Jaundice (Colias)

Wow. But my observations "from one clearing" (more precisely, from a series of "one clearings") in Bulgaria quite coincide with the Crimean Milovanova (2002), according to which "sympatric populations of C. crocea and C. erate are highly heteromorphic". And by what signs do you distinguish females?

I apologize for getting in, but still .. males were pulled for the edeagus, and I didn't see any females in any work...

I apologize for getting in, but still .. males were pulled for the edeagus, and I didn't see any females in any work...

For valva, however . Although it's a bit of a mess with her, too.
In Bulgaria, I remember that in practice they could be distinguished by an orange spot on the zkr. - in crocea pale, in erata bright, although I will not undertake to universalize the "field" sign. Just about their crocea Gennady Vasilyevich wrote that " 16 males in 15 years, the numbers speak for themselves, and no hints of females. Assuming that I miss them somehow doesn't work out." And how does he distinguish them from erate, so that he can be sure that he didn't miss them? The Germans find another (and obviously more correct than mine) distinction (since they have been specially studied): "Die weißen Weibchen von Colias erate unterscheiden sich von denen von C. croceus durch den bei C. croceus auf der Vorderflügel-Unterseite basal des Diskoidalflecks blass-gelblichen Tönung. Bei sehr hellen Faltern ist diese oft nur sehr geringfügig dunkler als die übrige Flügelfläche, aber doch stets erkennbar. Bei Colias erate ist allenfalls die Flügelwurzel gelblich bestäubt, die übrige Flügelfläche rein weiß." http://www.lepiforum.de/cgi-bin/lepiwiki.pl?Colias_Erate

This post was edited by sergenicko - 03.02.2012 20: 34

c clegg
Member



today, 18: 08 URL #384

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eight pages of the topic, four hundred posts, gorgeous photos of participants, excellent photos of okoem by alfakariensis and a bitter impression.
Either they don't read it, ignore it, or don't trust it.
But TOLMAN did. There is no prophet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just need the guys to get together and publish a normal article - what flashes on the Internet at best is not taken seriously, at worst it is "stolen" with anonymous links not to scrupulous researchers, but go to "Forum discussion".

c clegg
Member
today, 18: 08 URL #384

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eight pages of the topic, four hundred posts, gorgeous photos of participants, excellent photos of okoem by alfakariensis and a bitter impression.
Either they don't read it, ignore it, or don't trust it.
But TOLMAN did. There is no prophet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just need the guys to get together and publish a normal article - what flashes on the Internet at best is not taken seriously, at worst it is "stolen" with anonymous links not to scrupulous researchers, but go to "Forum discussion".

Well, you agree, "jaundice". I was interested in them once in my life - in Bulgaria, where Erate flew with crocea. I got the impression there that these are two species with homological variation - then I read the same thing about the Crimean ones in Milovanov. Well, with hiale/alfakariensis, Ivonin, Kosterin, Nikolaev understood for the article-to understand whether the latter is in the Novosibirsk region.; it turned out that it is not in the collections.

As for download Tolman, if anyone does not know where to get it-here is djvu in the torrent, http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3019648

This post was edited by sergenicko - 03.02.2012 22: 37

or you can go to some more understandable resource (sorry, my mind is poor and I couldn't put a rocking chair, etc.) like http://rghost.ru/

or you can go to some more understandable resource (sorry, my mind is poor and I couldn't put a rocking chair, etc.) like http://rghost.ru/

I do not know how else to download from a torrent, and there seems to be no other book anywhere for free. Set yourself, by downloading the utorrent program from the Internet (it is free), register on http://rutracker.org/forum/tracker.php and download it. There you will also find a car and a cart with the necessary literature (and useful free software), you just need to specify the full name if possible. And I will try to send Tolman to you personally, of course, via ghost!

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02/04/2012 00: 54

or you can go to some more understandable resource (sorry, my mind is poor and I couldn't put a rocking chair, etc.) like http://rghost.ru/

Take it, http://rghost.ru/36328891 Shelf life is 5 days.
And the torrent is not a rocking chair, but a source, from which you can download a hell of a lot of books for free.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 04.02.2012 06: 59

or you can go to some more understandable resource

Tolman http://ifile.it/zrdu3fg
The storage period is 30 days.

This post was edited by okoem-02/04/2012 01: 21

Males.
The valva shape works flawlessly, just have a good magnifying glass on hand.
But. I never use a single attribute. If one of the signs (see above) is missing, then the shape of the valva will also be transitional.
Females.
To the question "how did I identify females", I could answer simply: according to Tarbinsky.
But I would never take Tolman for this purpose!
Qualifiers are generally a good thing.
But, seriously, I had at hand a large series of crocea from the Krasnodar Territory. By the way, there was a certain erat-like female there, and at one time she greatly puzzled and annoyed me. Orange females are quite rare, less often than males three times, and the orange males themselves do not fly in flocks, and this can be seen from the numbers.
Photo of crocea taken from here.
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=214195#

Ah, if according to Bagbinsky, then you have determined the opposite . "The inner border of the black border of the pcrl. is steeply curved at both ends" -female erate; "The posterior end of the black border on the pcrl. is bent to the base in a more gentle arc" - female crocea. Please also check them by the German attribute - they seem to have it installed by series. I can't see it - there's no picture of the bottom of the front fenders.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02/04/2012 09: 09

There were 244 yellow erate females
and 127 white erate females.
Orange-45.
About fifty transitions of all stripes and varieties.
The building plan is the same for everyone, except for the color.

It means "equally at both ends" - see. In other words, erata, according to Tarbinsky, has the same shape of the ends of the border (your dark butterfly), and crocea has different ends (your light butterfly). And the quote is not about myrmidon, but this one.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 04.02.2012 11: 01

Pictures:

____________.jpg — (36.98к)

Well, there were pictures from the guk and there were no pictures. Where did they go? Now it is not clear what the conversation is about.

Meanwhile, females in different populations of erate and crocea differ precisely on the posterior edge of the border on the rscl. It is not clear what Tarbinsky meant by "steep" and "gentle" angles and the similarity/difference of the front and rear angles. In fact, in erate, the border on the anal edge of the pcrl. practically does not continue in the direction of the base (in bright specimens. it is visible only in the form of "sputtering"), while in crocea the border obviously continues along the anal edge to its quarter. This is especially evident in white females. Here, I borrowed pictures from posts 1-Orenburg erate (4 butterflies on top) and 32-Tuapse crocea (2 butterflies on the bottom). Differences in the same attribute (clearly visible in white forms) are depicted in Tolman (although this attribute is not described). Greek females crocea and erate differ in the same way.

This post was edited by sergenicko-04.02.2012 23: 28

Pictures:

erate________________________________________________________2000.jpg — (61.13к)


Crocea_________________.jpg — (301.14к)


Tolman_Crocea_f.jpg — (46.72к)


Tolman_Erate_f.jpg — (42.81к)


crocea_f_Greece.jpg — (26.5к)


erate_f_Greece.jpg — (22.63к)

I reread the discussion on egg yolks. I was accused of being an ignoramus, a troll, and a provocateur. I partially agree with the first two theses, but I don't agree with the third one, but this is not important. In the chernozem steppes, we have three complementary pairs (hyale/alfacariensis, erate/crocea, and chrysotheme/myrmidone), which are closely related species in pairs and can hypothetically mix. This is obviously done by erate and crocea, although it is obviously wrong to consider them as "forms of a single species" in populations of which one of the phenotypes randomly prevails. In Bulgaria, crocea (rather "pure") live without erate in mountainous areas, while on the plain they co-exist and actively mix, as in our Crimea. The same applies to erate in the South Urals - there they do not practically have "tiny" shapes. Myrmidone/chrysotemum are rarely found and have different forage plants, I have not heard of their hybridization. Hiale / alfacariensis form an intermediate type. Hybridization has not been studied simply because of the similarity of adults, nor has the progeny of caterpillars been studied. However, there is not only a trophic, but also a territorial distribution between them in parts of the southern regions. So, it is necessary to search for hybrids and measure the distance by alleles exchanged during crossing-over, in particular, in the Kharkiv and Voronezh regions. A large distance in DNA should not be confused - in Italy, the daplidice and edusa alleles are actively exchanged, between which in Germany there are huge 8.1% between non-contacting populations .

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.02.2012 18: 19

sergenicko, you be careful, here big and important uncles are going to start a witch hunt. There will be no mercy ))))

Of course, it's boring without discussions, but for me this topic is still exhausted - almost all oponnents are categorical in their professional denials. On the other hand, official science has so far both confirmed the species statuses A and D, with which today's reputable professionals agree, and confirmed (including in recent publications) the species statuses of crocea and erate, about which today's professionals speak sarcastically.
And in the end, for official science, it is not important how it really is, only what is written in a scientific publication is important. These are the realities of life. The life of my being ))))

sergenicko, you be careful, here big and important uncles are going to start a witch hunt. There will be no mercy ))))

Of course, it's boring without discussions, but for me this topic is still exhausted - almost all oponnents are categorical in their professional denials. On the other hand, official science has so far both confirmed the species statuses A and D, with which today's reputable professionals agree, and confirmed (including in recent publications) the species statuses of crocea and erate, about which today's professionals speak sarcastically.
And in the end, for official science, it is not important how it really is, only what is written in a scientific publication is important. These are the realities of life. The life of my being ))))

I don't care about uncles. About A/X, I wanted to understand the essence, and since the publications are fragmentary and tendentious, the forum is a good source. It is clear that they are separate species, but no one really knows what happens when they come into contact. For most, it was a joyful revelation that they are different, that there is no hiale in the Crimea, that they are sympatric near Voronezh and Kharkiv, etc. Plus, an erroneous opinion about the difference in imago resp. refusal to fix hybrids based on the butterfly habit. With crocea / erate, it is clearer, because the necessary studies were conducted and showed the expected results. Extreme points of view ("isolates with homologous variability " vs. "forms of one kind") is a routine part of scientific life.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.02.2012 16: 19

So, it is necessary to search for hybrids and measure the distance by (mt)DNA, in particular, in the Kharkiv and Voronezh regions. If it turns out to be close to the high German one (1.9 % - in Germany, the taxa are relatively isolated), then the species do not come into contact. If significantly less, then hybridization and allele exchange occur, and taxa behave like subspecies.

Do you think that if different species start actively interbreeding, then the distance along the CO1 gene will decrease? This is categorically incorrect. CO1 is a mitochondrial gene that is transmitted only through the maternal line, and unlike chromosomes, it is not crossed. If two different species cross, the resulting hybrid will have the CO1 gene from either the first or second species (depending on the mother). In the case of prolonged hybridization, usually one of the alleles in the population disappears, and only one CO1 genotype remains, as in the case of bellargus populations in eastern Europe. Never due to hybridization will the distance gradually decrease from 1.9%, say to 1.2%, then to 0.8% , etc. It will be either 1.9% or 0.0%.

mtDNA measurements are just a convenient indicator of the intensity of hybridization. Other alleles are also exchanged along the chromosomal line. So I wrote (mt)DNA, not mtDNA.

(mt) DNA or mtDNA is mitochondrial DNA by any definition. And it has nothing to do with chromosomal alleles. Furthermore, crossing over in chromosomal genes is most often not related to structural genes, so this effect is unlikely to be detected here either. Rather, we can talk about the presence of heterozygotes. But as the study of nuclear genes showed, somehow no heterozygotes were found in erate/crocea, i.e., most likely, they are also identical in nuclear genes (URL #121).

This post was edited by bora-05.02.2012 16: 50

If there is a constant "influx of fresh forces", then the maximum distance in COI (more precisely, in COI-COII) will decrease, but it will not necessarily "turn over".

Do you have any idea of Cebu's DNA structure, point mutations, etc.? There are no point mutations induced in the right direction in DNA. CO1 also does not have heterozygotes and crossovers. Does it depend on the Lord's will that a rapprochement will take place?

I can imagine. There are no induced mutations of this type, but there is a crossover. Obviously (in lit. in the sense of the word) the difference between erate and crocea in several ways, in the end, and in terms of environmental protection. inclinations. Otherwise, there would simply be no age-old certainty that these are different species. It is clear that the differences between them are minimal in a few genes - perhaps significant in others. If the population is open, then one of the alleles is not displaced from it. In isolated isolation, a single allele may remain due to drift.

Judging by what you write, you have no idea. Mitochondrial DNA does not cross over. And even if there was a crossing-over, it would occur between IDENTICAL Georgian ring-shaped DNA-and what happens when identical DNA is crossed?
No ecological differences were observed between erate and crocea in the Rostov region. They fly at identical times in identical biotopes in a 3:1 crocea/erate ratio.
As the practice of research shows, one of the CO1 alleles of the bellargus gene in ALL eastern Europe was replaced by the gene from corydon. So your categorical statements have once again failed.
You don't have to answer. I rarely go to the forum lately precisely because of the rampant militant amateurism here.

This post was edited by bora-05.02.2012 17: 20

Judging by what you write, you have no idea. Mitochondrial DNA does not cross over. And even if there was a crossing-over, it would occur between IDENTICAL Georgian ring-shaped DNA-and what happens when identical DNA is crossed?
No ecological differences were observed between erate and crocea in the Rostov region. They fly at identical times in identical biotopes in a 3:1 crocea/erate ratio.
As the practice of research shows, one of the CO1 alleles of the bellargus gene in ALL eastern Europe was replaced by the gene from corydon. So your categorical statements have once again failed.
You don't have to answer. I rarely go to the forum lately precisely because of the rampant militant amateurism here.

Yes, why, with pleasure.
Damn it, show me the place where I wrote about mtDNA crossing over? Your statement "The distance will never gradually decrease due to hybridization from 1.9%, for example, to 1.2%, then to 0.8% , etc. It will be either 1.9% or 0.0%" is not clear which of my statements is a criticism. I meant something else - the percentage of alleles A and B is different in different populations, and if in the "pure" one of the alleles is found mainly, then in the mixed ones the ratio of the two is different. Accordingly, approximately the same ratio will be found for alleles involved in crossing-over. But I put it really clumsily - it turned out that the alleged distances of 1.9 or 8.1% between the COI genes decrease during hybridization. My apologies.

In the Rostov region, according to your observations, there are no ecological differences between erate and crocea. According to observations In Bulgaria-there is, in the mountains there is no erate.
Bellargus has one (!)in all of Eastern Europe. the allele (it is still masculine) of the COI gene is replaced by the corydon allele, but it is not replaced by the Western one. Does this mean that Bellargus and Corydon are a single species? Your statements are categorical, not mine. From the practical identity of the 5 nuclear genes of closely related species, you conclude that they are conspecific. Are you sure about the other genes?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.02.2012 18: 16

mtDNA measurements are just a convenient indicator of the intensity of hybridization. Other alleles are also exchanged along the chromosomal line. So I wrote (mt)DNA, not mtDNA. Then, the picture you described is correct for an isolated mixed population. If there is a constant "influx of fresh forces", then the maximum distance in COI (more precisely, in COI-COII) will decrease, but it will not necessarily "turn over".

PS I have a stupid statement here - by "distance" I meant the percentage of butterflies with different alleles of the COI gene in the population, and not with the distance between the types of COI, it is invariable.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.02.2012 18: 25

And because of this clumsy statement of mine, the argument went to the analysis of who is a militant amateur here. I'm an amateur in genetics, of course, but I use its results and compare them with the results of other studies. It turns out that none of the traits, including genetic ones, is evidence of conspecificity and vice versa. The phylogenetic tree is not congruent to trees constructed by the distance between COI, nuclear genes, number of chromosomes, and so on. Active hybridization of bellargus and corydon for a long time did not lead to the fact that they became a single species, which means that there are factors preventing their complete fusion. The same applies to erata / crocea.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.02.2012 19: 08

I'm in general in a mental shock)))
It turns out the logic is this: if there are differences between A and D of about 2%, then acc. The difference between A and A is 0%.
This leads to two very interesting consequences.

First, if for some reason hybridization occurs with a predominant crossing of only males of G, for example, with females of A, then in the end, the analysis for this CO1 of yours will be powerless, and will show the "purity" of population A despite crossing with males from G, I understand correctly?

Second, imagine a situation where interbreeding occurs very dynamically and equidistant between A and D, and females and males interbreed evenly. According to the initial conditions, if male A crosses with female G, then the mitochondrial genotype of the offspring is obtained of type G, if male G crosses with female A,then the offspring is obtained correspondingly. everything is type A.
With the uniformity of this process, this is something like a reversible chemical reaction - substances react with each other and immediately react "back"- as a result, it seems that the composition of the mixture does not change, but the reaction goes on!

As a result, it turns out that if we study populations A and D using this method, then it is impossible to detect the fact of crossing, and with a rather weak intensity of crossing, the displacement of one of the CO1 types is a long process, well, not 2-3 seasons at all, but rather 2-3 thousand years.
And then what is the point of all this? Maybe I don't understand something?

I'm in general in a mental shock)))
It turns out the logic is this: if there are differences between A and D of about 2%, then acc. The difference between A and A is 0%.
This leads to two very interesting consequences.

First, if for some reason hybridization occurs with a predominant crossing of only males of G, for example, with females of A, then in the end, the analysis for this CO1 of yours will be powerless, and will show the "purity" of population A despite crossing with males from G, I understand correctly?

Second, imagine a situation where interbreeding occurs very dynamically and equidistant between A and D, and females and males interbreed evenly. According to the initial conditions, if male A crosses with female G, then the mitochondrial genotype of the offspring is obtained of type G, if male G crosses with female A,then the offspring is obtained correspondingly. everything is type A.
With the uniformity of this process, this is something like a reversible chemical reaction - substances react with each other and immediately react "back"- as a result, it seems that the composition of the mixture does not change, but the reaction goes on!

As a result, it turns out that if we study populations A and D using this method, then it is impossible to detect the fact of crossing, and with a rather weak intensity of crossing, the displacement of one of the CO1 types is a long process, well, not 2-3 seasons at all, but rather 2-3 thousand years.
And then what is the point of all this? Maybe I don't understand something?

In my opinion, the percentage of females with different mtDNAs in a population is just a convenient way to estimate the intensity of hybridization. If you have, on the one hand, pure populations of A and D butterflies, which are slightly different in appearance and biology, and on the other hand, a supposedly hybrid one, in which 40% of A-type females and 60% of G-type females, then it makes sense to study this population for other alleles that are not related to sex and gender. they participate in crossovers. If active gene exchange occurs at this level, then the population is really hybrid. And the presence of different females in the same clearing in itself does not prove anything - you will be told that this is the coexistence of two species.

I am interested in whether it is possible to determine the presence of hybridization using the method of analysis of mitochondrial genes, on the basis of which, as I understand it, there was a cladogram provided above?

Of course, I would very much like to get an answer from bora, it seems that there is no need to describe the subtleties, just answer yes or no. Because I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking.

I am interested in whether it is possible to determine the presence of hybridization using the method of analysis of mitochondrial genes, on the basis of which, as I understand it, there was a cladogram provided above?

Of course, I would very much like to get an answer from bora, it seems that there is no need to describe the subtleties, just answer yes or no. Because I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking.

With a high probability, it is possible to use CO1, and with an even higher probability, it is also good to attract nuclear genes.

All this added to my interest in seeing what we were doing with these A's and G
's And slightly shook my faith and hope in molecular taxonomy
I still had an opinion - this is certainly good, but until the full sequence from each individual is done "easily and simply" - all this has all sorts of nuances...

All this added to my interest in seeing what we were doing with these A's and G
's And slightly shook my faith and hope in molecular taxonomy
I still had an opinion - this is certainly good, but until the full sequence from each individual is done "easily and simply" - all this has all sorts of nuances...

The persistent denial by observers of hybridization between A and D, especially the absence of "transitional" caterpillars, is a bell - probably a reproductive barrier between species.

There was a persistent denial of any possibility that these are subspecies, or there is no hyale species in Ukraine. As for interbreeding as an observable fact, the participants in the dispute have nothing, since I understood that no one made such observations.
And there is very little data about the transition forms of caterpillars.

Yes, in the West it has already become "easy and simple" - as a result, we have a shaft of publications in which contradictory data on the divergence of taxa, and when analyzing groups, it is impossible to see identical cladograms from time to time - each one has its own. This is, as one of my bosses used to say, "not for average minds."

There was a persistent denial of any possibility that these are subspecies, or there is no hyale species in Ukraine. As for interbreeding as an observable fact, the participants in the dispute have nothing, since I understood that no one made such observations.
And there is very little data about the transitional forms of caterpillars.

That's exactly why I got caught up in this discussion. And the fact that both taxa are absent in the south of Ukraine is quite likely. But since they differ quite well in appearance, you can look at the collections.

That's exactly why I got caught up in this discussion. And the fact that both taxa are absent in the south of Ukraine is quite likely. But since they differ quite well in appearance, you can look at the collections. I thought they were normal subspecies, since even in their" classic " contact area - Czechoslovakia - they are ecologically complementary. But we received information from Kharkiv and Voronezh that they fly together on a large territory there.

As it is-both are not present This is a provocation ))) If not, then there is only one, specifically the hyale, and our experts say that there seem to be differences in morphology (males have a border), but they are very ambiguous. Although the French article shows a number of features that seem to be morphologically significantly different from the adult.

As it is-both are not present This is a provocation ))) If not, then there is only one, specifically the hyale, and our experts say that there seem to be differences in morphology (males have a border), but they are very ambiguous. Although the French article shows a number of features that seem to be morphologically significantly different from the adult.

"Both" in the sense of "both together" I, as an expert on the butterflies I have seen, say that there are stable differences in our own. There are disputed instances, but there are also some between reliable species.

  

By the way, I do not know what is the basis of the opinion that about a third of A and X are indistinguishable in appearance. However, I have only seen a series of places where the two species do not meet. Recently on the forum there were pictures of AGG from the Tambov region (post 381). From the extreme south (near Muchkapa) obvious alfacariensis, from other places hyale.

In general, everything is always clear in theory, but in practice... I got to the forum in response to a request from penzyak to estimate the probability of catching Euryale near Serdobsk. As a" big expert " on euryale, I naturally shouted that this could not be, especially since the butterfly's appearance is rather Carpathian. Now I am tormented by doubts. The nearest locality is yug Nizhegorod. However, I do not know what the appearance of the local females is. Maybe the Penza find is "hooray! " and not"alas!"

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.02.2012 22: 59

Thank you for being with us now! "Fresh blood is always needed, especially like this... don't take it as sarcasm, but for the sake of respect. as one smart guy used to say, "truth is born in disputes" so you believed in alfacariensis and we'll deal with erata later
ps it's great to see such a resource growing and developing before your very eyes=platform=molbiol! respect to the people who organized all this and then pigeon mail, or even worse-Russian post, and many / days/money travels

Thank you for being with us now! "Fresh blood is always needed, especially like this... don't take it as sarcasm, but for the sake of respect. as one smart guy used to say, "truth is born in disputes" so you believed in alfacariensis and we'll deal with erata later
ps it's great to see such a resource growing and developing before your very eyes=platform=molbiol! respect to the people who organized all this and then pigeon mail, or even worse-Russian post, and many / days/money trips

Thanks! I tend to "believe" in alfacariensis as a separate species because of the Kharkiv and Voronezh regions. But for some reason, there are still no pictures of sympatric A and X on the forum. They are as clearly distinguished there as in Tambov, or there are misunderstandings, and what is the percentage of misunderstandings?

Hybridization.
This concept is used with tremendous persistence in an attempt to prove the independence or non-independence of species.
In the Volgograd region, there is hybridization between bellargus and corydon, and these hybrids are prolific. So what? What, based on this, do we conclude that this is a single species? Nothing like that! There is only one conclusion: these species are capable of producing fertile hybrids. The mechanism of this and the further fate of these hybrids is a separate conversation.

As far as I remember, there was a discussion of hyale and alfacariensis, and it was about the reproductive barrier between them, whether there is one or not. Different periods of summer or preference for different stations are already a barrier, which dramatically reduces the importance of even prolific hybrids in populations. The absence of hybrids would benefit advocates of the non-specificity of these taxa. That's all. I did not notice in the discussion the statement that there are no fertile hybrids between closely related species.

Genetics.
We have a powerful tool in our hands, but with the same tenacity, we do not want to notice its (tool's) capabilities. And instead of thinking about the results of the analysis, we say, nonsense, I see, a centuries-old tradition.

Again, who wrote here that this is nonsense. The question of whether the COI gene distance between closely related populations can be used to prove that they belong to different species was discussed, and an approximate threshold of 2% was cited. Tradition is also not the last argument - "scientific intuition" and" common sense " are arguments.

Populations.
Nature doesn't care about species, it measures populations, and in each particular population, processes occur in their own way, and anyone who has been in the field with "open eyes" knows this perfectly well. But we make an assumption and combine similar populations into a single species. And here genetics tells us that we are not so far off in our assumptions, since the genetic differences in hundreds of populations of the same species that are thousands of kilometers apart are negligible, and in the same population they simply do not exist, and this has been tested on hundreds of species.
Based on all this, we need to think about why we see such a picture in the crocea-erate pair, and this picture is different in different populations.

Right. But still, these butterflies do not live in the same area under the same conditions, where it is rational to assume random drifts in arbitrary populations. In Bulgaria, there are only crocea in the mountains, and both species in the plain. I don't know about genetics, I haven't seen any publications. I understand your hypothesis because a situation similar to crocea/erate exists between many other diurnal butterfly species, and how to formally distinguish the cases of crocea/erate and corydon / bellargus is still unclear to me.

Specialist.
My limited life experience has convinced me of such a simple thing.
When I turn to a specialist for help or advice, I listen to them with my eyes and ears open, memorize or write down unfamiliar words and learn their meaning. But in no case do I try to give advice on a planetary scale, so that in the eyes of a specialist, and even more so in my own, I do not look like a ball.

I totally agree with you. But there is such a method of teaching when the student gives stupid answers, and the teacher explains what their idiocy is. You probably mean aggressive ignoramuses - those who not only put forward idiotic hypotheses, but also promote them. The forum genre, fortunately, excludes the latter, but involves educating idiots. We are all ignoramuses in areas in which we are not highly specialized.

Allele is still a feminine noun, she, my.

In the literary Russian language (believe me, an expert), the allele is masculine, according to all authoritative dictionaries. In the specialized literature, as a rule, there are also "two alleles","dominant allele". In the "Biological Academic Dictionary": "For example, in the famous experiments of G. Mendel on crossing peas, the smooth shape of seeds was determined by the dominant allele (denoted A), and the alternative trait – the wrinkled shape – by the recessive allele (denoted a)." -- http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/dic_biology/

This post was edited by sergenicko - 06.02.2012 16: 07

In the Volgograd region, there is hybridization between bellargus and corydon, and these hybrids are prolific.

Interesting! Where does the information come from?

Interesting! Where does the information come from?

bora post 406 "If two different species cross, the resulting hybrid will have the CO1 gene from either the first or second species (depending on the mother). In the case of prolonged hybridization, usually one of the alleles in the population disappears, and only one CO1 genotype remains, as in the case of bellargus populations in eastern Europe."This means hybridization with corydon. But there is no link. For reference: in Germany, between Bellargus and Corydon on COI 1.2% and the exchange of this gene in them, apparently, was not detected http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/spix34_1_08.pdf.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 06.02.2012 16: 46

Perhaps this is an illustration of the fact that " there is no rule without exceptions." The Germans cite three curious cases in the final article (Hausmann et al. http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/spix34_1_08.pdf). The Bavarian C. croceus is identical in COI to C. erate from other countries. However, they did not study the Bavarian C. erate on this subject - I wonder if there are any recent data? At the same time, crocea and erate are generally different for them. COI exchange in Germany occurs between Phyllodesma illicifolia and P. tremulae, which differ quite well in habit and well in caterpillars and ecology. A contrasting case is Pontia edusa and daplidice, between which (German edusa and Spanish daplidice) an exorbitant 8.1%, but which do not differ significantly (even genitalic differences are not constant), and in Italy they have a hybridization zone.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 06.02.2012 17: 58