Jaundice (Colias)

Nastes has an androconial spot on his hip with a ruby border. I believe that the male in the photo where the four butterflies are taken, the upper right one is nastes. I am ready to listen to criticism. And his underparts are darker than the rest of Tyche's.

This is how Grieshuber sees them

[attachmentid()=189360]

[attachmentid()=189361]

Here is a" bacterial-free " case where mtDNA clearly lies. Introgression of mitochondrial DNA among Myodes voles: consequences for energetics? http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/355

Here is a" bacterial-free " case where mtDNA clearly lies. Introgression of mitochondrial DNA among Myodes voles: consequences for energetics? http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/355

A very interesting article that suggests and provides evidence for the relationship between mtDNA and phenotype.

This is how Grieshuber sees them

Picasso would have seen them much more interestingly. Or Agnia Barto. But here we have a kind of science bazaar, and not about all-scientific expressionism...

... and send me her leg, please. According to COI, Myrmidon is easily distinguished from Erata.

Address?

Give the address.

It looks like tyche. The problem is whether the types of tyche and nastes are different.

Tyche caterpillar from Finland. Photo by Kimmo Silvonen. Similarly, the caterpillars of this species in other regions look approximately the same.


Caterpillar nastes from the north of Canada. Photo by Jack Harry.


Caterpillar of the Yakuticola from the Magadan region. Photo of the author.


The preimaginal differences between tyche and nastes are too great to speak of the same species. Here are nastes and yakuticola-probably one species. Different subspecies. More research is needed.

This post was edited by Wild Yuri - 12/24/2013 09: 50

Here we go again!
Just like: "more research is needed."
But what about the catalog?
Nothing but questions. This is not a directory of users, but a questionnaire.

Here we go again!
Just like: "more research is needed."
But what about the catalog?
Nothing but questions. This is not a product catalog, but a questionnaire.

There is little material from those places, and what is available is poorly studied. Most people put non-binding labels on random instances (like Grieshuber).

There is little material from those places, and what is available is poorly studied. Most people put non-binding labels on random instances (like Grieshuber).

Understood. Irony is no longer perceived without emoticons.
The argument about remoteness is not accepted.
The European part is not Chukotka.
This is a general situation.

Understood. Irony is no longer perceived without emoticons.
The argument about remoteness is not accepted.
The European part is not Chukotka.
This is a general situation.

So, the object is like this ! We need new approaches.

The preimaginal differences between tyche and nastes are too great to speak of the same species.

And I would say that there are no too big differences in the above photos. In the first caterpillar, the dorsal stripes have reddish areas, and the black elements of the pattern are less pronounced. In the second caterpillar, reddish areas are absent, black spots are larger. In the third caterpillar, the white stripes themselves are already reduced. Such differences, in my opinion, fit into the extra-specific variability. At least the caterpillars of alfacariensis and crocea, which I have repeatedly grown, also had a small intraspecific variability, especially the first species. Therefore, I would not judge by these two photos. At a minimum, you need a series, and preferably grown in the same conditions.

As one of the signs... By their sum, the view is selected. Tyche and nastes have different imago series, different forage plants, and biotopes are very different: nastes fly in the mountain tundra, while tyche flies in the low-mountain steppes and river valleys on the "plakor", and different periods of summer. In any case, this is the case in the Magadan region. I do not know about the genital and "molecular" differences between these taxa. Probably, there is such information. Let anyone know. True, the yakuticola flies in the biotopes of Tyche and together with it (for example, in Susuman), but this, I believe, is not nastes, but a separate close species. Everything needs to be investigated. An untilled field in these East Siberian yellows.

New article by Finnish authors Juha Laiho, Gunilla Ståhls 2013 DNA barcodes identify Central-Asian Colias butterflies (Lepidoptera, Pieridae)

http://www.pensoft.net/journal_home_page.p...LE&sort_asc=ASC

Dear colleagues, Happy New Year!

New article by Finnish authors Juha Laiho, Gunilla Ståhls 2013 DNA barcodes identify Central-Asian Colias butterflies (Lepidoptera, Pieridae)

http://www.pensoft.net/journal_home_page.p...LE&sort_asc=ASC

I feel sorry for the paper on which this nonsense is printed.

this nonsense.

Can I tell you more?

Read it. Here is one of the pearls: "Phylogenetic
reconstruction based on parsimony and Neighbor-Joining recovered most species as monophyletic entities".

Read it. Here is one of the pearls: "Phylogenetic
reconstruction based on parsimony and Neighbor-Joining recovered most species as monophyletic entities".

it is necessary not so much to read the interpretation as to study their tables and trees. and they are quite reasonable. the hiale group is obtained separately in any way. as for the uncertainty with some species (for example, tyche and kokandika are scattered), they are also scattered for other materials. the reason is mostly as a definition. see above in the feed confusion within the tyche-nastes group.

it is necessary not so much to read the interpretation as to study their tables and trees. and they are quite reasonable. the hiale group is obtained separately in any way. as for the uncertainty with some species (for example, tyche and kokandika are scattered), they are also scattered for other materials. the reason is mostly as a definition. see the confusion within the tyche-nastes group above in the feed.

You're looking in the wrong direction.

You're looking in the wrong direction.

Where are you going?"

Where are you going?"

In the concept and scientific novelty, in conclusions. If you find something new there, let us know.

In the concept and scientific novelty, in conclusions. If you find something new there, let us know.

they provide calculations and trees, now you can use them: what was from these authors was in the genebank-without a collection point. and their stupid conclusions are quite objective - according to mtDNA, the phylogeny of jaundice will not work. only the hiale group is reliably separated, but inside it is also gibberish. This means that other sequences are needed for the molecular classification of jaundice.

I read it. I can't call this article nonsense. Paper is not a pity.
The more such articles there are, the more complete the overall picture will be, and eventually everything will fall into place.

I read it. I can't call this article nonsense. Paper is not a pity.
The more such articles there are, the more complete the overall picture will be, and eventually everything will fall into place.

of course. a common situation is when a presumption based on a different material - everything will work out. several attempts are made, but it doesn't turn out very well. this means that the application of the method is incorrect, so we need to look for a different one. this is a very useful heuristic, thanks to the Finns for it.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.01.2014 15: 49

It's good if you're that blind...

1. Each individual species is monophyletic. Do you want to explain further, or will you understand that the authors seriously got into galoshes at the very beginning of their constructions and arguments?
2.Trees will change as soon as new elements are added to them. And change unpredictably.
3. What are your work goals? Find out what species live in Central Asia? Or others? What is the article written for? Can you answer it?
4. If we assume that the goal is to find out what types of jaundice there are in Central Asia, then the meaning of this work is incomprehensible to me. Everything has long been known, there are difficulties in certain groups, but it is precisely to them that no attention is paid.
5. Extremely old literature was used, which, moreover, is very small - Verhulst's book, which was criticized to the nines, and the Grieshuber and Lamas catalog, which also has nothing to do with science. Even the last book of Grieshuber et al., which simply needed to be viewed and quoted , was not used. The authors are simply not in the topic, knowledge is at a very low level - even the subgenus Asiocolias described by me is not mentioned ).

I don't think there's any point in continuing any further. Read it again, and don't make a stand on clydograms like a cobra on a flute - they don't make sense if they aren't interpreted in any way. Just a translation of the paper, I repeat.

It's good if you're that blind...

1. Each individual species is monophyletic. Do you want to explain further, or will you understand that the authors seriously got into galoshes at the very beginning of their constructions and arguments?
2.Trees will change as soon as new elements are added to them. And change unpredictably.
3. What are your work goals? Find out what species live in Central Asia? Or others? What is the article written for? Can you answer it?
4. If we assume that the goal is to find out what types of jaundice there are in Central Asia, then the meaning of this work is incomprehensible to me. Everything has long been known, there are difficulties in certain groups, but it is precisely to them that no attention is paid.
5. Extremely old literature was used, which, moreover, is very small - Verhulst's book, which was criticized to the nines, and the Grieshuber and Lamas catalog, which also has nothing to do with science. Even the last book of Grieshuber et al., which simply needed to be viewed and quoted , was not used. The authors are simply not in the topic, knowledge is at a very low level - even the subgenus Asiocolias described by me is not mentioned ).

I don't think there's any point in continuing any further. Read it again, and don't make a stand on clydograms like a cobra on a flute - they don't make sense if they aren't interpreted in any way. Just a translation of the paper, I repeat.

That the article is not a fountain, I agree. But don't you think your steam is going down the whistle? The article is valuable not for the theoretical part, which is bullshit, but for the demonstration of the material. Formal "polyphyletic species" (terminological nonsense, of course) were obtained due to the scattering of incorrectly defined synonymous butterflies along the tree. Or correctly identified, but with irrelevant (say, due to bacterial introgression or for another reason) mtDNA. Their phylogeny is based on DNA - why would they quote the first or last Grieshuber? They also quote the rest of the literature for form's sake, and they do it correctly. The experiments of continuous running of mat-la on one or two essential traits (you can also use genitals, chromosomes, lipids, etc.) are basically positive, because the sum of their results brings us closer to the true phylogeny. A one-time "complex" approach is time-consuming and increases subjectivity.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.01.2014 17: 27

2.Trees will change as soon as new elements are added to them. And change unpredictably.

Well, that's not necessary at all.

Pictures:

31_32.jpg — (154.69к)

In the case of egg yolks, it is possible that it is not necessary. But in general... new genera may be "born" - subgenera, etc. - the consequences of Hennig's cladistics (and it is here in its purest form).

In the case of egg yolks, it is possible that it is not necessary. But in general... new genera may be "born" - subgenera, etc. - the consequences of Hennig's cladistics (and it is here in its purest form).

"Genera-subgenera" is nothing more than an interpretation of tree nodes. Of course, enabling add-ons. the material changes the appearance of the tree. For example, the eneis of a subgenus that includes tarpeia, Urdu, and Skulda on the eneis tree form a separate clade, which can be interpreted as a subgenus. On the common tree of satyrids, they go to other satyrs, and the traditional genus aeneis turns out to be polyphyletic.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.01.2014 18: 33

Well, genera/subgenera are born only in the heads of humans.
Only individual treasures can appear or "dissolve" here. And how to interpret them is a subjective matter, and only if there is strong evidence with a claim to a certain objectivity.
Wood is food for the mind.
I have a friend who is a coleopterist. I divide, so it's lixin for him. This results in a certain tree. He's rearing up - I don't think I see it that way. And they began to painstakingly understand and suddenly the taxonomy of the XIX century creeps out. And all its IMPORTANT morphological features turn out to be only idioadaptive layers that are convergent for representatives of different groups that have adapted to similar ecological conditions. This is how molecular mechanics helps hard-line morphologists figure out which traits are conservative and, accordingly, applicable for taxonomy, and which are secondary and appear in different phylogenetically different groups, and, in this regard, are unsuitable for taxonomy above the species level.

Well, genera/subgenera are born only in the heads of humans.
Only individual treasures can appear or "dissolve" here. And how to interpret them is a subjective matter, and only if there is strong evidence with a claim to a certain objectivity.
Wood is food for the mind.
I have a friend who is a coleopterist. I divide, so it's lixin for him. This results in a certain tree. He's rearing up - I don't think I see it that way. And they began to painstakingly understand and suddenly the taxonomy of the XIX century creeps out. And all its IMPORTANT morphological features turn out to be only idioadaptive layers that are convergent for representatives of different groups that have adapted to similar ecological conditions. This is how molecular mechanics helps hard-line morphologists figure out which traits are conservative and, accordingly, applicable for taxonomy, and which are secondary and appear in different phylogenetically different groups, and, in this regard, are unsuitable for taxonomy above the species level.

Another confirmation that phylogeny is a complex occupation. If the molecular trees for nuclear DNA and mtDNA coincide (or even better, for genomes), but they contradict the morphological structure of the genome. If it is a classification, then most likely it is lying. And of the molecular trees, the mitochondrial tree is the most unconvincing, since several classes of animals have shown that mtDNA is vulnerable. Therefore, barcoding is a view and something, not the ultimate truth, and morphology may be primary.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.01.2014 19: 05

Who's arguing?
However, you completely forget WHOSE article is being discussed.
And this is important.
95 % of Western cladists currently spit on morphological signs, since there are fashionable sequences. Actually, some of these 95 % also spat on the reliability of sequences - the sequence was obtained, the "grandmas" were beaten off - well, good luck.

Who's arguing?
However, you completely forget WHOSE article is being discussed.
And this is important.
95 % of Western cladists currently spit on morphological signs, since there are fashionable sequences. Actually, some of these 95 % also spat on the reliability of sequences - the sequence was obtained, the "grandmas" were beaten off - well, good luck.

and what should not be forgotten, the shape of the nose?

Are you trolling?

Unfortunately, Finnish and other Western ropalocerologists do not really understand morphology at all. Their conclusions, if there are any sometimes, are philately + barcodings. Although some molecular cladograms in some of their works on the taxonomy of nymphalids and satyrs showed generally good agreement with morphological constructions. But yolks, due to their complexity, should certainly be studied in a more comprehensive way.

The problem is not even that they don't understand morphology, but that they don't want to. It is much more difficult (by orders of magnitude, or even by orders of magnitude) to dissect, compare, draw conclusions, search for synapomorphies, symplesiomorphies, interpret signs, determine progressive-primitive, generalized, etc. Whether it's the case - 600 letters with a trifle to feed a computer program

The problem is not even that they don't understand morphology, but that they don't want to. It is much more difficult (by orders of magnitude, or even by orders of magnitude) to dissect, compare, draw conclusions, search for synapomorphies, symplesiomorphies, interpret signs, determine progressive-primitive, generalized, etc. Whether it is a matter of feeding 600 letters to a computer program with a trifle

well, this is for an amateur, who seven versts is not a detour, but a pleasure. in fact, when the molecular model is verified, morphological comparisons will mostly remain for extreme cases and, of course, fans of painstaking comparison.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.01.2014 21: 44

It is much more difficult (by orders of magnitude, or even by orders of magnitude) to dissect, compare, draw conclusions, search for synapomorphies, symplesiomorphies, interpret signs, determine progressive-primitive, generalized, etc. Whether it is a matter of feeding 600 letters to a computer program with a trifle

Holy shit, what nonsense is written here!
The argument that everything is supposedly as simple as two fingers obdudolit-evidence of the utter incompetence of the one who undertook to comment on the methods of molecular genetic analysis!
Yes, making genitals is 10 times easier, 100 times faster, 1000 times more fun, and 10000 times cheaper.
To reach these 600 letters 600 times you will get fucked up from 600 different manipulations.
Just to eradicate illiteracy-read how things really stand. Sequencing itself - no more than 5% of the total method!

By the way, I have five times put the most-razsamyh zoologists-morphologists (including Ph. D.) at the very first stage of the process, so that they would taste the charms of the method. But each time they had to be expelled from the laboratory, because even in the simplest operation, these specialists managed to disgorge the material and get either zero at the output or a contaminated sample. Both of these options imply either the impossibility of sequencing what they touched with their paws and 4 buried days of painstaking work, or getting sequences from solid NNNNNNNN and 5 buried days of painstaking work at the output of the sequencer.

This post was edited by bora - 03.01.2014 06: 32

File/s:



 ___________________________________.ppt

size: 588.5 k
number of downloads: 544

And as for the genitals, this is the result of working only 3 hours (along with photographing)

Pictures:

Genitalia.jpg — (304.34к)