Jaundice (Colias)

There is about 2% COI between kokandika and Mongola.

It all depends on which fragments to compare.
I realized that a long time ago. It is also necessary for others to understand-the differences are very easy to "draw". On a longer piece of COI, the differences may be significantly smaller.

No, on any of them, they are noticeably different. Then, you compare the types, and compare the series-kokandika and Mongol from Altai. They are very different.

In fact, it says in Russian in white that the series was also compared. And I didn't see any specific differences.
From what places will we take the "series"? Mongols in the Altai live decently where, and kokandiki is just a sea spread throughout Central Asia...

In terms of COI, the Mongols differ from each other by <=1.4%, and they differ from Kokkandiki by 1.5%. And where is the bast here?

According to philatelic atlases, such females occur in kokkandika. But if you send them 1-2 legs, you can see exactly what they are made of.

Anton, I will be happy to send you a pair of legs from each butterfly. I would have posted the photo earlier, sent it as a general parcel with yolks.
I see the butterfly on the right as a male, not a female.
I've grown a lot of things from Buryatia, but I've never done this one with Colias. I've been wanting to try it with heos for a long time. Once I asked one person - I was told that it is very difficult to take eggs from them. Is it really that easy? Just a female in a cage with a plant and that's it?

Thank you very much! Yes, and I see the right one as a male.

I won't say anything about geos - they are rabid flyers. They may be demanding. But erate, vilyuenzis, hyperborea, paleno, nastes, tyche I have repeatedly spawned in poltorashke. Almost 100% successful. The main thing is to be well-fed, cheerful and not fall into the cracks. Well, they need the sun or a light bulb - but at the same time not to dry out.

I looked at the eye, did not check the exact numbers. but in this case, it doesn't matter, because we are talking about intraspecific cases. The distance of 1.4% is quite large for yolks (but for Mongols, the locale is given in Russia, and butterflies can be from remote places). Stas claims that there are no subspecies inside kokandika and that the same thing flies from the Altai to the Pamirs, and cites the types to confirm it. But the types are not "typical butterflies", and the series of Central Asian kokandiki and Sayan-Altai Mongols are perfectly different, not for nothing that they were traditionally considered different species. It's another matter whether their variability is clinal or discrete (subspecies), I don't know about that.

He mated swallowtails, maaks, and bianors. And you can easily get hybrids. My friend has learned enough to pair up Apollonians and Saturnians. In large butterflies, this is relatively easy to do, but I have not tried small ones. Here you need to have special entomological fingers.

He grew Apollons for a couple of years, producing amazing hybrids. It wasn't always possible with Saturniums. And this process is not pleasant. A huge number of scales fly into the nose. I have to work in a mask.

No, no. You misunderstood. Saturniums separately, Apollons separately.

now it's clear.
Are there any photos of these hybrids?

Yellow butterflies are exclusively mobile. They can cover long distances. There is a lot of evidence for this, the most striking are migrations of European species over hundreds of kilometers.

They don't have any subspecies. And it can't be. Stop pulling "series" from obviously different places. Take a series from the places of your loved ones. For example, the Kyrgyz-Talas-Ferghana ranges. And try to find the differences. The entire range of kokandiki is continuous from the Himalayas to the Sayan Mountains, and there is no place for subspecies to come from.

And here "pull the series", I do not insist on the existence of clear subspecies, most likely between the Sayano-Altai and Tien-Shan clinal variability, which can be traced through Mongolia. But the Sayan-Altai Mongols are significantly different from the Tienshan Ones, this is a fact. For this reason, they are traditionally considered different subspecies or species.

Recently, it was traditionally believed that the sun revolves around the earth http://www.aleksandrnovak.com/content/1050.html.
so what? in fact the opposite is true :What we traditionally believe is not always the truth.
in order to see the truth, we must turn away from philatelic dogmas and finally begin to stifle philately. Abo's will is death!

People! Do you really need hyale, alfa, crocea and erate females that are suitable for mating - that is, dry ones caught in the last 2 years? Any ragged quality. In any quantity up to 50 pcs. Legs alone won't do - you need DNA from the abdomen. Are there any people who would like to help or participate?

The earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, it doesn't matter - even if you think that the sun rises, goes across the sky, sets and sits at night underground. The apparent fact of the sun's movement across the sky is indisputable, as is the difference in habit among different populations of Kokandiki/Mongols. Don't make fools out of people that they can tell the difference between kokandika and mongola in unison for no apparent reason - no matter if they are opposite ends of a wedge, subspecies, or young species.

And how will you interpret the results when you don't know exactly what species the female belongs to?
In principle, I don't mind sending you the material.

my brother and I made a tank for Apollo caterpillars a few years ago. It looked like a steel frame for a garden bed, about 1m by 2.5 m. Height of 70 centimeters. Covered with organza for tulle. The bed was planted with fresh water. The experiment failed, because as we did not plug the cracks of the cage, the caterpillars were decreasing in number day by day. Visually, there were no gaps at all.
You can plant a forage plant of cheos. I'd just like to get eggs from the females. Will they save it for food? Do the caterpillars overwinter? What does the feed actually look like?

Of course, you can pick up almost identical butterflies from different places. I'm talking about series (representative samples), and you're talking about "types" again.

:D
In general, I understand you.
As we say, flailing with your tongue is not turning bags.
Good luck with further trolling

I'm sorry, but you're babbling and trolling. It is common knowledge that Mongols and Kokandiks are different, it is visible to the naked eye. There would be no differences, no one would call them differently. I don't know who you're trying to tell the shit to here

I put you a little higher two "kokandik" and two "Mongolia" from the Tsvetaev collection, standing literally side by side (well, I had to take photos in the scrap where they are separate), well, I shuffled them a little. If all this is so well known to you and everything is so visible to the naked eye, then you should separate the wheat from the chaff. And it turns out that I'm here specifically choosing who would be more difficult to slip.
The only question is: why do I need this?
Can you answer that?" Or will there be trolling again from the category of "the fool himself"?

That's right, you chose 4 similar copies and laid them out - however, they also differ, for example, in the light pollination of the veins between the sling and the outer edge of the RCC. But you don't see habit as proof of the identity of all populations, but rather the similarity of genitalia. Who can argue, no one found any differences between them. But there are persistent differences in appearance, and it would be strange if they did not exist - the butterfly's range is not flat steppe.

You couldn't tell the difference between a kokandik and a Mongol in the picture above. What "sustainable" differences are you talking about?
Choose similar butterflies? What for?
I expect an answer to this question.

It is not possible to find stable differences for 4 butterflies. Post a series of at least 20 butterflies, then you can decide which of us is right. At least what I've seen contradicts your statement. In the article, as proof of the identity of butterflies in the entire range, you mention only the identity of the genitals (however, only 2 preparations are distinguishable in the pictures).

What article are you talking about? This is just a monograph, and what I posted here is a clipping from it.
I do not know what you saw. I had to see several thousand of these same yolks from very different places. There are no two types, there is one and clinal variability. The group is very variable, and there are no differences. Not on serial or any other material. All the differences are geographical. And geography is at best subspecies.
Something like that...
And as for "lay out a series of 20 pieces" - dismiss. You will again have a paranoid syndrome (aha, this m..k again picked out similar ones here). Yes, and time is a pity.

On the question of Colias cocandica ... mongola... etc.:

Genitalia: 93: C. cocandica cocandica. 94: C. cocandica mongola, para-
lectotype. 95: C. cocandica tamerlana, lectotype.

the first photo. Kyrgyzstan. Among the well-understood cocandica and eogene elissa, there are 3 lower butterflies...hybrids?

I didn't know if it was an article or a monograph. "There are no two types, there is one and clinal variability. The group is very variable, there are no differences to catch." - here you contradict yourself. There are no 2 types, I do not argue, and if there is a clinal variability, then it can be "caught". The only question is whether it is really clinal or whether there is a discrete one somewhere. Unsubstantiated claims like "I had to see several thousand of these same yolks from very different places" are not proof of anything - I saw less, but the differences are obvious.

Maybe I'm missing something... If we compare these genitals with the drawings in Korb 2006, then the above Nos. 93 and 95 do not raise any questions. However, No. 94 (coccandica mongola paralectotype) is not similar to Fig. 14 (mongola mongola from Ulaanbaatar) and No. 16 (mongola mongola from Dood Nur). In a 2006 article, you write that "All examined taxa can easily be grouped into 2 complexes by the valvae structure...". But today you write that they are all the same and give photos of the same genitals. Which of the two authors should I trust?

Until 2008, I worked without a cover glass.
Then the Stralomsky method, which gave completely different results. We have to rethink a lot.

Well, yes, the two series of genitals differ without the cover glass and do not differ when pressed by the cover glass. It follows that their topology is different.

It follows that they did not kill.