Jaundice (Colias)

Oh, and one more thing. The area of blue dusting on the rear wing is not a sign. The signs in this pair of types are different - once again I refer you to my revision, everything is clear there. It is simply impossible to confuse tsuianekula with arion. And what you describe is just individual variability, which is very strong in the maculines.

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.

Well, not interested - it's a personal matter, but still they also live there and are better studied than in the steppe In Europe. The fact that they live as different species is a good argument, but it may not be decisive for the entire contact area. I will also write again - it is strange that chiala in Europe does not spread to the south, and alpha to the north, despite the biological possibility. I am especially surprised by the omnivorous hyala-why wouldn't it occupy that southern Europe, especially since it is not a very good food competitor to alpha. Floating external signs do not allow us to confirm or refute routine hybridization, and barcoding is not yet an argument, judging by Romania. Of course, there is also Korb's special approach to species/subspecies, but it is marginal and not very clear to me.

Oh, and one more thing. The area of blue dusting on the rear wing is not a sign. The signs in this pair of types are different - once again I refer you to my revision, everything is clear there. It is simply impossible to confuse tsuianekula with arion. And what you describe is just individual variability, which is very strong in the maculines.

Perhaps we are talking about different "cyanecules". I do not know what is in WED. Asia, but I know exactly what's in Siberia. Butterflies with different dusting areas are found only in the transition zone - Omsk arions and Tuvan cyanecules contrast in this feature, and there are no" transitional " individuals there. So there is no need to talk about individual variability here. And I missed the link about your revision, please repeat it.

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...

And what kind of "clear evidence" do you need when the material is "fuzzy" by definition? Transitional blue-coated butterflies are only in the contact zone, and there are a third or a quarter of them. If you know any other differences between taxa, please tell us. As for the molecular methods in this case, what will they give you? Closely related sister taxa, you will get a picture at best like with the Romanian egg yolks, but most likely none, less than 2%. Molecular science, for example, does nothing to formally separate even such decidedly separate species as Ligea and Euryale. We discussed this with Lukhtanov in the spring, and he also admits that panic is not a panacea, although in many cases it is a decisive sign.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 18: 07

And what kind of "clear evidence" do you need when the material is "fuzzy" by definition? Transitional blue-coated butterflies are only in the contact zone, and there are a third or a quarter of them. If you know any other differences between taxa, please tell us. As for the molecular methods in this case, what will they give you? Closely related sister taxa, you will get a picture at best like with the Romanian egg yolks, but most likely none, less than 2%. Molecular science, for example, does nothing to formally separate even such decidedly separate species as Ligea and Euryale.

Again, you're off topic.
That's just how hybrids differ very well in molecular terms.

Again, you're off topic.
That's just how hybrids differ very well in molecular terms.

If there are hybrids between different species, then yes. And if there are subspecies between [transitional forms], how do they differ "very well" in molecular terms?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 18: 56

What are the hybrids between subspecies?
Yeah, okay. The molecular model shows well even when close populations of the same species diverged for a while, and then converged again.

I write from a mobile phone, I will be brief.

If you can tell the difference between arion and cyanecula by the dusting on the rear wing, then I sympathize with you.

What are the hybrids between subspecies?
Yeah, okay. The molecular model shows well even when close populations of the same species diverged for a while, and then converged again.

Hybrids can be intraspecific, intrageneric, or intergeneric. Say otherwise, the essence will not change when subspecies are separate and differ in a number of characteristics. In practice, the Romanian situation between A and X is significant - it is really not clear what mtDNA shows there, since fluctuations within 2%, even with a very complex structure, can indicate both species and subspecies. Part of the Transylvanian hiale is isolated - but you never know why! If it seemed to you that I was confusing transitional phenotypes with mtDNA haplogroups, then not at all. In the transition zone between subspecies, there will be a lot of (outwardly) transitional forms, but this will have nothing to do with what they are in mtDNA. However, numerous transitional forms indicate the absence of a reproductive barrier, and this is enough to avoid considering taxa as species. And if they are within 3-2% of the difference in COI, then you should not even think about it (even if 9% is a very complicated story for this trait - if there is no barrier, then it means one species). The Siberian arion and cyanecula are exactly in this ratio, and the situation is the same with different" types " of eros. What happens between Hiala and alpha is a mystery to me.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 22: 42

I write from a mobile phone, I will be brief.

If you can tell the difference between arion and cyanecula by the dusting on the rear wing, then I sympathize with you.

Thank you. You can throw the link to your revision, then it will be clear what we are arguing about. As for sputtering, this is a convenient feature for distinguishing, and it really "walks" in the transition zone and is stable in the main areas of arion and cyanecula (at least in Southern Siberia), and nothing but gene exchange can explain it. And if there is an intensive gene exchange, then there is no reproductive barrier and the Siberian arion and cyanecula are subspecies of the same species, no matter how much they differ.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 23: 04

Thank you. You can throw the link to your revision, then it will be clear what we are arguing about. As for sputtering, this is a convenient feature for distinguishing, and it really "walks" in the transition zone and is stable in the main areas of arion and cyanecula (at least in Southern Siberia), and nothing but gene exchange can explain it. And if there is an intensive gene exchange, then there is no reproductive barrier and the Siberian arion and cyanecula are subspecies of the same species, no matter how much they differ.

If you please.
If you'll excuse me, I'm not arguing with you. I know 100 % of what I'm talking about, and my knowledge is supported by reading primary sources and studying types (some of which I personally identified). You can argue as much as you want, but what's the point?

Korb S. K. 2011. Review of the subgenus Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 of the genus Phengaris Doherty, 1891 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) of the Palearctic fauna // Eversmannia. Issue 27-28, pp. 22-46.

Thank you. You can throw the link to your revision, then it will be clear what we are arguing about. As for sputtering, this is a convenient feature for distinguishing, and it really "walks" in the transition zone and is stable in the main areas of arion and cyanecula (at least in Southern Siberia), and nothing but gene exchange can explain it. And if there is an intensive gene exchange, then there is no reproductive barrier and the Siberian arion and cyanecula are subspecies of the same species, no matter how much they differ.

Oh my gad, I can come up with two dozen reasons for such "festivities" and "constancy" on the spot, starting from the food supply (monophagy in the main area, oligophagy in the contact zone) and ending with the mixing of relict populations and new settlers. Who studied that? But it is enough to let a couple of "fresh" individuals into a "stagnant" population - and the signs begin to "float" so that the mother does not grieve )

Oh my gad, I can come up with two dozen reasons for such "festivities" and "constancy" on the spot, starting from the food supply (monophagy in the main area, oligophagy in the contact zone) and ending with the mixing of relict populations and new settlers. Who studied that? But it is enough to put a couple of "fresh" individuals into a "stagnant" population - and the signs begin to "float" so that the mother does not grieve )

Anything can happen, but when the situation is trivial throughout the transition zone, it is useful to resort to Occam's razor. Unfortunately, your revision is not available on the Internet, so please send it by mail. "Reading primary sources and studying types" - this already vividly reminded me of the late Yuri Petrovich, who naively believed that the features of the taxon are reflected in the holotype. For the revision of the group, all this is necessary, but if you have 2 stable phenotypes in Southern Siberia (say, the Omsk arion and Irkutsk cyanecula), and between Novosibirsk and Khakassia there are a lot of transitional forms - by eye, of course, they are most easily "caught" by the degree of blue pollination - then what does the types and primary sources have to do with it? The only reasonable conclusion is the zone of intravenous hybridization.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 28.10.2013 23: 38

Anything can happen, but when the situation is trivial throughout the transition zone, it is useful to resort to Occam's razor. Unfortunately, your revision is not available on the Internet, so please send it by mail. "Reading primary sources and studying types" - this already vividly reminded me of the late Yuri Petrovich, who naively believed that the features of the taxon are reflected in the holotype. For the revision of the group, all this is necessary, but if you have 2 stable phenotypes in Southern Siberia (say, the Omsk arion and Irkutsk cyanecula), and between Novosibirsk and Khakassia there are a lot of transitional forms - by eye, of course, they are most easily "caught" by the degree of blue pollination - then what does the types and primary sources have to do with it? The only reasonable conclusion is the zone of intravenous hybridization.

[attachmentid()=185762]

Many of the answers to your questions can be found here.
There are also stupid primary descriptions, I do not dispute. But Mr. Eversmann was an exceptionally serious man.

As for the hybridization zone, there is a much more plausible explanation. Individual variability under stressful conditions for the species (both - at the border of ranges). Hybridization cannot be proved without molecular verification.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 29.10.2013 00: 38

[attachmentid()=185762]

Many of the answers to your questions can be found here.
There are also stupid primary descriptions, I do not dispute. But Mr. Eversmann was an exceptionally serious man.

As for the hybridization zone, there is a much more plausible explanation. Individual variability under stressful conditions for the species (both - at the border of ranges). Hybridization cannot be proved without molecular verification.

I know this description, even translated it to someone. And what follows from it? As for the arion and cyanecula phenotypes (topotypic), they are heaven and earth. As for the conditions, why are they stressful? They have expanded their ranges precisely because conditions have become normal. What will a molecular survey of such close taxa show you? A certain shallow tree, of course, not always correlated with phenotypes. It is necessary to prove / refute the presence/absence of a reproductive barrier, this will tell in favor of conspecificity or against. From what I've seen, his name is нет.
РЅ. You sent me a piece of the description, so I found the full one. Note that none of them can be distinguished. a qualitative trait (such as an extra row of spots, the shape of a row of spots, etc.), and all quantitative ones - narrower/wider, lighter/darker, pollination wider/narrower, etc. Such features in themselves certainly do not allow us to say that these taxa are not one species. Especially when these "quantities"vary in the transition zone. In theory, in the hybridization zone there should be butterflies with the appearance of arion and cyanecule haplogroups and vice versa, but who will sequence them here?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 01: 38

It's pointless to post a full description. It's easy to find on the web.
The signs are listed correctly. It is easy to identify the view by using them. The arion differs from the cyanecule VERY simply by the width of the marginal black border in males. if it is already a black discal spot , it is a cyanecule. If wider - arion. Dusting, rows of spots and so on-signs are extremely unreliable, because they float very, very seriously. But the marginal border "worked" on all of the instances I viewed. I don't know how many copies were watched by the authors you mentioned (although I don't know who exactly - well, God forbid), I looked at more than 3000, the variability is wild by all signs. Except for the border ). There is also a genital sign, also very clear, the shape of the cornutus - in cyanecula it is cone-shaped, in arion it is rectangular. Among the females, I did not distinguish any signs, I confess. Although I think it's also not difficult .

And in Central Asia, on the Suusamyr syrt, I collected both pure arions and pure cyanecules in the same clearing. I collected a lot. I didn't see any traffic either.

It's pointless to post a full description. It's easy to find on the web.
The signs are listed correctly. It is easy to identify the view by using them. The arion differs from the cyanecule VERY simply by the width of the marginal black border in males. if it is already a black discal spot , it is a cyanecule. If wider - arion. Dusting, rows of spots and so on-signs are extremely unreliable, because they float very, very seriously. But the marginal border "worked" on all of the instances I viewed. I don't know how many copies were watched by the authors you mentioned (although I don't know who exactly - well, God forbid), I looked at more than 3000, the variability is wild by all signs. Except for the border ). There is also a genital sign, also very clear, the shape of the cornutus - in cyanecula it is cone-shaped, in arion it is rectangular. Among the females, I did not distinguish any signs, I confess. Although I think it's also not difficult .

And in Central Asia, on the Suusamyr syrt, I collected both pure arions and pure cyanecules in the same clearing. I collected a lot. I didn't see any traffic either.

You may be right, I don't remember what the border is, but my colleagues probably checked it, because they ran it according to all the Eversmann features. But the width of the border is also a trivial quantitative feature, and the fact that it worked everywhere for you means that you watched "clean" butterflies. How many specimens have you seen from areas of shared (rather than contiguous) habitat (other than Syrta village)? In the south of Zap. Siberia: transitional copies. They are found from the Altai (except for the southern mountain, where cyanecula is typical) to Novosibirsk. In this case, the typical arion and cyanecule are more common. As for the Suusamyr syrt, how do I know how the local arion and cyanecula relate to each other? The "nedovids", who did not reach good views and met again after the glaciation and are just now merging in ecstasy, have local problems. странности.
РЅ.
Here I found a photo by chance - one (top and bottom) is a typical cyanecule, the other is arion (top) but with a cyanecule underside from under the N-ska (Bugotaxie hills). Normal arions have minimal pollination, cyanecules have a narrow border. Here I found a photo by chance - one (top and bottom) is a typical cyanecule, the other is arion (top) but with a cyanecule underside from under the N-ska (Bugotaxie hills). Normal arions have minimal pollination, cyanecules have a narrow border. Of course, there are all sorts of other combinations - for example, a narrow border on top with minimal pollination. In general, we looked at them carefully and are unlikely to be seriously mistaken.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 03: 24

Pictures:

cyanecula_un.JPG — (193.04к)


cyanecula_up.JPG — (191.24к)


cyanecula2_up.JPG — (2.9 mb)


cyanecula2_un.JPG — (3.51 mb)

Hybrids can be intraspecific, intrageneric, or intergeneric. Say otherwise, the essence will not change when subspecies are separate and differ in a number of characteristics. In practice, the Romanian situation between A and X is significant - it is really not clear what mtDNA shows there, since fluctuations within 2%, even with a very complex structure, can indicate both species and subspecies. Part of the Transylvanian hiale is isolated - but you never know why! If it seemed to you that I was confusing transitional phenotypes with mtDNA haplogroups, then not at all. In the transition zone between subspecies, there will be a lot of (outwardly) transitional forms, but this will have nothing to do with what they are in mtDNA. However, numerous transitional forms indicate the absence of a reproductive barrier, and this is enough to avoid considering taxa as species. And if they are within 3-2% of the difference in COI, then you should not even think about it (even if 9% is a very complicated story for this trait - if there is no barrier, then it means one species). The Siberian arion and cyanecula are exactly in this ratio, and the situation is the same with different" types " of eros. What happens between Hiala and alpha is a mystery to me.

I do not know where you get everything.
The "Romanian" authors write that alpha and hyale differ well genetically, but poorly morphologically. On the dendrogram, these two species are represented by two well-separated branches. The numbers on the dendrogram are not differences, but a matching coefficient. The Transylvanian branch of alpha stands apart, but its genetic differences are minimal. If we want to calculate the differences between alpha and hyale, then go to the genebank, take the sequences and go ahead. Or post 227 in this thread, these differences are 2.7 percent. That's it, it's closed.

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 ((((

I finally figured it out.
But this description of Alferaki was cited by ALL authors both before 2005 and after 2005, as a synonym of alfacariensis, and on October 28, 2013 it became a complete failure, and after the establishment of a new lectotype, it, as a synonym of erate, will again cease to be a complete failure.
Although, it should be noted that this otsebyatina Alferaki for all this period has not changed by a single letter.
That's really agreed.

You may be right, I don't remember what the border is, but my colleagues probably checked it, because they ran it according to all the Eversmann features. But the width of the border is also a trivial quantitative feature, and the fact that it worked everywhere for you means that you watched "clean" butterflies. How many specimens have you seen from areas of shared (rather than contiguous) habitat (other than Syrta village)? In the south of Zap. Siberia: transitional copies. They are found from the Altai (except for the southern mountain, where cyanecula is typical) to Novosibirsk. In this case, the typical arion and cyanecule are more common. As for the Suusamyr syrt, how do I know how the local arion and cyanecula relate to each other? The "nedovids", who did not reach good views and met again after the glaciation and are just now merging in ecstasy, have local problems. странности.
РЅ.
Here I found a photo by chance - one (top and bottom) is a typical cyanecule, the other is arion (top) but with a cyanecule underside from under the N-ska (Bugotaxie hills). Normal arions have minimal pollination, cyanecules have a narrow border. Here I found a photo by chance - one (top and bottom) is a typical cyanecule, the other is arion (top) but with a cyanecule underside from under the N-ska (Bugotaxie hills). Normal arions have minimal pollination, cyanecules have a narrow border. Of course, there are all sorts of other combinations - for example, a narrow border on top with minimal pollination. In general, we looked at them carefully and are unlikely to be seriously mistaken.

Slightly expand the "area" of your research, do not just focus on the Novosibirsk region. You have the most common cyanecule on top, and arion on the bottom. And I saw a lot of them and different, looked everywhere where they were in principle - and in Europe, and in our country, and in museums, and in private collections.

[attachmentid()=185772]

[attachmentid()=185773]

.. Recently, I have not been particularly focused on lepidoptera alone and look with slightly different eyes at various aspects in the life of insects, their distribution and ecology of species.
I read and marvel... dusting, number of dots, bandages, lighter-brighter... and at the same time, everyone completely "forgets" an important, and possibly decisive aspect in the same myrmecophilic pigeons, which include the arion and cyanecula considered here... And is it not in the primaginal development that the "basic chemistry" of individual variability in these species is laid?.. after all, no matter how you look at it, all authors write about them as about ... obligate m... V... After all, not one species of ants accompanies them in such a significant area... I don't recall any Russian works on this topic... solid references to Western research... And the food plants of the caterpillars will be clearly different... + mountain zoning... I am now reading Agohonyanets at bedtime with pleasure, about his geobotanical studies of vegetation in the Pamirs... a lot of interesting things pop up... after all, forage plants are important for caterpillars... and here is also predation/that is, parasitism in the nests of ants on the face... and drawing parallels with the same plants, I am increasingly inclined to the ecological forms of species that have developed under the dominant of certain (often complex!)types. conditions... otherwise, they would have simply died out like those trivial mammoths...
And now another direction is beginning to develop rapidly - insect pheromones. And if we learn to separate the pheromones of closely related insect species, then their identification will be much easier... and now the amazing aspects of this direction are being revealed a little...
http://elementy.ru/news/431961

but here it is already more "hot":
http://elementy.ru/news/431717

This post was edited by Penzyak - 29.10.2013 13: 05

I do not know where you get everything.
The "Romanian" authors write that alpha and hyale differ well genetically, but poorly morphologically. On the dendrogram, these two species are represented by two well-separated branches. The numbers on the dendrogram are not differences, but a matching coefficient. The Transylvanian branch of alpha stands apart, but its genetic differences are minimal. If we want to calculate the differences between alpha and hyale, then go to the genebank, take the sequences and go ahead. Or post 227 in this thread, these differences are 2.7 percent. That's it, it's closed.

The Transylvanian branch of Chiala.

The Transylvanian branch of Chiala.

The dendrogram shows that the mitochondrial DNA of the studied individuals from Transylvania differs slightly, they form a separate cluster, but within this species.
Mitochondrial DNA does not allow us to speak about hybridity or non-hybridity of the specimen, for this it is necessary to conduct studies of nuclear genes.

Slightly expand the "area" of your research, do not just focus on the Novosibirsk region. You have the most common cyanecule on top, and arion on the bottom. And I saw a lot of them and different, looked everywhere where they were in principle - and in Europe, and in our country, and in museums, and in private collections.

[attachmentid()=185772]

[attachmentid()=185773]

13-15 these are Z-Sib arions. In the Novosibirsk region. To the west of the Ob River (where there is no cyanecule), arions are only of the type shown in Fig. 13-15. Such as I have in the picture, with the combination of signs of arion and cyanecula, are found mainly on Bugotak hills together with standard arion and cyanecula.

Your "border" is the intensity of the black dusting between two rows of edge spots. It is usually intense in the arion and not intense in the cyanecule. There are exceptions - your Fig. 16, this is not an arion, but a cyanecule with incomplete melanism (it also has other spots on the wing enlarged; however, the specimen can be hybrid); your Saurons are close to this. Your "border" attribute should be replaced with "intense black pollination between two rows of spots on the outer edge of the rcc. until the border is formed". The ratio of the spot size in the cell and the width of the "border" on the RCC is not necessary, because the "border" has the width of the distance between the rows of spots, which is the same in arion and cyanecula (in cyanecula, the inner row of spots is often, but not always, reduced; in Sauron, unlike other cyanecules, it seems to be completely the inner row of edge spots is represented).

Now about pollination of the bottom of the zkr as the most important feature. Arion and cyanecula are distinguished not just by the intensity of sputtering, but by intense metallic pollination on the underside of the zcr, including the leading edge of the cyanecule and the absence of pollination of the leading edge (in fact, the upper half of the wing) in arion. In all the arions in your pictures (except Shebalinsky No. 16, which is a melanistic cyanecule), pollination occupies only the basal and anal parts of the wing, and there is no pollination in the upper third. In arion, pollination does not extend beyond the median row of spots (it occurs only in very bright specimens). and only along the anal edge). All your cyanecules (including Shebalin's arion) have standard "cyanecule" pollination.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 17: 28

I do not know where you get everything.
The "Romanian" authors write that alpha and hyale differ well genetically, but poorly morphologically. On the dendrogram, these two species are represented by two well-separated branches. The numbers on the dendrogram are not differences, but a matching coefficient. The Transylvanian branch of alpha stands apart, but its genetic differences are minimal. If we want to calculate the differences between alpha and hyale, then go to the genebank, take the sequences and go ahead. Or post 227 in this thread, these differences are 2.7 percent. That's it, it's closed.

3-2% I took exactly from where you are 2.7%, I just roughed it up. And this is a difference, not a match. But 2.7% is the difference not between A and X, but between some 2 groups that are not correlated with appearance. In the branch that is not Transylvanian isolated, there are butterflies with habitus hiale.

3-2% I took exactly from where you are 2.7%, I just roughed it up. And this is a difference, not a match. But 2.7% is the difference not between A and X, but between some 2 groups that are not correlated with appearance. In the branch that is not Transylvanian isolated, there are butterflies with habitus hiale.

You were clearly told there that these two species differ well genetically, but poorly morphologically. Why all this scribbling? Moreover, for you, the description of Alferaki is alpha. But it's interesting. Before Grieshuber isolated the lectotype, what do you think was the description of Alferaka?

You were clearly told there that these two species differ well genetically, but poorly morphologically. Why all this scribbling? Moreover, for you, the description of Alferaki is alpha. But it's interesting. Before Grieshuber isolated the lectotype, what do you think was the description of Alferaka?

For me, they didn't write anything useful there, because the spread of 2.7% may be within the species, with a marginal Transylvanian haplogroup. It is possible that it will be found in alphas from Ukraine or Italy, because no one has checked. For me, the description of Alferaka was never "alpha", because it seemed to me that the hyaloid erate was described. Therefore, I strongly disagreed with Korshunov, who equated sareptensis with alfakariensis (in the Saratov book, apparently, without looking at butterflies) and "restored priority". But after the designation of the lectotype by Grieshuber and the commission's decision, I considered that the issue was safely closed. All this was relevant for me when I was looking for alpha in the Novosibirsk region for a faunal article, and when I didn't find it, I somehow became indifferent (the part with whiteflies was published in 2009).

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/29/2013 15: 43

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.

Stas, this is very interesting, but genome drift within a population occurs when butterflies fly around its range, fluttering from flower to flower. Gene drift is the diffuse movement of alleles between populations - this is the essence and definition of this term. Perhaps you had something else in mind?

Subspecies and subspecies were local forms, they were distinguished by phenotypes. And now they are still the same. In some cases, phenotypes correlate with genotypes or their frequencies (and then you can identify their differences in the nucleotide sequences of their genes, which many are trying to do now), and in other cases-no. Thus, a subspecies can be an isolate adapted to local environmental conditions and genetically identical to neighboring subspecies. But the color options can theoretically change forever even in one generation after just one drought or abnormally cold summer, etc.And genes and mutations will have nothing to do with it.

About "amateur" taxonomy, I also had a bad opinion about 10 years ago. It was just annoying to see how people after any trip consider it a matter of honor to suck at least one new subspecies out of it. Just like in the 18th century! But when I looked at what my professional colleagues from the academic community were doing, I realized that it was a very small evil to trash the taxonomy with useless names... Academic science, especially molecular experimental science, is very scary because it looks like a very competitive industry. It is dominated by the principle of "money-science-money", when a scientific result is produced to get money, that is, to continue one's own career and maintain prosperity. It is not money that is used to organize the scientific process (as it was everywhere 30 years ago), but the scientific process is organized in such a way that, based on its results, it is possible to get money again. And what the people just do not get up!

This post was edited by ayc - 29.10.2013 16: 03

What are the hybrids between subspecies?
Yeah, okay. The molecular model shows well even when close populations of the same species diverged for a while, and then converged again.

How deeply mistaken you are! We can't distinguish species from whole genomes here...

"It was just annoying to see how people after any trip consider it a matter of honor to suck at least one new subspecies out of it."

I know perfectly honest experts who believe that "subspecies-just-in-case" should be fixed in case (due to tautology), if it really seems like it . This is especially important for the mountain areas surveyed on a sparse grid, where wedges are not typical. I don't see the point in multiplying taxa.

How deeply mistaken you are! We can't distinguish species from whole genomes here...

hooke reproached me as if I were ignorant, although intraspecific subspecies is a common term. But a certain universal percentage of divergence as a criterion for claiming that similar taxa are not subspecies, but rather different species (such as for COI above 2% are species, below not species) is, in my opinion, nonsense. Molekolekka is just an important argument about or contra. The phylogenetic tree is not a criterion for distinguishing species and subspecies within a group.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 10/29/2013 15: 54

Hybrids can be intraspecific, intrageneric, or intergeneric. Say otherwise, the essence will not change when subspecies are separate and differ in a number of characteristics. In practice, the Romanian situation between A and X is significant - it is really not clear what mtDNA shows there, since fluctuations within 2%, even with a very complex structure, can indicate both species and subspecies. Part of the Transylvanian hiale is isolated - but you never know why! If it seemed to you that I was confusing transitional phenotypes with mtDNA haplogroups, then not at all. In the transition zone between subspecies, there will be a lot of (outwardly) transitional forms, but this will have nothing to do with what they are in mtDNA. However, numerous transitional forms indicate the absence of a reproductive barrier, and this is enough to avoid considering taxa as species. And if they are within 3-2% of the difference in COI, then you should not even think about it (even if 9% is a very complicated story for this trait - if there is no barrier, then it means one species). The Siberian arion and cyanecula are exactly in this ratio, and the situation is the same with different" types " of eros. What happens between Hiala and alpha is a mystery to me.

The presence of transitional forms does not simply indicate the clinal variability of the trait? And once again (third) - in Colias, intrapopulation variability in COI is higher than 3%. This is normal, since haplogroups could have diverged even in a distant ancestor. There is no need to talk about hybrids here - mtDNA is still there... males do not interbreed with males in butterflies.

And if there is an intensive gene exchange, then there is no reproductive barrier and the Siberian arion and cyanecula are subspecies of the same species, no matter how much they differ.

Are you sure that genes play a role there at all? I don't know, did someone genetize these two types of Maculines, showed that "hybrids" are hybrids, and not variants of the variability of hair types?

The presence of transitional forms does not simply indicate the clinal variability of the trait? And once again (third) - in Colias, intrapopulation variability in COI is higher than 3%. This is normal, since haplogroups could have diverged even in a distant ancestor. There is no need to talk about hybrids here - mtDNA is still there... males do not interbreed with males in butterflies.
Are you sure that genes play a role there at all? I don't know, did someone genetize these two types of Maculines, showed that "hybrids" are hybrids, and not variants of the variability of hair types?

In practice, clinal variability is when features on the map are distributed as a continuum. In a wedge, all phenotypes are transient. In the case of maculinae, the whole of Siberia is cyanecula, the whole of the west is arion, and there is a narrow transition zone between them. Since (in my opinion) if they are subspecies, then, of course, the arion phenotype and the cyanecule phenotype are variants of the arion species variability.

I do not know where you get everything.
The "Romanian" authors write that alpha and hyale differ well genetically, but poorly morphologically. On the dendrogram, these two species are represented by two well-separated branches. The numbers on the dendrogram are not differences, but the correspondence coefficient is a statistical estimate of the probability of the existence of the depicted tree branch. The Transylvanian branch of alpha stands apart, but its genetic differences are minimal. If we want to calculate the differences between alpha and hyale, then go to the genebank, take the sequences and go ahead. Or post 227 in this thread, these differences are 2.7 percent. That's it, it's closed.

You persist in confusing a species with a haplotype (mtDNA variant). There are species among animals (mussels, for example) where one individual has haplotypes that differ in COI by >10%. And they suggest that these haplotypes arose long before the formation of these species. But there are also haplotypes that have emerged recently - the differences between them are no more than 1%. In mussels, however, some variants of mitochondrial DNA are passed only from fathers to sons, while others are passed from mothers to all offspring. And not even from the fathers to the sons entirely, but from the father's gonads to the sons. And what now-to tear off the gonads of males and describe a separate genus of whatli from them?

And if we continue with the fact that cases of mtDNA transfer between orders/orders have been proven, which give differences between similar species in COI of about 50%, then... It is high time to close the question of the suitability of differences in mtDNA for determining the ranks of taxa. In addition to illiterate speculations and distortions, this has never led anyone to anything good.

This post was edited by ayc - 29.10.2013 16: 41

In practice, clinal variability is when features on the map are distributed as a continuum. In a wedge, all phenotypes are transient. In the case of maculinae, the whole of Siberia is cyanecula, the whole of the west is arion, and there is a narrow transition zone between them. Since (in my opinion) if they are subspecies, then, of course, the arion phenotype and the cyanecule phenotype are variants of the arion species variability.

It's probably true somewhere. If there is any material and you are still interested in finding out how different these subspecies are and who their hybrids are, please write!

It's probably true somewhere. If there is any material and you are still interested in finding out how different these subspecies are and who their hybrids are, please write!

Yes, it was published (Ivonin, Kosterin, Nikolaev 2011), but since the revision of Korb had not yet been published, there was no one to argue with. With n-Siberian arions and cyanecules, it seems to be a simple case.

Yes, it was published (Ivonin, Kosterin, Nikolaev 2011), but since the revision of Korb had not yet been published, there was no one to argue with. With n-Siberian arions and cyanecules, it seems to be a simple case.

You are talking about " Butterflies of the Novosibirsk region. 2. Lycaenidae"? I didn't find a single word about maculineus and molecular medicine in it. Only about eros - but there is the same COI, which is no better than a censer for identifying hybrids and identifying barriers.

You are talking about " Butterflies of the Novosibirsk region. 2. Lycaenidae"? I didn't find a single word about maculineus and molecular medicine in it. Only about eros - but there is the same COI, which is no better than a censer for identifying hybrids and identifying barriers.

About Arion 230-231. There is nothing about the molecular model, because why is it even needed in these cases? About eros, it is precisely because Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method-although already when our article was in the publishing house, they independently abandoned their concept. In general, to reduce taxonomy to the stratigraphy of haplogroups by COI is some kind of nonsense.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 17: 30

About Arion 230-231. There is nothing about the molecular model, because why is it even needed in these cases? About eros, it is precisely because Stradomsky and Co. "proved" its division into many species by the molecular method - although after the publication of our article, they abandoned their concept. In general, to reduce taxonomy to the stratigraphy of haplogroups by COI is some kind of nonsense.

And what does it finally say??? I can see it:
"Most likely, we
are dealing with well-defined subspecies or even
" semispecies — - vast geographically separated
gene pools that did not have time
to acquire non-crossing barriers during isolation, which leads to
hybridization in the secondary contact zone."

It is not even a hypothesis, but a guess. There is no evidence of isolation and the nature of transitional forms. There is no well-founded hypothesis in this regard either.

And yes, and why didn't they look at the ants, if they started talking about biotopic confinement? An ant is half a Maculinei!

And what does it finally say??? I can see it:
"Most likely, we
are dealing with well-defined subspecies or even
" semispecies — - vast geographically separated
gene pools that did not have time
to acquire non-crossing barriers during isolation, which leads to
hybridization in the secondary contact zone."

It is not even a hypothesis, but a guess. There is no evidence of isolation and the nature of transitional forms. There is no well-founded hypothesis in this regard either.

And yes, and why didn't they look at the ants, if they started talking about biotopic confinement? An ant is half a Maculinei!

At least there is no evidence that they are associated with different ants in the NSO. Isolation is suggested by analogy with hundreds of other subspecies / twin species of various insects, one half of which is in the west, the other in the Altai-Sayan and Siberia.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 29.10.2013 17: 34