Jaundice (Colias)

Community and Forum → Insects images → Jaundice (Colias)

Pages: 1 ...20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28... 38

02.11.2013 10:19, Hierophis

Here, gentlemen, you can also have fun with this reading material from tov. Hebert.....

Wow!!!!!!
An incredible example, was this article specifically written exclusively for this topic?

Yes, you need to attach it here at the very top and link to each message ))))

In general, even at the dawn of my understanding of new trends in taxonomy, I felt that there would be a poc.. and the poc has come

Yes, at the time of Linnaeus, the classification was very imperfect, there were many inaccuracies, but this is natural, the main thing is the idea itself!
And in my understanding, the idea is that a species is a brick, or even a pillar

of classification, reliability and unambiguity should be associated with the concept of a species(although I personally believe that a species is an artificial concept, which I once "proved" here

). And with the advent of a method that allows you to "confirm" the most daring fantasies, the objectivity of the species has blurred, like there-like agarose gel

Now, from a group of absolutely morphologically identical individuals, you can stamp a bunch of species... which can only be understood by those who also "stamped" them... I think that for such new trends, it would be necessary to use some kind of infra-specific categories first, and now the classification of the same butterflies is similar to aged wine.. which was poured into the mixer and turned on to the fullest)))))

02.11.2013 10:58, sergenicko

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.

Not really ignorance, but confusion. I checked in more detail, in Greek kolias is both masculine and feminine, and in general it is an adjective ("koliadsky"). So if we assume that Colias is from Homer, then it is feminine ("Coliada" or "Coliada"). In this case, you really need crocea "saffron" (because croceus is masculine). Although in reality, you can use croceus. I apologize, I was too quick to criticize in the heat of the moment, although there are plenty of similar (but real) blunders in other cases, and especially in the "etymologies" that wander from one generalizing work to another.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 11: 34

Likes: 3

Likes: 1

02.11.2013 11:03, sergenicko

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.

Crocea in the places of its European habitat is quite frozen, and for a long time, in the highlands, and it does not turn out yellow erats - butterflies remain orange. Then again, your reasoning doesn't explain why crocea is a polyphage and erate is (under normal conditions) a monophage. If you continue your reasoning, then due to hypothermia, the butterfly turns yellow (which is trivial), and switches to eating only alfalfa (which, you will agree, is strange).

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 11: 42

02.11.2013 11:45, ayc

Crocea in the places of its European habitat is quite frozen, and for a long time, in the highlands, and it does not turn out yellow erats - butterflies remain orange.

Temperature may not affect the development itself, but in combination with other factors. So, just freezing will not be enough. Or even the temperature does not affect at all, but another factor accompanying it. In cold summers, humidity is usually higher, plant growth is slower, and their chemical production is different...

Note that the entire variety of yolks, both within the species and in general, dances between the most feminine structure plan (without yellow-red pigment, without andrakonia, with a "leaky" border) and the most masculine plan (with red pigment, andrakonia and a solid border). In different species and even individuals, these variants are mixed randomly - there are any variants within the genus. From this, it can be assumed that this scheme of organization and the mechanisms for switching between its variants arose long before the appearance of today's species, inherited by the current jaundice from the proto-jaundice. Therefore, it would be wrong to use such features to separate species, because they are a characteristic feature of the genus. As well as the "switch". And it doesn't surprise you that a radically "male" red male is conspecific with a radically white "female" female. And the fact that there is still a conspecific orange female. But it causes rejection of the fact that there can be a yellow male of their species.

This post was edited by ayc - 02.11.2013 11: 52

02.11.2013 12:07, sergenicko

Temperature may not affect the development itself, but in combination with other factors. So, just freezing will not be enough. Or even the temperature does not affect at all, but another factor accompanying it. In cold summers, humidity is usually higher, plant growth is slower, and their chemical production is different...

Note that the entire variety of yolks, both within the species and in general, dances between the most feminine structure plan (without yellow-red pigment, without andrakonia, with a "leaky" border) and the most masculine plan (with red pigment, andrakonia and a solid border). In different species and even individuals, these variants are mixed randomly - there are any variants within the genus. From this, it can be assumed that this scheme of organization and the mechanisms for switching between its variants arose long before the appearance of today's species, inherited by the current jaundice from the proto-jaundice. Therefore, it would be wrong to use such features to separate species, because they are a characteristic feature of the genus. As well as the "switch". And it doesn't surprise you that a radically "male" red male is conspecific with a radically white "female" female. And the fact that there is still a conspecific orange female. But it causes rejection of the fact that there can be a yellow male of their species.

I don't get hung up on color at all, especially since real erats are orange, in some populations in most. See above somewhere my post about color as an indistinguishable feature of these taxa. But they still remain erats associated with alfalfa. Crocea (males) everywhere, except for the border with Erata, strictly orange, this can be somehow attributed to the climate. However, crocea is a polyphage everywhere, at least it does not have a preference for alfalfa.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 12: 07

02.11.2013 12:33, sergenicko

...probably... But the monofaphgy of erate is being questioned here. And what do you think about polygraphus and the North China Erats? There's no alfalfa. Rather, it is rare and polygraphic in bulk, where it is not. Polygraphus is a polyphagus. Do you also consider it a good view?

You probably don't understand me correctly. I don't " count ... view", and I guess on the data and sort out possible solutions. The fact that polygraphus is a polyphagus does not mean anything at all - it is a separate taxon from the nominative erate. And I sort out the options, because "crocea as a climatic form" and its trophic difference from erate do not fit. Whatever you say, Erate prefers alfalfa in all the available (to me) literature. To the east of the Southern Urals, erate has other forage plants (sweet clover and licorice in the Southern Urals), and what of this? guk strongly objects, but then why is such a terrible error not fixed on his site?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 12: 40

02.11.2013 12:35, гук

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.

After a long and useless search for a permanent population of Crocea in the Volgograd region, I also come up with this idea.
There is no other way to explain the fact that all Erate populations show signs of crocea from time to time.
I just want to add that the combination of these traits varies from population to population.
Raising offspring from a single female shows this very well.
The offspring contain the same traits that are usually found in a given population.

02.11.2013 13:08, sergenicko

Do YOU have YOUR OWN data?

Is this a "backfill question"? Why do I need my own data if I have literary data? You can't get your own people from all over the area anyway. If there were erate flying around me, I would have my own data, and I would share it with you. But they fly around you, and I use your data and data from other reliable sources. If the whole problem is that "erate feed on alfalfa, as well as on other...", then I used "monophagus" inaccurately from the very beginning, with a reservation about this. It's about preference. In the Southern Urals, Erate prefers sweet clover and licorice, in Europe (according to Tolman) and it seems to be alfalfa in Bulgaria. In Slovakia, alfalfa is both types, but then their tastes diverge. In any case, it turns out that erate is a mono - or oligophagus, and crocea is a polyphage according to all data. For crocea, none of the sources indicate a preferred plant. About alpha, too, coarsely write that "on vyazel", although strictly speaking "prefers vyazel". But this does not prevent you from contrasting alpha with polyphage-chiala.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 13: 22

Likes: 2

02.11.2013 13:27, sergenicko

So, to summarize.

Alpha and hyale are the same species.
Arguments. Differences in mtDNA are not an indicator, Dinka and al. crooks.
Differences in tracks are not an indicator.
External differences are not an indicator, they float.
Genital differences are not an indicator, swim.
Hybridization is not proven, just no one looked.

Crocea and erate are different species.
Arguments. mtDNA identity is not an indicator.
Caterpillar identity is not an indicator.
External differences may float, but they float correctly, this is an indicator.
Genital differences may float, but they swim correctly, this is an indicator.
Hybridization is not an indicator.

It's all very logical.

Whose system of arguments did you list? If not mine, then they were misrepresented - not only the arguments themselves, but also their correlation with each other. I analyzed the probabilities of solving a really complex problem with two pairs of types, and did not put forward a single "coherent hypothesis" that would be worth fighting for. All the arguments and counter-arguments listed by you are rubbed out a hundred times in the literature and on forums. I drew attention to another point that was ignored (or not paid due attention) - that from each pair, one of the taxa is a monophage( more precisely, an oligophage), the other is a polyphage within the moth family. In taxonomy, the biology of taxa is usually more important than morphology. If this factor is taken into account, crocea/erate as MODERN forms of the same species do not coincide.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 13: 39

02.11.2013 13:35, ayc

Guys, where are you going in a hurry? You're going to die tomorrow, but you can't appear before the Lord without giving him a clear answer about one species or two? It is clear that crocea, erate, hyale, alfa are 4 entities. Now take them and study them!

Sergey, communicating closely with Western colleagues, I see that the principle of "you can't cut down what's written with a pen with an axe" is hypertrophied in their brains. That is, if one person copies some nonsense from another, then the third person will not hesitate to copy it for himself, since the fact of publication makes the information beyond doubt. Therefore, information about distribution and feed in a large number of publications is correspondence, which is rarely checked by anyone. That's why they write alfalfa first, because that's what everyone says.

02.11.2013 13:46, sergenicko

Guys, where are you going in a hurry? You're going to die tomorrow, but you can't appear before the Lord without giving him a clear answer about one species or two? It is clear that crocea, erate, hyale, alfa are 4 entities. Now take them and study them!

Sergey, communicating closely with Western colleagues, I see that the principle of "you can't cut down what's written with a pen with an axe" is hypertrophied in their brains. That is, if one person copies some nonsense from another, then the third person will not hesitate to copy it for himself, since the fact of publication makes the information beyond doubt. Therefore, information about distribution and feed in a large number of publications is correspondence, which is rarely checked by anyone. That's why they write alfalfa first, because that's what everyone says.

This is unquestionable

, but in this case, and on kavk. the site copied Western lies? In fact, I trust Google and Slovaks - they only use data from the field, this is their method. And the fact that the trophism of erata and crocea diverged can be considered a scientific fact. Tolman, of course, took information from the literature, but he, judging by other types, approaches the sources critically. Crocea is a polyphage in all of them (see numerous local European sites), while erate is likely to prefer one or two forage plants (field data from the Southern Urals, Bartel 1914 and Migranov 1991 - sweet clover and licorice; it probably also deposits on other plants. moth-like, but so rare that it was not observed).

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 14: 37

02.11.2013 13:46, ayc

So, to summarize.

Alpha and hyale are the same species.
Arguments. Differences in mtDNA are not an indicator, Dinka and al. crooks.
Differences in tracks are not an indicator.
External differences are not an indicator, they float.
Genital differences are not an indicator, swim.
Hybridization is not proven, just no one looked.

Crocea and erate are different species.
Arguments. mtDNA identity is not an indicator.
Caterpillar identity is not an indicator.
External differences may float, but they float correctly, this is an indicator.
Genital differences may float, but they swim correctly, this is an indicator.
Hybridization is not an indicator.

It's all very logical.

And what's funniest of all is that this may actually turn

out to be

02.11.2013 14:59, ayc

but what does the different shape of the genitals have to do with this (okay, there is an example of such a difference on the mountain/plain principle, but here something is wrong) and trophic connections?

If someone can show you how different genitalia shapes are shaped, it will at least be an article in Nature. The differences there are not dramatic, and the formation of slightly different structures in ontogenesis can depend on anything. And since the morphology of genitalia in these species has no adaptive significance, it is simply one of many traits, the nature of which is unknown (at least for me-I have not seen any works on the regulation of genitalia formation in insect ontogenesis).

The difference in trophic relationships, as I understood it, is still based on the belief that European authors write the absolute truth, and do not copy each other's once-expressed guesses. If I am wrong, I would appreciate at least one article that evaluates the ability of crocea and erate females to recognize food plants. To show that erate recognizes alfalfa more readily, and crocea recognizes many species equally well.

02.11.2013 15:47, sergenicko

If someone can show you how different genitalia shapes are shaped, it will at least be an article in Nature. The differences there are not dramatic, and the formation of slightly different structures in ontogenesis can depend on anything. And since the morphology of genitalia in these species has no adaptive significance, it is simply one of many traits, the nature of which is unknown (at least for me-I have not seen any works on the regulation of genitalia formation in insect ontogenesis).

The difference in trophic relationships, as I understood it, is still based on the belief that European authors write the absolute truth, and do not copy each other's once-expressed guesses. If I am wrong, I would appreciate at least one article that evaluates the ability of crocea and erate females to recognize food plants. To show that erate recognizes alfalfa more readily, and crocea recognizes many species equally well.

You can only trust field workers, such as G. V. Kuznetsov (among those taking part in the discussion). He rightly objects to the fact that erata is a monophage (this is me roughing up the facts), but on their website alfalfa is the main food. Further, Slovaks who only provide field data on their site. They both eat alfalfa, but then the lists of forage plants of croceus and erata diverge. There were 2 observers in the South Urals, and both observed erata's caterpillars only on sweet clover and licorice (it also lives on these herbs in the Volga region). As for croceus, all authors cite almost "all Fabaceae" for it and there is no hint of a preference for any particular species. I.e., the general conclusion is that erate has trophic preferences (alfalfa-sweet clover-licorice, this list is almost exhausted), and croceus is omnivorous. But new data is needed, of course. It is interesting that they attacked me for erata, but they also firmly believe in the oligophage of alfakariensis (coarsely monophage on vyazel). Although he, the venerable vyazel, is also found on other bobvykh.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.11.2013 15: 52

02.11.2013 16:23, rhopalocera.com

That's it! So far, there are at best only estimates of how it seems to field workers. They can be trusted as good and intelligent people, but this is not entirely scientific. That's when the field workers will spawn at least a few dozen butterflies, offering them different plants and statistically show their preferences, it will be scientific. And with such data, you can confidently click on the nose of your opponents!

I would love to grow them myself, but I just can't give up everything and run away for a couple of seasons to the Volgograd region, Ukraine or the Caucasus, organize a laboratory there. This is much easier for locals to do.

There is a caveat. In captivity, geese will eat whatever they are given, or they will die. In the wild, everything is somewhat different.

02.11.2013 16:26, ayc

Wow!!!!!!
An incredible example, was this article specifically written exclusively for this topic? Yes, you need to attach it here at the very top and link to each message ))))

In general, even at the dawn of my understanding of new trends in taxonomy, I felt that there would be a poc.. and the poc has come
Yes, at the time of Linnaeus, the classification was very imperfect, there were many inaccuracies, but this is natural, the main thing is the idea itself!
And in my understanding, the idea is that a species is a brick, or even a pillar of classification, reliability and unambiguity should be associated with the concept of a species(although I personally believe that a species is an artificial concept, which I once "proved" here ). And with the advent of a method that allows you to "confirm" the most daring fantasies, the objectivity of the species has blurred, like there-like agarose gel
Now, from a group of absolutely morphologically identical individuals, you can stamp a bunch of species... which can only be understood by those who also "stamped" them... I think that for such new trends, it would be necessary to use some kind of infra-specific categories first, and now the classification of the same butterflies is similar to aged wine.. which was poured into the mixer and turned on to the fullest)))))

No. This is not the ppc of echo and the new taxonomy. Molecular science is cool if applied intelligently and honestly. There is a complete ppc here in human mores, when inconvenient results are thrown out, a part of the work that can refute the protected hypothesis is ignored or hushed up, the methodology is distorted - and all in order to get the desired conclusions. To increase their prestige and well-being. There were such cases before the outbreak.

Pages: 1 ...20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28... 38