Jaundice (Colias)

Colias erate Kazakhstan, Almaty region. Dzungarian Alatau

September 19, 2013, Tekeli. Tekelinka River Gorge, southern dry slopes





September 29, 2013, Taldykorgan. Karatal River valley. pic Prigorodny. On the perennial aster

The original image size is ~ 6200x2300x24 350 dpi on a white background and ~ 4700x1600x24 350 dpi on a black background.
If anyone needs it for science, write to them.

Can you tell me if there is any information on the number of chromosomes in European Colias species? It would seem a simple thing, but Google I could not find

Moved from " exchange and sale "

there are long-standing misconceptions and much confusion, but there is no sareptensis taxon.
it is a pity that you are not in the topic, but anyway, you are not going to study the systematics of yolks.
it is better to answer, if there is such a desire, in the subject of Yolks.

Well, tell us what is there and how, if you are in the topic. Tell us in what specific topic you should be here, if there are publications about this, then give links.

And where did sareptensis go? Who took it out? Well, at least, the name can not fail to be. Let it be invalid or a synonym. If the type population is extinct, and there are no forms in the neighboring ones that fit the description of sareptensis anymore in nature, then yes - this taxon is no longer "alive", I don't know this.

But before you engage in taxonomy, you should define its concepts and criteria. You need to understand how much biodiversity you are dealing with, how discrete it is, how this diversity arises and how discrete it is. Having done this, you can try to timidly talk about what can be called a species here. And start organizing something. In the meantime, I have only observed the opposite in butterfly biology : people are engaged in taxonomy, proudly and confidently talk about which species exist and which do not. And they don't even think about what all these words mean. Use attributes that describe the environmental conditions in which individual development of individuals or their interaction with symbiotic microbes took place (color and size of spots, food preferences, timing of summer, etc. they often depend on these factors)... and miraculously, after that, they find themselves deep in the topic of taxonomy. Some kind of magic! Okay, that's what they did in the 18th and 19th centuries, but they just didn't know how to do it any other way...

This post was edited by ayc - 26.10.2013 09: 18

By the way, there were words about the DNA and identity of erate and croceus. I have several genes, so yes, this is one "species" From Spain to Japan, Tibet and Israel. But it's all bullshit. These forms are quite young, so they simply have not accumulated enough nucleotide substitutions. This is true in yellowheads everywhere except in mountain isolates - in Wed. Asia, Tibet, the Andes and Rocky Mountains, the species differ quite well in DNA. So, I can't say anything about whether these are different types or not. I have been too lazy to write an article about this for 8 years, although the data is lying around - it's just somehow boring to write about facts without clear conclusions.

Moved from " exchange and sale "
Well, tell us what is there and how, if you are in the topic. Tell us in what specific topic you should be here, if there are publications about this, then give links.

And where did sareptensis go? Who took it out? Well, at least, the name can not fail to be. Let it be invalid or a synonym. If the type population is extinct, and there are no forms in the neighboring ones that fit the description of sareptensis anymore in nature, then yes - this taxon is no longer "alive", I don't know this.

I will allow myself, if again "sareptensis".
There's something here
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php/pieri...acariensis.html
"Sareptensis" in the understanding of Staudinger and Alferaki is erate f. hyaloides.
"Saretensis" in the understanding of Verity and Grieshuber is alfacariensis, but it is completely unclear why in combination with "Saretensis" Verity has Staudinger, and Grieshuber has Alferaki, but this is their problem.
By the way, Verity himself did not compare his australis with saretensis.
And in general, quoting the "old masters" is like referring to the Old Testament, it's enough that even Verity polyographus is in the hyale group.
But your data on crocea-erate made me very happy.

Again, I must say sorry.
spears are broken, nonsense is piled up, and you are just lazy and bored.

Colleague, so suggest something and stop swearing! Tell me under what sauce you can publish an article that the three most "popular" genes among taxonomists and phylogenetics are identical in these 2 species. If it works out , we will be co-authors. The identity of the sequences indicates only their recent divergence, and nothing more. But no one really doubts this anyway - after all, even 20 thousand years ago, most of the populations of this group hardly existed. What should I write about?

And absurdities will pile up at least what to write. Breaking spears is a party where the driving force of "scientific thought" is personal inflated ambitions, interpersonal squabbles and other throwing poop. Nothing can ever stop it, because the less you know, the more certain you are that you are right. Those who are more educated, honestly say that this problem has not yet been solved and figs knows how to solve it. And for those who are still looking for ways to solve it, the erate-croceus problem itself is not of any interest - they use this pair as a model for solving more global issues.

I will allow myself, if again "sareptensis".
There's something here
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php/pieri...acariensis.html
"Sareptensis" in the understanding of Staudinger and Alferaki is erate f. hyaloides.
"Saretensis" in the understanding of Verity and Grieshuber is alfacariensis, but it is completely unclear why in combination with "Saretensis" Verity has Staudinger, and Grieshuber has Alferaki, but this is their problem.
By the way, Verity himself did not compare his australis with saretensis.
And in general, quoting the "old masters" is like referring to the Old Testament, it's enough that even Verity polyographus is in the hyale group.
But your data on crocea-erate made me very happy.

By why some have Std. and others have Alph. a little higher told already. And 150 years ago, people easily mixed erate with hyale - this is not surprising. And now there is only one way to find out - to catch the topotypes of sareptensis, Australis and neighboring names, and look at their genetics. Although, I will not say how deep it is necessary to climb, but I would like to see if there is a difference in a couple of genes. There would be someone to catch it all.

And with crocea-erate, nothing surprising and everything is quite expected. Their range and taxonomy is like if you fart in the kitchen, then soon the smell will spread to the hallway. The kitchen will smell stronger (=red wings), the hallway will smell weaker (=yellow), and the middle will be somewhat average. And at the same time, differences in the strength of the smell will not indicate that two farts and their smells at the junction produced a third fart belonging to the third person absent from the house!

One more time.
Use sareptensis Stgr. or sareptensis Alph. in any connection with alfacariensis, it is impossible, since these authors were talking about erate.
How to catch these topotypes sareptensis, if it is a form, it may or may not fly, as it happens, there are pronounced ones, there are weaker ones, there are orange ones, and there are pale orange ones, and there are yellow ones.

My little article on sareptensis will be published soon in the Entomologist's Gazette, where the problem is solved by selecting the CORRECT lectotype and linking it to the CORRECT name.
There is no point in arguing about this now - the taxon is so misunderstood in modern literature that it seems that the authors of the interpretations have never read the Codex in their lives.

(ayc @ 26.10.2013 05:47)
Link to the original message At least, there is such a taxon and its topotypes. Such material would be quite enough for me. jump.gif To tell you the truth, I would generally refrain from using names and taxonomic ranks here. But you have to call it something...

There is no taxonomy of jaundice to date. Therefore, there is nothing to understand here yet. There are only tentative attempts to describe their diversity by butterfly hunters and other traders. But unfortunately, all this has little to do with biology and natural taxonomy. I have not yet heard about the results of understanding all this by someone who has competence in the field of speciation, basic principles of phylogenetics and taxonomy.



You are mistaken, and very seriously. Obviously, you are not familiar with the main literature on this group. The taxonomy of egg yolks, as well as whiteflies in general, is quite well developed-starting from the classical works of Berger, ending with studies of DNA and chromosomes published by Lukhtanov et al.

About "competence in speciation, basic principles of phylogenetics and taxonomy" - so this is taught in any normal biological university, isn't it? Don't take it as an attack, but it seems to me that you are either very simplifying or very much "floating" in the problem.

My little article on sareptensis will be published soon in the Entomologist's Gazette, where the problem is solved by selecting the CORRECT lectotype and linking it to the CORRECT name.
There is no point in arguing about this now - the taxon is so misunderstood in modern literature that it seems that the authors of the interpretations have never read the Codex in their lives.

So this is just wonderful!
Only here the code has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And why did you, colleagues, decide to do this now, and not when the commission on Zoo Nomenclature made a decision on the name of this taxon (I'm talking about sareptensis)? Now, no matter how you look at it and what facts you don't call for support, everything is in vain. The Commission made a decision, no one wanted to participate in the discussion of the issue at that time, but now the options "correctly or incorrectly interpreted" or "priority is priority" are not rolled in any way. I'm going through the motions now, I had this solution somewhere. I got up from it in a certain stupor, but that's all, it's too late to drink Borjomi.

And why did you, colleagues, decide to do this now, and not when the commission on Zoo Nomenclature made a decision on the name of this taxon (I'm talking about sareptensis)? Now, no matter how you look at it and what facts you don't call for support, everything is in vain. The Commission made a decision, no one wanted to participate in the discussion of the issue at that time, but now the options "correctly or incorrectly interpreted" or "priority is priority" are not rolled in any way. I'm going through the motions now, I had this solution somewhere. I got up from it in a certain stupor, but that's all, it's too late to drink Borjomi.

One might think that the Big Round Seal commission's decision is not to cut it down with an axe.
Such a decision is worthless if the selected lectotype does not completely match the Alferaki description referenced.
What to do, no one knows the Russian language and translators are extinct.

One might think that the Big Round Seal commission's decision is not to cut it down with an axe.
Such a decision is worthless if the selected lectotype does not completely match the Alferaki description referenced.
What to do, no one knows the Russian language and translators are extinct.

The problem is that Alferaki didn't describe anything

The problem is that Alferaki didn't describe ANYTHING

Of course, this is not a description.

Pictures:

1.jpg — (169.53к)

OPINION 2180 (Case 3334)
Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae): has an advantage over Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Rühl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903
....
Regulatory rules.
(1) It is regulated here by the right of the commission (Under the plenary power) that the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, published in the Colia hyale alfacariensis trinomain, has precedence over the names saretensis Alphéraky, 1875, published in the Colia hyale saretensis trinomain, and alba Ruhl, 1893, published in the Colia hyale trinomain hyale alba, and meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, published in the trinomain Colia hyale meridionalis, despite the fact that it and these three are recognized as synonyms.
(2) The following names are included here in the Official List of Species Names for Zoology: (a) saretensis Alphéraky, 1875, published in the Colia hyale saretensis trinomain, with an endorsement that it does not take precedence over the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, published in the Colia hyale alfacariensis trinomain, despite the fact that both are recognized as synonyms; (b) alba Ruhl, 1893, published in the Colia hyale alba trinomain, with an endorsement that it does not take precedence over the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, published in the Colia hyale alfacariensis trinomain, even though both are recognized as synonyms; © meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, published in the Colia hyale trinomain meridionalis, with a resolution (endorsement) that it does not take precedence over the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, published in the trinomain Colia hyale alfacariensis, despite the fact that both are recognized as synonyms.
(3) The entry in the Official List of Species Names in Zoology of alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, published in the Colia hyale alfacariensis trinomain, records here the emended to record of this precedence over saretensis Alphéraky, 1875, ... alba Ruhl, 1893, ... and meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, ..., despite the fact that it and these three are recognized as synonyms.
Case history 3334.
An appeal to give the name Colia alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 an advantage over the older subjective synonyms, Colia hyale saretensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colia hyale alba Rühl, 1893, and Colia hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, was received from J. Grieshuber (Germany), R. Worthy (U.K.), and G. Lamas (Peru) on January 11 2006. After correspondence, the case was published in BZN 63: 106-113 (June 2006). The title, summary and keywords were published on the Commission's website. No comments were received on this issue.
The Commission's decision.
On 1 March 2007, the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposal published in BZN 63: 111-112. At the close of voting, the votes were distributed as follows:
"for" - 22, "against" - 4, "abstained" - 1

Gennady Vasilyevich, you are now introducing unnecessary confusion by not understanding the issue.
Alferaki did not describe anything, he simply validated the name sareptensis, which was introduced as an infraspecific, in the rank of variation (in those years it could be considered as a synonym for a geographical subspecies), and therefore the authorship of this name passed to him. Well, these are the rules of the Code.

And the Commission's decision, alas, is really a "Big Round Seal" - not to cut it down with an axe." If you want to cut it down, please contact the commission to withdraw its decision "in the light of new evidence and circumstances that have emerged."
In general, I highly recommend that everyone at least occasionally scroll through the Code and work in accordance with its laws, rules and recommendations.

Gennady Vasilyevich, you are now introducing unnecessary confusion by not understanding the issue.
Alferaki did not describe anything, he simply validated the name sareptensis, which was introduced as an infraspecific, in the rank of variation (in those years it could be considered as a synonym for a geographical subspecies), and therefore the authorship of this name passed to him. Well, these are the rules of the Code.

First. Please compare Grieshuber's lectotype and Alferaka's description.
Nothing in common.
Second. The description of Alferaka (1876) has nothing to do with alfacariensis.
The third. The fact that alfacariensis was found in the collections of Alferaki is irrelevant.
What does the code have to do with it, if we are talking about completely different types?

The code despite the fact that its commission has already made a decision on these two names. And now it doesn't matter what anyone looks like or what they mean. These two names are officially marked with a dot.
And the rest of the decisions can be made not by descriptions, but by identifying lectotypes or neotypes, otherwise it's all demagogy, which 20 entomologists will go under the opinion of their subjective criteria. If it turns out that the commission's decision is erroneous, it can only be reversed by a second decision. It will be great if you and someone can raise this issue again, study, document and solve it - only it is not clear why, if it has already been solved.

yes, also, it is necessary to compare not the description of Alferaki, but, if such a situation exists,
the Grieshuber lectotype and the Sareptensis lectotype from the Staudinger collection. Maybe Stas will post it here, if, of course, he wants, before the publication of his article?

Wonderful!
Staudinger and Alferaki wrote about erate, Grieshuber for some reason decided that we were talking about alfacariensis (well, not about cabbage), it turns out that the authors 'descriptions are already useless to anyone, because the lectotype has already been isolated (cf. "Annushka has already spilled oil").
Something doesn't fit here. You can go too far that way.
And the Staudinger type is set slightly higher.

Wonderful!
Staudinger and Alferaki wrote about erate, Grieshuber for some reason decided that we were talking about alfacariensis (well, not about cabbage), it turns out that the authors 'descriptions are already useless to anyone, because the lectotype has already been isolated (cf. "Annushka has already spilled oil").
Something doesn't fit here. You can go too far that way.
And the Staudinger type is set slightly higher.

Indeed, the lectotype is higher. True, the image quality is not ice (the forum then for some reason compressed the images very much), but you can still clearly see what exactly Staudinger meant. It seems to me that Grieshuber simply did not translate Alferaki's texts correctly, and he concluded from this translation that Alferaki described something of his own. This is an obvious mistake that the Commission "fell for". However, in this vein, the Commission's opinion can also be revised-it is enough to prove that the authors of the original descriptions established different entities within different species-alfacariensis and erate. It is for this purpose that I designate the correct lectotype of sareptensis.

What is more strange is that Grieshuber worked with collections both in Berlin and in Zina; it is quite obvious to assume that for his constructions he chose the most "convenient" specimen for him, which really belongs to alfacariensis, from the Alferaki collection. I simply can't explain this obvious incident in any other way.

Guys, can you explain on your fingers why Grieshuber and Lamas decided to give priority to the name alfacariensis Ribbe 1905? Was there any real need for this?

And what, in your opinion, would it be worth?

Indeed, the lectotype is higher. True, the image quality is not ice (the forum then for some reason compressed the images very much), but you can still clearly see what exactly Staudinger meant. It seems to me that Grieshuber simply did not translate Alferaki's texts correctly, and he concluded from this translation that Alferaki described something of his own. This is an obvious mistake that the Commission "fell for". However, in this vein, the Commission's opinion can also be revised-it is enough to prove that the authors of the original descriptions established different entities within different species-alfacariensis and erate. It is for this purpose that I designate the correct lectotype of sareptensis.

What is more strange is that Grieshuber worked with collections both in Berlin and in Zina; it is quite obvious to assume that for his constructions he chose the most "convenient" specimen for him, which really belongs to alfacariensis, from the Alferaki collection. I simply can't explain this obvious incident in any other way.

Well, there! The answer "itself" appeared. Thanks!

And what, in your opinion, would it be worth?

Sorry, but I'm actually asking. That is, I am interested in your opinion, and not sticking out my Most Correct One. I agree, this behavior is somewhat unusual in a butterfly study group. But I'm really only superficially familiar with the taxonomy around the European erate and hyale, it's always been something of a third-rate thing for me. But it begins to slowly penetrate... thank you all so much for that!

This post was edited by ayc - 26.10.2013 17: 53

Sorry, but I'm actually asking. That is, I am interested in your opinion, and not sticking out my Most Correct One. I agree, this behavior is somewhat unusual in a butterfly study group. But I'm really only superficially familiar with the taxonomy around the European erate and hyale, it's always been something of a third-rate thing for me. But it begins to slowly penetrate... thank you all so much for that!

Here, as it were, everything is clear.
At that time, alfacariensis Ribbe 1905, australis Verity 1911 and "sareptensis Stgr." were in use from the same Verity.
If you remove "sareptensis Stgr." from the whole story, then everything is fine.

As you can see, the expression "sareptensis population" does not make any sense in this situation.

That is, the name of Staudinger is not valid, and the name of Alferaki is a junior synonym in their opinion? Why not? Or does the description of Staudinger interfere? So it, according to the ICZN, and never was, if ab. doesn't count. Well, what is the problem - at the time of the description of Alferaka, the name was free, he described the species from his collection, without looking back at what Staudinger thought, looked at and incorrectly described, and the Grieshuber-Lamas lectotype is quite correct.

Verity, on the other hand, seems to be out of business - Alferaki has already made the name busy.

That is, the name of Staudinger is not valid, and the name of Alferaki is a junior synonym in their opinion? Why not? Or does the description of Staudinger interfere? So it, according to the ICZN, and never was, if ab. doesn't count. Well, what is the problem - at the time of the description of Alferaka, the name was free, he described the species from his collection, without looking back at what Staudinger thought, looked at and incorrectly described, and the Grieshuber-Lamas lectotype is quite correct.

Verity, on the other hand, seems to be out of business - Alferaki has already made the name busy.

I'll explain

Article 50.3.1 of the Code - if an infraspecific name is assigned the rank of subspecies, it is entered into nomenclature circulation as a valid name of the species group with the authorship and year of publication of the person who introduced it to this rank.

Article 46.2 of the Codex - regardless of whether the rank of a taxon in a species group increases or decreases, it does not affect its type, it remains the same. I.e., despite the fact that Alferaki raised the status of a taxon to subspecies, the type of taxon still remains the same, from coll. Staudinger.

Articles 72.1.1, 73.2 and 74.1 of the Code - a lectotype can only be designated from a series of syntypes. Since Article 46.2 does not allow arbitrary changes in the taxon type in the event of an increase or decrease in its rank, the sareptensis type with the authorship of Alferaki is the same type as the sareptensis type with the authorship of Staudinger.

Since the requirements of Articles 72.1.1, 73.2, and 74.1 are violated, the Grieshuber lectotype and others. it is not valid - it is not marked from the original Staudinger series. Therefore, I have designated the valid lectotype sareptensis.

everything is simple, within the Code

That is, the name of Staudinger is not valid, and the name of Alferaki is a junior synonym in their opinion? Why not? Or does the description of Staudinger interfere? So it, according to the ICZN, and never was, if ab. doesn't count. Well, what is the problem - at the time of the description of Alferaka, the name was free, he described the species from his collection, without looking back at what Staudinger thought, looked at and incorrectly described, and the Grieshuber-Lamas lectotype is quite correct.

Verity, on the other hand, seems to be out of business - Alferaki has already made the name busy.

Once upon a time there was Vanya. And his fiancee Masha, and her sister Dasha.
And Dasha's passport was stolen, and the drunk passport officer gave Dasha a passport in the name of Masha.
They bring Vanya Dasha, who is now Masha, to the registry office and say, what's the difference now, she is also Masha, she even has a passport.
Anton! Do you really care what kind of view Staudinger and Alferaki had in mind, erate or alfakariensis, just according to the code?

I think it's not superfluous to explain what all these "types"are

One of the basic principles of zoological nomenclature is the principle of typification, which states that each taxon must have its standard (type). For taxa of a group of species, this is an instance that the author of the name explicitly assigned this status to.

The concept of "nomenclatural type" was introduced not so long ago and means that a taxon of a species group must be typified by a single instance. All other standard instances in the series do not have the nomenclature type status. This is done for a simple reason: the type series may contain instances of more than one taxon of the species group. In this case, there may be a problem with the interpretation of the taxon. Therefore, assigning the name to a single instance is the only correct way to solve this problem unambiguously.
Nomenclature types are:
the holotype is the only specimen selected by the author of the name when it was published.
neotype - the only instance designated later if none of the original type instances or the nomenclatural type designated earlier have been preserved.
a lectotype is the only instance that is subsequently selected as a nomenclature type from a series of syntypes.
syntype - an instance that is part of a type series where the nomenclature type has not yet been set. In this case, each syntype is a nomenclatural type, and, as a rule, the authors reviewing the group distinguish a lectotype from such a series in order to prevent possible problems in the future related to the possibility of the presence of more than one taxon in the type series.

it might also be a good idea to explain that a topotype, i.e. a butterfly from the same locality as a type, is not a type at all and is nomenclatural invalid.

As for the situation with the above-mentioned decision of the Commission, the point here is not what Staudinger or Alferaki had in mind (the latter generally got into the authorship by accident, without knowing it and, probably, without wanting to), but that the decision was made-according to the request of a person who somehow understands Coliases, - to organize the use of names in which there is still confusion today. The fact that he did not understand thoroughly - claims to him. But so far, the name sareptensis, although not withdrawn from scientific use, has lost its priority. The taxon meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 (also officially designated ab. sareptensis Staudinger, 1871) - “southern race”. In this connection, sareptensis is still relegated to junior synonyms for erata, which also has a couple of neriene-type synonyms, and the name remota Reissinger, 1989, described from Wolsk, an der mittleren Wolga, is probably valid for the European population of alfakariensis.

This post was edited by dim-va - 26.10.2013 19: 58

Guys, thanks for the explanation. Although it's no longer necessary to talk about the terms - I can see them myself in the ICZN. And such things are supposed to be remembered by heart

1. If I am not confused, here it was said above that Staudinger and Alferaki wrote about two different entities. Although the opposite was also said (both of them were about erase). So who wrote about what?

2. The commission's decision is not a final verdict. The Commission can also cancel it.

3. Does anyone today see the point in designating the populations of erate and alfacariensis in southern Russia as separate subspecies? Do they really differ from nominative subspecies in any way, or are they just barely distinguishable links in the chain of clinal variability? In the sense of not about the taxonomy, but about the totality of real butterflies?

Both Staudinger and Alferaki wrote about erate f. hyaloides.
The distribution of alfacariensis is so unclear that it is simply not necessary to talk about any subspecies.

Jaundice and ausonia.

Pictures:

DSCN0987.JPG — (252.53к)

  

3. Does anyone today see the point in designating the populations of erate and alfacariensis in southern Russia as separate subspecies? Do they really differ from nominative subspecies in any way, or are they just barely distinguishable links in the chain of clinal variability? In the sense of not about the taxonomy, but about the totality of real butterflies?

It is hard to imagine that the butterflies described from Alfakar and the Volga region are one and the same, but no one looked at the clonal variability. So the issue with flfakariensis is still open.
As for erata, it was described from the south, “in der Gegend von Sarepta”, so our erata is a nominative subspecies.

Both Staudinger and Alferaki wrote about erate f. hyaloides.
The distribution of alfacariensis is so unclear that it is simply not necessary to talk about any subspecies.

Well, then-write a letter to the Commission and do not let them cancel their decision, because it is ridiculous. They can do it. And sareptensis will quietly and peacefully rest in the synonyms of Erata, without fooling anyone's brains.

And about hyale-australis-alfacariensis, let's try to figure it out if this is really interesting. They even have populations that differ quite well in the COI gene , unlike many other jaundice. If someone throws up material from different points, then I would quickly do this work.

dim-va, thank you! I'd forgotten that Eratha was originally from Sarepta!!! And the fact that the butterfly from Alfakar and the Volga region can be the same-why not? The same crocea, for example, that in the Black Sea region, that in Spain and in Jewry lives and everywhere is the same thing. After all, nothing prevents these rather plastic species from being the same, if they can fly hundreds of km in their lifetime.

It would be wonderful to erate with the crocea article to clarify.
There will be screeching, though.
Not everyone can do that.