Jaundice (Colias)

You give absolutely fantastic data:

"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 in the case of jaundice, the 'standard' molecular variability within a population from one clearing sometimes overlaps the interspecific variability and makes it impossible to distinguish two individuals from one population from another species living on the other edge of Eurasia!"

"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, what the f * * * is this "science" to do?"

"And once again, in palaeno, hecla, 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 isn't going to be a biological study, it's going to be a head condition."

"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."

Is this all published? Is this data available in the genebank?
If this is not the case, then you should have written a paper long ago about the inapplicability of standard methods in the taxonomy of egg yolks.
And with such statements, you simply discredit genetics as such.
Entomology is not a very rich science, and the genetics of diurnal, especially jaundice, and even more so. So you can write almost anything.
What is 2.7 %? This is not just some cp...e 2.7%, which you can spit on and grind. Within the framework of modern concepts, these are quite significant differences that have accumulated over a fairly significant period of time, and within the framework of modern concepts, this allows us to talk about differences at the level of the species.
If you do not agree with this, then publish, change these ideas, and then we will look at our yolks within the framework of these new ideas.

A few words about the "Romanian couple".
Remarkable results have been obtained, and they are even more remarkable if you understand how they were obtained.
The money came from somewhere, and it was necessary to quickly master it and report back. They threw a call, scored 24 copies from this pair, well, what they could, quickly determined, it is not yet known how it all happened, because the volume of material was huge, and it is not a fact that they started with yolks, took samples, numbered them and sent them to the other end of the world.
The specialist who worked with these samples probably had no idea what they were holding in their hands. We got sequences, processed them, got a tree with numbers, and sent this beauty back.
It turned out that some instances were initially defined incorrectly. And what's so terrible about it? Who hasn't experienced such a situation in their life (collection)?
The results were received, the money was paid for, and I don't think anyone else ever returned to this pair.
As for the branch from Transylvania, this is quite a normal situation, and such branches within the same species are found in any article on genetics. This simply suggests that this particular population (s) have been isolated for some time, and nothing more.

A few words about the "Romanian couple".
Remarkable results have been obtained, and they are even more remarkable if you understand how they were obtained.
The money came from somewhere, and it was necessary to quickly master it and report back. They threw a call, scored 24 copies from this pair, well, what they could, quickly determined, it is not yet known how it all happened, because the volume of material was huge, and it is not a fact that they started with yolks, took samples, numbered them and sent them to the other end of the world.
The specialist who worked with these samples probably had no idea what they were holding in their hands. We got sequences, processed them, got a tree with numbers, and sent this beauty back.
It turned out that some instances were initially defined incorrectly. And what's so terrible about it? Who hasn't experienced such a situation in their life (collection)?
The results were received, the money was paid for, and I don't think anyone else ever returned to this pair.
As for the branch from Transylvania, this is quite a normal situation, and such branches within the same species are found in any article on genetics. This simply suggests that this particular population (s) have been isolated for some time, and nothing more.

About the last paragraph. Arguments of the authors Dinca et al. the fact that there are practically no visible differences between the Romanian chiala and alpha, suggests that the division of butterflies into 2 species was made according to COI without taking into account habit. The Transylvanian branch is not an indication that the local chiala is a separate species, since the rest of the Transylvanian chialas were included in another branch along with the alphas, in which the specimens have a noticeably smaller COI distance between them. It seems to me that the "Romanian" topic can be closed on this. Here (Global barcode of life data) alpha data only from Romania (probably the same as Dinka's), Spain and a couple from Germany http://www.boldmirror.net/index.php/search/basic/. In khiala, the same Romania, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and a couple from Kazakhstan. http://www.boldmirror.net/index.php/search/basic/ There is nothing to compare it with.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 12: 35

You so famously change the posts and rules of the game, you will not be in time.
We'll finish this song.

Here's what it says:
DNA barcoding: The resulting tree (fig. S5) shows two well-diverged clades that can be attributed to C. hyale and C. alfacariensis, based on the few morphologically typical specimens. The six specimens in the C. hyale clade have identical barcodes and their minimum interspecific distance with respect to the sister C. alfacariensis clade is 2.65%.
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. With these data, we conclude that DNA barcoding is able to discriminate between the two species.
Comments: The two species were reported to differ in larval morphology so that, apart from DNA barcoding, they may be safely identified during larval stage (Slamka 2004; Tolman & Lewington 2008). According to our data, in Romania C. hyale prefers more humid and colder habitats compared to C. alfacariensis, although the separation in habitat niches is not at all absolute.

It says here that discrimination is difficult, but not in the same way as yours:

"there are almost no visible differences between Romanian hiala and alpha"

You can tell the difference.

Now the picture.
Please outline in red what you mean by the Transylvanian hyala.

Pictures:

1.jpg — (117.67 k)

You so famously change the posts and rules of the game, you will not be in time.
We'll finish this song.

Here's what it says:
DNA barcoding: The resulting tree (fig. S5) shows two well-diverged clades that can be attributed to C. hyale and C. alfacariensis, based on the few morphologically typical specimens. The six specimens in the C. hyale clade have identical barcodes and their minimum interspecific distance with respect to the sister C. alfacariensis clade is 2.65%.
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. With these data, we conclude that DNA barcoding is able to discriminate between the two species.
Comments: The two species were reported to differ in larval morphology so that, apart from DNA barcoding, they may be safely identified during larval stage (Slamka 2004; Tolman & Lewington 2008). According to our data, in Romania C. hyale prefers more humid and colder habitats compared to C. alfacariensis, although the separation in habitat niches is not at all absolute.

It says here that discrimination is difficult, but not in the same way as yours:

"there are almost no visible differences between Romanian hiala and alpha"

You can tell the difference.

Now the picture.
Please outline in red what you mean by the Transylvanian hyala.

Why circle it when it is marked as hyale (one of the Muntenia has got into it). "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" - we probably understand this passage differently. Does this mean that ALL individuals represented in the cladogram are "morphologically typical specimens"?. Look at fig. S3-Do you agree with the definition of taxa?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 13: 26

Let's deal with the tree. And about the definition a little later.

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%.

The resulting tree (Figure S5) shows two well-diverged clades that can be attributed to C. hyale and C. alfacariensis, based on several morphologically typical specimens. Six specimens in the clade C. hyale have identical barcodes and their minimum interspecific distance relative to sister clade alfacariensis C is 2.65%.

These six pieces are the hyale.

But all that is higher is alpha.

Where else do you see here? Show.

This post was edited by guk - 31.10.2013 13: 34

Let's deal with the tree. And about the definition a little later.

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%.

The resulting tree (Figure S5) shows two well-diverged clades that can be attributed to C. hyale and C. alfacariensis, based on several morphologically typical specimens. Six specimens in the clade C. hyale have identical barcodes and their minimum interspecific distance relative to sister clade alfacariensis C is 2.65%.

These six pieces are the hyale.

But all that is higher is alpha.

Where else do you see here? Show.

We clearly have some kind of misunderstanding. The tree shows two clades with a distance of 2.65%. However, it is not obvious to me that the butterflies distributed in these two clades are morphologically opposed as chiale and alpha. In Fig. S3 shows the wings of butterflies participating in the survey, with definitions. Do you agree with the definitions?

That is, I understand you correctly, that now you have no complaints about this tree, everything is clear and understandable there?

That is, I understand you correctly, that now you have no complaints about this tree, everything is clear and understandable there?

Gennady Vasilyevich, you probably confuse me with someone all the time and attribute to me advantages that I don't have. "You are so famously changing the posts and rules of the game, you will not be in time" - this is not about me. I sometimes edit posts when I see that I messed up in a hurry, but the line is always the same. What complaints can I have about the tree, it is objectively obtained by COI-5P. I have doubts about the correct interpretation of it. The distance of 2.7% can be either infra-specific or between two types. They did not clearly state whether ALL the butterflies that participated in the survey are morphologically unambiguously correlated with the cladogram, i.e. those that are designated as C. hyale in the cladogram have the hyale habit, and those that are designated as alfacariensis are morphological alphas. However, they provided drawings of only a few butterflies with definitions. Do you agree with these definitions?

So much for reason!
You don't like the 2.65 percent. It's not here and not to me, but where, I wrote this morning.
I don't define material based on journal publications. I've never done it before. For now, this tree is enough for me.
And to ask questions like:
"Why and why the first sign of poisoning is the blueness of the corpse" on serious forums is not accepted.

You give absolutely fantastic data:

Nothing fancy! In many groups of animals, such tricks have long been known to me. And there is nothing new in intrapopulation variability in COI. Also, mitochondrial DNA can be transferred between species, and the mechanisms of this transfer have been investigated. Again, the 2.7% difference is only significant as the average hospital temperature. There are a ton of articles analyzing the levels of COI differences within taxa of different ranks. And as a rule, interspecific ranges from 0 to 10%, intergeneric ranges from 1 to 15% , etc. And yes, if you take the average, then interspecific differences in many groups of animals on average will be about 3-6%. But this is just a statistical value, and not a criterion that allows everything above 3% to be declared as species! So, I am currently preparing an article about the phylogeny of one of the little-known orders of sea snails Runtsin - there neighboring populations differ in COI by 3-5%, and close species by 15-27, genera by at least 25-45%! And I already wrote about anemones here - there are good species in no way in terms of sequences!

And it is about "COI again does not help" that I am preparing an article. I'm just thinking about whether to limit myself to butterflies,or whether to cram in all the cases in other animals where I can't distinguish between species with a mouse.

And you and Sergey are right - the color of the pigment is associated either with genes or with the regulation of their work. Erat I grew Far Eastern ones. Just to exclude the possibility of getting out a rare recessive allele, in order to force the color to change with new environmental conditions. They were small, with a solid border, but never orange.

So much for reason!
You don't like the 2.65 percent. It's not here and not to me, but where, I wrote this morning.
I don't define material based on journal publications. I've never done it before. For now, this tree is enough for me.
And to ask questions like:
"Why and why the first sign of poisoning is the blueness of the corpse" on serious forums is not accepted.

Yeah, you don't define it. I also don't define it, but you can still estimate it. They gave several photos of very similar imagos, the difference between the ones shown in Fig. S2 genitals are also indistinct. It is quite possible that the cladogram reflects the ratio between the populations of the Romanian alpha, since there is no other information about the chial in Romania. And there is no such axiom that clades with a distance of 2.5% in mtDNA are necessarily species. That is why I wrote above that the "Romanian question" can be considered closed.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 14: 37

Nothing fancy! In many groups of animals, such tricks have long been known to me. And there is nothing new in intrapopulation variability in COI. Also, mitochondrial DNA can be transferred between species, and the mechanisms of this transfer have been investigated. Again, the 2.7% difference is only significant as the average hospital temperature. There are a ton of articles analyzing the levels of COI differences within taxa of different ranks. And as a rule, interspecific ranges from 0 to 10%, intergeneric ranges from 1 to 15% , etc. And yes, if you take the average, then interspecific differences in many groups of animals on average will be about 3-6%. But this is just a statistical value, and not a criterion that allows everything above 3% to be declared as species! So, I am currently preparing an article about the phylogeny of one of the little-known orders of sea snails Runtsin - there neighboring populations differ in COI by 3-5%, and close species by 15-27, genera by at least 25-45%! And I already wrote about anemones here - there are good species in no way in terms of sequences!

And it is about "COI again does not help" that I am preparing an article. I'm just thinking about whether to limit myself to butterflies,or whether to cram in all the cases in other animals where I can't distinguish between species with a mouse.

And you and Sergey are right - the color of the pigment is associated either with genes or with the regulation of their work. Erat I grew Far Eastern ones. Just to exclude the possibility of getting out a rare recessive allele, in order to force the color to change with new environmental conditions. They were small, with a solid border, but never orange.

I do not know where to get the data from "GenBank" that the authors refer to. The Global Barcode of Life Data website lists mostly the same Romanian results and a few from different remote locations.

guk, but I liked the Romanians '"comparison with Genebank data", which for some reason they did not show. It turns out that their conclusions directly depend on how (incorrectly)the people who once placed their sequences in the Genebank correctly identified the butterflies! But excuse me, I've done a lot of work with Western molecular phylogenists, and I haven't seen anyone who cares too much about accurate definitions and other romantic things like specifying collection sites. Like we'll generate it right now and see everything better than the others.... Therefore, it is naive beyond measure to make an axiom that our "expert colleagues" are unshakably right.

And again: the tree shows the difference between the two forms of mtDNA "A"and " B". And in words it is said about "several specimens", the morphology of which successfully fell on this tree. And nothing is said about those who did not lie down. And who then said that these forms of mtDNA mark species, subspecies, and populations? These two types may have diverged in a distant common ancestor, when the current hyale and alpha did not yet exist. And then they could be scattered in different proportions in different populations of both one and the other species. It's like showing the presence of curly and straight-haired people on a tree, and then saying that some curly-haired Ukrainians are in the "curly" cluster, and some straight - haired Russians are in the "straight-haired" one. And declare khokhlovs with katsaps of different types...

This post was edited by ayc - 31.10.2013 15: 00

I do not know where to get the data from "GenBank" that the authors refer to. The Global Barcode of Life Data website lists mostly the same Romanian results and a few from different remote locations.

These are interconnected databases that are partially integrated with each other. GB is a worldwide dump of different sequences and tools for their analysis. Barkoderskaya is devoted more to biodiversity, it provides more information about the studied specimens, provides pictures, etc.

and the genebank is here ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

guk, but I liked the Romanians '"comparison with Genebank data", which for some reason they did not show. It turns out that their conclusions directly depend on how (incorrectly)the people who once placed their sequences in the Genebank correctly identified the butterflies! But excuse me, I've done a lot of work with Western molecular phylogenists, and I haven't seen anyone who cares too much about accurate definitions and other romantic things like specifying collection sites. Like we'll generate it right now and see everything better than the others....

And again: the tree shows the difference between the two forms of mtDNA "A"and " B". And in words it is said about "several specimens", the morphology of which successfully fell on this tree. And nothing is said about those who did not lie down. And who then said that these forms of mtDNA mark species, subspecies, and populations? These two types may have diverged in a distant common ancestor, when the current hyale and alpha did not yet exist. And then they could be scattered in different proportions in different populations of both one and the other species. It's like showing the presence of curly and straight-haired people on a tree, and then saying that some curly-haired Ukrainians are in the "curly" cluster, and some straight - haired Russians are in the "straight-haired" one. And declare khokhlovs with katsaps of different types...

As far as I understand, only these (Global barcode of life data) alpha data are publicly available only from Romania (probably the same as Dinka's), Spain and a couple from Germany http://www.boldmirror.net/index.php/search/basic/. According to hiale, the same Romania, another 1xrussia, 1xr Kyrgyzstan and a couple from Kazakhstan. http://www.boldmirror.net/index.php/search/basic/ There is nothing to compare it with. And even more so check the definitions!

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 14: 55

These are interconnected databases that are partially integrated with each other. GB is a worldwide dump of different sequences and tools for their analysis. Barkoderskaya is devoted more to biodiversity, it provides more information about the studied specimens, provides pictures, etc.

and the genebank is here ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

and here the data is no more, and the eye is exactly the same (only alfakariensis is called sareptensis). so what other additional data did they have from genbank? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore

their link to the genebank seems to be fake

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 15: 08

What is-the main thing is to get behind and do not get involved with stupid questions - everything is very clear and everything is correct.

What is-the main thing is to get behind and do not get involved with stupid questions - everything is very clear and everything is correct.

But the conclusion has to be repeated-the results in Dinca et al. There is no evidence that chiala and alpha are different species, but only that there is a marginal population in Transylvania. Moreover, scant data (images of imago and genitalia) Rather, they are talking about the conspecific nature of Romanian butterflies.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 15: 08

But the conclusion has to be repeated-the results in Dinca et al. There is no evidence that chiala and alpha are different species, but only that there is a marginal population in Transylvania. Moreover, scant data (images of imago and genitalia) Rather, they are talking about the conspecific nature of Romanian butterflies.

This is your personal conclusion, and this conclusion is beyond modern concepts.

Let's still adopt the same rules of the game for everyone.
If someone for some reason does not like 2.65% (although I already wrote about this), then let's just not go to the genetics data, and go back to the time of Staudinger, I don't mind, since my butterflies have no genetics, and the "Romanian" data is always referred to Dear Sergey Lvovich, and interprets them as you please. Eg:

"They have 91% similarity for Romania (and both species fly only in Transylvania), but they themselves write that no one can distinguish external ones. two taxa have no features." And there are a lot of them.

And as for the definition, I also already wrote. You should read your posts, not just write your own.
And then Dear Anton, first said that erate and crocea are not genetically different, and then it turned out that Dear Anton does not know how these species differ morphologically (I hope that Dear Anton knows what valva is). But, no matter how the definition was made, the data of genetics did not go away.

So, if you have something to say about morphology, without involving genetics, as if it never happened and does not exist, with pleasure.

Let's still adopt the same rules of the game for everyone.
If someone for some reason does not like 2.65% (although I already wrote about this), then let's just not go to the genetics data, and go back to the time of Staudinger, I don't mind, since my butterflies have no genetics, and the "Romanian" data is always referred to Dear Sergey Lvovich, and interprets them as you please. Eg:

"They have 91% similarity for Romania (and both species fly only in Transylvania), but they themselves write that no one can distinguish external ones. two taxa have no features." And there are a lot of them.

And as for the definition, I also already wrote. You should read your posts, not just write your own.
And then Dear Anton, first said that erate and crocea are not genetically different, and then it turned out that Dear Anton does not know how these species differ morphologically (I hope that Dear Anton knows what valva is). But, no matter how the definition was made, the data of genetics did not go away.

So, if you have something to say about morphology, without involving genetics, as if it never happened and does not exist, with pleasure.

"If someone for some reason does not like 2.65% (although I already wrote about this), then let's just not go to the genetics data, and go back to the time of Staudinger" -- 1) Explain-what, 2.65% according to some data clearly indicate different species? Or don't you think so? Then to hell with the unreliable Romanian data (it turned out that their link to the genbank was fake). 2) Why not pay attention to the data of genetics, this is one of the features, and often crucial - especially for phylogeny within the family. Without molek. geneticists, for example, find it almost impossible to understand the taxonomy of polyommatines. However, molecular science does not yet know how to distinguish close species from subspecies of the same species. 3) A serious argument against conspecificity of chiala and alpha is the reproductive barrier. About whether you have hybrids, you haven't answered me in 2 years. And if so, are they fertile.

Let's still adopt the same rules of the game for everyone.
If someone for some reason does not like 2.65% (although I already wrote about this), then let's just not go to the genetics data, and go back to the time of Staudinger, I don't mind, since my butterflies have no genetics, and the "Romanian" data is always referred to Dear Sergey Lvovich, and interprets them as you please. Eg:

"They have 91% similarity for Romania (and both species fly only in Transylvania), but they themselves write that no one can distinguish external ones. two taxa have no features." And there are a lot of them.

And as for the definition, I also already wrote. You should read your posts, not just write your own.
And then Dear Anton, first said that erate and crocea are not genetically different, and then it turned out that Dear Anton does not know how these species differ morphologically (I hope that Dear Anton knows what valva is). But, no matter how the definition was made, the data of genetics did not go away.

So, if you have something to say about morphology, without involving genetics, as if it never happened and does not exist, with pleasure.

1. What does 2.65% mean? For some species, these are inter-population differences. For others, it's more than interspecific. Which ones will we contact?

2. I repeat for the third time for those who do not read my posts beyond the second word: the data of "genetics" indicate the presence of two forms of mitochondrial DNA. No one disputes this. But nowhere does it say that these forms mark any populations, species, or subspecies.

3. I will repeat myself for the second time. Data on even a few pieces of different genes tell almost nothing about the genetic differences of the compared entities. Therefore, uv. Anton has never written about the genetic differences between Erata and crocea, because he doesn't know anything about them yet.

4. Alas, Anton sincerely believes that he is not yet completely schizophrenic and does not have a paranoid form of megalomania. Based on this, he does not consider his knowledge absolute. Therefore, he asked his distinguished colleagues to indicate the characteristics that they use to distinguish these species. To make sure that their knowledge is correct or to acquire new ones. However, uv. colleagues sent uv. Anton on*** with his request absurd, completely ignoring it. And only one uv. guk uakazal on the inferiority of knowledge thick-headed UV. Anton. For what uv. hooke can only express his immense gratitude.

This post was edited by ayc - 31.10.2013 16: 25

1. What does 2.65% mean? For some species, these are inter-population differences. For others, it's more than interspecific. Which ones will we contact?
2. I repeat for the third time for those who do not read my posts beyond the second word: genetics data indicate the presence of two forms of mitochondrial DNA. No one disputes this. ,
3. I'll repeat it a second time. Data on a third of just one gene is far from genetics. The differences in this piece do not say anything about the genetic differences of the compared entities. Therefore, uv. Anton has never written about genetic differences, because he doesn't know anything about them yet.
4. Alas, Anton sincerely believes that he is not yet completely schizophrenic and does not have a paranoid form of megalomania. Based on this, he does not consider his knowledge absolute. Therefore, he asked his distinguished colleagues to indicate the characteristics that they use to distinguish these species. To make sure that their knowledge is correct or to acquire new ones. However, uv. colleagues sent uv. Anton on*** with his request absurd, completely ignoring it. And only one uv. guk uakazal on the inferiority of knowledge thick-headed UV. Anton. For what uv. hooke can only express his immense gratitude.

Anton, the traditional signs of distinguishing between hiale and alfakariensis are as follows:
• The extension of the basal shading of the forewings upperside (less marked in C.
alfacariensis, where it continues to some extent along the inner margin) – found not to be
constant enough (e.g. compare figs S3b,c with fig. S3e, where this character would rather
assign fig. S3e to C. alfacariensis and figs S3b,c to C. hyale).
• The colour of the discoidal orange spot on the hindwings upperside (brighter orange
in C. alfacariensis) – it is a subjective character as colour is variable according to habitat
type and locality, as well as by the condition of the specimen (a slightly worn out adult
may display a paler orange spot).
• The outer margin of the forewing (slightly rounded in C. alfacariensis, straight in C.
hyale) – not constant enough (e.g. compare figs S3b,c with figs S3e,f where the specimens
of C. alfacariensis have a straighter outer margin).
• The overall colour of the upperside of the wings (bright lemon yellow in C.
alfacariensis and pale lemon yellow in C. hyale) - it is a very subjective character as colour
is variable according to habitat type and locality, as well as by the condition of the
specimen (a slightly worn out adult may look paler yellow).
Guk did not bring others, although he claims that he knows clear criteria for his area. And how they differ by imago in ocd. I don't know Kharkiv either. The discourse is always reduced to caterpillars, from which it is not very clear what is being deduced. Plus, all the delilshchik authors hint that some of the material on imago and genitalia is unclear to whom to attribute. But when I ask them if they are hybrids, they are viciously silent!

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 16: 31

Pictures:

Dinca_et_al_Species_pairs_with_difficulties.jpg — (110.67к)


Dinca_et_al_Species_pairs_with_difficulties.jpg — (110.67к)

1. What does 2.65% mean? For some species, these are inter-population differences. For others, it's more than interspecific. Which ones will we contact?

2. I repeat for the third time for those who do not read my posts beyond the second word: the data of "genetics" indicate the presence of two forms of mitochondrial DNA. No one disputes this. But nowhere does it say that these forms mark any populations, species, or subspecies.

3. I will repeat myself for the second time. Data on a third of just one gene is far from genetics. The differences in this piece do not say anything about the genetic differences of the compared entities. Therefore, uv. Anton has never written about genetic differences, because he doesn't know anything about them yet.

4. Alas, Anton sincerely believes that he is not yet completely schizophrenic and does not have a paranoid form of megalomania. Based on this, he does not consider his knowledge absolute. Therefore, he asked his distinguished colleagues to indicate the characteristics that they use to distinguish these species. To make sure that their knowledge is correct or to acquire new ones. However, uv. colleagues sent uv. Anton on*** with his request absurd, completely ignoring it. And only one uv. guk uakazal on the inferiority of knowledge thick-headed UV. Anton. For what uv. hooke can only express his immense gratitude.

What types exactly?

In general - "the further into the forest, the thicker the partisans." Molecular science, as we can see, did not justify the hopes that some taxonomists had placed on it. Other gentlemen of taxonomy never relied on molecular science, and treated it with a certain wariness - it is understandable how one can hope for a sign that:
a) horseradish is so easy to check;
b) the variability of which is also horseradish is so easy to study;
c) and, most importantly, it is distinguished by "specialists" who have never worked with types, not types, and in general, are unfamiliar with the definition.

What types exactly?

In general - "the further into the forest, the thicker the partisans." Molecular science, as we can see, did not justify the hopes that some taxonomists had placed on it. Other gentlemen of taxonomy never relied on molecular science, and treated it with a certain wariness - it is understandable how one can hope for a sign that:
a) horseradish is so easy to check;
b) the variability of which is also horseradish is so easy to study;
c) and, most importantly, it is distinguished by "specialists" who have never worked with types, not types, and in general, are unfamiliar with the definition.

Stas, see above. It lists standard attributes and images-illustrations. Only if you take a larger series, then everything will float. And here the analysis of types, if chiala is described from Sweden, and alfakariensis from Spain. And from areas where both taxa do not occur. Usually, where sister species occur together, there is a greater contrast between them, at least in a couple of characters, than if you compare butterflies from areas where only one species occurs. This is especially true in the genitals. Here, on the contrary , where they seem to be sympatric, they are most variable and indistinguishable.
PS In the paper by Dinca et al. the authors also falsified the facts: they referred to the genebank, whose data allegedly confirms their cladogram, and in it, as it turned out, basically only their data is there. And the other few pieces of data are scattered and generally useless.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 16: 56

What types exactly?

In general - "the further into the forest, the thicker the partisans." Molecular science, as we can see, did not justify the hopes that some taxonomists had placed on it. Other gentlemen of taxonomy never relied on molecular science, and treated it with a certain wariness - it is understandable how one can hope for a sign that:
a) horseradish is so easy to check;
b) the variability of which is also horseradish is so easy to study;
c) and, most importantly, it is distinguished by "specialists" who have never worked with types, not types, and in general, are unfamiliar with the definition.

What types of what exactly? I mean the "good" views. And butterflies and more. I mentioned tyche and Hyperborea, who have genotypes that differ by 5 percent within the species on the same lawn on the same day.The same erate/polyograph in Primorye has genotypes that differ by about 2%.

Stas, but in general you are right. The euphoria about the fight is fading slowly. Although, it is still a powerful tool if used wisely. This is the source of a large array of features independent of the researcher's quirks.

a) the 21st century is in the yard-it's easier to check it out than to find out which museum to look for, Please contact us if you need it!

b) see point "a". This is somewhat expensive, but no more expensive than a month-long expedition to the Pamirs or a trip to Europe to work with types.

c) yes, there is a clinic. But not in all cases. And no one bothers to collaborate, think about the results together, set goals and plan research together. Of course, there are people who, if you ask for advice, will only get a diagnosis of their inferiority. But there are more good people, although they are not always noticeable at first glance.

All my data is here
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/

sergenicko, what Dinki write and draw is already clear. I was interested in the experience of my compatriots. In particular, regarding crocea-erate.

sergenicko, what Dinki write and draw is already clear. I was interested in the experience of my compatriots. In particular, regarding crocea-erate.

I looked at the site that guk sent me to in the post above. It says about hyale: A similar species - Colias alfacariensis-in appearance, the butterflies differ slightly. The only reliable criterion is the color of caterpillars, which are green at the fourth or fifth instar in C. hyale, and with rows of black spots in C. alfacariensis.
Quod erat demonstrandum. How do you know where someone's caterpillar is, if the butterflies don't differ? I'm probably dumb and don't understand the simple ones. вещей...
РЅ. Naturally, there is a counter-hypothesis that some of the caterpillars of the hyale are spotted on the vyazel. Or a part of hiale with special biochemistry (hence the spotting of caterpillars) is specially selected for knitting.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 17: 18

sergenicko, what Dinki write and draw is already clear. I was interested in the experience of my compatriots. In particular, regarding crocea-erate.

Unlike chyale/alpha, which differ only in their caterpillars, crocea and erate differ in color, pattern, and genitalia, and reliably (relatively, of course, but for shared habitats in general, there are no special problems). This is exactly the opposite type of conflict: butterflies are different, but COIs are the same.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 17: 04

All my data is here
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/

The question is linguistic: why do you have it EratO, if it is unambiguous Erate (i.e., in Russian, Erata). Erate is the Greek participle f. r. from erao, meaning "beloved".

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 17: 07

About whether you have hybrids, you haven't answered me in 2 years. And if they are, are they fertile?

There is a generally accepted opinion (shhh, not a word about Romanians and genetics) that alpha and hyale are different species.
But until now, there are no CLEAR signs that can be used to determine these species one hundred percent.
Our Ukrainian colleagues and I are moving in this direction, and I am sure that sooner or later, these reliable signs will be found.
And why don't you ask for an answer about the hybridization of erate and hyale (there, too, it is very often impossible to determine one hundred percent of the females, so the caterpillars are also the same), erate and myrmidon, etc.
I just want to say that the offspring from the female hyale, from the joint habitat of hyale and alpha, were homogeneous in caterpillars and imagos, and there were no signs of hybridity. Although a professional geneticist gave you a qualified explanation that hybridity does not prove anything at all.
Plus, I can't waste my time like this and prove that the earth is not the center of the universe, although I'm sure there are still people who think so.
In science, if entomology is still such, there are certain rules. If you do not agree with the generally accepted point of view, research is conducted, the results are published, and you give everyone a piece of gold leaf.
So, we're moving on, but what about you? Third year – alpha and hyale are the same species, erate and crocea are different.

I looked at the site that guk sent me to in the post above. It says about hyale: A similar species - Colias alfacariensis-in appearance, the butterflies differ slightly. The only reliable criterion is the color of caterpillars, which are green at the fourth or fifth instar in C. hyale, and with rows of black spots in C. alfacariensis.
Quod erat demonstrandum. How do you know where someone's caterpillar is, if the butterflies don't differ? I'm probably dumb and don't understand the simple ones. вещей...
РЅ. Naturally, there is a counter-hypothesis that some of the caterpillars of the hyale are spotted on the vyazel. Or a part of hiale with special biochemistry (hence the spotting of caterpillars) is specially selected for knitting.

read best

There is a generally accepted opinion (shhh, not a word about Romanians and genetics) that alpha and hyale are different species.

Yes, there is no such generally accepted opinion. There is a rewriting of taxa from reference book to reference book with or without unreliable external features.

But until now, there are no CLEAR signs that can be used to determine these species one hundred percent.

And even 50% impossible, only on the tracks.

Our Ukrainian colleagues and I are moving in this direction, and I am sure that sooner or later, these reliable signs will be found.

As for the Crimean colleagues, they will not add anything to you, since they only have alfacariensis. From near Kharkiv, so far unconvincing information.

And why don't you ask for an answer about the hybridization of erate and hyale (there, too, it is very often impossible to determine one hundred percent of the females, so the caterpillars are also the same), erate and myrmidon, etc.
I just want to say that the offspring from the female hyale, from the joint habitat of hyale and alpha, were homogeneous in caterpillars and imagos, and there were no signs of hybridity.

I require that the facts be in the system. You still have an uncle (caterpillars) in Kiev, and indistinguishable butterflies in the garden. The cultivation experience is remarkable, but how many times has it been repeated? As for the caterpillars, there are naturally even idiotic counter-hypotheses that some of the chialeae caterpillars become spotted on the elm tree. Or a part of hiale with special biochemistry (hence the spotting of caterpillars) is specially selected for knitting.

Although a professional geneticist gave you a qualified explanation that hybridity does not prove anything at all.

No, he didn't give that explanation. If you take the whole animal world, it happens in different ways, but we are still in a reasonable frame of mind regarding the hybridization of Mid-band diurnal butterflies. If there are a lot of hybrids on the border of ranges, then it is suspicious that subspecies, not species, are adjacent.

Plus, I can't waste my time like this and prove that the earth is not the center of the universe, although I'm sure there are still people who think so.
In science, if entomology is still such, there are certain rules. If you do not agree with the generally accepted point of view, research is conducted, the results are published, and you give everyone a piece of gold leaf.

I don't" give money " to anyone, except for crooks, which turned out to be Dinca et al.

So, we're moving on, but what about you? Third year – alpha and hyale are the same species, erate and crocea are different.

Looking for the truth. For 3 years, alas, no fresh facts have been added (for which the forum is needed in the 1st turn), so the same hypotheses are being ground. But something becomes clear - for example, the relative price of arguments.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 17: 31

I looked at the site that guk sent me to in the post above. It says about hyale: A similar species - Colias alfacariensis-in appearance, the butterflies differ slightly. The only reliable criterion is the color of caterpillars, which are green at the fourth or fifth instar in C. hyale, and with rows of black spots in C. alfacariensis.
Quod erat demonstrandum. How do you know where someone's caterpillar is, if the butterflies don't differ? I'm probably dumb and don't understand the simple ones. вещей...
РЅ. Naturally, there is a counter-hypothesis that some of the caterpillars of the hyale are spotted on the vyazel. Or a part of hiale with special biochemistry (hence the spotting of caterpillars) is specially selected for knitting.

and also, imagine, there are pictures, and from the caterpillars, imagine, butterflies come out.
yes really.

and also, imagine, there are pictures, and from the caterpillars, imagine, butterflies come out.
Oh, really.

What is said is shown. For me, this is not yet completely convincing, see above.
PS On the site you have a detailed description of the biology of hiale, and about alpha a short reference. How it follows that the two species rise to different heights is generally unclear. You defined them strictly by tracks and tracks have a different altitude threshold? But it doesn't say that.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 17: 43

What is said is shown. For me, this is not yet completely convincing, see above.
PS On the site you have a detailed description of the biology of hiale, and about alpha a short reference. How it follows that the two species rise to different heights is generally unclear. You defined them strictly by tracks and tracks have a different altitude threshold? But it doesn't say that.

I shouldn't have gotten into an argument with you, I just got dirty, don't scold me too much

I'm going to add fuel to the fire.

Colias grieshuberi Korb, 2004 (Table 4: 2; Figure 88)
Colias alta grieshuberi Korb, 2004: 115, Abb. 1. ТМ по голотипу: “Barskaun-Schlucht, 10 km südlich von Barskaun, Kirgisien”.
The holotype was transferred to the ZMMU for storage.
E k o l o g and I. Butterflies fly in 2-3 generations from May to October. AP: 1000-2500 m.
Prefers settled areas: steppes, slopes with thickets of ziziphora, dry meadows, thickets of roses.
R a s p r o s t r a n e n i e . It is found in all ridges except the Kirghiz one.
T o h k i s b o r a m a t e r i a l a . Кунгей Ала-Тоо: Каинды, Балыкчи, Торуайгыр, Чолпон-Ата, Бостери, Пришиб,
Темировка, Григорьеское, Ак-Булак, Кюрментю, Тогузбулак. Ketmen: Kegen, Komirshi. Trans-Ili Alatau: Koram. Ter-
skei Ala-Too: Orto-Tokoy, Kok-Sai, Kaji-Sai, Barskoon, Dungereme, Kichi-Jargylchak, Jety-Ogyuz, Karakol, Teplo-
klyuchenka.
TL by the original description: “Barskaun-Schlucht, 10 km südlich von Barskaun, Kirgisien”. Ecology: flies in two – three generations from
May to Oktober at the altitude of 1000 – 2500 m in various xerophylic biotopes. D: all mountain ridges except Kirghiz Mts.

[attachmentid()=185865]

I will note that according to my information, some people are going to describe subspecies of the Grieshuber's jaundice.

By the way, I found another paper on Germany, where there are both species, "Colias hyale (Linnaeus, 1758 – - C. alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Pieridae): Minimum Pairwise Distance
1.9 %, inferred from extralimital data for C. alfacariensis." [Now DNA-barcoded: the butterflies and larger moths of Germany (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera, Macroheterocera)
Axel Hausmann, Gerhard Haszprunar, Andreas H. Segerer, Wolfgang Speidel,
Gottfried Behounek & Paul D. N. Hebert]
Т..e. there the distance is much less (and certainly "infravidal", based on the alleged univesalia) than in Romania. And they differ only in their tracks.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 18: 24