Moscow region, Stupinsky district, Marinka, 28-30. 05. 2010

For AntScr: that's right, your Spilosoma urticae. It was very nice to see her. Thank you so much for the photo.

Now I keep my promise. Below I post a photo of a female Spilarctia alba Bremer et Grey; collected by me in Bychikha, Bolshekhekhtsirsky Reserve, early in the morning of June 15 this year. The butterfly's wingspan is 49.5 mm. Quite large, although smaller than the Chinese specimens I know of. The Khabarovsk copy also differs somewhat from the Chinese ones in a more developed black pattern. We need to understand. Too bad it's a female. However, there are black dots on the tags, so the definition is correct. You can expect the published information in the next issue of the Amur Zoological Journal.

Below, for comparison, is a female Spilarctia subcarnea from Cedar Paddy, August 3, 1968.

This post was edited by vvdubatolov - 18.06.2010 00: 58

Pictures:

Spilarctia_alba_Bychikha_14_15.06.2010.jpg — (117.71к)


Spilarctia_subcarnea_f_KP_3.08.1968_NPK.jpg — (126.25к)

Help me understand the views.
Caught in the second decade of May 2010, Central China. The first one was caught on the Chengdu-Beijing train. The second one is located in the Dabashan mountain system at an altitude of about 1.5 km. I assume that the second one is not a bear.

Pictures:

Бабочки_007.јрд — (191.77 k)


Бабочки_009.јрд — (184.8 k)

Help me understand the views.
Caught in the second decade of May 2010, Central China. The first one was caught on the Chengdu-Beijing train. The second one is located in the Dabashan mountain system at an altitude of about 1.5 km. I assume that the second one is not a bear.

1 Asota paliura Swinhoe, 1894-Scooper Aganainae

barko
Thanks!
Wow! And I was sure it was a bear!

It's done! Finally, I caught a very rare owner bear - Pericallia matronula L. (more than 10 years of searching!?). See the branch " Tales..."

The first indication of the discovery of this species in the Penza region should be considered the publication of an essay in the Red Book Volume 2. Animals, 2005.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 25.10.2010 11: 23

Pictures:

Penzenska_neverkinsky_Бикмурзино_июнь_2010.JPG — (238.98 k)

Among a series of purple bears caught on 12.06.10 in the Kasimov district of the Ryazan region, there was one unusual one. Can you tell me what it is-variability, aberration, shape?

This post was edited by vicgrr - 24.06.2010 10: 55

Pictures:

IMG_6305.jpg — (140.09к)

Among a series of purple bears caught on 12.06.10 in the Kasimov district of the Ryazan region, there was one unusual one. Can you tell me what it is-aberration, shape?

Which one do you think is unusual?