Jaundice (Colias)

Milovanov A. E.
Phenol frequencies in syntopic populations of Colias crocea Geoffrey & Fourcroy, 1785 and Colias erate Esper, [1801] (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) in the Crimea and the Golden Ratio principle
/ Problemy ekologii i okhrany prirody tekhnogennogo regoina : Mezhdepartmental collection of scientific papers. Donetsk, 2003, issue 3, pp. 121-130
DjVu

Мілованов А. Е.
Флуктуюча асиметрія будови геніталій самців Colias crocea Geoffroy in Fourcroy 1785 і Colias erate Esper [1805] (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) у зоні їх сінтопного мешкання в Криму
// Біoлогія та валеологія. Збірник наукових праць. 2004, issue 6, pp. 36-40
DjVu

Lorkovic, Z., Siladjev, S. Kranjcev, R.
Die Einwanderung von Colias erate (Esper,1804) nach Mitteleuropa in den Jahren 1989 und 1990, ihre Uberwinterung, Polymorphismus und Genetik. (Lepidoptera, Pieridae)
// Atalanta (Marktleuthen). 1992: 23 (1-2). P.89-102, 294-295.
DjVu

Goloborodko, K. K., Fedenko V. S.
Color parameters of the wings of butterflies of the genus Colias Fabr. (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) of the steppe zone of Eastern and Central Europe
// Entomological Review. - 2007. - T. LXXXVI, Issue 4. - pp. 742-749
DjVu

For the first time I got on Colias erate, well, or at least on what is commonly called so. Place-S.Pisarevka, Yampolsky district, Vinnytsia region, time - September 17-18 this year. It is very common in fields and vegetable gardens with forage alfalfa, flying together with hyale / alfacariensis which are much smaller, no typical crocea was seen. Among the majority of the "standard" ones, there are such instances::

with a slight hint of hadroconia


with fully developed androconia


small pale orange



something between normal and small orange-yellow, but small )


and interestingly the white form of the female significantly prevails over the yellow one

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to correctly write the specific epithet of the yellow egg yolk crocea or croceus? And how to write the author (s)correctly
There are a lot of options in the literature, but they are not argued in any way.
For example, Nekrutenko (1990) writes Colias crocea (Geoffroy in Fourcroy). At the same time, it points to the original description: "croceus Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785"
In Hesselbart (1995) - "Colias crocea (Fourcroy, 1785) and a reference to the original description:" P. [apilio] croceus " Fourcroy, A. F., 1785 (Entomologia Parisiensis ... 2: 250)
finally, Korb and Bolshakov have crocea Geoffroy, 1785
: Why is the correct spelling of croceus ignored?

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to correctly write the specific epithet of the yellow egg yolk crocea or croceus? And how to write the author (s)correctly
There are a lot of options in the literature, but they are not argued in any way.
For example, Nekrutenko (1990) writes Colias crocea (Geoffroy in Fourcroy). At the same time, it points to the original description: "croceus Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785"
In Hesselbart (1995) - "Colias crocea (Fourcroy, 1785) and a reference to the original description:" P. [apilio] croceus " Fourcroy, A. F., 1785 (Entomologia Parisiensis ... 2: 250)
finally, Korb and Bolshakov have crocea Geoffroy, 1785
: Why is the correct spelling of croceus ignored?

Ignored? I think because of the" coolness " of the writers!
The correct spelling is crocea because Colias is a female genus (epithet of Aphrodite). Croceus is in the original combination with Papilio (M. genus). True, this species is described in the second volume of the work edited by A.-F. Fourcroy, but Geoffroy wrote the butterflies there. Therefore, there are two correct spellings: Colias crocea (Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785) or Colias crocea (Geoffroy, 1785) .

Here's an interesting one, this article

"Evolutionary biogeography and taxonomy of Pierid butterfly taxa Colias crocea and C. erate (Lepidoptera, Pieridae)."
Chichvarkhin A., Wahlberg N., Nylin S.

does it exist in nature? I can't find any output data...

The crocea-erate pair.
Traditionally, it is considered that these are two good species. If it suddenly occurred to me to claim that they are the same species, I would have to provide strong evidence (model experiments, genetics, and so on).

Can the proponents of two good types provide any evidence other than "traditional"?

Definition.
For example, I caught an atalanta. I came home, rummaged through my books, found the image, and identified it. Moreover, I do not grow caterpillars, do not do genital and genetic analysis. I don't even care that the instance in the identifier was photographed in Sweden. (It is not necessary to measure the atomic mass of iron or calculate the valence of sodium each time.)
I do the same when I define chrysotheme or myrmidone and a hundred other species.
Now alfacariensis, aka australis, aka saretensis by Alferaki (see photo)
Everything is exactly the same. I look at it and compare it. It turns out alfacariensis.
In the traditions of the national school, I look at genitals. I find differences (see photo). I compare the results obtained, they coincide with everything that was done before.
Question. Why should I use any other method of identification for this particular "miracle"type?
Kinds.
The crocea-erate pair.
Traditionally, it is considered that these are two good species. (Although, what is observed in the Volgograd region, rather, suggests the opposite.)
If it suddenly occurred to me to claim that they are the same species, I would have to provide strong evidence (model experiments, genetics, and so on).
The alfacariensis-hyale pair.
Traditionally, it is considered that these are two good species. I quite agree with this. What I observe in nature proves it. If Sergey Lvovich thinks otherwise, he must provide evidence. When, not so long ago, there was a need for this with another pair of species, I did so. Plus, I have to accept the concept of two subspecies in one territory, although I don't see anything like it in any other species, and at the same time cross out the work of Reisinger, Grieshuber and many, many others.Again the "miracle" view.
What is wrong with three subspecies of argus from Mordovia?

Gennady Vasilyevich, I don't think otherwise, and I don't think so yet. The dispute concerns the status of alfacariensis and khiale in the Black Earth steppes. Externally, butterflies collected in one place differ by 2/3, and the rest combine signs. It is said that alfakariensis differs from hiale in its caterpillars, food plant (monophage on vyazel-hiale eats any legumes) and is a bit eco-friendly. However, in the Crimea, where only one alfakariensis is found from the pair, its caterpillars include those that are considered khiale caterpillars near Kharkiv and Voronezh. In Europe, this pair is similar to the "nedovids" - the ranges are separate; chyale is a butterfly of temperate latitudes, alfakariensis is a Mediterranean one. Where the ranges overlap, the distribution of butterflies is ecological: in the former Czechoslovakia - anthropogenic landscapes in hiale and game in alfakariensis. The DNA distance between remote European populations on the "species" edge is 1.9%. That's all, the problem is waiting to be solved.

Gennady Vasilyevich, I don't think otherwise, and I don't think so yet. The dispute concerns the status of alfacariensis and khiale in the Black Earth steppes. Externally, butterflies collected in one place differ by 2/3, and the rest combine signs. It is said that alfakariensis differs from hiale in its caterpillars, food plant (monophage on vyazel-hiale eats any legumes) and is a bit eco-friendly. However, in the Crimea, where only one alfakariensis is found from the pair, its caterpillars include those that are considered khiale caterpillars near Kharkiv and Voronezh. In Europe, this pair is similar to the "nedovids" - the ranges are separate; chyale is a butterfly of temperate latitudes, alfakariensis is a Mediterranean one. Where the ranges overlap, the distribution of butterflies is ecological: in the former Czechoslovakia - anthropogenic landscapes in hiale and game in alfakariensis. The DNA distance between remote European populations on the "species" edge is 1.9%. That's all, the problem is waiting to be solved.

PS In Europe there are two more similar "half-species" - daplidice and edusa. In Germany, the difference in DNA between them is as much as 8.1%. However, in Northern Italy, they behave as good subspecies, form fertile hybrids and actively exchange alleles. So the "genetic barrier" does not always become a reproductive one.

What is wrong with three subspecies of argus from Mordovia?

- Gene, sorry, where is this from??? Two taxa of Suvorovka in the Nizhny Novgorod region are quite "enough" for me...

What is wrong with three subspecies of argus from Mordovia?

- Gene, sorry, where is this from??? Two taxa of Suvorovka in the Nizhny Novgorod region are quite enough for me...

What are three arguses in Mordovia? What are the two Suvorov girls? Links, fire.

I'm really ashamed… I'm sorry!
From Chuvashia.

This is basically illiterate work. 1) You can not call local populations (in whatever rank they are placed) names for subspecies with a known localization - they are all not from Chuvashia, IMHO - or the author believes that all three varieties of argus exist as "semi-species" from Germany to the Ob? Otherwise delirium - " aegon, inhabiting the swamps of Karelia and the northern forest belt of Europe. parts". Egon lives in Austria. 2) The series and intrapopulation variability are not described.
If we ignore Lastukhin's opinion, aegon (Austrian) is very close to the nominative argus and is usually considered synonymous with the latter. There is no border between argus and aegon, and the changes are gradual. I don't know anything about volgensis. Argus obensis (described by Forster from two specimens). from Novosibirsk and from near Tobolsk) in the series also only statistically differs from the nominative Scandinavian. The features listed by Forster refer to the 2nd butterfly he saw, but argus is very variable, and only a part of Novosibirsk butterflies meets Forster's description.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 16: 25

I caught a glimpse of this work. But it seemed to me that the Chuvash "swamp" argus-maybe idas. I don't know if Lastukhin cooked their males. Argus doesn't like swamps.
But in fact, we can talk about 2, if not subspecies, then METAPOPULATIONS of argus in the Tulseoi and Ryazan regions. One of them - apparently nominative-lives only in a strip of mixed forests. Generally larger, underside of the forewing with distinct orange pits. It is mesoxerophilic and usually gives 1, rarely 2 generations.
The second one is related to the subspecies wolgensis. It lives in the forest-steppe in the DRIEST places that are heavily sedimented. Smaller by an average of 1.3 times. On the underside of the forewing, orange holes are rarely visible in males (only gray traces of them), in females more often. And always 2 -3 generations.
They look like 2 different species-much better than a pair of agestis+Artaxerxes (these are the ones we have in the 21st century). already mixed up).
There is an isolation of several tens of kilometers along a strip of broad-leaved forests and an anthropogenic forest field. When broad-leaved forests began to advance in the middle Holocene, steppe butterflies that are not very mobile and thrive in their native biotopes do not need to wade through them at all. And in a belt of mixed forests on the sands-local butterflies also did not need to wade through these forests somewhere. So much for a few thousand years of isolation.
But probably, where there are corridors from mixed forests to forest-steppe along large rivers, some migrations take place over many years, and these subspecies can already mix there. In addition, such zonal gaps do not exist everywhere: this is the border of broad-leaved forests and forest-steppes. Therefore, many authors usually do not distinguish subspecies of argus.

I caught a glimpse of this work. But it seemed to me that the Chuvash "swamp" argus-maybe idas. I don't know if Lastukhin cooked their males. Argus doesn't like swamps.
But in fact, we can talk about 2, if not subspecies, then METAPOPULATIONS of argus in the Tulseoi and Ryazan regions. One of them - apparently nominative-lives only in a strip of mixed forests. Generally larger, underside of the forewing with distinct orange pits. It is mesoxerophilic and usually gives 1, rarely 2 generations.
The second one is related to the subspecies wolgensis. It lives in the forest-steppe in the DRIEST places that are heavily sedimented. Smaller by an average of 1.3 times. On the underside of the forewing, orange holes are rarely visible in males (only gray traces of them), in females more often. And always 2 -3 generations.
They look like 2 different species-much better than a pair of agestis+Artaxerxes (these are the ones we have in the 21st century). already mixed up).
There is an isolation of several tens of kilometers along a strip of broad-leaved forests and an anthropogenic forest field. When broad-leaved forests began to advance in the middle Holocene, steppe butterflies that are not very mobile and thrive in their native biotopes do not need to wade through them at all. And in a belt of mixed forests on the sands-local butterflies also did not need to wade through these forests somewhere. So much for a few thousand years of isolation.
But probably, where there are corridors from mixed forests to forest-steppe along large rivers, some migrations take place over many years, and these subspecies can already mix there. In addition, such zonal gaps do not exist everywhere: this is the border of broad-leaved forests and forest-steppes. Therefore, many authors usually do not distinguish subspecies of argus.

It is necessary to check whether this is due to the microclimate - what will happen to ordinary argus butterflies that have developed in the "driest place". "Wet "argus populations, according to my observations, always differ from" dry " ones, and not only argus. Butterflies from shady gullies are different from butterflies from sedentary slopes (a vivid example is the napi, which are often mistaken for" bryoniae"). It is possible that wolgensis (which, by the way, is not so small - the female is 29 mm long) is not a Lower Volga subspecies, but an ecological form of the nominate argus that lives in very dry stations.

Crimea.
The absence (presumed) of hyale in the Crimea may well explain the variability of alfacariensis, including in caterpillars.

Despite the variability, alfacariensis has not yet encountered a single butterfly similar to the brood Kharkiv hyale.
As for the caterpillars, they all have well-defined yellow lateral stripes and well-defined black spots. Variability is manifested in the degree of development of yellow dorsal stripes, which are often reduced.

Here are two extreme forms of Crimean caterpillars

Despite the variability, alfacariensis has not yet encountered a single butterfly similar to the brood Kharkiv hyale.
As for the caterpillars, they all have well-defined yellow lateral stripes and well-defined black spots. Variability is manifested in the degree of development of yellow dorsal stripes, which are often reduced.

Here are two extreme forms of Crimean caterpillars

And I imagined that I had seen Crimean caterpillars without spots somewhere. Maybe other ages?

Are they in the Crimea only on vyazel? And Nekrutenko lied about Vicia?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 19: 23

Yes? What kind of caterpillar is this? From this page?



http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/1_Pieridae/...facariensis.htm

Here, it doesn't seem to be wrinkled, (there are wrinkled ones below, but they can say that the spots are invisible because of this)

Oh my goodness... She's just a young zelo. Spotting develops in the middle ages.

What are you saying Look at the snapshot date page 11 month, I take it? And in caterpillars with the same size, the spotting is well expressed. Sorry, but this is already somehow hinting

What are you saying Look at the snapshot date page 11 month, I take it? And in caterpillars with the same size, the spotting is well expressed. I'm sorry, but this is already hinting at something

Yes, I told myself, I didn't need to answer any more of those questions... Okay, one last time. Mottling of caterpillars A usually develops in the middle ages and always (according to available data) - to the last age. The caterpillar in the picture is clearly not the latest age (what exactly-okoyem, perhaps, will say). And here 11 month - I do not understand. (No need to explain...)

Despite the fact that in your own articles it is indicated that pupae hibernate. Or what, after 11 months, they continue to eat and grow? The caterpillars in the last two photos are clearly already before pupation.

In general, something is wrong here)) "You don't need to explain"- that says it all.

Oh my goodness... She's just a young zelo. Spotting develops in the middle ages.

To be precise, I am concerned about one small thing in this story with two views. That in shared habitats, not only does alfakariensis avoid hiale, but also hiale alfakariensis. Even if alfakariensis is a monophage and is ecologically limited (for example, it lives on chalk hills, etc.), but hyale is a eurybiont and eats all legumes indiscriminately. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, a similar story - "in one clearing" these yolks are not caught, although just to the north in Poland, hiale is found everywhere.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 20: 00

As Mueller said-well, we'll make a reservation about that, too.

Despite the fact that in your own articles it is indicated that pupae hibernate.

Where does my article say this???

To be precise, I am concerned about one small thing in this story with two views. That in shared habitats, not only does alfakariensis avoid hiale, but also hiale alfakariensis. Even if alfakariensis is a monophage and is ecologically limited (for example, it lives on chalk hills, etc.), but hyale is a eurybiont and eats all legumes indiscriminately. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, a similar story - "in one clearing" these yolks are not caught,

In the Kharkiv region, exactly what happens "in one clearing". Vyazel is by no means confined to the chalk hills. This has already been discussed in this endless discussion.

On the fact that the pupa overwinters, there is data on the page of Vladimir Savchuk, the link to which is above, under the caterpillar.
" according to lit. data, the pupa overwinters."

As far as I remember, I read the same thing in your joint article.

On the fact that the pupa overwinters, there is data on the page of Vladimir Savchuk, the link to which is above, under the caterpillar.
" according to lit. data, the pupa overwinters."

As far as I remember, I read the same thing in your joint article.

There is no such thing there.

Logically, a young caterpillar should spend the winter in nature. I have, however, no facts to prove this.

But it doesn't seem to be typical for whiteflies that either a butterfly or a pupa overwinters. Well, this is something that is basically easy to check..

In the Kharkiv region, exactly what happens "in one clearing". Vyazel is by no means confined to the chalk hills. This has already been discussed in this endless discussion.

Thanks! I have no further questions. Two views, and good. It is impossible to consider them simply subspecies in all parameters, to wander between "two forms of the existence of a species" or to construct complex relationships between "half-species"- to go against Occam. It is easier to recognize them as fully formed in isolation from each other, closely related species.
But then the question arises-why don't they combine chrysotheme and myrmidone, which themselves ask to be normal subspecies?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.02.2012 05: 46

what kind of caterpillar is this?

This is the L3 caterpillar.

Caterpillars L1 and L2 are monophonic, brownish-green.
L3 - green with barely noticeable spots.
L4-spots are noticeably pronounced, yellow dorsal lines are absent.
L5-spots are well defined, yellow dorsal lines are sometimes well defined, sometimes not pronounced.

in caterpillars with the same size, the spotting is well expressed.

The dimensions of the tracks are not specified on the website. The ruler was also nowhere in the frame. And you can interpret the images any way you want.

On the fact that the pupa overwinters, there is data on the page of Vladimir Savchuk, the link to which is above, under the caterpillar.
" according to lit. data, the pupa overwinters."

"according to lit." - this means, according to the data available in the literature, that is, not according to the original ones.

Which whiteflies do the butterfly spend the winter in?

G. rhamni...

At the lemongrass trees.

And so, the question is very ambiguous-that crocea and erate are now officially different species, that alfacariensis and hyale. It is hardly possible to influence this with such disputes.
Personally, during the field season, I will simply be interested to see how these alfakariensis live here, and what kind of caterpillars they have, and on what plants. Prsoto for yourself, out of interest, and who will think what-this is his personal business.

  G. rhamni...

Oh, right.. I completely forgot about the local rarity...

It is hardly possible to influence this with such disputes.
Personally, during the field season, I will simply be interested to see how these alfakariensis live here, and what kind of caterpillars they have, and on what plants.

You can't influence it, of course.
You can catch females, you can observe oviposition in nature, you can collect eggs and caterpillars... There are plenty of opportunities. If you find X, please let us know, plz.

Oh, right.. I completely forgot about the local rarity...
You can't influence it, of course.
You can catch females, you can observe oviposition in nature, you can collect eggs and caterpillars... There are plenty of opportunities. If you find X, let me know, plz.

In fact, disputes are possible - if you choose facts from them. So far, I have found that A and X are still separate types - the rest of the positions lack evidence. But it is necessary to fill in the "gaps in the table", the absence of which in this endless discussion turned out, which raise doubts about the non-specificity of A and X. (nor do myrmidone-chrysothemum and crocea-erate solve the problem; the first pair is probably the same species, but I wonder what happens with the second one.)

Chrysotheme – myrmidone.
An irresponsible provocation!
140 males of four generations from three myrmidone populations.
There is not even a hint of signs with a chrysotheme.

Not a provocation, but an attempt to understand the typology of the genus. Myrmidon and chrysotheme are a closely related pair of the hyale-alfacariensis type, with myrmidon appearing to be a monophage, and chrysotheme living on many legumes (at least in Sibir). How do they co-exist in European Southern Russia?

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.02.2012 16: 17

Help please
this is erate?
Tambov region Muchkap, 09,08,2006

according to some determinants, I go out on a hybrid of erate Chloe, what is it?

Volgograd region.
Myrmidone - monophage, Russian broom.

Thank you. 1) Do they really "fly together" in shared habitats? 2) What does the red dot on the chrysotheme map mean? PS I just now guessed what you were so outraged about. I had a typo in the question - I meant "the last pair".

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.02.2012 16: 45

according to some determinants, I go out on a hybrid of erate Chloe, what is it?

Erocea.

Red dots - this is exactly the habitat, you can not pay attention to everything else.

So they don't even meet (with each other)? I thought your chrysothemums were a common sight."

This post was edited by sergenicko - 02.02.2012 17: 09

No, myromidon and chrysothemum are definitely good species, clearly distinguishable by subtle signs. Their spring morphs are very different, but summer morphs are more difficult. "combining" them is hopeless.
But here are erate and crocea - if the molecular cladogram recently presented by Boris Vitalyevich is correct (they are also not very well made), and add the voiced facts of their active hybridization, it looks like a picture of the initial stage of mixing species. After all, species also evolve over time, and there may be some kind of "gene drift" (I don't know how to call it correctly) that does not prevent their partial hybridization. If they had been the same species for a long time, their ranges would have overlapped - and erate is much more widespread! Not in Asia, anyway. This is if polygraphus is considered a species.
But the "hybrid" between them (light orange form of erate chrysodona) I personally fished in South Turkmenistan (ROC of Ashgabat), where crocea seems to be not yet marked.