Jaundice (Colias)

Is this reliable?

Thank you very much, but that's not what I'm asking. Differences between croceus (it is still croceUS, not croceA, because the name Colias is masculine!) and eratoi are known to me. I am interested in the area where it is reliably sympatric with erata.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 16: 22

Thank you very much, but that's not what I'm asking. Differences between croceus (it is still croceUS, not croceA, because the name Colias is masculine!) and eros are known to me. I am interested in the area where it is reliably sympatric with erata.

What do you mean reliably sympathetic? Criteria?

What do you mean reliably sympathetic? Criteria?

Non-interbreeding species that co-exist within the same area are sympatric.

Non-interbreeding species that co-exist within the same area are sympatric.

That's not what I asked. What does "reliably sympathetic to erata" mean? How do I measure this?

This post was edited by guk - 01.11.2013 16: 25

That's not what I asked. What does "reliably sympathetic to erata" mean? How do I measure this?

Name the areas where croceus is sympatric with erata.

What does "reliably sympathetic to erata" mean? How do I measure this?

What does "reliably sympathetic to erata" mean? How do I measure this?

You know how to distinguish orange erat from croceus, and Gorbunov's information is unreliable. So I want to get reliable information from you, because there is no one else. I know that you consider erata and croceus to be a single species "with two extreme morphological forms that are considered to be independent species". But still, the" croceus form " inhabits large spaces without turning into the opposite one. In some places, the two extremes co-exist. In what areas?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 16: 55

How do we measure this reliability?
We have it safe.

How do we measure this reliability?
We have it safe.

Yes, I do not doubt your reliability. I'm just curious about the localities where croceus and erata co-exist.

We have co-exist.

They co-exist in our country.

I read this - it's just that the site doesn't list the other places where they co-exist. Now for the second question. The main food plant of erate is alfalfa (Medicago sativa). For croceus, the main plant is not specified, but Onobrychis is on the 1st place, alfalfa is far in the list. What does it mean? Forage plants of erate and croceus overlap, but are statistically still different?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 17: 05

The curator of the Caucasian section is Valentin Vladimirovich Tikhonov.
But everything that concerns the Volgograd region is for me.

The curator of the Caucasian section is Valentin Vladimirovich Tikhonov.
But everything that concerns the Volgograd region is for me.

So I ask you, there is a croceus in the Volgograd region. Is it true that the forage plants of croceus and erata are somewhat different?

The feed plant of crocea was not found in the Volgograd region.
The main food plant of erata is alfalfa.

According to Western European data, croceus forage plants Trifolium pratens, Onobrychia viciifolia, Lotus, Coronilla, Melilotus, Hippocrepis, Medicago sativa, polymorpha, lupulina, lappacea, hispida, sulcata, Astragalus, Astracanthus, Vicia cracca, Chamaecytisus, Colutea, Erophaca, Acanthyllis, i.e. polyphage. According to the same data, erata is a monophage on alfalfa, mainly on Medicago sativa. The morphological difference between croceus and erata is stable; there is no erata in the main range of croceus, and hybridization is noted at the border between taxa (9 transitional forms with 16 croceus in the Volgorad region). Thus, the erate/croceus pair is similar in all respects to the chiala/alfacariensis pair (in which A is a monophage, X is a polyphage; there are probably hybrids, but they are not determined due to the maximum similarity of imago), except for the COI distance, which is close to zero between croceus and erata and 1.9-2.6% between chiala and альфакариензисом.
РЅ. By the way, there is a more distant analogy to these pairs - myrmidone (monophage on Cytisus sp.) and chrysotheme (oligophage on Vicia hirsuta, Astragalus sp.). Aalogy is incomplete, because forage plants do not intersect.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 18: 30

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.

Not quite right! The genitals of lepidoptera in most cases allow you to distinguish species that are not distinguishable by "spots". Less often, the opposite happens (the genitals are the same, the pattern is very different) or so that you can't distinguish them either way. And the point here is not in the differences for mating (they are small in close species and do not create obstacles to mating), but in the morphology of the species.
Answer questions from other colleagues about where erate and croceus live together. They live permanently almost all over the steppe zone of the West. I personally fished in the Volgograd region (late 70s) and NW. In the Caucasus (early 80's), now I think I see both species from the Lipetsk region. (collections of the late 80's), but this is probably already flying, because there are very few of them and this year I did not see them in the field. I know about flights of both types up to the Moscow region.

I personally fished in the Volgograd region (late 70s).

Has this material been preserved?
With all due respect and trust to you, I can't take your word for it, as I know for SURE that even very well-known specialists of all orange yolks in the steppe were treated unconditionally to croceus.

Hybridization is observed at the border between taxa (9 transitional forms with 16 croceuses in the Volgorad region).

First. You don't answer direct questions. This is disrespectful to both yourself and the other person.
Second. Any data you interpret at your own discretion, you just cheat.
The third. There is no hybridization. Read carefully either the posts or the website.

First. You don't answer direct questions. This is disrespectful to both yourself and the other person.
Second. Any data you interpret at your own discretion, you just cheat.
The third. There is no hybridization. Read carefully either the posts or the site.

Please excuse me.
1. This email was not a reply to yours, obviously. But I probably thought I answered your question earlier. Please repeat it.
2. I interpret the data as I like, but I quote data sources. At the same time, the data in my opinion is curiously aligned, and I draw the attention of the interlocutors to this. To defame means "to disgrace, dishonor, shame". If I'm talking nonsense, I'm telling it to myself, but not to you. I respect your (and Stradomsky's) opinion that erate and croceus are forms of the same species. And I add that one "form" is a monophage, the other is a polyphage. And I draw a parallel with hiale / alpha, which differ from the croceus/erate pair only in one point.
3. You write about the "transitional forms" between erate and croceus. No matter how these taxa are interpreted, they have a specific phenotype, and transitional forms at the border between two phenotypes can most naturally be explained by hybridization. After all, you will not argue that forms with combinations of signs of polyphage-croceus and monophage-erata are not marked either in the main area of erata or croceus. Orange color is not a distinguishing feature, but yellow is obviously a sign.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 19: 10

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

If you are interested in something, please email us.
I will be happy to answer all your questions.

"Two subspecies of the same species cannot live geographically together. But according to Sergenicko-they can! "You are misreading my point. Two subspecies with established phenotypes and differences in biology, once isolated, can converge their ranges and meet. A hybridization zone is formed on the common border. It should take quite a long time for the opposite gene flows to level out the differences. And since the last glaciation and associated isolation were relatively recent, the unification process has not yet been completed.

Met by areas... No one disputes that two subspecies, having met due to territorial expansion (climate change, some other reasons..) by the boundaries of their ranges, do not cross and do not merge into one in its zone. Moreover, many subspecies do not have territorial isolation from each other at the boundaries of their ranges. But when we talk about populations of two species living side by side, such as chyale and alfakariensis, which is observed in thousands of cases in southern Russia, and for some reason they do not hybridize en masse and do not merge into a "single genotype", what does this mean? That these are different types. This is a very simple truth. I don't know why it doesn't reach you.

You write about the "transitional forms" between erate and croceus. No matter how these taxa are interpreted, they have a specific phenotype, and transitional forms at the border between two phenotypes can most naturally be explained by hybridization. After all, you will not argue that forms with combinations of signs of polyphage-croceus and monophage-erata are not marked either in the main area of erata or croceus. Orange color is not a sign, but yellow is obviously a sign.

A little bit about feed, monophagy, and transitional forms. I have a favorite place of entomological entertainment on the sands of the Don Delta. Such a piece is 5 x 0.2 km, and around impassable swamps. Croceus and Erata fly there in equal numbers, quite sympatric, without any transitional forms of communication. Croceus has andrakonial fields, Erata doesn't, and so on. And both forms do not feed on alfalfa or sainfoin, but only on broom ("monophagus" of erata, too), I mowed down the caterpillars from it. It's just that there are practically no other legumes there, stunted astragalus and vetch are found in the spring, but by mid-summer everything burns out, except for broom. In autumn, there is always a massive growth of both forms. But this cold and wet autumn there were only erats, and sometimes even in decent numbers, but the rabbit, as it turned out, was only 1 pale male. So, how can you comment on such a complete disappearance of croceus? I can only assume that under the influence of unusual natural conditions, the imago developed only a form of erate.

Met by areas... No one disputes that two subspecies, having met due to territorial expansion (climate change, some other reasons..) by the boundaries of their ranges, do not cross and do not merge into one in its zone. Moreover, many subspecies do not have territorial isolation from each other at the boundaries of their ranges. But when we talk about populations of two species living side by side, such as chyale and alfakariensis, which is observed in thousands of cases in southern Russia, and for some reason they do not hybridize en masse and do not merge into a "single genotype", what does this mean? That these are different types. This is a very simple truth. I don't know why it doesn't reach you.

This truth dawns on me. The problem that concerns me is not this textbook triviality at all. Take another pair - erate/croceus, which are like one species, at least according to barcoding. However, they also do not merge, although there are quite a few forms with a transitional phenotype, i.e. probably hybrid ones, at the border of the ranges. And also-Croceus polyphagus, erata is practically a monophage.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 19: 45

A little bit about feed, monophagy, and transitional forms. I have a favorite place of entomological entertainment on the sands of the Don Delta. Such a piece is 5 x 0.2 km, and around impassable swamps. Croceus and Erata fly there in equal numbers, quite sympatric, without any transitional forms of communication. Croceus has andrakonial fields, Erata doesn't, and so on. And both forms do not feed on alfalfa or sainfoin, but only on broom ("monophagus" of erata, too), I mowed down the caterpillars from it. It's just that there are practically no other legumes there, stunted astragalus and vetch are found in the spring, but by mid-summer everything burns out, except for broom. In autumn, there is always a massive growth of both forms. But this cold and wet autumn there were only erats, and sometimes even in decent numbers, but the rabbit, as it turned out, was only 1 pale male. So, how can you comment on such a complete disappearance of croceus? I can only assume that under the influence of unusual natural conditions, the imago developed only a form of erate.

It can also be explained by the fact that croceus is a more "gentle" form, it is not for nothing that it is almost absent in the Volgograd region. The fact is that under normal conditions, erata is practically a monophage (and it is sativa that prefers it, and not other alfalfa), and croceus is a polyphage. If erate and croceus were climatically determined forms, then where would" pure " croceus come from in the Bulgarian highlands, in the Carpathian-Tatra Mountains, in the Alps, where winters are almost Siberian, and summers differ little from our middle zone? I like the idea of two forms of a species, since there is no barcoding, but it seems that biochemistry prevails here, which is reflected in trophic relationships.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 19: 47

And both forms do not feed on alfalfa or sainfoin, but only on broom ("monophagus" of erata, too), I mowed down the caterpillars from it. It's just that there are practically no other legumes there, there are stunted astragalus and vetch in the spring

Did you finish feeding the caterpillars? Were you breeding butterflies? For in science all understanding must be tested. You can also check this: catch females of certain species. Place in containers with broom. If the eggs are not laid (or rarely, reluctantly), then it is not their food plant. If "stuck" with them - it is. I can tell you the technology of obtaining eggs from yolks. Once they were bred.

If erate and croceus were climatically determined forms, then where would the "pure" croceus come from in the Bulgarian highlands, in the Carpathians-Tatras, in the Alps, where the winters are almost Siberian

And where does the pure podalirium come from in the south of the Urals, eh?

And where does the pure podalirium come from in the south of the Urals, eh?

Podalirium has no climate-related forms. And here it is suggested that Croceus in one generation turns into erata because of the cold. This is hard to believe, because under the described (and even much worse) conditions, croceus thrives in the European highlands and does not turn to erata. It is easier to assume that the croceus in the named place did not survive the winter.

Met by areas... No one disputes that two subspecies, having met due to territorial expansion (climate change, some other reasons..) by the boundaries of their ranges, do not cross and do not merge into one in its zone. Moreover, many subspecies do not have territorial isolation from each other at the boundaries of their ranges. But when we talk about populations of two species living side by side, such as chyale and alfakariensis, which is observed in thousands of cases in southern Russia, and for some reason they do not hybridize en masse and do not merge into a "single genotype", what does this mean? That these are different types. This is a very simple truth. I don't know why it doesn't reach you.

Here you are again with the same idea And you did not think that what is now observed with the groups under discussion-maybe there is the same merger of subspecies in a very large intergradation zone, because this merger does not happen like this at a time, but it takes time! And how long does it take, 1000 years, or 10000? During this time, isolated groups can exist together for a very long time.
But, this is if we discuss the hypothesis that a and g are a species+subspecies, and there is also a variant a and g are a species+ 2 different morphs, as with erate and croceus.

Although I personally think that in the light of the data on caterpillars, the option of extensive intergradation of a species with a subspecies that has arisen for some reason is better suited...
In order to show that these are different species, you need to show reliable reproductive isolation, for example, the method that Evgeny Karolinsky told me about, applicable in the situation with the isolation of two new species from the Leptidea reali species, distinguishable only by molecular means, while as confirmation an experiment was performed in which 100% ethological preference for their own and rejection was shown alien species between pairs of discovered molecular species, something like that with Croceus and erate, and with ai-that would be-yes!

This post was edited by Hierophis - 01.11.2013 20: 45

... it seems that biochemistry prevails here, which is reflected in trophic relationships.

We have the same food supply in the delta. But the fact that this is not genetics, but biochemistry-most likely. The effect of temperature on the rate of operation of different enzymes is not the same. Again, mRNA processing can ultimately "generate" completely different mature RNAs and, accordingly, proteins under different conditions and variants, but all with the same DNA matrix. And hence the change in the biochemistry of the body, depending on the conditions of existence. A change in the conformation of structural proteins, etc. should lead to a change in morphology, a change in the structure of enzymes of pigment biosynthesis will certainly affect the color, etc.

Did you finish feeding the caterpillars? Were you breeding butterflies? For in science all understanding must be tested. You can also check this: catch females of certain species. Place in containers with broom. If the eggs are not laid (or rarely, reluctantly), then it is not their food plant. If "stuck" with them - it is. I can tell you the technology of obtaining eggs from yolks. I bred them once.

I don't need any pigeons, thank you - I have enough pigeons above my head, and now I keep several species from eggs to imago. I wanted to collect female yolks for guk-a this year (he has a lot of experience with them), but I flew with croceus.

It is easier to assume that the croceus in the named place did not survive the winter.

No, it's not. If you follow your logic, it turns out that he did not survive just a cold and wet autumn.

We have the same food supply in the delta. But the fact that this is not genetics, but biochemistry-most likely. The effect of temperature on the rate of operation of different enzymes is not the same. Again, mRNA processing can ultimately "generate" completely different mature RNAs and, accordingly, proteins under different conditions and variants, but all with the same DNA matrix. And hence the change in the biochemistry of the body, depending on the conditions of existence. A change in the conformation of structural proteins, etc. should lead to a change in morphology, a change in the structure of enzymes of pigment biosynthesis will certainly affect the color, etc.

But if croceus and erate are two morphs, then chiala and alfakariensis can be the same morphs, but also separated by barcode as a result of longer isolation. The croceus/erate and chyale/alfacariensis pairs form an elegant analogy due to the fact that in both cases one of the members of the pairs is a monophage, i.e. biochemistry is involved. And probably X and A also hybridize, but biochemistry prevents the" fusion".

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 20: 27

No, it's not. If you follow your logic, it turns out that he did not survive just a cold and wet autumn.

Perhaps so. I ate anything, cold and wet, the parasites overpowered my weakened body. It is necessary to repeat the experiment several times, then draw conclusions. But the miraculous transformation of croceus in Erath is the last thing to be believed.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 20: 42

Perhaps so. I ate anything, cold and wet, the parasites overpowered my weakened body. It is necessary to repeat the experiment several times, then draw conclusions. But the miraculous transformation of croceus in Erath is the last thing to be believed.

To influence the climate and cause a cold autumn, unfortunately, is not in my power (and there is no desire for this). So repeating the experience is hardly possible. But I will find out if croceus is extinct in 6 months.

To influence the climate and cause a cold autumn, unfortunately, is not in my power (and there is no desire for this). So repeating the experience is hardly possible. But I will find out if croceus is extinct in 6 months.

It is more likely to believe in 2 morphs that are geographically distributed due to physiology (resp. climatic and trophic conditions) and for some time populations with a predominance of one of the morphs were isolated from each other, after which the predominant (also more adapted to the given area) genotype was recorded in each of the ranges.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.11.2013 20: 47

It is more likely to believe in 2 morphs that are geographically distributed due to physiology (resp. climatic and trophic conditions) and for some time populations with a predominance of one of the morphs were isolated from each other, after which the predominant (also more adapted to the given area) genotype was recorded in each of the ranges.

This conclusion was already discussed several years and several sheets ago in this topic. Then the option of a temporary break in the range with a certain fixation of specific morphological features in each of the parts and the formation of subspecies was stipulated. Subspecies later began to counter-expand.

This conclusion was already discussed several years and several sheets ago in this topic. Then the option of a temporary break in the range with a certain fixation of specific morphological features in each of the parts and the formation of subspecies was stipulated. Subspecies later began to counter-expand.

That erate and croceus are recently related subspecies is the first thing that comes to mind (since there is zero distance in COI with morphological differences), as well as that chyale and alfakariensis are different species (due to the" specific " percentage, although adults are morphologically indistinguishable). But it seems that the forum has never drawn a parallel between these pairs of butterflies. Croceus and erate almost do not overlap trofically, as well as alfacariensis and chyale, of which erata and alfacariensis are monophages. Of course, it all depends on the concept of the view. Croceus and erata fit the definition of "a biological species is a reproductively related population set", and I am ready to consider them young, but different species. Each of them has "its own life" (croceus polyphage and erata monophage); not an absolute, but quite sufficient reproductive barrier, possibly due to poorly compatible biochemistry (and genomic differences in general). Of course, with this approach, I also recognize the non-specificity of X and A, which I challenge precisely because of the striking parallelism with E and K (combined with the unconvincing distance in COI and practicality). lack of morphological differences in imago). Another such pair is chrysothemum / myrmidon (monophage and oligophage, without the intersection of forage plants), but I do not know any other details about them.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 02: 05

We have the same food supply in the delta. But the fact that this is not genetics, but biochemistry-most likely. The effect of temperature on the rate of operation of different enzymes is not the same. Again, mRNA processing can ultimately "generate" completely different mature RNAs and, accordingly, proteins under different conditions and variants, but all with the same DNA matrix. And hence the change in the biochemistry of the body, depending on the conditions of existence. A change in the conformation of structural proteins, etc. should lead to a change in morphology, a change in the structure of enzymes of pigment biosynthesis will certainly affect the color, etc.

Orange pigment is a derivative of yellow. That is, if only one chemical reaction did not take place under the influence or due to the absence of some factors, then there will be no orange color-like all other even redder options. And here it is not very similar to 100% genetics: after all, almost all colias species that have red forms (heos, aurorina...) have white, orange and yellow ones. That is, the synthesis in the colorless-yellow-orange-red chain can be interrupted at any time.

Let me explain: the synthesis of these pigments occurs as follows:
colorless And similar in-vo - > With vetlo-yellow -> W elto -> W elto-O rangevoe - > O rangevoe - > K rasnoe. Where And is a simple organic substance used in various pathways of biosynthesis and energy metabolism. Now we recall that all reactions here (as well as all enzymatic reactions) are reversible, that is, they go in both directions, equalizing the concentrations of the initial b-va and the derivative. This means that the more And, the more C will be obtained. To synthesize W, you will need even more And. And so on, that is, to obtain the pigment O and K, we need the largest initial concentration of And. Now let's imagine a situation where the crocea pupa is experiencing a shortage of I due to unfavorable conditions (let's assume that it is simply produced less, since chemical reactions are slower). Pigment synthesis can't go far enough to orange and crocea is hatched by erata! And perhaps the lack of And also affects the formation of androconial spots, the pattern and shape of the genitals. Or maybe there is a shortage of some other substances, including those from which the substance itself is synthesized. And maybe the females are more deficient and - this may be due to the fact that a lot of And or its predecessors are spent on egg formation. And the males, sorry, do not have eggs, so they always have an abundance.

And notice: in species where males are white in color, there are no colored forms. That is, the synthesis of pigments is interrupted at the very beginning. And in those where the males are red, all options are possible. And if the males are yellow, then some of the females and a small part of the males will be white. That is, genetics can control how far a species is able to move the synthesis of pigments in the direction from green to red. And how far it will go in a particular individual depends on something else.

So, I strongly advise everyone to fry pupae of yellow species and freeze red ones-maybe something will come out of this And I will try to fry polygraphuses-who knows, they may finally turn red...

The idea of two forms of erate looks great! After all, no one doubts the existence of polyphenism as a phenomenon. Araschnia, Pieris, Papilio-all within the species and population show phenotypes of different sizes, shapes, and colors. And no one will think of throwing spring and summer Arashnia into "types". As well as tailed and tailless forms of tailbearers, some of which males and females are not even close to each other. So, the existence within the species of several morphologically and trofically different forms in egg yolks is quite acceptable until something else is proved.

This post was edited by ayc - 02.11.2013 08: 47

sergenicko, but really, why is Colias masculine? To be honest, I couldn't find the etymology. But if so, then we need to redo everyone:
coccandicus
aridus
sifanicus
hyperboreus
altus
sulitelmus
aquilonarius
sulitelmus
dimerus
nebulosus
caucasicus
chlorocomus
dubius
gigantus
.....

and then the ignorance of the "old men" who gave so many female epithets to the Kolias peasant is surprising-erate, chrysotheme, myrmydone, tyche, chrystina, eogene, electo, hecla, euxanthe, lada, lesbia ... this is not Kolyan, but some kind of gay king turns out!

although, there are hoffmanorum, montium - they are generally neuter... to the female gender, even on a blue bench can not pull up.

Here, gentlemen, you can also have fun with this reading material from tov. Hebert. The guys really believed that they had discovered as many as 10 species out of one. To do this, they showed differences in COI between populations feeding on different plants and having different caterpillar colors, but indistinguishable in imago. It looks impressive... if the analysis of COI variability within the genus and family to which the object of study belongs was not tactfully omitted. And nothing has been said about the (non -) ability of new "species" to jump between feeders and change the color of caterpillars. Having opened Klondike, the guys were too lazy to compare the sequences of other parts of the genome, although tov. Hebert is the director of an institute that sequences everything that comes to hand - the contaminated reagents there are poured in cisterns, whereas for such work they would be enough for a few drops! Populations are proudly and loudly given the rank of species only on the basis of the fact that researchers really wanted it. Just like I wanted a beautiful and loud article title. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/41/14812.full

And to be honest, this is the only outright mess that I have seen in PNAS - one of the most respected and prestigious magazines in the world. But also on this old woman...