Jaundice (Colias)

PS Here, I found the software "bad views", Henri Descimon & James Mallet 2010. В частности по нашей проблеме: "Other repeated patterns in contact zones suggest 'suture zones' (Remington 1957) caused by secondary contact of whole faunas from different Pleistocene or earlier refuges, especially the Iberian ("Atlanto-Mediterranean"), and Italian + Balkans refuges ("Ponto-Mediterranean", de Lattin, 1957). Iphiclides podalirius and feisthameli, Pontia edusa and daplidice, Colias hyale and alfacariensis, Lycaena alciphron and gordius, Melitaea athalia and celadussa, and Melanargia galathea and lachesis, appear to belong to this сategory."

Good. What is the exact period of the Pleistocene? Too general words - "Pleistocene or even earlier refugia". There were a lot of them in 5 million years. Such "proofs" don't prove anything. On the contrary, they talk about the incompetence of the authors and the desire to "scare" the reader with the clever words "Pleistocene" and "refugium". I do not know either the first or second authors as good historical faunalists.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 27.11.2012 19: 30

But why doesn't this race want to eat alfalfa?

That was her problem. Doesn't want to and doesn't eat. In the case of H. and A., there are just a lot of reasons for dividing into species, but I can't get an answer from the alphacariens: are there hybrids between X. and A. or not? Is there a gradual transition from X to A. Among these hybrids? Are the hybrids fertile or not? The situation is similar with arion and cyanecula in the Novosibirsk region. They seek to give them a specific status. On the Bugotak Hills, typical Aryan and Central aryan species are mostly vikar in terms of biotopes (arion in meadows, cyanecula on steepened slopes). However, hybrids with gradual transitions from a typical arion to a typical cyanecule are common both here and in the Altai and in Khakassia, i.e., they show the usual infraspecific hybridization.

Good. What is the exact period of the Pleistocene? Too general words - "Pleistocene or even earlier refugia". There were a lot of them in 5 million years. Such "proofs" don't prove anything. On the contrary, they talk about the incompetence of the authors and the desire to "scare" the reader with the clever words "Pleistocene" and "refugium". I do not know either the first or second authors as good historical faunalists.

I was asked to refer to something, and I did. Maybe at least the Czechs and Slovaks compared their H. and A. by bar code? What I've seen is a contrast comparison (like X from Germany and A. from Greece).

So far, the only argument that hyale and alfakariensis are good species is a report about their cohabitation in the Volga steppes, but I do not know how much they behave as species there, and not as ecological subspecies (as, for example, in Slovakia). During the entire long discussion here on the forum, I never saw any evidence.

Alfakariensis is found in the steppes, and hiale is mainly found in meadows. There are many places in the Voronezh region (I don't know about the Volga steppes) where both species fly together - alfakariensis on the chalk hills, khiale on the meadows at their feet. At the same time. Geographical isolation is scanty - meters. Hiale fly to the hills, alfakariensis visit the meadow. There are many contacts at the border of biotopes. Why didn't they mix if it's the same species? In Slovakia-yes, mountains, geographical isolation. Subspecies of different species can be formed there. Here, where there is no isolation, how can they not mix? So there is pheromone and genetic isolation. So these are different types. We will now return to last year's discussion. Better read it again: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1288842. Otherwise, there will be repetitions. Weeks for 2-3.

Alfakariensis is found in the steppes, and hiale is mainly found in meadows. There are many places in the Voronezh region (I don't know about the Volga steppes) where both species fly together - alfakariensis on the chalk hills, khiale on the meadows at their feet. At the same time. Geographical isolation is scanty - meters. Hiale fly to the hills, alfakariensis visit the meadow. There are many contacts at the border of biotopes. Why didn't they mix if it's the same species? In Slovakia-yes, mountains, geographical isolation. Subspecies of different species can be formed there. Here, where there is no isolation, how can they not mix? So there is pheromone and genetic isolation. So these are different types. We will now return to last year's discussion. Better read it again: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1288842. Otherwise, there will be repetitions. For 2-3 weeks.

So I send them there, why do you pound water in a mortar? "alfakariensis in the chalk hills, chialeae in the meadows at their base. At the same time. Geographical isolation is scanty - meters." - this is not a reason to consider ecological subspecies as different species. Subspecies that I have recently encountered in the general range, but have not yet dissolved the features acquired during isolation. Almost the only way is to check for hybridization. Better, of course, is the comparison of genomes, but this is unlikely to be done now.

In fact, such cases are suitable for every taste. I would be more interested if H. and A. were ecopodispecies, but I like to compare the biology of twin species. And until an ironclad proof system is obtained, A. and H. will still be treated both ways, depending on personal preferences.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.11.2012 20: 03

An eco-weed is about the same as a gas station. A phenomenon that does not exist and cannot exist. It would be correct to talk about ecological forms. If the butterfly that eats lotus is different from the one that eats chinu, and vice versa, if they are grown oppositely , then what subspecies differences can we talk about?

An eco-weed is about the same as a gas station. A phenomenon that does not exist and cannot exist. It would be correct to talk about ecological forms. If the butterfly that eats lotus is different from the one that eats chinu, and vice versa, if they are grown oppositely , then what subspecies differences can we talk about?

but why sausage. subspecies can be different, as long as they differ and why sausage. subspecies can be different, as long as they differ in their areas in a broad sense; "Organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographical isolation or other factors." Then, you gave a contrasting example about "lotus" - but alfakariensis prefers vyazel, and hiale does not refuse it. Rather, they fly in the neighborhood, but in different stations. The Czechoslovaks have described it in great detail - their alfakariensis avoids anthropogenic landscapes, that's all. Of course, the term "ecological subspecies" is crooked, but in a free conversation it is probably acceptable. I also remembered one detail that was constantly mentioned in the discussion, but was not clarified: the difference between male genitalia. according to the general typology (for example, in satyrids, which generally have primitive genitalia, like whiteflies) in the contact zone, the closest species have the most contrasting genitalia, although in their "internal" ranges, the genitalia of one species may be much more similar to the genitalia of the sister species. but this only works if the genital differences are functional.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.11.2012 22: 03

[The genetic isolation of genitally indistinguishable twin species flying together is not an obstacle to frequent mating and hybrids between them. The fact that there are hybrids between them (X and A) (and in many other similar cases) everywhere in the places where they live together is beyond doubt. I'm even in the Tula region. on the northern border of the area "A" constantly catch something not this or that. I have material from the Voronezh Region that is supposedly derived from caterpillars of type "A", but butterflies of type"X". And a number of similar examples were given here. The fecundity of hybrids is important - this is precisely the indicator of genetic isolation. This fecundity has never been studied.
Pheromones can be some (not absolute) barrier to mating. No one has studied them either.
Genitalia " A "and" X " do not have any functional differences, unless what is given is differences, and not intraspecific variability. Females do not differ in them at all.
Apparently, the molecular analysis did not affect Eastern European populations. And what Western European ones I touched upon - it was quite a long time ago and, most likely, at such an imperfect level, when between the complete twins of edusa and daplidice it turns out as much as 8% instead of the expected 0.8, and between pairs of good species - about 1%. 8 instead of 0.8 can be used when the molecules are found to be unsuitable for analysis of butterflies or fungi. As is known, one gene (for example, CO1) may have a small (subspecific) divergence, while others may have a large one. See the works of Stradomsky and Vodolazhsky on how to conduct tests. CO1-only assays are not reliable.
Yes, we wrote almost all of this earlier, but it's easier to repeat than to search there.

I would venture to suggest that we are looking in the wrong direction.

We have two distinct life strategies (or preferences - for whom it is convenient). the first is xerophilic (alfacariensis). The second is mesophilic (hyala). In the Quaternary period, the biota of Europe changed many times - only 8 large glaciations of Europe are known, each of them radically changed the biotopes. The key biotope of the plakor glaciation is the periglacial tundra stage, which is a relatively xerophilic, depleted vegetation formation. I am inclined to consider it the original biota of alfakariensis. In the interglacial period, the tundra-steppes receded, and in their place zonal biota appeared - broad-leaved forests in the south, coniferous forests in the north. With the next glaciation, the biota changed dramatically, but since the tundra-steppes always accompanied glaciations and moved with them, alfakariensis also had the opportunity to survive; and to populate new landscapes with the arrival of the glacier. The hyala was preserved in small refugia or retreated further south into mesophilic lusolug formations that inevitably appeared on the tundra-steppe border. That's how they fluctuated in their areas to the south, then to the north, until the Dnieper glaciation came. Not only was it the largest placorean glaciation, but it also moved far to the south of the tundra-steppe and allowed xerophilus alfacariensis to gain a foothold in the zonal 9 (at that time - already) forest-steppes of southern Europe. Very important to note. that the Dnieper glaciation was accompanied by a rather sharp aridization of the climate of Central Asia and neighboring Kazakhstan, during which extensive arid landscapes were formed, which undoubtedly served for some time as a buffer zone for alfakariensis, from which it spread to the south of Western Siberia and the Urals, as well as to Dzungaria and Saur-Tarbagatai. Hyala, on the other hand, has been in the zone of its ecological optimum all this time and has remained in it to this day.

I hope that my rather muddled explanation is still clear, and it is clear why I consider both taxa to be completely unambiguously different species.

I would venture to suggest that we are looking in the wrong direction.

We have two distinct life strategies (or preferences - for whom it is convenient). the first is xerophilic (alfacariensis). The second is mesophilic (hyala). In the Quaternary period, the biota of Europe changed many times - only 8 large glaciations of Europe are known, each of them radically changed the biotopes. The key biotope of the plakor glaciation is the periglacial tundra stage, which is a relatively xerophilic, depleted vegetation formation. I am inclined to consider it the original biota of alfakariensis. In the interglacial period, the tundra-steppes receded, and in their place zonal biota appeared - broad-leaved forests in the south, coniferous forests in the north. With the next glaciation, the biota changed dramatically, but since the tundra-steppes always accompanied glaciations and moved with them, alfakariensis also had the opportunity to survive; and to populate new landscapes with the arrival of the glacier. The hyala was preserved in small refugia or retreated further south into mesophilic lusolug formations that inevitably appeared on the tundra-steppe border. That's how they fluctuated in their areas to the south, then to the north, until the Dnieper glaciation came. Not only was it the largest placorean glaciation, but it also moved far to the south of the tundra-steppe and allowed xerophilus alfacariensis to gain a foothold in the zonal 9 (at that time - already) forest-steppes of southern Europe. Very important to note. that the Dnieper glaciation was accompanied by a rather sharp aridization of the climate of Central Asia and neighboring Kazakhstan, during which extensive arid landscapes were formed, which undoubtedly served for some time as a buffer zone for alfakariensis, from which it spread to the south of Western Siberia and the Urals, as well as to Dzungaria and Saur-Tarbagatai. Hyala, on the other hand, has been in the zone of its ecological optimum all this time and has remained in it to this day.

I hope that my rather muddled explanation is still clear, and it is clear why I consider both taxa to be completely unambiguously different species.

yes, it is clear, but why does it follow that A. and X. are different species, and not recently encountered subspecies? each of the subspecies was formed in different conditions and adapted to them. hyale is a eurybiont, and xerophilic alfacariensis is re-adapting to new conditions in the eyes. To quote, excuse me, Wiki: "the differences between species and subspecies depend only on the probability that, in the absence of external obstacles, two populations will merge back into one, genetically unified population. They have nothing to do with how different the two groups appear to the human observer." In the meantime, there is no evidence that two populations do not merge into one, but "repel"before our eyes. The transitions between alfakariensis and khiale south of Moscow are quite gradual, with about a third of the transitional forms in the collections, which is why they seem to me to be different subspecies, not species. The fact that they have slightly different trophic preferences (I will emphasize once again - alfakariensis prefers vyazel, and does not eat exclusively vyazel; hiale eats any legumes) fits into the overall picture. I have never seen Alfakariensis from Southern Siberia, only from the Southern Urals

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.11.2012 23: 17

P.S. By the way, mixing two subspecies doesn't have to happen at the same rate and produce the same results across the entire border. Somewhere, alfakariensis chooses "native" dry sites, and therefore interacts less frequently with mesophilic chiale. Because there are too many such stations. In other places, it has already developed new biotopes, because there are few dry stations, not least due to hybridization!

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.11.2012 23: 13

The "periglacial tundra steppe" is a type of biogeocenosis that botanists now see on the Yu plateau. Yakutia and Altai. If so, then "A" together with her favorite elm tree would live there. But elm is a European steppe and forest - steppe plant, so the species associated with it are also such and survived the glaciers in the Mediterranean refugiums.
But "X" is not a mesophile, but a species with a wide hygropreference. It lives anywhere in the temperate zone where there is enough space. This one could live in warmer versions of the tundra steppe.
Indeed, situations have been described in which, when very close species come into contact, they are completely mixed in some places, but not in others. That is, they behave either as subspecies or as species. This is due to the different ages of populations and uneven genetic differences, the appearance of ethological and pheromone barriers. And it may take several human generations to determine whether the trend is towards a subspecies or a species.
But in this case, there is absolutely no geographical isolation; what is observed is similar to the secondary mixing of slightly divergent taxa.
In general, you need a good genetic analysis - and so you can endlessly guess on coffee grounds.

Here are a couple of Penza egg yolks that I once sent to the respected YUPK (Yuri Petrovich Korshunov) in Novosibirsk for identification. Bright memory to him!

Pictures:

___.jpg — (6к)



File/s:



 Image0019.tif

size: 2.08 mb
number of downloads: 410









 Image0026.tif

size: 2.11 mb
number of downloads: 475

The fact that there are hybrids between them (X and A) (and in many other similar cases) everywhere in the places where they live together is beyond doubt.

Why is it certain?

Why is it certain?

From the gradation of transitions. Moreover, both main external signs are quantitative - a greater degree of nigrism in both sexes (the border is wider, continuous on the wkr) and a more intense yellow coloration of males of alfacariensis. Northern populations of alphas are known, for example, near Grodno, but again it is not a fact that there are no hybrids with a predominance of the southern phenotype. NB The ecological difference between the taxa near Voronezh and in b. Czechoslovakia is different: in the Raven region, alfakariensis is xerophilic, chyale is eurybiont; in B-C, chyale flies everywhere, including in anthropogenic landscapes; alfakariensis prefers natural landscapes. This is a normal situation for a recent immigrant.

At the same time, for example, the observation from the Crimea, where only alfakariensis flies, but there are "hyaloid" individuals.:

"The relationship between coloration (and other wing pattern phenes) and the features of the valva structure is almost nonexistent (0.30 < P < 0.50). It is not surprising that the combination of wing coloration from the top and discal spot brightness, and finally, all the signs associated with the reduction of the dark pattern on the wings are combined with each other, which is natural for a complex of signs that have a common morphological and biochemical basis. It is well known that
features subject to parallelism, especially those associated with loss or reduction, should only be used with great caution (Mayr, 1971: p. 169).A noticeable development of a dark pattern on the wings (in particular, the presence of a wide dark border on the hind wings) is also observed in individuals that emerged from caterpillars that had the characteristics attributed to C. alfacariensis caterpillars: with four light longitudinal stripes. For example, on 03.08.1999, a heterozygous ♀ ab. inversa Alph was caught at the above-mentioned station 12 km from Simferopol. (yellow) with an almost reduced border of the rear wing. 06.08. she laid 25 cream-colored eggs, which turned red in 12-24 hours. 10.08. 16 caterpillars emerged from them, all but two of them died in the first instar, the remaining ones had four light longitudinal stripes and were fed by Coronilla varia L., they pupated on 28.08. , and on 06.09. of the same year, ♂ and ♀ (ab. inversa Alph.) emerged from the pupae with a well-developed hind wing border and with reduced light spots on the front edge, the dark edge of the front wing reached the tornal angle. It is possible that the degree of reduction of the dark pattern is influenced by the dryness of the feed: alfacariensis-like phenons are more often found on more xerophytic stations, on plakors, on calcareous soils; hyale-like phenons are more numerous on superaqual stations, in relief depressions. " (Milovanov and Zlotin, 2004:173).

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.11.2012 13: 49

From the gradation of transitions. Moreover, both main external signs are quantitative - a greater degree of nigrism in both sexes (the border is wider, continuous on the wkr) and a more intense yellow coloration of males of alfacariensis. Northern populations of alphas are known, for example, near Grodno, but again it is not a fact that there are no hybrids with a predominance of the southern phenotype.

what doesn't exactly prove hybridization is the "gradation of transitions". on the contrary, there should be a jump in the attribute, not a gradation.

what doesn't exactly prove hybridization is the "gradation of transitions". on the contrary, there should be a jump in the attribute, not a gradation.

What are you talking about? Interspecific hybrids just happen to have gradation. Especially on quantitative grounds. Between the arion and cyanecule, a gradual expansion of the area of bluish plaque on the underside of the zcr. There are intermediate populations between the subspecies of eros, some of the butterflies in which are greenish-blue. Between vostochnosib. subspecies of idas are characterized by a gradual increase in melanism. Etc.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.11.2012 14: 21

What are you talking about? Interspecific hybrids just happen to have gradation. Especially on quantitative grounds. Between the arion and cyanecule, a gradual expansion of the area of bluish plaque on the underside of the zcr. There are intermediate populations between the subspecies of eros, some of the butterflies in which are greenish-blue. Between vostochnosib. subspecies of idas are characterized by a gradual increase in melanism. Etc.

what is the term "interspecific hybrid"? offspring from individuals within the same species are normal, not hybrid.

what is the term "interspecific hybrid"? offspring from individuals within the same species are normal, not hybrid.

that is, breeders do not engage in hybridization? "Hybridization is the process of forming or producing hybrids, which is based on combining the genetic material of different cells in one cell. It can be carried out within the same species (intraspecific hybridization) and between different systematic groups (remote hybridization, in which different genomes are combined)"

we are talking about natural processes here, not artificial ones. what breeders do. it has nothing to do with the processes that occur in the native nature, except that the source material is removed from it. in nature, no one hybridizes anyone - a male of the same species fertilizes a female of the same species. it turns out offspring. it's simple )

"Geographical isolation is scanty-meters." - this is not a reason to consider ecological subspecies as different species.

Subspecies crossbreed and dissolve when one comes into contact with the other. Learn population biology first. Again, that was all said a year ago.
Oleg Kosterin:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1289693.
General discussion:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1288842
I don't want to continue the" series". Sorry.

Subspecies crossbreed and dissolve when one comes into contact with the other. Learn population biology first. Again, that was all said a year ago.
Oleg Kosterin:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1289693.
General discussion:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1288842
I don't want to continue the" series". Sorry.

They dissolve with the passage of time, remember the parapatric subspecies of other butterflies. For example, janira and jurtina have not been mutually dissolved for 300 years. The mixing of large populations, such as subspecies, begins with the formation of hybrids at the border. As for Kosterin's answer, he was presented with incomplete and inaccurate facts that, they say, these two types of jaundice are consistently opposed everywhere in a number of ways.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.11.2012 15: 37

we are talking about natural processes here, not artificial ones. what breeders do. it has nothing to do with the processes that occur in the native nature, except that the source material is removed from it. in nature, no one hybridizes anyone - a male of the same species fertilizes a female of the same species. it turns out offspring. it's simple )

Stanislav, ow! Well, there is no hybridization between 2 populations that have different phenotypes for a number of traits (resp. genotypes by allele)? No one, of course, forces them to communicate, but hybrid individuals are obtained, often with a Mendelian distribution. This often happens when hybridizing subspecies have extensive ranges, and the transfer of" foreign " alleles weakens as they move away from the common border. Neighboring populations also do not merge in an instant. There may be some factor (the same pheromones, by the way), because of which males (or females) prefer "their" partners, and "strangers" are less likely to participate in fertilization. The two subspecies may not have the same summer time, or they may have different feeding habits, which is why females are distributed in a mosaic over the territory, and so on. Thus, 2 populations do not hybridize evenly, but in parts and gradually.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.11.2012 19: 22

To the question of crocea-erate and beyond.
Colias crocea f. erate. Volgograd region.
Offspring of one female from the egg.
[attachmentid()=159744]
Colias crocea f. erate. Volgograd region.
Offspring of another female from the egg.
At numbers 1 and 2 are butterflies from the miracle taxon sareptensis according to Staudinger (not to be confused with alfacariensis).
[attachmentid()=159745]
Colias alfacariensis. Volgograd region. (Not to be confused with sareptensis by Staudinger).
Especially striking is the wide edge border on the front and rear fenders.
[attachmentid()=159746]

and where did your wonderful hyale pictures from one butterfly go? I would like to attach them here, for comparation

To the question of crocea-erate and beyond.

I was breeding "erate" from eggs this year. The phenotypes of the released males were almost the same, yellow females were also present, but there were no white females, but there were saffron ones.

and we have orange females are very rare.

Cf. Wild Yuri "Subspecies interbreed and dissolve in contact with one another." Even neighboring populations do not dissolve, otherwise crocea / erate would be homogeneous throughout the south.

and we have orange females are very rare.

Yellow females are relatively rare in the Crimea. Saffron and white ones are common, and subjectively it seems that there are more saffron ones. Or maybe they're just more obvious...

Stanislav, ow! Well, there is no hybridization between 2 populations that have different phenotypes for a number of traits (resp. genotypes by allele)? No one, of course, forces them to communicate, but hybrid individuals are obtained, often with a Mendelian distribution. This often happens when hybridizing subspecies have extensive ranges, and the transfer of" foreign " alleles weakens as they move away from the common border. Neighboring populations also do not merge in an instant. There may be some factor (the same pheromones, by the way), because of which males (or females) prefer "their" partners, and "strangers" are less likely to participate in fertilization. The two subspecies may not have the same summer time, or they may have different feeding habits, which is why females are distributed in a mosaic over the territory, and so on. Thus, 2 populations do not hybridize evenly, but in parts and gradually.

Different phenotypes do not mean different genotypes. This has been proven many times. I won't comment on anything else. We have different ideas about hybrids

To the question of crocea-erate and beyond.
Colias crocea f. erate. Volgograd region.
Offspring of one female from the egg.
[attachmentid()=159744]
Colias crocea f. erate. Volgograd region.
Offspring of another female from the egg.
At numbers 1 and 2 are butterflies from the miracle taxon sareptensis according to Staudinger (not to be confused with alfacariensis).
[attachmentid()=159745]
Colias alfacariensis. Volgograd region. (Not to be confused with sareptensis by Staudinger).
Especially striking is the wide edge border on the front and rear fenders.
[attachmentid()=159746]

I'll be in Berlin in January. Then let's look at what Staudinger meant by the name sareptensis. In the meantime, I suggest we wait.

Different phenotypes do not mean different genotypes. This has been proven many times. I won't comment on anything else. We have different ideas about hybrids

In practice, this is often the case : a "neutralization zone" is usually located at the border of large subspecies, in which the characteristics of both subspecies are combined, and "neighboring" phenotypes spread to the main territory inversely proportional to the distance from the border.

In practice, this is often the case : a "neutralization zone" is usually located at the border of large subspecies, in which the characteristics of both subspecies are combined, and "neighboring" phenotypes spread to the main territory inversely proportional to the distance from the border.

In the heyday of molecular research methods, it is time to start forgetting this archaic term - "phenotype".

In the heyday of molecular research methods, it is time to start forgetting this archaic term - "phenotype".

You can't sequence them all, and you can't catch them, but you can see them by sight. Population — a group of individuals within which the probability of crossing is many times higher than the probability of crossing with representatives of other groups of a given species. Therefore, "foreign" alleles in large populations do not spread immediately. The new allele is not fixed instantly.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.11.2012 22: 43

You can't sequence them all, and you can't catch them, but you can see them by sight. Population — a group of individuals within which the probability of crossing is many times higher than the probability of crossing with representatives of other groups of a given species. Therefore, "foreign" alleles in large populations do not spread immediately. The new allele is not fixed instantly.

What is visible to the eye may very well turn out to be an adaptation that is not fixed in any way genetically. B. V. Stradomsky has written a great deal on this topic in the topic about pigeons - it was after reading everything he wrote that I began to look very skeptically at everything that was described by barely noticeable differences. Familiarity with the genitalia of microchiptera also helps a lot - you immediately begin to understand that the border of the species in diurnal butterflies is incredibly blurred.

What is visible to the eye may very well turn out to be an adaptation that is not fixed in any way genetically. B. V. Stradomsky has written a great deal on this topic in the topic about pigeons - it was after reading everything he wrote that I began to look very skeptically at everything that was described by barely noticeable differences. Familiarity with the genitalia of microchiptera also helps a lot - you immediately begin to understand that the border of the species in diurnal butterflies is incredibly blurred.

I agree with that. But this does not mean that practical observation of the interaction of subspecies is a phantom. Stradomsky and Co., in their recent work on eros, seem to have unexpectedly shown that the Palearctic eros is a single species (excluding tsvetaevi). Kosterin and Ivonin and I felt the same way from our phenotypic observations. When our part of n-sib was released. The articles on golubyanki, which proved the conspecificity of eros-eroides-erotides, etc., in the articles of Stradomsky et. al., eros was still considered as a group of species. Thus, independent phenological and molecular studies have led to the same result. Of course, taxonomy by molecular traits is extremely attractive and has a bright future (when it is built on variants of "dormant" genes, the rate of fixation of which is constant and does not depend on selection, or by comparing genomes), but external features (including biology and ecology) also give the right picture, if they are carefully described and correctly interpreted. Anyway, I wouldn't ignore them and wait for global sequencing!

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.11.2012 13: 14

I agree with that. But this does not mean that practical observation of the interaction of subspecies is a phantom. Stradomsky and Co., in their recent work on eros, seem to have unexpectedly shown that the Palearctic eros is a single species (excluding tsvetaevi). Kosterin and Ivonin and I felt the same way from our phenotypic observations. When our part of n-sib was released. The articles on golubyanki, which proved the conspecificity of eros-eroides-erotides, etc., in the articles of Stradomsky et. al., eros was still considered as a group of species. Thus, independent phenological and molecular studies have led to the same result. Of course, taxonomy by molecular traits is extremely attractive and has a bright future (when it is built on variants of "dormant" genes, the rate of mutation and fixation of which is constant and does not depend on selection, or by comparing genomes), but external features (including biology and ecology) also give the right picture, if they are carefully described and analyzed. interpret it correctly. Anyway, I wouldn't ignore them and wait for global sequencing!

With all this, no one disputes. I am in favor of a comprehensive approach, and the issue of Eversmannia published recently shows this well .

This is in response to the question of whether mtDNA was tested for geographically close chyale and alfakariensis.

The reliable separation between C. alfacariensis and C. hyale based on wing morphology is hazardous, except the occasions in which several of the characters mentioned above can be found in a certain specimen. Such cases however appear not to be very frequent. Moreover, females (figs S3d,h) are even more similar and no reliable diagnostic character has been observed by us."

Therefore, it is not clear how they selected butterflies for analysis: "Because morphology-based identification is difficult in this group, we compared our sequences with those present in GenBank (results not shown) and found that the general tree topology is maintained, confirming our interpretation."

"DNA barcoding: The resulting tree (fig. S5) shows two well-diverged clades that can be attributed to C. hyale and C. alfacariensis, based on the few morphologically typical specimens. The six specimens in the C. hyale clade have identical barcodes and their minimum interspecific distance with respect to the sister C. alfacariensis clade is 2.65%. <...> With these data, we conclude that DNA barcoding is able to discriminate between the two species"

Экологическое распределение обычное: "According to our data, in Romania C. hyale prefers more humid and colder habitats compared to C. alfacariensis, although the separation in habitat niches is not at all absolute."

Cf. Wild Yuri "Subspecies interbreed and dissolve in contact with one another." Even neighboring populations do not dissolve, otherwise the crocea / erate would be homogeneous throughout the south.

Neighboring populations are geographically isolated. Accordingly, differences arise and are maintained. I also wrote about the CONTACT of populations. A wide front on the border of chalk hills and meadows. Such significant phenotypic differences (including especially in caterpillars) cannot be maintained by such a genetic exchange. If it is, as you say, a single view. These are again the basics of population biology. I asked you last time, but you didn't answer. Who are you by education?

Neighboring populations are geographically isolated. Accordingly, differences arise and are maintained. I also wrote about the CONTACT of populations. A wide front on the border of chalk hills and meadows. Such significant phenotypic differences (including especially in caterpillars) cannot be maintained by such a genetic exchange. If it is, as you say, a single view. These are again the basics of population biology. I asked you last time, but you didn't answer. Who are you by education?

Yes, no one, I graduated from elementary school once. But here's an interesting story, with these twin species. Between sinapis and reali (it now has a new name, I forgot), there is a similar ecological almost vicarity and a good distance by bar code (at least in Romania). In Romania and alf. ciales differ quite reliably in cytochrome oxidase, with almost no difference in appearance (NB). At the same time, gene exchange, apparently, although not intense, exists between synapis and realis - this is evident from the spring generation, in which males with synapis genitals are often "real" in their habit. Males with reali genitals always seem to have a "real" habit. Judging by the physiology, synapis males can fertilize reali females, but the opposite is unlikely. When the discussion about alfakariensis suddenly flares up again, I don't take a "conspecific" position at all - I just work as a "devil's advocate" when everyone is shouting general words in unison, not paying attention to interesting details.

And
you are told that there are different caterpillars, butterflies, genitals, biotopes, food plants, photos are given.
And what do you have, except "I don't believe it, Dzerzhinsky used to say to Lunacharsky during the interrogation."

Guk, why would you lie? I'm sorry, but I can't find a different word in this case, since you must have read this topic regularly last time)))

"We are told" that there are different caterpillars, biotopes, and forage plants, and this is doubtful. Or have genetalia and butterflies also begun to differ in the intervening time at a sufficient level of evidence?

Another "pundit" claims that subspecies immediately dissolve upon direct contact, without taking into account that butterflies usually have a pheromone recognition system for mating partners, and thus reproductive isolation can be maintained. And also the babochnik, who asks about education, when it is written about it in textbooks for school

In addition, while there is not at least such a study of caterpillars as conducted by okoem and kharkovbut, which is also quite doubtful for me personally, but still,
in the places described by Vilduriy, and performed by non-interested, independent people, I do not believe that there is no hybridization
well, + molecular studies to confirm.