Jaundice (Colias)

It turns out to be an interesting discussion.
It all started when I noticed that only a blind person could describe sareptensis according to Staudinger and Alferaki for alfacariensis.
And it is absolutely unnecessary to accuse these famous scientists of such incompetence.
And where Korshunov got it from, Sergey Nikolaevich knows best, he helped him.
The train, they say, has left. What train? And where did he go?
I felt kind of purple.
You are told that there are different caterpillars, butterflies, genitals, biotopes, and food plants, and you are given photos.
And what do you have, except "I don't believe it, Dzerzhinsky used to say to Lunacharsky during the interrogation."

You seem to be confused about who wrote what! Staudinger, judging by the picture, most likely described erate (similar to alfacariensis), Alferaki probably described alfacariensis (although it is necessary to study the series and sequence mtDNA), and the dispute was whether to declare to the Commission and not to prove to them that Sht. someone described described as sareptensis I dealt with this for Korshunov and my name is Sergey Lvovich., and not Nikolaich "The train has left" in the sense that it is unlikely that the commission will reconsider its decision, the situation is complicated, and the re-decision will confuse it even more. At least about alfacariensis we know exactly who it is.
About Romania in vain you are funny, because it is not far and similar. In appearance, only the "extreme" forms of A and X differ, they differ poorly in genitals, and they seem to be good in caterpillars. And they definitely have a good 2.5% for cytochrome oxidase. But the general chorus was that Alf. and hiale we reliably differ in appearance! And in the Crimea, the situation is the same as in Romania - even the dryness / humidity of the feed depends on whether "alfakari -" or "hyaloobrazny" will blow out the imago. But I don't know what's on the label. So we need to finally sort out our own material, and then go to the commission!

guk, we are talking about specific, clear morphological/anatomical differences in butterflies, which should be present in normal species.
So far, such differences are clear to me only in terms of tracks.

Here I promised that I would catch some butterflies, presumably alfakariensis, since we do not have presumably hyale, as well as ka ki in the Crimea.
I caught about 20 individuals, females and males, they are similar to both those and those.
Here I have a question, to all experts, whether I will be able only having butterflies, on a simple, clear and accurate sign/signs, to define that it at me 100%, let's say, alfacariesnsis, without involvement of caterpillars?

Only preferably without spatial reasoning, but in the yes/no style, and if so, then a link to the method.

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.

In my opinion, if there is reproductive isolation, then it is no longer subspecies, but species. And subspecies - let's say-are "geographical forms" of the species.

The same dream again!

Or erate, what difference does it make now? There is a lectotype, and it is alfacariensis. For example, you are sure that you can distinguish two contrasting views by eye, but in other places they are not contrasting, and you don't even know where there are 2 of them and where there is one. In Romania, they are not exactly contrasting, in the Crimea there seems to be one alfacariensis, but there are "chial-like" forms, and there are observations of the conditions under which they arise. And gene exchange between A and X is not excluded at all.

guk, we are talking about specific, clear morphological/anatomical differences in butterflies, which should be present in normal species.
So far, such differences are clear to me only in terms of tracks.

Here I promised that I would catch some butterflies, presumably alfakariensis, since we do not have presumably hyale, as well as ka ki in the Crimea.
I caught about 20 individuals, females and males, they are similar to both those and those.
Here I have a question, to all experts, whether I will be able only having butterflies, on a simple, clear and accurate sign/signs, to define that it at me 100%, let's say, alfacariesnsis, without involvement of caterpillars?

Only preferably without spatial reasoning, but in the yes/no style, and if so, then a link to the method.

I believe almost none. Distinguish the extreme forms, and in the middle there will be a "swamp", which you will break only with bar coding. If it doesn't show that you have a single polymorphic type.

okoem, we have already passed about the fact that there is questionable, really again on the new, again quarrel

Subspecies and species - this is what the venerable taxonomists will call it. A purely bureaucratic concept In REAL biology and ecology, such concepts should not exist at all.
But in general, in theory, as I understand it, a subspecies is also a newly emerged population that has acquired reproductive isolation in one way or another. In the beginning, this may have been geographically determined, then it is maintained at the level of pheromones, but so far these populations have not progressed on their way so far as to be called the proud word "species" and look different

"Are there any reliable facts, studies?"
I think this is a question not for me but for VildUrii

we are talking about specific, clear morphological/anatomical differences in butterflies, which should be present in normal species.

Alas, there are species that are not distinguishable by their genitals.

okoem, we have already passed about the fact that there is questionable, really again on the new, again quarrel

No, why quarrel Just give the link to the message.

This post was edited by okoem - 29.11.2012 19: 14

In general, it may be that on the Wildurian terenes, these alfacariensis and hyale are already really on the verge of what can be called a "species", unless of course hybridization is not real at all, but in other places there may be regular exchanges between these subspecies, regular-this does not mean once a year)) This can happen once in a millennium. But because of this, these subspecies never became a species in those places.

So far, local researchers have not responded to the EPA's questions about whether there are hybrids between these "species" and what are the caterpillars of these hybrids, what are the differences in caterpillars depending on the female/male hybrids and vice versa, whether these hybrids produce offspring or they are infertile in the second generation.
Korche, the topic of hybridization is not disclosed
In addition, the topic of what kind of caterpillars will be if they are still transplanted or planted on a forage plant of another "species"is not disclosed.

okoem, this is not suitable for me personally

"It depends on the experience of the determinant, above in the topic there was a 100% correct definition of my butterflies. But, apparently, it is not always possible to determine 100%."

I have no experience, I mean the keys that will determine everyone who has some general concept of entomology. Or it means that you need to say that there are no such keys for these "types". It is clear that this happens, so I ask for this reason.

Okay, I'll find the link to the message later. But read what I wrote just above

And the difference is that there is a year of description, and in this description Russian words are written in Russian letters, and if someone wants to read this original description, there will be no limit to their surprise.
Or someone with Korshunov's book in their hands will search for the black cat for a long time and without success.

It seems to me that you should write an article about this with a full analysis of flights. But I don't understand why to include a commission - it's convenient for everyone to call the butterfly alfakareinzis. Recently it was called Australis, somehow retrained, and now again to rename it?

the topic of what kind of caterpillars will be if they are still transplanted or planted on a forage plant of another "species"is not disclosed.

I don't know anything about hybrids (whether they exist or not).
At the expense of caterpillars-caterpillar A refuses to eat other legumes, caterpillar X-eats various legumes. It doesn't affect her appearance.

In general, it may be that on the Wildurian terenes, these alfacariensis and hyale are already really on the verge of what can be called a "species", unless of course hybridization is not real at all, but in other places there may be regular exchanges between these subspecies, regular-this does not mean once a year)) This can happen once in a millennium. But because of this, these subspecies never became a species in those places.

So far, local researchers have not responded to the EPA's questions about whether there are hybrids between these "species" and what are the caterpillars of these hybrids, what are the differences in caterpillars depending on the female/male hybrids and vice versa, whether these hybrids produce offspring or they are infertile in the second generation.
Korche, the topic of hybridization is not disclosed
In addition, the topic of what kind of caterpillars will be if they are still transplanted or planted on a forage plant of another "species"is not disclosed.

So I write in the same spirit, and I am declared an enemy of progressive humanity. In most of our territory, it is generally unknown who is flying, it would be worth investigating first. What about the slow-burning hybridization of a similar pair (sinapis and reali) http://elibrary.ru/download/63737924.pdf - of course, the arguments on the topic of genetics there are not mine, but Kosterin's, you can trust. By the way, about ontogenesis it is correctly emphasized - the results of Milovanov et al.

it doesn't suit me personally

I have no experience, I mean the keys that will determine everyone who has some general concept of entomology. Or it means that you need to say that there are no such keys for these "types". It is clear that this happens, so I ask for this reason.

Alas, there are so many types of butterflies that can only be identified with experience. Nature, when creating butterflies, did not always take care to give them clearly visible differences for humans.

This post was edited by okoem - 29.11.2012 19: 38

You can cite dozens of species where you can't just identify them.
What can I recommend?
To begin with, it is normal to straighten.
Read Normal books. Compare it with what you have.
View images. Compare it with what you have.
Buy at least a strong magnifying glass.
View the garpa. Compare it with what you have.
Think about it.
And then according to circumstances.
I won't write to you about caterpillars or any other research.

In Romania, we looked through a magnifying glass and found no stable differences - and Romania, I repeat, is not far from the Black Earth region and is not fenced off by the Himalayas. And in Romania, they studied butterflies decomposed into two heaps by mtDNA, rather than by appearance, which is unstable. The way to distinguish between "one-egg series", of course, is also unreliable, since the difference in imago in them does not necessarily indicate non-specificity. However, there are no" normal " books on the subject of in question.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.11.2012 19: 36

I wasn't going to rename anything, I'm just categorically against using this combination saretensis Alpheraky, 1975. That's all.
Researchers of this magnitude should be respected.
Otherwise, Alferaki writes about one thing, and Grieshuber attributes something completely different to him.

That's a different matter, and I totally agree with you on that. Still, you should write about it in the journal.

So, those definitions that I should take on faith solely based on the experience of a specialist are always doubtful for me. I can't confirm this on the basis of simple criteria, or my own experience, and therefore I have to believe the "authority". But I am NOT in the official scientific field, so I can afford to doubt even if the Great and Mighty One said so (enter your full name) , alas

Hooke's algorithm doesn't suit me either. I can only spread out a photo and post it here with such success. Even if I make a determination in this way my results will be mega doubtful and first of all for myself

And so, there are no signs that allow us to distinguish these imagos reliably.

This post was edited by Hierophis - 29.11.2012 19: 40

  
At the expense of caterpillars-caterpillar A refuses to eat other legumes, caterpillar X-eats various legumes. It doesn't affect her appearance.

I think he refuses because it wasn't suggested that way. Well, I will, if everything is normal. Next season I will try to feed our caterpillars with "other legumes"
So far, I decided to try to fulfill my promise about butterflies, but as soon as it gets really cold, I'll mess with them, boil them and see what's there, otherwise I caught them and don't disappear..

So, those definitions that I should take on faith solely based on the experience of a specialist are always doubtful for me. I can't confirm this on the basis of simple criteria, or my own experience, and therefore I have to believe the "authority". But I am NOT in the official scientific field, so I can afford to doubt even if the Great and Mighty One said so (enter your full name) , alas

It is both possible and necessary to doubt. And experts are also wrong. No one is obligated to believe.
Or contact a specialist whom you trust or do not be lazy to delve into the issue yourself, using as many methods/criteria as possible.

This is because you and he wrote articles together, of course, in this case YOU NEED to trust, we call it " hand in hand... "Krugova poruka scientific, in short kazhuchi)))

You misunderstood me: here on the forum I am being bullied for incompetence, so at least Kosterin has a higher biological education, an academic degree and heads the department at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics. And whether he is right, you should evaluate.

Or erate, what difference does it make now? There is a lectotype, and it is alfacariensis. For example, you are sure that you can distinguish two contrasting views by eye, but in other places they are not contrasting, and you don't even know where there are 2 of them and where there is one. In Romania, they are not exactly contrasting, in the Crimea there seems to be one alfacariensis, but there are "chial-like" forms, and there are observations of the conditions under which they arise. And gene exchange between A and X is not excluded at all.

The lectotype designation is invalid. Point. And in January, I will actually prove this by designating a valid lectotype.

The lectotype designation is invalid. Point. And in January, I will actually prove this by designating a valid lectotype.

45.6.2. the name is considered an infraspecific if the author used the term "aberratio" or "morpha", or their equivalents in another language or an abbreviation (for example,"ab."). Example: The name pallasii in Arvicola amphibius ab. pallasii, published by Ognev (1911), is an infraspecific; as the name of a species group, it should be attributed to Ognev (1950), who first made it suitable by using it for the subspecies, Arvicola terrestris pallasii."

Since in our case this step was taken by Alferaki, the subspecies name saretensis is his. The lectotype is denoted from syntypes, and the Staudinger and Alferaki topotypes are syntypes. So is Grieshuber right de jure? Alferaki 1) raised the taxon to an infravidal one, and 2) gave it his own description.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.11.2012 22: 47

I will supplement the previously posted males with females.
Colias alfacariensis (Ribbe, 1905)
Crimea, Kerch Peninsula, Kholmogorka district, December 23-27, 2009, ex. larva.

... and genital preparations.

I thought about it and found it.
All three: 15 Sep. 2008, Kharkiv, p. Pyatikhatki.
Butterflies were collected in a damp forest gully, where P. argyrognomon, N. sappho, and A. allous also flew.
hyale or not, I don't know, but alfacariensis for the Kharkiv region, in my opinion, has not yet been cited, and the biotope for it seems to be not suitable.

Vladimir, can you post the genitals of females of these two species?

45.6.2. the name is considered an infraspecific if the author used the term "aberratio" or "morpha", or their equivalents in another language or an abbreviation (for example,"ab."). Example: The name pallasii in Arvicola amphibius ab. pallasii, published by Ognev (1911), is an infraspecific; as the name of a species group, it should be attributed to Ognev (1950), who first made it suitable by using it for the subspecies, Arvicola terrestris pallasii."

Since in our case this step was taken by Alferaki, the subspecies name saretensis is his. The lectotype is denoted from syntypes, and the Staudinger and Alferaki topotypes are syntypes. So is Grieshuber right de jure? Alferaki 1) raised the taxon to an infravidal one, and 2) gave it his own description.

Good day.

Topotype - an instance that originates from a typical location, but is not related to the type series.
Syntype - an instance that originates from a type series with an undelected nomenclature type.

Question: Why did you (and Grieshuber) decide that the specimens Alferaki worked with are syntypes of the Staudinger taxon? The fact that Alferaki raised the status of a taxon only affects its authorship! The standard material remains the one on the basis of which the original description was made - and it doesn't matter if it's a form, an aberration, or a synonym.

de facto it turns out (after all, I explain again. I'm tired already...)

1. Staudinger established a taxon based on specimens from his collection.
2. Alferaki changed its status based on specimens from its collection
3. Alferaki redescribed the taxon (not a description, but a redescription)
4. The lectotype was isolated from the Alferaki material, in fact-from comparative material, not typical.
5. On this basis, the lectotype is invalid. A lectotype designation from the Staudinger Material

We started with this " jaundice sareptensis (=alfacariensis)"
and ended up with no one knows what.

In fact, in order not to get into the jungle, from which it is very difficult to get out later, there is a simple and proven approach:

1. We describe each nominal taxon of the species group from the complex we are interested in.
2. We analyze the first descriptions.
3. We review the code and check the validity and suitability of names.
4. We are looking for information on the standard material.
5. We study the available standard material.

In our case - at least-you need to:

sareptensis Staudinger, 1871 = infrasubspecific, invalid [established as aberratio]
sareptensis Alpheraky, 1875 = variety, valid [non homonym, Staudinger's name status raising]
meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1902 = variety, valid
alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 = infrasubspecific, invalid [established as aberratio]
australis Verity, 1911 = infrasubspecisif, invalid [established in quadrinominal combination clearly]
calida Verity, 1916 = infrasubspecific, invalid [established as a seasonal form, so clearly infrasubspecific]
alfacariensis Berger, 1948 = species, valid [non homonym, Ribbe's name status raising]
australis Hemming et Berger, 1950 = species, valid [non homonym, Verity's name status raising]
calida Cockayne, 1952 = species, valid [non homonym, Verity's name status raising]

According to this:
sareptensis Stgr., saretensis Alph. have a single type from coll. Schatudinger (not Alferaki), stored in Berlin
meridionalis Krul.
alfacariensis Ribbe, alfacariensis Berger have a single type, stored in Paris
australis Vrty., australis Hemm. et Berg / have a single type, stored in Firenze
calida Vrty., calida Cock. have a single type, stored in Firenze.

Objective priority is given to the name Alferaki.

BUT
until the valid sareptensis lectotype is identified and compared with the meridionalis, alfacariensis, and australis types, this leapfrog can be continued indefinitely.

We will assume that you have answered my direct question.
Good luck. The main thing is, look, Garpa is there.
We will wait for the opinion of another opponent, and the dispute can be closed.

... 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). ..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..

This is a completely different situation. These whiteflies have a very wide range overlap, high syntopia, sometimes they eat the same plant, they differ in appearance only in their summer form, and then with overlaps. But they have radical genital differences in females, and in males-synapsis is very stable, and juvernica (reali auct.) is variable and sometimes difficult to distinguish, but this is about 5-10% of cases. Here you can immediately see that there are different types and without any barcoding. But indeed, signs of hybridization even in such a strongly diverged pair were revealed (it seems, by the Czechs). And with jaundice , there are no genital differences, and it is surprising if in such a close pair there will not be frequent hybridization.

And with jaundice , there are no genital differences, and it is surprising if in such a close pair there will not be frequent hybridization.

The main feature of Colias alfacariensis is that the marginal border on the hindwing is narrow and short, very often absent.
The photos are uploaded.
Photos of Colias hyale can be found here.
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php?optio...le---&Itemid=31
Description of Alferaka: ... "the black border on both the upper and lower wings is MUCH wider than in C. hyale"...
Since none of the debaters recognized the fact that this description does not correspond to Colias alfacariensis in any way, I conclude that none of the debaters worked with Colias alfacariensis, otherwise In any case, a disagreement with Alferaki's description would have been expressed. Therefore, it is completely unclear with what material who worked, and what differences in the genitals who was looking for.
On the Don and Ilovlinsky Cretaceous rocks, along which the northern fauna penetrates far to the south, as well as in a relict gully 30 km from Volgograd with pronounced northern elements (Phengaris nausithous, Phengaris teleius, etc.), butterflies fly completely corresponding to Colias alfacariensis, both in appearance and in the shape of a harp. In populations of Colias hyale from the vicinity of Volgograd, butterflies with the phenotype and shape of the garpa Colias alfacariensis are never found.

The main feature of Colias alfacariensis is that the marginal border on the hindwing is narrow and short, very often absent.
The photos are uploaded.
Photos of Colias hyale can be found here.
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php?optio...le---&Itemid=31
Description of Alferaka: ... "the black border on both the upper and lower wings is MUCH wider than in C. hyale"...
Since none of the debaters recognized the fact that this description does not correspond to Colias alfacariensis in any way, I conclude that none of the debaters worked with Colias alfacariensis, otherwise In any case, a disagreement with Alferaki's description would have been expressed. Therefore, it is completely unclear with what material who worked, and what differences in the genitals who was looking for.
On the Don and Ilovlinsky Cretaceous rocks, along which the northern fauna penetrates far to the south, as well as in a relict gully 30 km from Volgograd with pronounced northern elements (Phengaris nausithous, Phengaris teleius, etc.), butterflies fly completely corresponding to Colias alfacariensis, both in appearance and in the shape of a harp. In populations of Colias hyale from the vicinity of Volgograd, butterflies with the phenotype and shape of the Colias alfacariensis harp are never found.

Gennady Vasilyevich! Why do you suspect everyone of ignorance? We can read, but we remember the signs by heart. For example, I have worked with quite large series (not hundreds like you, but dozens) of hiale and alfakariensis from Kazakhstan, the Southern Urals and the Saratov region. They seem to be different, but there remains from 1/4 to 1/3, in my opinion, undefined instances. This is consistent with the observation of Romanians and Milovanov et al. (("chialoid" alfacariensis in the Crimea). The fact that they are clearly divided in your collections does honor to your area, but it has nothing to do with the general problem of distinguishing two species by external characteristics. As for Grieshuber-try to "sue", at least publish a detailed analysis of the taxonomy. The commission is unlikely to go down, but at least people will be fully informed!

http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/ablaut/view/1083031/?page=1

This is from Dinca et al. - butterflies are grouped by bar code.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 11/30/2012 17: 21

This is a completely different situation. These whiteflies have a very wide range overlap, high syntopia, sometimes they eat the same plant, they differ in appearance only in their summer form, and then with overlaps. But they have radical genital differences in females, and in males-synapsis is very stable, and juvernica (reali auct.) is variable and sometimes difficult to distinguish, but this is about 5-10% of cases. Here you can immediately see that there are different types and without any barcoding. But indeed, signs of hybridization even in such a strongly diverged pair were revealed (it seems, by the Czechs). And with jaundice , there are no genital differences, and it is surprising if in such a close pair there will not be frequent hybridization.

By the way, your observations differ from ours, and this is normal-juvernica is a recent migrant everywhere and behaves differently and interacts differently with synapsis. Near Novosibirsk, just juvernica is stable: males with its external signs, that weight, that summer, always have the genitals of juvernica. As for synapis, there are spring males with signs (but not all of them!) yuverniki and genitals of synapis, and most likely they are still hybrid, but synapis. Summer males seem to consistently differ in habit. There are no stable external differences between spring females, only by genitals.

How you define everything by this border - I don't understand at all! If this is the "main feature" then it is hardcoded

How you define everything by this border - I don't understand at all! If this is the "main feature", then this is hardcoded

Let's assume that Volgograd populations differ by border, as it happens. Moreover, the border is consistent with the garpa. But in other places on the border they are so different. And harpa, too. Only mtDNA and caterpillars remain (if they do not "lie"). Read Milovanov 2004-there is a statistical analysis of the Crimean mat-la by habitus and genitalia. It would be extremely interesting to see how Volgograd butterflies would be grouped by mtDNA.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 11/30/2012 19: 16

I once gave a link. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%E0%F9%E5%ED%E8%E7%EC. Here, the last two authors "walk" together. I already took a ride on this "trolleybus" a year ago: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=428180&st=300 (especially pay attention to the final statement of Sergenicko at the end of the page). Hooke, Rhopalocara.catfish and others. If you also want to ride , go ahead.

By the way, your observations differ from ours, and this is normal-juvernica is a recent migrant everywhere and behaves differently and interacts differently with synapsis. Near Novosibirsk, just juvernica is stable: males with its external signs, that weight, that summer, always have the genitals of juvernica. As for synapis, there are spring males with signs (but not all of them!) yuverniki and genitals of synapis, and most likely they are still hybrid, but synapis. Summer males seem to consistently differ in habit. There are no stable external differences between spring females, only in terms of genitalia.

Yes, I wrote about the best distinction between them in Siberia back in 2005, because there is a subspecies of juvernica yakovlevi, and synapis cannot yet be separated from the nominative. But juvernica is not a migrant anywhere in our country. It was formed in our open spaces. In Europe, yes, it was widely dispersed there after the last glaciation, and we had only local northern glaciations after the Dnieper one. In the longitudinal direction, juvernica is even slightly more widespread than synapis, up to Z. Trans-Baikal Territory, because it is a more ancient species. But the species is hypoboreal-it almost does not penetrate either the forest tundra or the steppe.

I once gave a link. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%E0%F9%E5%ED%E8%E7%EC. Here, the last two authors "walk" together. I already took a ride on this "trolleybus" a year ago: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=428180&st=300 (especially pay attention to the final statement of Sergenicko at the end of the page). Hooke, Rhopalocara.catfish and others. If you also want to ride , go ahead.

Of course, in this spirit it is similar to the fairy tale about the white bull. Because apart from the guk, no one provides facts - but only shows their knowledge in theory. Questions were asked, but there is no answer to them - it is clear about Volgograd (except for the bar code, whether it corresponds to the grouping by habit and genitalia), but about the rest of the places it was vague, and it remained. No facts?

Yes, I wrote about the best distinction between them in Siberia back in 2005, because there is a subspecies of juvernica yakovlevi, and synapis cannot yet be separated from the nominative. But juvernica is not a migrant anywhere in our country. It was formed in our open spaces. In Europe, yes, it was widely dispersed there after the last glaciation, and we had only local northern glaciations after the Dnieper one. In the longitudinal direction, juvernica is even slightly more widespread than synapis, up to Z. Trans-Baikal Territory, because it is a more ancient species. But the species is hypoboreal-it almost does not penetrate either the forest tundra or the steppe.

As for the "subspecies" - it is difficult to distinguish a subspecies from a continuous wedge on the plain. It seems to me that yakovlevi is both West Siberian and East European, at least in the series I don't see any differences. Of course, there are some differences, but there is a continuous wedge. I don't know about Transbaikalia, but here in the steppe (Kulunda) yuvernika is more common than synapis. Yuvernika chooses drier stations than synapis. For example, on the high ground Sokur synapis keeps at the bottom of the slopes, near streams, juvernik in the upper part of the slopes and on the ridges. Synapis prefers mesophytic and water meadows and meadow edges, yuvernika is common in settled meadows along the bank of the Novosibirsk reservoir and in ruderal communities along the railway.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.12.2012 00: 31

I wonder if alfacariensis caterpillars eat liadvenets? I didn't check it. Where does this data come from?

Vladimir, can you post the genitals of females of these two species?

The scale is saved. Unfortunately, female A "lost" the bursa appendage...
Both butterflies - August 28, 2010, north-eastern outskirts of Kharkiv.

Where does this data come from?

Kumakov A. P., Korshunov Yu. P. Lepidoptera of the Saratov region. Saratov, 1979; available in the Flora and Fauna Library.