Jaundice (Colias)

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

Erata and crocea are either very young species, so much so that standard molecular methods do not distinguish, or one species. It is necessary to carefully check the butterflies from areas where different species supposedly (or really) live (for example, mountainous Bulgaria). Rather, there are strong population differences. The same applies to chiala-alfacariensis: the attitude that they are undoubtedly different species, and crocea and chiala are one, interferes with the establishment of the truth.

The same applies to chiala-alfakariensis:

Tiny difference: here the difference is caught by standard molecular methods.

Tiny difference: here the difference is caught by standard molecular methods.

Yes, but also between the populations of hyala, as far as I know, molek. the differences are significant! This discussion has been going on here on the forum for a long time, and no one has yet reported what the spread inside hialeah is.

Yes, but also between the populations of hyala, as far as I know, molek. the differences are significant! This discussion has been going on here on the forum for a long time, and no one has yet reported what the spread inside hialeah is.

How is this known if no one reported it?

Tiny difference: here the difference is caught by standard molecular methods.

The fact is that if we accept the correct attitude in the search for truth, we will clearly see that the differences in the hyale-alpha pair are qualitatively different from the non-differences in the erate-crocea pair, and here we will come to the conclusion that erate and crocea are different species, but they have not yet diverged, young, old, and hyale and alpha are one species, but they diverged, old, old.

How do you know this if no one has reported it?

it's not known from here. the information is fragmentary, and there is no general picture of hialeah. even worse with alfakariensis. I'm looking for that Romanian-Canadian work, I forgot the names of the authors.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.10.2013 17: 09

it's not known from here. the information is fragmentary, and there is no general picture of hialeah. even worse with alfakariensis. I'm looking for that Romanian-Canadian work, I forgot the names of the authors.

found by Dinca et al. They have 91% similarity for Romania (and both species fly only in Transylvania), but they themselves write that no one can distinguish external ones. the two taxa have no attributes.

File/s:



 Dinca_hyale.doc

size: 222k
number of downloads: 351

The fact is that if we accept the correct attitude in the search for truth, we will clearly see that the differences in the hyale-alpha pair are qualitatively different from the non-differences in the erate-crocea pair, and here we will come to the conclusion that erate and crocea are different species, but they have not yet diverged, young, old, and hyale and alpha are one species, but they diverged, old, old.

The irony is not very relevant here, because in many species, subspecies differ from each other in mtDNA more strongly than other species do. still, mtDNA is a trait, but one of, and not absolute. According to Dinca et al. vnieshnik differences between hyale and alfacariensis are unstable, so they added them to the species by habit. and it turned out a strange picture: all processed Transylvanian " hyale "are identical (100%), and" alfakariensis " are noticeably different, while Transylvanian ones are more different from the rest.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.10.2013 18: 08

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.


ayc, you may not have read this topic, so let me raise something up
The fact is that two participants of this forum, okoem et Kharkovbut, wrote and published an article that also indicates a reliable difference between hyale and alfakariensis - this is a difference in the color of caterpillars, and it seems to be in forage plants, I don't remember already, all participants here can correct)


But the point is that while the existing differences are sufficient for individual species, the imagos of these mmmm species appear to be morphologically similar, including in terms of genitals. And the main question is how much" ancient " isolation there is between these two .. species and how complete the isolation is over their entire shared range. I just wonder what caused their isolation with such similarity of adults, the presence of overlapping ranges, and whether there is any reproductive isolation at all, in the absence of special morphological differences, there is only a difference in the color of caterpillars in a certain population, well, and some genetic differences, but there are a lot of supporters of the complex method, they say that only by Due to various reasons, it is not always possible to make new species just like that.

So here probably one molecular work will not be enough, personally I would be convinced by information about the difference in color of caterpillars of these species throughout the mixed range, information from biology that shows why there is reliable reproductive isolation, and even better it would be to know how long ago this isolation was not, but this is probably from the field of fiction

The two lonelies met again.

The two lonelies met again.

And you would have corrected the link in your profile at last, because I think the second year has passed

The two lonelies met again.

Hee-hee, of course, but it is strange when two good (supposedly) species persistently do not want to get any far into the range of the neighboring one, despite (supposedly) different food plants. At the same time, it turns out that it is impossible to recognize chial-alfacariensis hybrids when external signs are unstable. If, however, it turns out that there is a zone of active hybridization between areas A and X, then we should not talk about two species - just good (without clinality) subspecies.

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

And I won't budge. The fact that crocea and erate are identical in several genes that are traditionally polymorphic in butterflies does not mean that they are conspecific. This only suggests that red and yellow butterflies are phylogenetically very close and their populations diverged in the very recent past. And in order to prove or disprove their belonging to different species, we must first determine what in their case should be considered a species - in fact, what we are currently working on.

However... in addition to the background color of the wings, is there a clear difference between them? I don't remember." If not, then probably yes, this is all one species, since the color change of yellow-orange-red pigment in whiteflies is a minor and too frequent event to give it any weight. This is about how to give weight to the shade of hair in the inhabitants of Mordovia in order to break them down into a couple of dozen types. But this is all just guesswork, and I don't have enough schizophrenia and megalomania to publish everything that comes to mind based on such raw data.

Tiny difference: here the difference is caught by standard molecular methods.

I can assure you that there are also molecular differences between, for example, Buryat and Tuvan hyales. And quite noticeable. As well as between populations of both hyales and other species. And among the butterflies of the same species collected on the same meadow on one day, there are also differences. Moreover, they are not always tiny.

The trouble is that the "standard" molecular variability within a population from one clearing sometimes overlaps with interspecific variability and makes it impossible to distinguish two individuals from one population from another species living on the other edge of Eurasia!

This post was edited by ayc - 27.10.2013 19: 52

I can assure you that there are also molecular differences between, for example, Buryat and Tuvan hyales. And quite noticeable. As well as between populations of both hyales and other species. And among the butterflies of the same species collected on the same meadow on one day, there are also differences. Moreover, they are not always tiny.

The trouble is that the "standard" molecular variability within a population from one clearing sometimes overlaps with interspecific variability and makes it impossible to distinguish two individuals from one population from another species living on the other edge of Eurasia!

In Romania, it sort of turned out that way. Насчет различения по имаго вот: "the reliable separation between C. alfacariensis and C. hyale based on wing morphology is hazardous, excepting 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." They somehow scattered 2 dozen butterflies by external signs and it turned out that imago X corresponds to identical (!) cytochrome butterflies, and types X and A-gradation is not obvious that their "real chiales" are not a marginal branch that differs from all others by 9%, but standard chiales and alfakariensis (if there are any) are related to each other in the ratio of 99-100%.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 27.10.2013 20: 05

ayc, you may not have read this topic, so let me raise something up
The fact is that two participants of this forum, okoem et Kharkovbut, wrote and published an article that also indicates a reliable difference between hyale and alfakariensis - this is a difference in the color of caterpillars, and it seems to be in forage plants, I don't remember already, all participants here can correct)
But the point is that while the existing differences are sufficient for individual species, the imagos of these mmmm species appear to be morphologically similar, including in terms of genitals. And the main question is how much" ancient " isolation there is between these two .. species and how complete the isolation is over their entire shared range. I just wonder what caused their isolation with such similarity of adults, the presence of overlapping ranges, and whether there is any reproductive isolation at all, in the absence of special morphological differences, there is only a difference in the color of caterpillars in a certain population, well, and some genetic differences, but there are a lot of supporters of the complex method, they say that only by Due to various reasons, it is not always possible to make new species just like that.

So here probably one molecular work will not be enough, personally I would be convinced by information about the difference in color of caterpillars of these species throughout the mixed range, information from biology that shows why there is reliable reproductive isolation, and even better it would be to know how long ago this isolation was not, but this is probably from the field of fiction

1. I simply demand a link about their reproductive isolation!
2. Forum the I read, but with what a fright nutrition on another feed and color is given such a huge weight? They just eat what they give, and the chemistry they eat regulates the synthesis of pigments. Or symbionts (the same Wolbachia - a very fashionable parasite in jaundice) allow infected gummies to eat other food and / or regulate pigmentation. Or they force the females to lay eggs on the wrong species, while the caterpillars don't care what they eat. And at the same time prevent the fertilization of sick females by healthy males. (google 'Colias Wolbachia' instead of links).
3. Wait a minute... does the hyale live on a single food source throughout its range? Or we will now make as many species as forage-the genetic differences are no less than in Romania, I can guarantee!
3. Surprisingly, hyale sensu lato is the sister group of all the Holarctic jaundice. During this time, hyale could diverge into half a hundred species. But for some reason, it didn't diverge much...

In Romania, it sort of turned out that way. Насчет различения по имаго вот: "the reliable separation between C. alfacariensis and C. hyale based on wing morphology is hazardous, excepting 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." They somehow scattered 2 dozen butterflies by external signs and it turned out that imago X corresponds to identical (!) cytochrome butterflies, and types X and A-gradation is not obvious that their "real chiales" are not a marginal branch that differs from all others by 9%, but standard chiales and alfakariensis (if there are any) are related to each other in the ratio of 99-100%.

Well, yes, a cool tree. I can post the same thing, "showing" that there are two types of "hecla" or whatever it is in Sweden, and one of them will be conspecific to viluenzis and Swedish tyche. And polygraphuses from Vladivostok and Khabarovsk will be divided into two "types", and maybe three. And palen so on two subgenera scrape together! And if some bastard morphologically does not fit into my theory, then I will tactfully keep silent about its existence.. The only question is, why do such "science"?

Well, yes, a cool tree. I can post the same thing, "showing" that there are two types of "hecla" or whatever it is in Sweden, and one of them will be conspecific to viluenzis and Swedish tyche. And polygraphuses from Vladivostok and Khabarovsk will be divided into two "types", and maybe three. And palen so on two subgenera scrape together! And if some bastard morphologically does not fit into my theory, then I will tactfully keep silent about its existence.. The only question is, why do such "science"?

Romanians honestly wrote that they divided them into two species by habit, external signs in Romania (almost) do not work, and male genitalia do not work either (our authors claim that they also differ in them). Cytochrome chyale clones with a variety of "alfacariensis" with an insufficient sample (approx. 20), of course, make a strange impression and, most likely, do not prove the division of Romanian jaundice into 2 species. And in other places of cohabitation, such studies do not seem to have been conducted.

Well, yes - the Romanians identified two slightly different mitochondrial lines. Nothing more.

Well, yes - the Romanians identified two slightly different mitochondrial lines. Nothing more.

Yes, but there is no reason to say that they correspond to chyale and alfakariensis - among the latter molecular ones there are individuals with the habitus chyale, look, there are pictures there. It is necessary to study our people, and not on 20 butterflies.

About the tree in the article by Dinka and co-authors and about the representativeness of the sample, in order of clarification, I quote: "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%. 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."

About reproductive isolation: unfortunately, I don't know any direct results about this, only indirect ones. Of course, it would be great to have something like what was recently received from Leptidea (the link to the work is placed in " Announcements...").

About "they just eat what they give": not exactly. According to our data, spotted caterpillars (aka alfacariensis) do not eat alfalfa. And green (aka hyale) - they eat both. It is possible, of course, to assume that Wolbachia or some other demon has taken possession of the spotted ones - however, as I understand it, there is no specific data on this. The same hypotheses.

About "we need to investigate our clients": who is arguing, a reasonable idea, it will definitely not be worse from this. Get busy, publish your results, and we'll be happy for you. IMHO, without specific data (with a demonstration of such data, preferably in print), this is all just a shaking of the electromagnetic field. Dixi.

PS: Anton, a question for you. Here is the article:

"Evolutionary biogeography and taxonomy of Pierid butterfly taxa Colias crocea and C. erate (Lepidoptera, Pieridae)."
Chichvarkhin A., Wahlberg N., Nylin S.

it was never written or published?

Kharkovbut, I decided not to publish the article due to the insignificance of the conclusions. Back then, like today's barcoders, I sincerely believed that differences in COI could allow us to distinguish species. But then I became convinced that all this is a terrible misconception. And I buried the topic for 7-8 years, not knowing what to do here. Or even without understanding. what else could be done with colias to do something with them! During this time, new technologies have matured, grants have been obtained, and colleagues have brought me back to butterfly studies by the ears, from which, as it already seemed to me, I left forever, so now, after talking with the people, I felt ashamed and will try to supplement this work and publish it.

About Romanians-their tiny sample does not show a correlation of phenotype and barcode, no matter what they write. I don't want to say anything ugly about these guys, but I'll be paranoid - life shows that when a researcher sets out to find markers (including molecular ones) for separating species, he always finds them. For some reason, people assume that only those results that show differences are published. And the absence of found differences is interpreted as the absence of results, and the results are perceived as unpublished. Nonsense, but it works...

Once again, in palaeno, hecla, and hyperborea, the intrapopulation COI variability is higher than the "Romanian" 2.7%. And if you want, you can probably find phenotypic differences between them, like a slightly more yellow undergarment or a slightly darker border. But this will not be a biological study, but a disease of the head.

Therefore, this study should be repeated independently by someone else. But personally, I will definitely not go to catch these animals - I just don't have time. And if someone is ready to provide material and even grow caterpillars, then we will co-author velkam-and compare, and check for Volbachia.

And this is what confuses me both in the alfa-hyale pair and in the erate-crocea pair. As far as I know (although I may be wrong), their sympatric populations do not differ in phenology and biotopes - they just fly to the pile. Whereas in the cases of other species, there are such differences: if 3-4 species fly at a point, they will prefer different biotopes and/or have different periods of summer, which is understandable and expected - it is precisely due to different adaptations that they have become different species. But the existence of sympatric in all similar species is somehow hard to believe... it is more likely to believe that it is just some worms they have!

And please note that these Dinca articles are not Romanian. Their decisive force is Canadian barcoders Zakharov and Hebert. And since the goal of this company is not to establish scientific truth, but to promote dna barcoding by proving its effectiveness at any cost, the results of works where these two authors appear (Hebert is the author of this whole idea and the most career and economically interested person) should be filtered through a triple layer of gauze. The guys shod their government with fantastic money and carried the whole planet away with this occupation. So, never expect them to publish that by sequencing a piece of the COI gene, they failed to distinguish between a certain pair of species.

Nevertheless, Appendix 4 lists a fairly significant number of pairs of species that, according to the data obtained, do NOT differ in barcoding. We need to read more carefully.

Nevertheless, Appendix 4 lists a fairly significant number of pairs of species that, according to the data obtained, do NOT differ in barcoding. We need to read more carefully.

It would be better to keep silent about the conspiracy theory of self-serving geneticists. The 4th part just proves the opposite. The article is "Romanian", because it deals with material on Romania. And their reference to the data bank is unsubstantiated - it is not clear what relation the two Romanian and other "molecular taxa" have to our two taxa with those differences. features (imago, caterpillars, forage plant) that are accepted by our authors. In Romanians, one molecular branch is formed by the same type (according to mtDNA) Transylvanian imago-hyale, the other by Transylvanian and from other places of different types (according to mtDNA) imago "hyalo-alfacariensis" and alfacariensis. The graph probably reflects the situation of mixing two subspecies. And there seems to be no other research - what's in the data bank while the pinhole camera is still there. "We compared our sequences with those present in GenBank (results not shown) and found that the general tree topology is maintained, confirming our interpretation" - we are talking about a statistical spread that resembles Romanian, but not at all about the correlation of the discussed set of alphabets. features (in other words, our two types, in quotation marks or without them, as you like) with one of the molecular types. Barcoding does not confirm that these egg yolks belong to two types, but rather indicates that they are conspecific.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 08: 13

What crocea and erate are ....

However... in addition to the background color of the wings, is there a clear difference between them?

There is a difference, but there is no border. In other words, there are a lot of intermediate color forms.

  
2. Forum the I read, but with what a fright nutrition on another feed and color is given such a huge weight? They just eat what they give, and the chemistry they eat regulates the synthesis of pigments.

The food base of alfacariensis is narrower than that of hyale.
If you feed a hyale caterpillar with alfacariensis forage, it will not look like alfacariensis.

 
And here's what confuses me as a pair of alfa-hyale,...... As far as I know (although I may be wrong), their sympatric populations do not differ in phenology and biotopes - they just fly to the pile.

Has anyone studied the phenology of sympatric alfa-hyale populations?
As for biotopes, alfacariensis flies only in places where the food plant grows. Hyale has a wider feed base, acc. potentially wider and more widespread.

okoem " hyale has a wider feed base, acc. potentially wider and more widespread."
[/quote]
But for some reason, in Europe, hyale does not extend to the south - it seems that it "dissolves" in alfakariensis. The zone of their common habitat is very narrow, which is similar to the zone between isolated and recently encountered subspecies that have managed to acquire their own characteristics, but have not yet managed to merge in ecstasy.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 14: 34

Hee-hee, of course, but it is strange when two good (supposedly) species persistently do not want to get any far into the range of the neighboring one, despite (supposedly) different food plants. At the same time, it turns out that it is impossible to recognize chial-alfacariensis hybrids when external signs are unstable. If, however, it turns out that there is a zone of active hybridization between areas A and X, then we should not talk about two species - just good (without clinality) subspecies.

What low guile.
What a wicked irony.
Even less than a year ago, being sure that sareptensis is a synonym for alpha, now talk about the range of alpha and hybridization and write as follows:

What low guile.
What a wicked irony.
Even less than a year ago, being sure that sareptensis is a synonym for alpha, now talk about the range of alpha and hybridization and write this

I was sure (and still am) that sareptensis is a synonym for alpha, because the lectotype is indicated, which no one has yet canceled (and will not cancel, because this C will still go into eternal synonyms or to chiala, or to erata). And I write "such" on the basis of facts and do not consider my opinion (unlike you) to be the only correct one, but I justify it with facts.

That's the whole point.
For me, the description and butterflies of Staudinger and Alferaki are a priority, not the lectotype of a completely different species, and I caught alpha and grew hyale, unlike you.
You do not understand this issue at all, what is the use for you.

That's the whole point.
For me, the description and butterflies of Staudinger and Alferaki are a priority, not the lectotype of a completely different species, and I caught alpha and grew hyale, unlike you.
You do not understand this issue at all, what is the use to you?

I certainly don't know as much about this matter as you do, so I don't dispute your conclusions about your locality. It's just that I've encountered similar situations in areas between the ranges of good subspecies, where similar things happen - for example, between M. arion arion and arion cyanecula. The pattern of interaction between hyala and alfakariensis along their entire border is very suspicious, because if they were good species with reproductive isolation, then hyala would fly all over southern Europe, and alfakariensis would follow its elm north. And together they fly only in a relatively narrow area, where, however, it is impossible to recognize hybrids, because the signs are floating.

I do not know what kind of Europe you are talking about. In the European part of Russia, it is simply not necessary to talk about a specific area of alpha right now.
But in the Volgograd region, this is exactly what happens, as you described.
All alpha populations are extremely local and strictly tied to vyazel.
That is, in the pair alpha-hyale, alpha north, hyale south, in the south of the region, there is simply no alpha.

I do not know what kind of Europe you are talking about. In the European part of Russia, it is simply not necessary to talk about a specific area of alpha right now.
But in the Volgograd region, this is exactly what happens, as you described.
All alpha populations are extremely local and strictly tied to vyazel.
That is, in the pair alpha-hyale, alpha north, hyale south, in the south of the alpha region there is simply no alpha.

It is very interesting, and I would like to read about it not on the forum, but in your articles. As for our Europe, 1) it seems that there are no alphas at all to the north of Tula (I don't know to the south), in the Baltic States too, 2) in Western Europe their areas have been studied, this is about the same with insignificant ones. variations -- alpha " Europe except British Isles, N Holland, N Germany, Scandinavia, Baltia. Turkey, uncertain eastern range due to confusion with C. hyale". Хиале: "Spain (local colonies in Granada, Palencia, Catalonia), From Pyrenees to Denmark (resident in Gotland). Not in SE Europe". That is, together they live there only in enclaves of Spain (is there an alpha in them?) and in a narrow zone along the coast of Europe.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 16: 42

That is, if you remove the Zoom, you will get one big hole, with rare exceptions.
I have already written to you, and I will write to you again. But Europe doesn't interest me very much, and I don't have a good idea of the climate conditions there, and what I see in my region doesn't allow me to talk about any hybridization there, and they behave just like everyone else, and I don't see any reason for this couples make some exceptions.

That's the whole point.
For me, the description and butterflies of Staudinger and Alferaki are a priority, not the lectotype of a completely different species, and I caught alpha and grew hyale, unlike you.
You do not understand this issue at all, what is the use to you?

Well, wait, gentlemen, we will agree on this to the point of utter absurdity. Staudinger did not give any description of sareptensis, because of this, all the fuss is made, and therefore it is possible to focus on his understanding of this species only by its type series. Whether it's good or bad, but the type is currently selected - you have to accept it. SNAlferaki did not give a description at all, but a complete mess, in terms of "this is how I imagine it", and his description should not be taken into account at all, because it is not a description in the taxonomic sense. His role was to validate the name, but only for the taxon that Staudinger had envisioned. Therefore, whether we want to or not, but by sareptensis we must understand the phenotype that Stas distinguished from the series of Individual types. If this does not correspond to someone's idea of the" real " sareptensis, then describe the latter as an independent form, but just do not say that the typical sareptensis is not what the Author meant. What we have today is what he had ((((

Yeah... so we came to the same conclusion, which I will soon prove in one of my articles, which is currently being prepared for publication. Only I have a specially selected example of one of the most commercial - I want to kill two birds with one stone: both commercial subspecies, and prove that genome drift exists even in local populations. The concept of "subspecies" in the light of molecular methods takes on a different, dynamic fullness, and it is important to show this, if only in order to pull the taxonomy out of the swamp into which it is currently being actively sucked by taxonomists-subspecialists.

I was sure (and still am) that sareptensis is a synonym for alpha, because the lectotype is indicated, which no one has yet canceled (and will not cancel, because this C will still go into eternal synonyms or to chiala, or to erata). And I write "such" on the basis of facts and do not consider my opinion (unlike you) to be the only correct one, but I justify it with facts.

The designated lectotype is invalid. Mandatory requirements of the Code were not met. Finita la comedia. The question of where it will go in synonyms is a matter of principle.

I certainly don't know as much about this matter as you do, so I don't dispute your conclusions about your locality. It's just that I've encountered similar situations in areas between the ranges of good subspecies, where similar things happen - for example, between M. arion arion and arion cyanecula. The pattern of interaction between hyala and alfakariensis along their entire border is very suspicious, because if they were good species with reproductive isolation, then hyala would fly all over southern Europe, and alfakariensis would follow its elm north. And together they fly only in a relatively narrow area, where, however, it is impossible to recognize hybrids, because the signs are floating.

Arion and cyanecula are clearly different species, not subspecies of the same species. In my revision of the subgenus Maculinea, this is all described in detail, very simple diagnostic signs in this pair are highlighted. And the cyanecule lectotype, by the way, too. Arion and cyanecula get along well together in the mountains of Central Asia - in particular, on the Northern Tien Shan (see my work on the diurnals of this region) and on the Dzungars (where I observed both species in the same gorge personally).

Arion and cyanecula are clearly different species, not subspecies of the same species. In my revision of the subgenus Maculinea, this is all described in detail, very simple diagnostic signs in this pair are highlighted. And the cyanecule lectotype, by the way, too. Arion and cyanecula get along well together in the mountains of Central Asia - in particular, on the Northern Tien Shan (see my work on the diurnals of this region) and on the Dzungars (where I observed both species in the same gorge personally).

Arion and cyanecula are actively hybridized in Novosibirsk. from Gorny Altai and to the east up to Khakassia, i.e. in the zone between the continuous ranges of arion and cyanecula. In Tuva there is only a cyanecule, in Khakassia there is a pure (in appearance) cyanecule, and hybrids, etc. With this here a whole team of authors understood and came to a single conclusion. I don't know about Wed. Asia, but it's probably a different situation there. But "I observed both species in the same gorge personally" is not an argument, individuals with the habit of cyanecula and arion (as well as intermediate ones, with different areas of blue dusting on the underside of the zkr) You can also watch near Novosibirsk.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 17: 27

Arion and cyanecula are actively hybridized in Novosibirsk. from Gorny Altai and to the east up to Khakassia, i.e. in the zone between the continuous ranges of arion and cyanecula. In Tuva there is only a cyanecule, in Khakassia there is a pure (in appearance) cyanecule, and hybrids, etc. With this here a whole team of authors understood and came to a single conclusion. I don't know about Wed. Asia, but it's probably a different situation there. But "I observed both species in the same gorge personally" is not an argument, individuals with the habit of cyanecula and arion (as well as intermediate ones, with different areas of blue dusting on the underside of the zkr) You can also watch near Novosibirsk.

The phenomenon of hybridization in the light of recent events can be proved ONLY by molecular methods. I hope you were present at the last Congress of REO - there was a very interesting plenary report by V. A. Lukhtanov devoted to this phenomenon.

If there is any data , I will be happy to read it. If this is an article on pigeons in the Novosibirsk region, recently published in the Eurasian Entomological Journal , then everything is very, very far-fetched and very vague, there is no clear evidence. And there is no trial...

Among our typically colored arions, we rarely come across butterflies that are very similar to the cyanicula. For example, here is this male from my collections. http://www.dprgek.ru/redbook/detail.php-ID_SPEC=16232.htm