Jaundice (Colias)

With daplidice and edusa, it seems that they decided that there is still one species (according to data in Italy), although geographically the extreme populations are as much as 8% apart.

Is that true? And which one is it?

Is that true? And which one?

I'm just looking for a link. So blurt it out as a keepsake, and then look for it. I'll find it.

In Wiemers & Fiedler [Wiemers M., Fiedler K. 2007. Does the DNA barcoding gap exist? – a case study in blue butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) // Frontiers in Zoology. 4 (8). 16 pp.] based on the analysis of a huge amount of material (236348 interspecific comparisons), it is shown that in 95% of cases, interspecific differences in DNA sequences in pigeons are 1.9% or more.

In 95% of cases. And here either 1.9%, or 2.5%. And again, it is not always clear who is taken for the types of genetics, this should be carefully checked. Unfortunately, the probability of fitting it to a convenient classification is high.
This is what is done between the Romanian Euryale and Ligeia - there was hardly a mistake in the definition. Their explanation is: "DNA barcoding: The NJ tree displays a complex pattern involving polyphyly (fig. S14). Although no barcodes are shared between the two species, the minimum interspecific distance is very low (0.15%). This situation suggests either incomplete lineage sorting or local hybridization events."

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 20: 30

File/s:



 euryale_ligea.pdf

size: 49.85 k
number of downloads: 265

In Wiemers & Fiedler [Wiemers M., Fiedler K. 2007. Does the DNA barcoding gap exist? – a case study in blue butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) // Frontiers in Zoology. 4 (8). 16 pp.] based on the analysis of a huge amount of material (236348 interspecific comparisons), it is shown that in 95% of cases, interspecific differences in DNA sequences in pigeons are 1.9% or more.

Let me explain: this means that a distance of less than 2% most likely indicates that the object being compared is conspecific. But the opposite does NOT follow from this, that is, it cannot be said that almost everything that differs by at least 2% is a different species.

And again, it is not always clear who is taken for the types of genetics, this should be carefully checked. Unfortunately, the probability of fitting it to a convenient classification is high.

Wiemers and Fiedler are not geneticists, but rather well-known lepidopterologists. Wiemers was engaged in molecular methods and calculated mainly his own material.

Can I get the legs of these butterflies for DNA testing? If not, then you will have to start all over again, which is exactly what Stas suggests.

And what does this mean " I can get?") what, just like that, can I send you material and get data on differences in the same ill-fated CO1? And is it expensive?

In Wiemers & Fiedler.... (236348 interspecific comparisons)

Interseno, what does it all mean, there are not so many types of pigeons, so how many specific types of pigeons were taken into account?
And in general, a strange approach, without data on the morphology of biology, ecology, just on the basis of >=1.9% of times and draw a conclusion about a new species

This post was edited by Hierophis - 31.10.2013 20: 35

Wiemers and Fiedler are not geneticists, but rather well-known lepidopterologists. Wiemers was engaged in molecular methods and shortchanged mainly his own material.

I'm not disputing 2%, there are just 5% deviations, and among them there are debatable types. The rest is something to discuss. I just posted about Ligeia-euryale. The devil only knows why there is a minimum distance between them on CO. Because of this, I caught hundreds of them in the Carpathians, only one butterfly came across that looked like a hybrid.

Is that true? And which one?

Article on the dappleditz-edusa here it is Porter AH, Wenger R, Geiger H, Scholl A, Shapiro AM. 1997. The Pontia daplidice-edusa hybrid zone in northwestern Italy. Evolution 51: 1561-1573. As for barcoding, I'm still looking for it.
Found, in Hausmann et al. A striking figure: "Pontia edusa (Fabricius, 1777) – P. daplidice (Linnaeus,
1758) (Pieridae): Minimum Pairwise Distance
8.1 %. The sequence of P. daplidice was based on
specimens from Spain (Roger Vila pers. comm.) and
from the Middle East and requires confirmation for
central European populations. These species cannot
be distinguished basing on wing coloration or pattern,
but allozyme markers and slight differences in
male genitalia led to their taxonomical discrimination.
Genitalic differences, however, are not constant,
and introgression has been reported from hybrid
zones in Italy. As a consequence, their taxonomic
status as well as the occurrence of P. daplidice in
Germany remains controversial (Geiger & Scholl
1982, Geiger et al. 1988, Ebert & Rennwald 1991a,
Reinhardt 1992, 1995, Adam et al. 1997, Gaedike &
Heinicke 1999)."

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 20: 48

Interseno, what does it all mean, so many types of pigeons do not happen,

Let me explain, 236348 interspecific comparisons were made, and 236348 species were not compared.
1 type was compared with: 2, 3, 4....50, 51 ... N (N - 1 comparison) +
2 the species was compared with: 3, 4....50, 51 ... N (N-2 comparison) +
3 the species was compared with: 4....50, 51 ... N (N-3 comparison) +
and so on

I'm not disputing 2%, there are just 5% deviations, and among them there are debatable types. The rest is something to discuss. I just posted about Ligeia-euryale. The devil only knows why there is a minimum distance between them on CO. Because of this, I caught hundreds of them in the Carpathians, only one butterfly came across that looked like a hybrid.

I do not know how it is with Ligeia-Euryale. But P. bellargus/P. coridon have minimal differences in COI, but only in Eastern Europe (in the West, the differences are significant. This happened in the east, apparently due to intragression, and quite a long time ago, since 0.5% of the differences have already accumulated.

This post was edited by bora - 31.10.2013 20: 48

I do not know how it is with Ligeia-Euryale. But P. bellargus/P. coridon have minimal differences in COI, but only in Eastern Europe (in the West, the differences are significant. This happened in the east, apparently due to intragression, and quite a long time ago, since 0.5% of the differences have already accumulated.

Of course, you need to look for explanations. There is a hybrid zone between Daplidice and Edusa in NW Italy. And between some Spanish and German populations, the cytochrome distance is 8%. I don't know what's going on in Italy itself, but I need to watch the lit-ru. In Germany, not only ligea-euryale with minimal differences, but also idas with argyrognomone:
"Erebia euryale (Esper, 1805) – E. ligea (Linnaeus,
1761): This species pair possesses quite clear-cut
differences in external appearance coupled with a
constant barcode divergence of 0.8 %.
Plebejus argyrognomon (Bergsträsser, 1779) –
P. idas (Linnaeus, 1761): Discrimination of this species
pair based on external appearance is challenging, but
both the male and female genitalia are diagnostic
(Segerer 2001). The species also show a constant
barcode divergence of 0.5 % corresponding to three
diagnostic substitutions."

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 20: 59

by the way, after looking at my own, Romanian and German and other sequences, I still found several substitutions marking the COI variants 'hyale'and ' alfa'. And if there was no manipulation on the part of the authors when identifying and peeking at each other (and they were, because they were done in one place under the auspices of Mr. Hebert), then it seems that these mitotypes are specific to these taxa. And we are dealing with a secondary contact of once disjointed areas.

However, there are also Pakistani and Central Asian hyalas. So, if the European G+A are considered different species, then the Central Asian ones will be no less than the other genus! By the way, the Pakistani and Central Asian hyala are also sequenced for works published in collaboration with the same author. By Hebert. But for some reason, this species is never mentioned in the Pakistani article. Why would that be?.. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111....12131/abstract

And what is also surprising is that the Genebank contains the alfa sequences used in the German article, but there are no hyale sequences! So I couldn't compare them and see the same 1.9%. But some inconsistencies are piled up...

Here are some other pairs of species with a barcoding of less than 2% according to German data [Hausmann et al.]:
Aricia agestis (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) Aricia artaxerxes (Fabricius, 1793) 1.9
Boloria aquilonaris (Stichel, 1908) Boloria napaea (Hoffmannsegg, 1804) 1.7
Phengaris arion (Linnaeus, 1758) Phengaris teleius (Bergsträsser, 1779) 1.7
Pyrgus cacaliae (Rambur, 1839) * Pyrgus andromedae (Wallengren, 1853) 1.7
Polyommatus bellargus (Rottemburg, 1775) Polyommatus coridon (Poda, 1761) 1.2

Stas, especially for you. If arion has only 1.7 with teleus, then even less with cyanecula. - ср. Phengaris alcon (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) Phengaris arion (Linnaeus, 1758) 2.5

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 21: 25

by the way, after looking at my own, Romanian and German and other sequences, I still found several substitutions marking the COI variants 'hyale'and ' alfa'. And if there was no manipulation on the part of the authors when identifying and peeking at each other (and they were, because they were done in one place under the auspices of Mr. Hebert), then it seems that these mitotypes are specific to these taxa. And we are dealing with a secondary contact of once disjointed areas.

However, there are also Pakistani and Central Asian hyalas. So, if the European G+A are considered different species, then the Central Asian ones will be no less than the other genus! By the way, the Pakistani and Central Asian hyala are also sequenced for works published in collaboration with the same author. By Hebert. But for some reason, this species is never mentioned in the Pakistani article. Why would that be?.. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111....12131/abstract

And what is also surprising is that the Genebank contains the alfa sequences used in the German article, but there are no hyale sequences! So I couldn't compare them and see the same 1.9%. But some inconsistencies are piled up...

Korb has already described the Central Asian hyala as a separate species, Colias grieshuberi (see the pictures above). As for our X and A, then, of course, we need to sort them out on the bones.

By the way, what about the maps provided above regarding the conclusions of Okoem and the company?
okoem, as far as I remember, according to your joint research, only alfakariensis lives in the Crimea(As far as I remember, it is alfakariensis, I can't check, the last site on the people of "Butterflies of the Crimea" was redirected to a new address, which is currently not working!)
But they give maps where either the hyale is indicated for the Crimea at all, or a mixed area is indicated.
Why is that?
By the way a rather specific and important question in my opinion

One map (from" Butterflies of Europe") is clearly a mess. And on another map (Grishuber) for the Crimea and Southern Ukraine, only alfacariensis is shown and there is no khiala.

One map (from" Butterflies of Europe") is clearly a mess. And on another map (Grishuber) for the Crimea and Southern Ukraine, only alfacariensis is shown and there is no khiala.

Maybe I don't understand something, but hyale is marked there in the south of Ukraine, are you sure it's not?

Maybe I don't understand something, but hyale is marked there in the south of Ukraine, are you sure it's not?

I'm not sure exactly, but it turned out to be really marked. I took the neighboring region for South Ukraine. So Grieshuber screwed up, too. The question is, on what material.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 21: 44

It's strange, the atlas and monograph are really the latest, and everything is a mess
As a result, it turns out that from some participants there are messages of the plan "eo air shaking, publications are important", the latest publications appear, and on you - and then there's a mess

It's strange, the atlas and monograph are really the latest, and everything is a mess
As a result, it turns out that from some participants there are messages of the plan "eo shaking of the air, publications are important", the latest publications appear, and on you - and then there's a mess

In fact, almost all publications like "Butterflies of Europe" are a mess, because the areas are filled in by eye. But in the case of Grieshuber, it is strange, because he is the main jaundice. He couldn't draw from memory at all. Therefore, this is how he defines the appearance of Ukrainian and Crimean butterflies, which for him are chial compared to European alphacariensis (NB!). This, by the way, has now bothered me - earlier I just missed it as an accidental mess. And it is clearly not random. In the south of Ukraine, there are no hyalas, and he identified both types there. Consequently, all over Europe, where both species supposedly fly together, there can be the same mess in the definition. It is possible that there, as in Slovakia and Southern Russia, the areas are vicarious with overlays in a narrow zone along the border.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.10.2013 22: 43

I will try to explain where such fun areas are "born" from.
Grieshuber did not brew ANY of the types that I was able to research. And this, to put it mildly, is very alarming. How can you study closely related species without even trying to dig as deep as possible (especially since binoculars, lye, and two dissecting needles - not a sequencer-cost an order of magnitude less)? Conclusion: all the same philately, only scientific. Many conclusions in such works are based solely on the wing pattern. But the most important thing is that in the West there is not so much material on the same Central Asian yolks. The distribution will be extremely spot-based, if you make maps seriously. But - they paint over it very boldly. And that's where the questions come in... Here, for example, is a map:

[attachmentid()=185908]

Pay attention to the range of Colias christophi. If you believe this map, then this wonderful view is in the Fan Mountains, and in the Ferghana Valley, and even (oooppppaaaa!) "at the very edge of the Western Tien Shan. KAAAAAK??? Simple as that. It is much easier to draw an oval in Korel than to twist the area as it really is. Because you have to insert nodes into curves, twist them to get the truth, and so on. This is what a NORMAL map should look like:

[attachmentid()=185909]

It was made in the same corel, but I didn't consider it acceptable to draw ovals or squares - I outlined everything as it is. And it turned out to be an area, not an oval. Or another example : if the density of the surveyed points is sufficiently high, it is not necessary to paint over them at all. Already from the points you can see what kind of area the species has after all:

[attachmentid()=185910] [attachmentid()=185911]

Scientific credibility is a very important factor.

I will try to explain where such fun areas are "born" from.
Grieshuber did not brew ANY of the types that I was able to research. And this, to put it mildly, is very alarming. How can you study closely related species without even trying to dig as deep as possible (especially since binoculars, lye, and two dissecting needles - not a sequencer-cost an order of magnitude less)? Conclusion: all the same philately, only scientific. Many conclusions in such works are based solely on the wing pattern. But the most important thing is that in the West there is not so much material on the same Central Asian yolks. The distribution will be extremely spot-based, if you make maps seriously. But - they paint over it very boldly. And that's where the questions come in... Here, for example, is a map:

[attachmentid()=185908]

Pay attention to the range of Colias christophi. If you believe this map, then this wonderful view is in the Fan Mountains, and in the Ferghana Valley, and even (oooppppaaaa!) "at the very edge of the Western Tien Shan. KAAAAAK??? Simple as that. It is much easier to draw an oval in Korel than to twist the area as it really is. Because you have to insert nodes into curves, twist them to get the truth, and so on. This is what a NORMAL map should look like:

[attachmentid()=185909]

It was made in the same corel, but I didn't consider it acceptable to draw ovals or squares - I outlined everything as it is. And it turned out to be an area, not an oval. Or another example : if the density of the surveyed points is sufficiently high, it is not necessary to paint over them at all. Already from the points you can see what kind of area the species has after all:

[attachmentid()=185910] [attachmentid()=185911]

Scientific credibility is a very important factor.

Very true, which is why I miss all the general atlases. But you still expect Grieshuber's monograph to be rough, but accurate. But in the case of alfakariensis/hiala, it's a different matter. They are practically indistinguishable (in joint areas) from each other by either the pattern or the genitals, so cooking - transfer the alkali. So, they take the above yakoi signs and stupidly determine them. It turns out a joint area for the whole of Europe and Ukraine. But southern Ukraine and Crimea have now been surveyed, and there are no khialas in them, only alfacariensis. It is not hard to guess that in other places, the definitions are 50% correct, so the maps are bad and the areas are incorrect. Grieshuber couldn't have screwed up in the Ukraine and Crimea, where he saw a lot of material, and made out everything correctly in Poland and Germany. By the way, there is no hialeah for it in Romania, and there is no Atlas of Distribution.. That is, in appearance there are all pure alfakariensis. Neither Grieshuber nor the authors of the Atlas (is he a co-author there?) They didn't believe Dinka.

Very true, which is why I miss all the general atlases. But you still expect Grieshuber's monograph to be rough, but accurate. But in the case of alfakariensis/hiala, it's a different matter. They are practically indistinguishable (in joint areas) from each other by either the pattern or the genitals, so cooking - transfer the alkali. So, they take the above yakoi signs and stupidly determine them. It turns out a joint area for the whole of Europe and Ukraine. But southern Ukraine and Crimea have now been surveyed, and there are no khialas in them, only alfacariensis. It is not hard to guess that in other places, the definitions are 50% correct, so the maps are bad and the areas are incorrect. Grieshuber couldn't have screwed up in the Ukraine and Crimea, where he saw a lot of material, and made out everything correctly in Poland and Germany. By the way, there is no hialeah for it in Romania, and there is no Atlas of Distribution.. That is, in appearance there are all pure alfakariensis. Neither Grieshuber nor the authors of the Atlas (is he a co-author there?) They didn't believe Dinka.

The problem with butterfly science is that it is mostly based not on evidence, but on authority. Such idolatry. There was an idol of Staudinger, then became an idol of Korshunov... And so-always. And only after their death do we begin to understand that they are not without sin...

The problem with butterfly science is that it is mostly based not on evidence, but on authority. Such idolatry. There was an idol of Staudinger, then became an idol of Korshunov... And so-always. And only after their death do we begin to understand that they are not without sin...

Still, during Korshunov's time, there were many others to compare him to - Niculescu, Nekrutenko, Higgins and Warren, etc. Although I was taught by Yuri Petrovich, I never accepted his decisions without criticism and did not agree with many of them. The only time I had to give in was when we published our joint work on eneis right after his death - if he were still alive, I would have put the squeeze on him in the sense of these false species and introduced at least one more morphological criterion for determining them. And then it turned out to be a taxonomy according to the shape of the valva. Although as an experience (not for publication), it is interesting to run the material by a single sign (and a functional one at that). However, building a system based on one COI is just as ridiculous, the same monoprime. We discussed this with Lukhtanov in the spring, and he agrees.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 00: 38

Just in case, I'll explain how the maps were compiled in the Kudrna atlas. The points were mostly sent by local specialists; in the case of Ukraine, these are Plyushch, Gerasimov, Efetov (sorry if I forgot to mention anyone). Further, Kudrna sorted them according to his own understanding, and rejected "doubtful" ones (in his opinion). However, these data were collected several years before Budashkin and Savchuk's work was published. So it's not that Kudrna (of course ) I didn't read it, but the fact is that everyone used to believe that hyale really existed in Crimea.

Just in case, I'll explain how the maps were compiled in the Kudrna atlas. The points were mostly sent by local specialists; in the case of Ukraine, these are Plyushch, Gerasimov, Efetov (sorry if I forgot to mention anyone). Further, Kudrna sorted them according to his own understanding, and rejected "doubtful" ones (in his opinion). However, these data were collected several years before Budashkin and Savchuk's work was published. So it's not that Kudrna (of course ) I didn't read it, but the fact is that before everyone believed that hyale really existed in the Crimea.

All right, Kudrna. And Grieshuber should have seen the material.

All right, Kudrna. Grieshuber was supposed to watch the material.

I can't resist quoting: "Suppose you don't remember getting on the plane. But how did you get out of there, you must have remembered?! - yes! Yeah! P-remember d-should... but I don't remember... "

I can't resist quoting: "Suppose you don't remember getting on the plane. But how did you get out of there, you must have remembered?! - yes! Yeah! I-I should remember ... but I don't remember..."

However, he has nothing to remember - in appearance they scattered butterflies that do not differ from him. They caught a black cat in a dark room that wasn't there, and meowed for it.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 01: 04

Yes, it seems that Grieshuber was always just a hyperactive philatelist, one of the Weiss-Verhulsts (which in itself is nothing wrong). Well, a person has the opportunity and desire to catch and buy more butterflies than others, he has the desire to write a book - and so what? Although in the eyes of most, this fact made him an authority. As well as the maniacal passion of giving a specific rank to a bunch of subspecies-undoubtedly, for such a thing, merchants should kiss their feet like a Savior! What else did he do that mattered to the study of jaundice other than feeding merchants and consoling personal ambitions? In the Gobi, I drew a "bridge" connecting erate with polyographus on the map of areas under the foot of Kunlun from balda... by distinguishing these "species" only by the border in males? I stand and applaud... In short, as always-a person is "sorry to waste precious time" reading boring textbooks about general principles in biology - after all, even without reading this boring stuff, you can turn taxonomy upside down and become great! No, I don't judge him - he has the right to dispose of his life and money as he sees fit. But where does such unshakable authority come from???

Please explain why alta and grieshuberi are not the same species. And why they shouldn't be hyale subspecies isolates. Yes, they have long fallen off from the rest, so what? If it gets warmer in T-Shan, they can easily meet and merge back together.

And maybe I forgot - in Magadan and on Indigirka, Aldan, there really is hyale? Or did Ghuber's hand falter even then?

Kstapi, here's an article for you. Not about butterflies, but the picture is exactly like Hyal's: first, the species was "discovered "by a piece of mtDNA, and then they found out that this piece had moved from another not very close species, so the species" fell apart " on the phylogenetic tree into two. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10...al.pone.0071147

In Figures 4A, B, and C, constructed from the sequences of only two genes, H. taimen is unexpectedly conspecific to different subspecies of a different genus, since these genes were acquired as a result of hybridization that once took place.

But Figure 4D shows a similar picture based on other mtDNA genes, where the taxon H. taimen is unambiguously conspecific to the taxa of its genus and species - Ht5 and Ht16.

So, supposedly species-specific mitochondrial markers can easily be borrowed from other currently or previously sympatric species, including those that are now extinct. And you say "genetics"! Taxonomy of a single piece of the genome like COI is no better than taxonomy of a single piece of the aedeagus curvature...

This post was edited by ayc - 01.11.2013 10: 27

Gentlemen, I got out for the first time with my hand outstretched.
First, are there any studies on the genitals of erate, crocea, and myrmdone FEMALES? The supposed last two from Galichy Mountain are now cooked, the appearance of the females sometimes does not differ at all (intermediate type according to the determinant), but the genitals are quite good.
Secondly, we are interested in the work, if any, where molecular data support the conspecificity of erate and crocea. Just for the reference, you need a cladogram and output data.

Gentlemen, I got out for the first time with my hand outstretched.
First, are there any studies on the genitals of erate, crocea, and myrmdone FEMALES? The supposed last two from Galichy Mountain are now cooked, the appearance of the females sometimes does not differ at all (intermediate type according to the determinant), but the genitals are quite good.
Secondly, we are interested in the work, if any, where molecular data support the conspecificity of erate and crocea. Just for the reference, you need a cladogram and output data.

There is such an article from Dinca et al. The tree from this article is available on the website "Butterflies of the Caucasus" in articles about erate and sgose, But this is not a joke, but a complete distortion. I explained above why. If you still have any questions, please email us.

And think about the concept of genitals. They were first used because it was hypothesized that the different morphology of the genitals provides reproductive isolation-the supposedly different morphology of the genitals does not allow interbreeding. However, there are numerous cases that indicate hybridization of species with very different genitalia. So, the concept of "one genitals - one species" has long been untenable.So, take the morphology of the genitals no more weighty than the size of one of the spots on the wing - there is nothing particularly sacred about them.

There is such an article from Dinca et al. The tree from this article is available on the website "Butterflies of the Caucasus" in articles about erate and sgose, But this is not a joke, but a complete distortion.

It may be a complete distortion, but the "concept" of a single species of erate crocea at least somehow allows us to explain the phenomena that are observed.

It may be a complete distortion, but the "concept" of a single species of erate crocea at least somehow allows us to explain the phenomena that are observed.

Absolutely! The hypothesis is beautiful, very plausible. It remains only to prove it. Personally, I'm all for it!

Absolutely! The hypothesis is beautiful, very plausible. It remains only to prove it. Personally, I'm all for it!

Where do we have a reliable croceus sympatric erata?

Where do we have a reliable croceus sympatric erata?

Intrigue the word "reliable". But here people swear. that in the Crimea they fly in any proportions and are ready to provide material. I have not yet felt these butterflies, so I see no reason not to believe.

Where do we have a reliable croceus sympatric erata?

And what is reliable?

It may be a complete distortion, but the "concept" of a single species of erate crocea at least somehow allows us to explain the phenomena that are observed.

And I'm sorry, too. What are the phenomena that are observed. Honestly, I've been out of ethnology for 10 years, so maybe I missed something....

There is such an article from Dinca et al. The tree from this article is available on the website "Butterflies of the Caucasus" in articles about erate and sgose, But this is not a joke, but a complete distortion. I explained above why. If you still have any questions, please email us.

And think about the concept of genitals. They were first used because it was hypothesized that the different morphology of the genitals provides reproductive isolation-the supposedly different morphology of the genitals does not allow interbreeding. However, there are numerous cases that indicate hybridization of species with very different genitalia. So, the concept of "one genitals - one species" has long been untenable.So, take the morphology of the genitals no more weighty than the size of one of the spots on the wing - there is nothing particularly sacred about them.

Anton, we must distinguish between the general theoretical and the practical. When you have 3 copies. butterflies come from some hole and you need to describe it and somehow systematize it without having a sequencer at hand, then you will naturally compare it with similar taxa by functional characteristics. You won't smell any pheromones, just your genitals. And if they are decidedly (given their spread across the group) different from the genitals of a similar sim or parapatric species, plus features of the pattern and so on, then you can conditionally describe it as a species. There are a lot of such "species", especially among microlepidoptera, all sorts of bedbugs and fleas, etc. So morphology as one of the signs still remains and is unlikely to go out of use in the near future. It's just that it's not the only source of signs.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 15: 56

And what is reliable?

With the color of croceus and its genitals. That in the Volgogoradsk region "According to the complex of external (saturation of the main color of the upper wings, the nature and size of the marginal border, darkening of the main color of the upper rear wing, the presence of an androconial spot) and internal (valva shape) signs, 16 specimens fell under the definition of crocea" I know that. What about other places?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 16: 09

With the color of croceus and its genitals.

Is this reliable?

Pictures:

2.jpg — (63.82 k)


1.jpg — (186.9 k)