Jaundice (Colias)

If the unadjusted genitals look different, plus the differences are correlated with the locale, then the differences are not imaginary. Parts of the genitals are not flat, they may have different topologies (in cross-section they are rectangular shapes, curved at different angles, etc.), and when you straighten them, the topological differences may disappear. This way you lose important morphological differences.

The methodology should be standard. Otherwise, it often fails.

The methodology should be standard. Otherwise, it often fails.

I agree, but it's common sense. If the drugs differ uncompressed and not pressed, then do not press them. In some groups, this is not important, while in others it is essential. And your unification is called Procrustean.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 13.11.2013 20: 53

I agree, but it's common sense. If the drugs differ uncompressed and not pressed, then do not press them. In some groups, this is not important, while in others it is essential. And your unification is called Procrustean.

You like to argue, don't you?"
Yolks do not have structures that would be important in a "three-dimensional" form. The genitals are extremely primitive.

You like to argue, don't you?"
Yolks do not have structures that would be important in a "three-dimensional" form. The genitals are extremely primitive.

Aha, but in 2006 they were different, and in 2013 they clung to each other and lost their differences. Super.

Parts of the genitals are not flat, they may have different topologies (in cross-section they are rectangular shapes, curved at different angles, etc.), and when you straighten them, the topological differences may disappear.

A little clarification: they have different geometries. The topology is exactly the same (almost all butterflies, probably). Let's use mathematical terms correctly (and others, in fact, too).

A little clarification: they have different geometries. The   topology is exactly the same (almost all butterflies, probably). Let's use mathematical terms correctly (and others, in fact, too).  

I agree that I used the term "geometry" inaccurately, because metric properties are taken into account. But the topology of the genitals is different, because elements that are similar in shape can be discontinuous and non-discontinuous.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 13.11.2013 22: 57

But the topology of the genitals is different, because elements that are similar in shape can be discontinuous and non-discontinuous.

It's probably the same for all Colias, after all.

They practically do not change in all whiteflies.

It's probably the same for all Colias, after all.

I agree that I meant topology and geometry, but not being good at mathematics, I called everything topology.

Sergey, leave the man alone! He has already plucked up the courage to admit that he did not know enough about the method of working with genitals before 2008, and therefore his conclusions based on their study, which were voiced in works before 2008, may be erroneous and require rechecking. Another person would have defended his original hypothesis to the death, while realizing its fallacy.

Sergey, leave the man alone! He has already plucked up the courage to admit that he did not know enough about the method of working with genitals before 2008, and therefore his conclusions based on their study, which were voiced in works before 2008, may be erroneous and require rechecking. Another person would have defended his original hypothesis to the death, while realizing its fallacy.

I am afraid that he, having adopted a new method, considered the correct hypothesis to be erroneous. I myself have not looked at the genitals of these yolks (Mongols and kokandiki), but they are quite stable in appearance.

I am afraid that he, having adopted a new method, considered the correct hypothesis to be erroneous. I myself have not looked at the genitals of these yolks (Mongols and kokandiki), but they are quite stable in appearance.

That's why even 300 years from now taxonomists will find something to do - they will refute the revisions of their predecessors, identify even more correct types, and then revise their previous views. And this will continue for at least 100 thousand years!... until smart people make a taxonomy, not caring what it is called, and then they make a taxonomy based on the taxonomy. And preferably, all previous authorships and priorities will be canceled - new taxa will be given an author like MCZN, 2150, and this will happen sooner or later, as the cloaca created by taxonomists of a number of groups of organisms - including butterflies-is becoming less accessible for understanding and less suitable for use. And unfortunately, modern taxonomy has no protection from the stupid taxonomist who is free to publish names and distinguish types in waste paper that is reviewed by no one or only by himself. Despite the fact that the bigger the fool, the more brilliant and belligerent he is.

That's why even 300 years from now taxonomists will find something to do - they will refute the revisions of their predecessors, identify even more correct types, and then revise their previous views. And this will continue for at least 100 thousand years!... until smart people make a taxonomy, not caring what it is called, and then they make a taxonomy based on the taxonomy. And preferably, all previous authorships and priorities will be canceled - new taxa will be given an author like MCZN, 2150, and this will happen sooner or later, as the cloaca created by taxonomists of a number of groups of organisms - including butterflies-is becoming less accessible for understanding and less suitable for use. And unfortunately, modern taxonomy has no protection from the stupid taxonomist who is free to publish names and distinguish types in waste paper that is reviewed by no one or only by himself. Despite the fact that the bigger the fool, the more brilliant and belligerent he is.

taxonomic species live their lives in cabinets, where their habitat is

Revolutionary Keep Step
Restless Do not slumber enemy

Revolutionary keep your step
Restless do not slumber the enemy

Stas, I didn't mean to offend you or anything personal. But it is naive to think that taxonomy is a science. This is nothing more than the current set of applied rules for naming taxa and the practice of their application. Obviously, it is very far from perfect. And the case of Phoebus proves this : such an order of taxa names, in which the nomenclature established for centuries can collapse overnight, is of little use. And so it faces repeated great upheavals and changes. And I am almost certain that in the near future taxonomic archaeology will be abolished as a disturbing and irrelevant occupation. After all, even now, just to know what the taxon you are studying has a name, it sometimes takes a lot of effort and considerable knowledge in the field of second-hand literature, the mores of individual researchers, etc. In such conditions, the brain and time for research in the field of biology simply does not remain!

Stas, I didn't mean to offend you or anything personal. But it is naive to think that taxonomy is a science. This is nothing more than the current set of applied rules for naming taxa and the practice of their application. Obviously, it is very far from perfect. And the case of Phoebus proves this : such an order of taxa names, in which the nomenclature established for centuries can collapse overnight, is of little use. And so it faces repeated great upheavals and changes. And I am almost certain that in the near future taxonomic archaeology will be abolished as a disturbing and irrelevant occupation. After all, even now, just to know what the taxon you are studying has a name, it sometimes takes a lot of effort and considerable knowledge in the field of second-hand literature, the mores of individual researchers, etc. In such conditions, the brain and time for research in the field of biology simply does not remain!

It turns out that you need to have knowledge. That's terrible.

It turns out that you need to have knowledge. That's terrible.

The fact of the matter is that it would be better to never have such pseudo-knowledge. Often this is knowledge about nothing-from the point of view of biology. The angle from which some old fart looked at a biological entity 100 years ago, thought about it, called it, and made mistakes, how his work was understood by his colleagues, and how this or that modern follower interprets it, has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the entity in question. So I'm sorry, but the less hemorrhoids I have when studying the biological aspects of organisms, the better, because by and large, nature doesn't care whether you call an animal Saffron Yolk or Yk6159 - IV. The main thing is to make the names easy to use.

This post was edited by ayc - 14.11.2013 17: 06

I'll answer all of them at once.

1. How many insect species are currently known?
2. According to preliminary estimates, how many species are still unknown?
3. What attributes are used to distinguish between different species?
4. Is it possible for one person to store in memory at least 10 % of the features of currently available tru species in order to determine them immediately?

There is no automated definition of species and never was. If it ever happens , it will greatly facilitate the work of many. In the meantime, the functions of automata are, by definition, performed by humans. with all their shortcomings and habits. This is reality.

Taxonomy-a tool. Nomenclature-a tool. Science? No. Set of rules-yes. Here, only philatelists accept these two areas of knowledge as science. They also raise it all to the rank of science.

But without them, nowhere. Although these are tools, they are basic tools. Like a hammer when hammering nails. There is no place without it. Without knowing how the object is called. How do I work with it?

I'll answer all of them at once.

1. How many insect species are currently known?
2. According to preliminary estimates, how many species are still unknown?
3. What attributes are used to distinguish between different species?
4. Is it possible for one person to store in memory at least 10 % of the features of currently available tru species in order to determine them immediately?

There is no automated definition of species and never was. If it ever happens , it will greatly facilitate the work of many. In the meantime, the functions of automata are, by definition, performed by humans. with all their shortcomings and habits. This is reality.

Taxonomy-a tool. Nomenclature-a tool. Science? No. Set of rules-yes. Here, only philatelists accept these two areas of knowledge as science. They also raise it all to the rank of science.

But without them, nowhere. Although these are tools, they are basic tools. Like a hammer when hammering nails. There is no place without it. Without knowing how the object is called. How do I work with it?

Everything is absolutely correct! Only here it is better without fanaticism. So that the works of their predecessors could be read without a thorough knowledge of their autobiography-such as which of their articles they wrote before or after reading this or that taxonomic revision

And yes - everything is necessary in moderation. And now I'm trying to merge my data with the data of my colleagues. People are busy with the evolution of regulatory genes, but romanovi is no different from wiskotti, hyale from erate. This is the other end of the stick - radical anti-philatelists

I'll answer all of them at once.

1. How many insect species are currently known?
2. According to preliminary estimates, how many species are still unknown?
3. What attributes are used to distinguish between different species?
4. Is it possible for one person to store in memory at least 10 % of the features of currently available tru species in order to determine them immediately?

There is no automated definition of species and never was. If it ever happens , it will greatly facilitate the work of many. In the meantime, the functions of automata are, by definition, performed by humans. with all their shortcomings and habits. This is reality.

Taxonomy-a tool. Nomenclature-a tool. Science? No. Set of rules-yes. Here, only philatelists accept these two areas of knowledge as science. They also raise it all to the rank of science.

But without them, nowhere. Although these are tools, they are basic tools. Like a hammer when hammering nails. There is no place without it. Without knowing how the object is called. How do I work with it?

It seems to me that the main problem of cabinet taxonomy (which is inseparable from taxonomy) is the establishment of rank. In the cabinet, it is randomly interpreted whether it is a type, subspecies, and so on. It seems to me that for unexplored objects, we should use the term taxon (without looking at its status, which sometimes has to be invented due to the requirements of the code) and not argue about its rank until it is thoroughly studied. Then there will not be all these disputes, such as what is Mongola and kokandika. Neither the difference in genitalia nor their apparent identity says much. In my opinion, there are 2 taxa with unclear biological status. The same applies to a good half of the diurnal butterfly taxa.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 14.11.2013 17: 41

It seems to me that the main problem of cabinet taxonomy (which is inseparable from taxonomy) is the establishment of rank. In the cabinet, it is randomly interpreted whether it is a type, subspecies, and so on. It seems to me that for unexplored objects, we should use the term taxon (without looking at its status, which sometimes has to be invented due to the requirements of the code) and not argue about its rank until it is thoroughly studied. Then there will not be all these disputes, such as what is Mongola and kokandika. Neither the difference in genitalia nor their apparent identity says much. In my opinion, there are 2 taxa with unclear biological status. The same applies to a good half of the diurnal butterfly taxa.

I know both perfectly well in nature.

I know both perfectly well in nature.

And I know perfectly well. But I don't know what is being done in between, and I'm not sure if it's species, subspecies, or randomly selected pieces of the continuum (wedges).

This post was edited by sergenicko - 14.11.2013 18: 12

A few years ago, I expressed the idea that changing the names of all living boundaries should be carried out not gradually as nomenclature articles are published, but at intervals of, say, 10 years. Excluding, of course, the search for new taxa, and it is new, and not selected from the "previously considered identical" ones.
Since the source of pereturbations is research in the field of taxonomy, due to the emergence of new methods and the arrival of new names, then let all these people work with the" mirror " of the nomenclature list, and in general biological articles and popular literature the name should not change! Unless you specify the new version(s) in parentheses.
And only after 10 years (and preferably 50), a special commission changes the nomenclature purely bureaucratically based on the changes already made.

With modern technologies, it's no big deal to do this, oblige all taxonomists to register their "act" in a common digital database of the "was-became" type with a link to the article, and that's it.
And no more than that! Specialists will know about the changes from the same database, and so will anyone else, and the main name will remain stable for 10 years.

And then recently you can firmly say that there is no more stable and generally understood name.. than the local name, for example, the southern yolk will be such regardless of what Latin will be. And then you take a book popular for the 90th year and there is such Latin that you can not learn))))

This post was edited by Hierophis - 11/14/2013 17: 52

A few years ago, I expressed the idea that changing the names of all living boundaries should be carried out not gradually as nomenclature articles are published, but at intervals of, say, 10 years. Excluding, of course, the search for new taxa, and it is new, and not selected from the "previously considered identical" ones.
Since the source of pereturbations is research in the field of taxonomy, due to the emergence of new methods and the arrival of new names, then let all these people work with the" mirror " of the nomenclature list, and in general biological articles and popular literature the name should not change! Unless you specify the new version(s) in parentheses.
And only after 10 years (and preferably 50), a special commission changes the nomenclature purely bureaucratically based on the changes already made.

With modern technologies, it's no big deal to do this, oblige all taxonomists to register their "act" in a common digital database of the "was-became" type with a link to the article, and that's it.
And no more than that! Specialists will know about the changes from the same database, and so will anyone else, and the main name will remain stable for 10 years.

And then recently you can firmly say that there is no more stable and generally understood name.. than the local name, for example, the southern yolk will be such regardless of what Latin will be. And then you take a book popular for the 90th year and there is such Latin that you can not learn))))

In fact, good work always includes synonyms. I agree that this should be made mandatory not only in works on taxonomy, but also in faunal, genetic, etc. As for popular literature, how to keep track of it depends on the author's education.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 14.11.2013 17: 58

Well, actually, not everyone, especially amateurs, reads good works, and I suspect that not all works are good)) Therefore, the existence of such a database will be very useful. And by the way, there are still similar "bases", but these are all separate projects based on entuzazism.

Yes, and the main thing is not in this, but in the fact that the researcher who publishes his work is obliged to use as the main - "stable name", even if he divided the view into two in his work, and gave them names, but until 10 years pass(during which they can be united three more times))) ), these names will be used as additional names to the original main one.

As for popular literature, how to keep track of it depends on the author's education.

In fact, as far as I know, under the USSR, any popular science book was reviewed, and now it is necessary

This post was edited by Hierophis - 14.11.2013 18: 08

  
Yes, and the main thing is not in this, but in the fact that the researcher who publishes his work is obliged to use as the main - "stable name", even if he divided the view into two in his work, and gave them names, but until 10 years pass(during which they can be united three more times))) ), these names will be used as additional names to the original main one.

I think this is unnecessary. It is sufficient to give synonyms at the first mention of the taxon. At least commonly used ones, because there are well-forgotten ancient ones, the enumeration of which will only confuse the reader. For example, if the work is faunal, then you need to give synonyms that were used in works about this area. Otherwise, there really is confusion, especially in cases of cross-synonymy, for example, argus in the Staudinger system meant argyrognomon, and now argus means Staudinger's egon.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 14.11.2013 18: 08

In fact, as far as I know, under the USSR, any popular science book was reviewed, and now it is necessary

And as far as I know, nauchpopsa in the late USSR did not pass a truly scientific review. It was reviewed by officials. An official from science, perhaps even an academician, a great teacher-ecologist, or at least a soil zoologist, "edited" everything. Including things he had no idea about. At best, he could only edit the overall style. But the content remained on the conscience of the author. But-with the "wedding general" in the editors!
And in "academic" journals, this was the case, and in most cases it is-the editor sends an article for review with the caveat that this "co-author" (he has a respected boss) should be dragged through as much as possible, and this" radish "(no one will" ask " for it) should not be allowed!
But now I see an increasing number of such "nauchpopsa", which is not edited by anyone at all! And the same is true in all Russian magazines without exception.

The nomenclature database exists, and for example, my works are registered there.
This is ZooBank

It seems to me that ...when a taxon is first mentioned, give synonyms.

There is no point in using archaic synonymy! The one who needs it knows. It makes sense to cite only recently used information (for example, in publicly available definitions) and recently passed into synonyms. This is what normal authors do anyway. But within reasonable limits, of course.

There is no point in using archaic synonymy! The one who needs it knows. It makes sense to cite only recently used information (for example, in publicly available definitions) and recently passed into synonyms. This is what normal authors do anyway. But within reasonable limits, of course.

This is exactly what I suggested (see the post). Full synonymy is required only in works on taxonomy.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 11/14/2013 20: 36

This is exactly what I suggested (see the post). Full synonymy is required only in works on taxonomy.

And they don't always give it there. Who is it that will give you, for example, 1000 synonyms of R. apollo??? Or the numerous nomen nudums and confusing synonyms of the 19th century? They are given if there are not many of them and if they were widely used.

And they don't always give it there. Who is it that will give you, for example, 1000 synonyms of R. apollo??? Or the numerous nomen nudums and confusing synonyms of the 19th century? They are given if there are not many of them and if they were widely used.

In the monograph on the Parnassians, we are obliged to give: If you are writing an article about argus in the Tula region, you should mention that in pre-revolutionary and Soviet works until the 60s it was called aegon.

The conversation drifted off completely.

Here is a series I took on November 10 in the vicinity of Budapest. What do you say?

1,2 croceus
3 ?
4 erate
5 ?
6 alfacariensis

  The conversation drifted off completely.

Here is a series I took on November 10 in the vicinity of Budapest. What do you say?

I would also put a question on the second one, but for some reason the fifth one seems to me an interesting variation of alfacariensis.

I would also put a question on the second one, but for some reason the fifth one seems to me an interesting variation of alfacariensis.

and it seems to me that the 5th era. 3 croceus, 2 erate and alfakariensis

This post was edited by sergenicko - 11/15/2013 00: 18

5 erath and hyala :D

5 erat and hyala :D

I meant phenotypes, not taxa.

I will buy, exchange or accept you as a gift torn and not very female Colias, suitable for breeding.
- christophi (few males too)
- erate/crocea
-coccandica/mongola/tamerlana (few males too)
- hyale/alfacariensis
-sieversi (few males too)

For those who will help free of charge or for a nominal fee, I will be happy to tell you about the essence of the research and I will be ready to consider options for cooperation and co-authorship-if you are interested. I also consider options at market value, but then without the prospects of a" bazaar " about high matters.