Jaundice (Colias)

Here is this picture


it is described only by a two-allele system, where there are alleles O and D:

OO - orange males
OD - yellow males
DD-lethal genotype

O* - white females
D* - lethal genotype

And the second picture is more complicated. Here you can wonder for a long time how many loci and alleles are involved and how their products interact. Only crossing it all together would help.

sergenicko, I was all curious, why don't you discuss this work?
http://www.lepidoptera.crimea.ua/articles/...2008_crocea.pdf

or here's a popular retelling of it:
http://elementy.ru/genbio/synopsis?artid=195

After all, according to it, you can dance at the very time-in short, hybridization between erate and crocea in the Crimea turned out to be limited, despite the lack of differences between these species/populations. Everything would be beautiful if it weren't for the tiny amount of samples - when making such comparisons, they take dozens more individuals. And in general, the results are presented partially and selectively, which does not give a complete picture of the results obtained. Or what can we say about the frequencies of alleles in paratypical forms, if each one was taken for 1-2 individuals? In general, it is a pity that the authors started a very interesting study, did not bring it to mind, and published the results in a poorly reviewed journal that does not specialize in publishing articles in the field of population genetics.

I read the first paper and would have danced if it wasn't for what you wrote yourself. And in erates (without hybridization with crocea), the orange allele in males is on its own, it climbs rarely in some populations, in others more often, perhaps its expression is related to the climate (erates are completely orange in Turkmenistan). In the hybridization zone, its frequency naturally increases. But croceus has other frequency alleles of other genes that are rare or absent in erate, so I somehow did not meet" yellow croceus " anywhere except in the picture of Gennady Vasilyevich, i.e. again only in the mixed zone. In isolated areas (in Germany, France), croceus erata is not obtained, and by special selection it can probably grow - but it will turn out like a tarpan from a domestic horse. Therefore, according to the totality of facts, crocea and erate are young subspecies. Why break spears, you should write Colias crocea crocea, C. c. erate, C. c. poiliographus, C. c. ssp. (in relation to Tajikistan and Amdo) and not to suffer at least with the taxonomy.: "In the eastern populations, the percentage of "polygraphus" is increasing, and a very large percentage of yellow males with androconia. Such males are very rare in the west. And more. The more external signs of crocea in a specimen, the more "crocea-like" the valva is-these are normal transitions between subspecies. There is probably a wedge between Erata and polygraphus, while there is a sharper transition between Croceus and Erata.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 04.11.2013 14: 49

And there is one more question-this difference in CO1, let's say 2%, is sufficient to consider the group as a species, for how long can they accumulate?

Roman, do your research. Or look at the literature. I do not know how much they can accumulate for Hiale and alfakariensis. Everything is much more interesting, and you know: there are no universal and key signs in this world for distinguishing" superficially similar " butterfly species. The "sum of traits" works: differences in genitalia, proteins, karyotype, preimaginal stages, and phenotype. Species can be distinguished by mating experiments in an aviary. If the vast majority of individuals prefer any one" line " from the suggested ones, then they are of the same species. But here, too, there are "exceptional cases" - when two closely related species can intensively hybridize along the boundaries of their ranges, but are, nevertheless, separate species in "areal centers". In general, do not look for another "philosopher's stone" - a single sign for the separation of all species. It won't be there. It is better to estimate the weight of each attribute to separate species - for example, in mathematical form. Let's summarize it... We get the result: types or not types. The algorithm, of course, will be complicated, because you still need to evaluate the "number of attributes", but I think you can create it. I don't see any other evaluation options for "complex cases".

This post was edited by Wild Yuri - 04.11.2013 17: 30

By the way, the cases of erate and croceus, hiale and alfakariensis in southern Russia are not so complicated. The areas are common, and there is a wide contact of populations... Subspecies are not possible. Forms? We'll put the animals in an aviary, and we'll understand everything based on the results of mating... Then we'll look at the experiment, if there are any forms: which ones. Whether biotopic, trophic, or morphic. Guk, as a field worker, would have taken up the topic long ago! And then this "chatter" will be for another five years. For this I bow. Fun-hour.

By the way, the cases of erate and croceus, hiale and alfakariensis in southern Russia are not so complicated. The areas are common, and there is a wide contact of populations... Subspecies are not possible. Forms? We'll put the animals in an aviary, and we'll understand everything based on the results of mating... Then we'll look at the experiment, if there are any forms: which ones. Whether biotopic, trophic, or morphic. Guk, as a field worker, would have taken up the topic long ago! And then this "chatter" will be for another five years. For this I bow. Fun - hour.

Let's assume that hyale and alfakariensis are not formally subspecies because there are 2% differences in COI between them (although I would first find out if other butterflies have infravidal distances greater than 2%). And what prevents croceus and erata from being subspecies? It seems to me that my colleagues have complicated the problem by jumping from a simple solution (consider traditional species as subspecies with a transition zone between them, this often happens) to an arch-complex one - a polymorphic species with geographically (but not climatically!) distributed phenotypes (and trophic connections, however). I think it's called " reaching your left ear with your right hand."

Wild Yuri, well, I would love to do such a study, but in fact, this requires certain opportunities, and it would be better if it was done by specialists, at least because they have such a job in the end

And yet, I can't understand why you so persistently write "subspecies are not possible", I certainly don't know much, but I still remember something about convergent sympatric speciation, the formation of a child species within a population of individuals belonging to the same species without geographical isolation, because it seems not uncommon! But this is not the only way in which a population with subspecies characteristics can exist for some time inside the progenitor population, two subspecies can merge, and speciation begins by hybridization, which can be very slow due to the fact that the subspecies have already managed to cool down quite a lot to each other)

Of course, the definition of subspecies that is given in Wikipedia gives little chance,
but I tend to trust such a definition from a special biological dictionary of the 80s.:

Wild Yuri, well, I would love to do such a study, but in fact, this requires certain opportunities, and it would be better if it was done by specialists, at least because they have such a job in the end

And yet, I can't understand why you so persistently write "subspecies are not possible", I certainly don't know much, but I still remember something about convergent sympatric speciation, the formation of a child species within a population of individuals belonging to the same species without geographical isolation, because it seems not uncommon! But this is not the only way in which a population with subspecies characteristics can exist for some time inside the progenitor population, two subspecies can merge, and speciation begins by hybridization, which can be very slow due to the fact that the subspecies have already managed to cool down quite a lot to each other)

Of course, the definition of subspecies that is given in Wikipedia gives little chance,
but I tend to trust this definition from a special biological dictionary of the 80s:
Even you personally pointed out the ecological isolation of populations, and there could be geochronological divisions, which I also wrote about earlier.
IMHO, the tendency that subspecies can't inhabit the same territory is just another fashionable feature of "rapid speciation" as a good reason to write something somewhere
And it certainly can't be used as proof

Roman, I don't understand why it is necessary to jump from two species (croceus and erate) to a polymorphic species, if the subspecies solution seems quite acceptable, and the aggregate facts (after all, the ranges of both forms are not limited, for example, to the Volgograd region) speak in favor of subspecies, and not polymorphism. Real polymorphism is observed only in the habitats of its adherents, and this is a transition zone where alleles walk on both sides, and where you can study the interaction of gene pools of two subspecies not from books and collections, but in the field.
As for hyale and alfacariensis, the ratio of these taxa is very similar to the ratio between erata and croceus, but the distance in COI between them is about 2%, which according to modern concepts indicates two species. As far as this universality is absolute, it is necessary to establish for other types of whiteflies.
By the way, the COI distance between myrmidon and chrysothemum is noticeably less than that between chyale and alfakariensis , about 1%, and on this basis they can be considered subspecies, although, of course, this alone is not a reason.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.11.2013 01: 52

Sergey, get away from COI! There is a high probability that those sequences that are signed in the Genebank as "sareptensis" were identified by sequences, and not by morphology. Because it corresponds to the general party line ("COI is a powerful universal tool for distinguishing species"), professed by the researchers who published them... or rather, their sponsor and controller. In other words, intra-population variability here can be passed off as interspecific.

And there's also the "Pakistani" hyale. It differs from other hyalas and "sareptensis" by >5%. Here it pulls on a good view or subspecies. And these should be tested for a Sociodarwinian species in the Imanishi way, where a species is a collection of individuals who are able to recognize each other as their own and give preference to their own in social relationships.

And why are the Russian populations of erate and crocea necessarily a contact zone? Why is this not the main range of the species, where all the variety of variants is represented, and in the west and east live marginal populations depleted in alleles, quietly following the path of geographical speciation?

Sergey, get away from COI! There is a high probability that those sequences that are signed in the Genebank as "sareptensis" were identified by sequences, and not by morphology. Because it corresponds to the general party line ("COI is a powerful universal tool for distinguishing species"), professed by the researchers who published them... or rather, their sponsor and controller. In other words, intra-population variability here can be passed off as interspecific.

And there's also the "Pakistani" hyale. It differs from other hyalas and "sareptensis" by >5%. Here it pulls on a good view or subspecies. And these should be tested for a Sociodarwinian species in the Imanishi way, where a species is a collection of individuals who are able to recognize each other as their own and give preference to their own in social relationships.

And why are the Russian populations of erate and crocea necessarily a contact zone? Why is this not the main range of the species, where all the variety of variants is represented, and in the west and east live marginal populations depleted in alleles, quietly following the path of geographical speciation?

I cite these COIs solely because of its international prestige. After all, people will poke their noses at it anyway, and there are always people for whom the 2% species threshold is an axiom, so at least you need to know what is being done with it in groups. It is obvious that the variation in whiteflies is larger than in eneis or mellicts, but the meager percentages do not mean that they are not species.
"Why is this not the main area of the species, where all the variety of variants is represented" - why not? Also an option. But attempts to turn erate into croceus and back again, in my opinion, do not succeed. There are (and in nature) orange erats, but still they are not croceus. There are almost no yellow crocuses. It would be expected that any combination of traits would be evenly represented in the "main area", but somehow it does not work-the dominant phenotypes (yellow, less often orange) of erata and orange croceus, which differ in genitalia. There are few transitional forms. In the direction of polygraphus, there is a clinal variability. In my opinion, it looks more like a subspecies hybridization zone. Moreover, the expansion of Erata to the west is happening right before our eyes - they stormed into Hungary in the middle of the 20th century. In Bulgaria, croceus form relatively pure (at least in terms of phenotype) populations in the highlands, while in the plains the situation is similar to that in the Ciscaucasia. Erate in Bulgaria rarely rises above 1500 m (such butterflies are considered stray).
As for hiale and alfakariensis, I am more inclined to consider them the same subspecies as erate and croceus. And their COI needs to be sorted out.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.11.2013 10: 59

As for hiale and alfakariensis, I am more inclined to consider them the same subspecies as erate and croceus. And their COI needs to be sorted out.

   

It seems that you can see better from the inside, but you can see better from the outside. In addition to the specifics, there is also a typology. Its data is good as statistical universals. And more often it is simple, not difficult.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.11.2013 14: 14

It seems that you can see better from the inside, but you can see better from the outside. In addition to the specifics, there is also a typology. Its data is good as statistical universals. And more often it is simple, not difficult.

Typology-classification based on essential features. It is based on the concept of type as a unit of dissection of the studied reality, a specific ideal model of historically developing objects. Branches of science that identify types of phenomena or objects that are similar in their set of internal characteristics:

Typology (linguistics) is a branch of linguistics that deals with finding out the most common patterns of different languages that are not related to each other by common origin or mutual influence.

I've never been involved in taxonomy, not by rank, and not interesting.
I don't consider myself an entomologist, as an Entomologist is a Professional.
Just sometimes I go, search, catch, sometimes grow.
If at the same time, something becomes incomprehensible and does not fit into certain ideas, I look for answers in textbooks and articles. At the same time, I am initially focused on the fact that the authors are not their own enemies, and they know what they are writing about, since in science such things do not go for nothing, and I think that Entomology "this is science, not a place for amateurs and crooks. And until now, it has never occurred to me to suddenly, out of the blue, revise the main provisions of Science, just because I don't like something, or I don't understand something.

Because if you start doing this, that is, reviewing it, it's very easy to hear these words::

"You are at the lowest stage of development, [ ... ] you are still an emerging, mentally weak being, all your actions are purely bestial, and you allow yourself, in the presence of two people with a university education, with a completely unbearable swagger, to give some advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic nonsense about how everything is going. share... [...] ...you need to be silent and listen to what is being said to you. Study and try to become at least a somewhat acceptable member of social society."

I think that alpha and hyale are good species. Why?
They differ in appearance, yes, not one hundred percent, but you can cite dozens of species that also differ poorly in appearance.
They differ in the shape of the harp, yes, not one hundred percent, but you can cite dozens of species that also differ genitally poorly.
There is a good balance between the appearance and shape of the garpa.
(The fact that we have not yet learned to distinguish between these species is irrelevant, and who would distinguish them if you look for butterflies with a wide edge border on both the front and rear wings in the far south.)
These species differ in their caterpillars.
These species have clear preferences in forage plants and in biotopes.
Alpha is a very local species, at the edge of its range (in the region), sometimes hundreds of kilometers between stable populations.
In dozens of hyale populations, not even a hint of alpha signs has ever been observed.
And why would you suddenly start to reconsider the concept of "species", "subspecies", easily, at the tip of the pen, to reconsider modern ideas in genetics.
No way! I just really don't like this couple!
So I can throw in a few dozen more views.

Colleagues, please note that males of croceus have an androconial spot. It doesn't just form. In addition, there are not so many transitional types in the vast area of their sympatry (crocea and erate), and they are not very obvious. If you stop dancing around CO1 and finally start looking at a couple of other genes specifically for sympatric populations, then something will become clear. It may even be possible to shake the molecular "dogmas"
Where there are zones of hybridization of SUBSPECIES, there should be almost free crossing and uniform mixing of phenotypes. And how long does it take to completely mix 2 subspecies, whose butterflies freely fly for many tens or even hundreds of kilometers??? During the time that the current steppe exists, they have already mixed hundreds of times. What is observed is rather similar to the infrequent hybridization of very similar SPECIES. Moreover, this occurs unevenly in different parts of the range. Somewhere they may behave as subspecies, and somewhere as good species. There are many such examples in nature. There must be borderline situations where it is extremely difficult to tell which species or subspecies they are. And these situations will continue to be debatable indefinitely

 

....at the same time, it is initially focused on the fact that the authors are not their own enemies, and they know what they are writing about, since such things do not pass in vain in science, and I think that Entomology is a science, and not a haven for amateurs and crooks. And until now, it has never occurred to me to suddenly, out of the blue, revise the main provisions of Science, just because I don't like something, or I don't understand something.

Oh, Gennady, how naive you are! Still as "passes", and still with a bang, and it takes decades to bury a different profanity of pseudo-professionals.. You don't need to go for examples.

By the way, this yellow one with androconium wasn't cooked? I think it's a light crocea.

Typology-classification based on essential features. It is based on the concept of type as a unit of dissection of the studied reality, a specific ideal model of historically developing objects. Branches of science that identify types of phenomena or objects that are similar in their set of internal characteristics:

Typology (linguistics) is a branch of linguistics that deals with finding out the most common patterns of different languages that are not related to each other by common origin or mutual influence.

I've never been involved in taxonomy, not by rank, and not interesting.
I don't consider myself an entomologist, as an Entomologist is a Professional.
Just sometimes I go, search, catch, sometimes grow.
If at the same time, something becomes incomprehensible and does not fit into certain ideas, I look for answers in textbooks and articles. At the same time, I am initially focused on the fact that the authors are not their own enemies, and they know what they are writing about, since in science such things do not go for nothing, and I think that Entomology "this is science, not a place for amateurs and crooks. And until now, it has never occurred to me to suddenly, out of the blue, revise the main provisions of Science, just because I don't like something, or I don't understand something.

Because if you start doing this, that is, reviewing it, it's very easy to hear these words::

"You are at the lowest stage of development, [ ... ] you are still an emerging, mentally weak being, all your actions are purely bestial, and you allow yourself, in the presence of two people with a university education, with a completely unbearable swagger, to give some advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic nonsense about how everything is going. share... [...] ...you need to be silent and listen to what is being said to you. Study and try to become at least a somewhat acceptable member of social society."

I think that alpha and hyale are good species. Why?
They differ in appearance, yes, not one hundred percent, but you can cite dozens of species that also differ poorly in appearance.
They differ in the shape of the harp, yes, not one hundred percent, but you can cite dozens of species that also differ genitally poorly.
There is a good balance between the appearance and shape of the garpa.
(The fact that we have not yet learned to distinguish between these species is irrelevant, and who would distinguish them if you look for butterflies with a wide edge border on both the front and rear wings in the far south.)
These species differ in their caterpillars.
These species have clear preferences in forage plants and in biotopes.
Alpha is a very local species, at the edge of its range (in the region), sometimes hundreds of kilometers between stable populations.
In dozens of hyale populations, not even a hint of alpha signs has ever been observed.
And why would you suddenly start to reconsider the concept of "species", "subspecies", easily, at the tip of the pen, to reconsider modern ideas in genetics.
No way! I just really don't like this couple!
So I can throw in a few dozen more views.

Gennady Vasilyevich, I was referring to the definition of typology that you gave as if about linguistics, but in fact the same method is used in any science.
"Like-dislike" is an evaluation approach. Often, if a person is deep in the topic, he echoes his intuition, which seems to subconsciously incite the right decision. So I'm not arguing with you about your local area. According to your observations, alpha and chiala behave as semi-intuitively distinguishable species, and that's the end of it. However, both taxa have vast ranges, and even if they are subspecies, they can behave like species in a particular area when they have recently met and still distinguish between "their " and" others "and mate mainly with"their own". This is described for many animal species. Of course, if these are subspecies, they will eventually "merge in ecstasy". They can be species, but to confirm one hypothesis, you need field data along the entire border of their shared habitat, and there are none, except for your own and a couple of other brief observations. The forum is dedicated to molecular biology, so this side of the problem should not be put out of brackets. The claim that chiala and alpha are different species based on the COI comparison, as it turned out, to put it mildly, is unfounded: apparently, Dinka and co-authors distributed their material on "chiala" and" alfakariensis "not by habit, but by the sequences themselves, as a result, they got 2 "purely molecular" species, without correlation of differences in COI with morphology, color of caterpillars, etc. Their reference to the rest of the facts in the state bank is simply fraudulent - there is nothing there, except for their own Romanian "alfakariensis" and a couple of Spanish ones. That is why we are now trying to find out what the intraspecific and interspecific distance is in other groups of jaundice, and whether the 2% distance can be a pebble in the balance in favor of conspecificity or non-conspecificity of these two taxa. And perhaps, among the yolks, it does not mean anything at all, let's see. And you are honored and praised for your work in the field, it is priceless.

Colleagues, please note that males of croceus have an androconial spot. It doesn't just form. In addition, there are not so many transitional types in the vast area of their sympatry (crocea and erate), and they are not very obvious. If you stop dancing around CO1 and finally start looking at a couple of other genes specifically for sympatric populations, then something will become clear. It may even be possible to shake the molecular "dogmas"
Where there are zones of hybridization of SUBSPECIES, there should be almost free crossing and uniform mixing of phenotypes. And how long does it take to completely mix 2 subspecies, whose butterflies freely fly for many tens or even hundreds of kilometers??? During the time that the current steppe exists, they have already mixed hundreds of times. What is observed is rather similar to the infrequent hybridization of very similar SPECIES. Moreover, this occurs unevenly in different parts of the range. Somewhere they may behave as subspecies, and somewhere as good species. There are many such examples in nature. There must be borderline situations where it is extremely difficult to tell which species or subspecies they are. And these situations will continue to be debatable indefinitely

In a particular locality, parapatric subspecies can behave as "half-species" when they have recently met and still distinguish between "friends" and "strangers"and mate mainly with "friends". As if two castes are formed. If the choice of" friends "sharply exceeds the choice of" strangers "on the part of both sexes, then the gene pool will gradually mix due to" extra-caste " connections, but the process will last much longer than in the normal case. Croceus males are distinguished from erate males by androconia, which secrete an odorous secret.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.11.2013 17: 45

Colleagues, please note that males of croceus have an androconial spot. It doesn't just form. In addition, there are not so many transitional types in the vast area of their sympatry (crocea and erate), and they are not very obvious. If you stop dancing around CO1 and finally start looking at a couple of other genes specifically for sympatric populations, then something will become clear. It may even be possible to shake the molecular "dogmas"

The androconial spot is not so important. Think of chlorocoma.

And" something " has already been clarified by Milovanov and company. Despite the methodological shortcomings of their work, though unconvincing, but hints of reproductive isolation were revealed. I would like to do this work in a normal way, having studied at least a hundred and a half sympatric rabbits and erats. I would even agree to kill a week of work and a bunch of reagents for it... but it needs live butterflies. There would now be someone willing to catch and deliver them alive to Vladivostok...

But even here, not everything is perfect - in the Caucasus, crocea-like butterflies can only be phenotypes of erata, and to the west they can be a species that has begun to "bud off" with emerging reproductive barriers.

This post was edited by ayc - 05.11.2013 18: 26

And here's another one for COI lovers: well, just some kind of azzky dig from German colleagues who studied the taxonomy of Euchloe, according to the Genebank, with a total of 330 COI nucleotides! There are no other gene sequences from these authors. And 330 bp is as informative and reliable as genitals when viewed in flight... Even if an excellent morphological analysis is made there, it is not clear why this slapping to it...

By the way, if anyone has this article, please share

AUTHORS Back,W., Knebelsberger,T. and Miller,M.A.
TITLE Molekularbiologische Untersuchungen und Systematik der
palaearktischen Arten von Euchloe Huebner, [1819] (Lepidoptera:
Pieridae)
JOURNAL (misc) Entomologische Zeitschrift Stuttgart 118 (4), 151-169 (2008)

And" something " has already been clarified by Milovanov and company. Despite the methodological shortcomings of their work, though unconvincing, but hints of reproductive isolation were revealed.

Most likely, I don't understand something.

Pictures:

1.jpg — (394.24 k)

The androconial spot is not so important. Think of chlorocoma.

And" something " has already been clarified by Milovanov and company. Despite the methodological shortcomings of their work, though unconvincing, but hints of reproductive isolation were revealed. I would like to do this work in a normal way, having studied at least a hundred and a half sympatric rabbits and erats. I would even agree to kill a week of work and a bunch of reagents for it... but it needs live butterflies. There would now be someone willing to catch and deliver them alive to Vladivostok...

But even here, not everything is perfect - in the Caucasus, crocea-like butterflies can only be phenotypes of erata, and to the west they can be a species that has begun to "bud off" with emerging reproductive barriers.

The hypothesis of "Caucasus-centricity" requires very serious grounds. What other types do you know with this education center? In addition, in the case of croceus/erate, androconies are of great importance. The smell of males is different, so the preference of females is different.

Although I really like this idea.
Our supposedly crocea are not crocea at all, but just such erats, and there is no hybridization, and the real iron crocea simply does not live here.

Most likely, I don't understand something.

They write that the genotypes of jaundice differ in a number of markers. And everything would be fine, but they drew conclusions on very poor material.

Although I really like this idea.
Our supposedly crocea are not crocea at all, but just such erats, and there is no hybridization, and the real iron crocea simply does not live here.

It's funny that this idea came to me periodically, and only yesterday I thought about it. And this very "real" crocea lives somewhere far, far away in the west, among the bourgeoisie in their bourgeoisie... But, unfortunately, I can not support this with any facts, and without them it is IMHO not serious. But maybe there are facts?

And here's another one for COI lovers: well, just some kind of azzky dig from German colleagues who studied the taxonomy of Euchloe, according to the Genebank, with a total of 330 COI nucleotides! There are no other gene sequences from these authors. And 330 bp is as informative and reliable as genitals when viewed in flight... Even if an excellent morphological analysis is made there, it is not clear why this slapping to it...

By the way, if anyone has this article, please share

AUTHORS Back,W., Knebelsberger,T. and Miller,M.A.
TITLE Molekularbiologische Untersuchungen und Systematik der
palaearktischen Arten von Euchloe Huebner, [1819] (Lepidoptera:
Pieridae)
JOURNAL (misc) Entomologische Zeitschrift Stuttgart 118 (4), 151-169 (2008)

Alas, no, but 330 is a rzhachka. I'm currently trying to build a tree of egg yolks for about 680 each. I separated the American ones, because some of their species fly very far away (in a separate subgenus, that's for sure), and as a result, our species merge. And the Palearctic ones are all close, except for the khiale group, it stands apart.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 05.11.2013 19: 26

By the way, if anyone has this article, please share

AUTHORS Back,W., Knebelsberger,T. and Miller,M.A.
TITLE Molekularbiologische Untersuchungen und Systematik der
palaearktischen Arten von Euchloe Huebner, [1819] (Lepidoptera:
Pieridae)
JOURNAL (misc) Entomologische Zeitschrift Stuttgart 118 (4), 151-169 (2008)

Send me e-mail addresses, and you will be happy, i.e. this article.

Please send it. grappa list ru

My 5 kopecks.
Each picture shows butterflies from one female. Both are from lowland Dagestan.

While spears are being broken here, a note has been published indicating the correct lectotype of sareptensis.

[attachmentid()=186491]

Colleagues, please note that males of croceus have an androconial spot.

Crocea or Erata?

[quote=okoem,06.11.2013 00:10]

Alas, no, but 330 is a rzhachka. I'm currently trying to build a tree of egg yolks for about 680 each. I separated the American ones, because some of their species fly very far away (in a separate subgenus, that's for sure), and as a result, our species merge. And the Palearctic ones are all close, except for the khiale group, it stands apart.

And why do you think I'm making such a fuss here? It was clear to me 10 years ago. Even before the" discovery " of DNA barcoding. But what's the use?

And why do you think I'm making such a fuss here? It was clear to me 10 years ago. Even before the" discovery " of DNA barcoding. But what's the use?

Yes, but I was a fool to think that Croceus and Erata were completely zero, and the others were like Hiale and alfakariensis, with a pronounced dichotomy. And there's a whole "paleno group" with a zero on CO1, wherever you go, and you can't take one view in a nightmare. With zero, there can be both species and subspecies, and it does not speak positively about anything, except for the youth of taxa. And in the case of croceus/erate, zero for CO1 is a zero sign, so you can no longer fool around.

Most likely, I don't understand something.

The alleles by which species "differ" are not fixed. It would be possible to speak of confident isolation if they differed in the frequency of some allele 100% of one and 0% of the other, and not by 70/30%.

A significant deficit of heterozygotes indicates a possible reproductive barrier. That is, the fact that hybrids either don't happen or don't survive.

However, both the differences in the allele frequencies of the three genes and the lack of heterozygotes in this study could arise simply due to the unrepresentativeness of the samples.

In general, the article does not contain a table with frequencies and mobilities of alleles of isoenzymes that is mandatory for such articles. So that those who wish can independently calculate statistics and criteria for the reliability of the presented results, since the authors themselves did not do this. Moreover, when they find differences between something (for example, species), they give a photo of the gel, confirming that this is really so, the authors did not fancy it - neat spots of alleles with different mobility are visible on the gel, and not smeared stripes, perhaps differing in mobility by half a millimeter. And precisely because of all this, the authors shoved the article into a very strange journal for her - after all, even in the Russian "Genetics" it would not have been published with such comments.

HOWEVER! This work is much more correct than comparing the sequences of COI or several genes, since it studied the variability of alleles in several nuclear loci. And this is really able to identify differences in populations in allele frequencies, their heterogeneity, and possible barriers and types of selection.

And there's a whole "paleno group" with a zero on CO1, wherever you go, and you can't take one view in a nightmare.

It's a lot more fun out there in Palen. There may really be two of them. It's just that this data is not available in GB.

But in general, our jaundice is about 10 years old, so nothing has accumulated on COI. Or they actively exchange mitochondrial genes horizontally. The first is more likely, but the second also happens.

The hypothesis of "Caucasus-centricity" requires very serious grounds. What other types do you know with this education center? In addition, in the case of croceus/erate, androconies are of great importance. The smell of males is different, so the preference of females is different.

And why should they center there? They were formed in Central Asia (as indicated by the Vancha erata, which is basal for the rest), and began to disperse... comfortably settled in the Caucasus region, saving (or creating) there is a rich diversity due to the variety of ecological conditions. And in the ancestral homeland, diversity was destroyed by selection caused by the specificity of living conditions. In other places, there is less diversity due to the founder effect or the ability to adapt only in certain genotypes.

It's a lot more fun out there in Palen. There may really be two of them. It's just that this data is not available in GB.

But in general, our jaundice is about 10 years old, so nothing has accumulated on COI. Or they actively exchange mitochondrial genes horizontally. The first is more likely, but the second also happens.

The first most important thing is that this can be seen from the morphology. Well, once very young species, and many fictitious species made from geographies. if there are no subspecies for the heap, then the gene exchange goes horizontally, where it is stronger, where it is weaker. It is interesting that in the American group , which is very different from all of our own, numerous CO1 species are almost indistinguishable (this group includes not all American ones, but only "Genoine" ones such as Pelidne-eurythema, etc.up to the Chilean one; the remaining American ones such as Gigantea and canadensis are Palearctic variants and are included in our "swamp").
As for Paleno, how can you tell the two apart?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 06.11.2013 03: 30

And why should they center there? They were formed in Central Asia (as indicated by the Vancha erata, which is basal for the rest), and began to disperse... comfortably settled in the Caucasus region, saving (or creating) there is a rich diversity due to the variety of ecological conditions. And in the ancestral homeland, diversity was destroyed by selection caused by the specificity of living conditions. In other places, there is less diversity due to the founder effect or the ability to adapt only in certain genotypes.

Well, we can assume several waves of erate invasion. The last one goes before our eyes, when the Asian erata eats the European croceus. But the European version should still be considered a subspecies, in which the croceus is not undisturbed (except in the Balkans and Pannonia). Now we are arguing about the history, but in fact erate is a subspecies of croceus (according to taxonomy). priority).

This post was edited by sergenicko - 06.11.2013 03: 41

then the gene exchange goes horizontally, where it is stronger, where it is weaker.

Very bold! Horizontal exchange is the exchange of genes between different species, bypassing the sexual process. Using viruses and mobile elements. But such transfers between butterfly species are still unknown.

Although, species can be formed due to gene transfers from symbiotic bacteria and protists. It is possible that a population that occupies a new area of its range encounters new microbes that integrate their own genes into the butterfly genome. This phenomenon is known as widespread. For example. you can read it here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-356

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10...al.pone.0059262