Genus Parnassius

Why indiscriminately ohaivat? I won't say anything about zootaxa, I didn't publish it there, but zookiz is very good for sovochniki. The editor is Don Lafontaine, who at various times invited such reviewers as Vladimir Kononenko, Laszlo Ronkai, Jerome Halloway, and Alberto Zilli for my work. Why do you insult these worthy people? Why do you insult my work?

I don't insult your work in any way. Just like other shoveling jobs. But in this edition, I often see inaccurate publications that show the authors ' complete ignorance of taxonomy. In particular, on firewalls and all sorts of macro systems. The quality of a publication depends primarily on the author, but if they don't know something and the editors can't help, then the output is stupid.

Right here. I doubt that anyone has ever called Ariadne Phoebus since 1889. But since the names of two taxa are involved, it would be better to decide everything through a commission to save both of them.
not a single pest...
Ariadne and Phoebus are considered protected. That is, now in the Altai it is necessary to stop protecting Ariadne, and start protecting Phoebus. For nature conservationists, this will cause a division by zero. They are mentioned in hundreds of faunal and systematic works. So, it's not such a worthless species. There are enough of their own internal problems, starting with Phoebus-satserdos and....

The point is that in Z. Europe does not know Russian journalism, and even more so such a peculiar genre of it as Kr. books. For them, this is almost a white spot. What do they know about us? Tuzova et al.? - they are outdated. More recent English-language "funny pictures"? They are at a much lower level.
Some even our scientists consider all CC without exception to be non-scientific literature. You can partially agree with them: some CC's are dirty official falsifications, most are interesting only as a source with points on maps (with data on biology copied from the German Koch Atlas! ), and only a small part of the regional CC is original and valuable from a scientific point of view. At the same time, the CC of the Russian Federation (which is the only one in many libraries, as the "face" of our nature protection)it is somewhere in the middle between official and compilation publications. Hence the attitude.

Kapets.
Friends, of course you are sorry, I fully support the need to understand, BUT:

this theme was like for images. (this time)
why go on a personal grudge? (that's two)

I would move this discussion to the section "Classification of Insects" as a separate topic. As well as questions on the taxonomy of colias.

Sorry if I'm wrong.

I completely agree - there is no sign of moderation here. The site owner has repeatedly said that he doesn't care what they write here. That he is essentially not against any porn - because the answer is not him, but the author of the post. so, let's moderate ourselves as needed

Guys, let's talk a little bit about science - is anyone able to name good morphological features simo, simonius, boedromius, andreji? Does anyone have any strong arguments against the fact that this is not a single species?

By the way, I have long been tormented by kiritchenkoi-hunza-staudingeri. And some delphiius... Is everyone so sure of their unambiguity?

By the way, I have long been tormented by kiritchenkoi-hunza-staudingeri. And some delphiius... Is everyone so sure of their unambiguity?

With these guys, everything is much easier. The island effect played a decisive role in speciation.

With these guys, everything is much easier. The island effect played a decisive role in speciation.

Yes, it is hard to doubt this, but at least are these "species" monophyletic?

I'll duplicate the message here:

Help me identify a couple from China.
Label data:
QingHai Province of china,LaJi mountain, 2011.6.20 , 4000 M

I'll duplicate the message here:

Help me identify a couple from China.
Label data:
QingHai Province of china,LaJi mountain, 2011.6.20 , 4000 M

Kreizbergius andreji

Please help me with the exact definition of Parnassius.
Yu-To Kazakhstan, Western Tien Shan. Trans-Ili Alatau [July 2013]

in the area of the Ak Kain sanatorium and in the Kimasarovsky gorge.


on the Molodezhny pass, altitude 3300-3500 m

Please help me with the exact definition of Parnassius.
Yu-To Kazakhstan, Western Tien Shan. Trans-Ili Alatau [July 2013]

in the area of the Ak Kain sanatorium and in the Kimasarovsky gorge.

Parnassius apollo

  

on the Molodezhny pass, altitude 3300-3500 m

actius

For our region - the Trans-Ili and Dzungarian Alatau in the northern Tien Shan, this is more of a subspecies
Parnassius actius ssp. minutus Verity, 1911

rhopalocera.com What do you think?
What's your opinion on yellow cards?

This post was edited by alex242 - 25.11.2013 17: 57

For our region - the Trans-Ili and Dzungarian Alatau in the northern Tien Shan, this is more of a subspecies
Parnassius actius ssp. minutus Verity, 1911

Well, yes, this subspecies is for actius, and for apollo - ssp. merzbacheri, they are often yellowish, especially females. In the second half of June, I collected them there in Komissarovsky and in BAU, males and white ones came across, and a little yellow. You've got them all yellow.

For our region - the Trans-Ili and Dzungarian Alatau in the northern Tien Shan, this is more of a subspecies
Parnassius actius ssp. minutus Verity, 1911

rhopalocera.com What do you think?
What's your opinion on yellow cards?

Yellow - because they were just hatched.
Actius is a subspecies of minutus. But in general, in the work of subspecies of parnassus, I think the system will be greatly reduced.

Yellow they remain yellow all their lives. I consider the presence of this pigment to be an atavism, an ancestral sign that sometimes climbs out.

Although, I knew one merchant who dried parnassus in the oven, achieving a "rare" yellow shade, which sold better and at a higher price. But there the yellowing was almost uniform - in natural yolks it is the same as in the photo-stronger on the upper wings and the edge of the rear ones.

Dear experts,

What is the subspecies in my pictures - democratus or moscowitus? And can you tell where the male is and where the female is? Bryansk region, June-July.

--------------------
http://butterflies-32.net

Pictures:

IMG_1166.JPG — (205.37к)


IMG_1173.JPG — (238.63к)


IMG_1179.JPG — (267.65 k)

In my opinion, this is your democratus, the top two are males, the bottom one is a female. And still need to check the definition of bellargus, I think it's icar.

In my opinion, this is your democratus, the top two are males, the bottom one is a female. And you still need to check the definition of bellargus, I think it's icar.

there are a lot of errors. even cursorily, among Petrophora chlorosata 5 pictures of Scotopteryx mucronata

there are a lot of errors. even cursorily, among Petrophora chlorosata 5 pictures of Scotopteryx mucronata

Thanks!
Do I understand you correctly-mucronata in the frames 1728, 1734, 1762, 1767, 1808?
If you ever visit my site again, please point out more errors.

Dear experts,

What is the subspecies in my pictures - democratus or moscowitus? And can you tell where the male is and where the female is? Bryansk region, June-July.

--------------------
http://butterflies-32.net

[attachmentid()=191918]

Thanks!
Do I understand you correctly-mucronata in the frames 1728, 1734, 1762, 1767, 1808?
If you ever visit my site again, please point out more errors.

You should probably develop this topic further in the definition of butterflies. The pictures are good and pleasant to look at.
There are errors. I looked at the argyrognomon, where 2145 and 2151 are either terzamon or P. icar icarinus.
Satyrium w-album - all S. ilicis (females)

This post was edited by Valentinus - 01/20/2014 10: 26

Dear experts,

What is the subspecies in my pictures - democratus or moscowitus? And can you tell where the male is and where the female is? Bryansk region, June-July.

--------------------

I wrote to you at the email address indicated on the site.

Thanks!
Do I understand you correctly-mucronata in the frames 1728, 1734, 1762, 1767, 1808?
If you ever visit my site again, please point out more errors.

I looked at the scoop and pyadenits-a lot of oshbok (among the pyadenits there are not even pyadenits), but this is not in this topic.

[attachmentid()=191918]

Stanislav, can I get a link to my work?

Stanislav, can I get a link to my work?

Korb S. K. 2013. Subspecies structure of Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus, 1758) (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) / / Eversmannia. Issue 33, pp. 5-9

beautiful captured apollo burjaticus aberrants from Ulan-Ude.

Pictures:

DSC02053.JPG — (289.54к)

beautiful captured apollo burjaticus aberrants from Ulan-Ude.

There is no such subspecies.
And the instances are really beautiful

Dear forumchane! Does anyone have an image of Parnassius apollonius alicae Kreuzberg, 1989 from Northern Kazakhstan (Kostanay or Kokchetav regions)? Still, and the timing of the summer, if anyone collected it there. The ones described by Kreutzberg were collected on 17.07.1977, rather late for Apollonius, on the other side of the extreme north of the range.

Dear forumchane! Does anyone have an image of Parnassius apollonius alicae Kreuzberg, 1989 from Northern Kazakhstan (Kostanay or Kokchetav regions)? Still, and the timing of the summer, if anyone collected it there. The ones described by Kreutzberg were collected on 17.07.1977, rather late for Apollonius, on the other side of the extreme north of the range.

Fake imho this subspecies.
Only mountain populations of apollonius produce a generation in July. And it doesn't even smell like mountains.

Fake imho this subspecies.
Only mountain populations of apollonius produce a generation in July. And it doesn't even smell like mountains.

it smells. melkosopochnik is also located there. only in July it's still too late. June maximum.

[attachmentid()=191918]

This "synonyme list" of apollo is unfortunately completely wrong according to phylogeography of this species. Scandinavian ssp. has nothing to do with ssp. from Asian part of Russia... Also specimens from Eurpean part of Russia can not be treated as synonymes of Scandinavian ssp. as they have very different mDNA.

This "synonyme list" of apollo is unfortunately completely wrong according to phylogeography of this species. Scandinavian ssp. has nothing to do with ssp. from Asian part of Russia... Also specimens from Eurpean part of Russia can not be treated as synonymes of Scandinavian ssp. as they have very different mDNA.

Dear radusho,
where is for you Asian part of Russia? It is first question.
Second one: do you believe in astrology? I am about "phylogeography".
And last question: differences in mDNA - can you figure them out? Numbers at least, localities etc.

This synonymic list based on studying of morphology of tens of thousands specimens and hundreds mtDNA samples. If you can prove your opinion, I am waiting your paper. I understand your commercial interest in entomology (more subspecies - more material for sell) but I am sorry, I am working with science and for me this kind of commerce in entomology is complete bullshit, I will always do only things which are logic and working under general biological laws. No subspecies of apollo from every separate hill are present. There is clinal variability in wing pattern and in mtDNA, so NO such amount of subspecies at all.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 31.01.2014 09: 28

for me this kind of commerce in entomology is complete bullshit

Dear radusho,
where is for you Asian part of Russia? It is first question.
Second one: do you believe in astrology? I am about "phylogeography".
And last question: differences in mDNA - can you figure them out? Numbers at least, localities etc.

This synonymic list based on studying of morphology of tens of thousands specimens and hundreds mtDNA samples. If you can prove your opinion, I am waiting your paper. I understand your commercial interest in entomology (more subspecies - more material for sell) but I am sorry, I am working with science and for me this kind of commerce in entomology is complete bullshit, I will always do only things which are logic and working under general biological laws. No subspecies of apollo from every separate hill are present. There is clinal variability in wing pattern and in mtDNA, so NO such amount of subspecies at all.

Probably you have not read any of those papers (or just ignored) when you wrote yours. I am not the person who describe a new sp./ssp. everywhere where I move. Several ssp. from 1 locality/mountain pass, valley?? Is that logic or under biological laws?? I hope you are joking as that is a complete bullshit and completely out of any laws!

You probably do not know about something what is called "intraspecific variations" and making your own carrier with describing, in most cases, worthless new taxons. Most of your "new" taxons are just another additions to an endless synonyme lists.

[attachmentid()=192594] -here is an article about your "astrology", but probobly something like DNA is just a myth for you...

This post was edited by radusho - 31.01.2014 17: 09

File/s:



 Todisco_2010_BJLS_Phylogeography_of_Parnassius_apollo.pdf

size: 1.68 mb
number of downloads: 1246

Probably you have not read any of those papers (or just ignored) when you wrote yours. I am not the person who describe a new sp./ssp. everywhere where I move. Several ssp. from 1 locality/mountain pass, valley?? Is that logic or under biological laws?? I hope you are joking as that is a complete bullshit and completely out of any laws!

You probably do not know about something what is called "intraspecific variations" and making your own carrier with describing, in most cases, worthless new taxons. Most of your "new" taxons are just another additions to an endless synonyme lists.

[attachmentid()=192594] -here is an article about your "astrology", but probobly something like DNA is just a myth for you...

I read that paper you attached immediately when it was published. The main problem of historical zoogeography (that is actually right term) is in complete impossibility to prove decisions. No way to prove! This is science, and we have only two ways to prove our desicions about past: time machine (best chouse, but impossible because not present) or fossils (for butterflies: very rare, and for apollo: not present). So, all conclusions of this paper authors are no more that their dreams, and it is completely impossible to check, are they right or wrong - and if it is no way to check, in automatically means in the science: wrong. So science works, sorry.

Some of my taxa, of course, will go to synonymy. It is absolutely normal for anybody who works in taxonomy. Even very famous persons have many synonyms (see Staudinger, Rotschild, Le Moult etc). This is no problem. Remember: the man who makes no mistakes, doesnt makes anything .

Regarding biological laws, terms and other stuff: I am Dipl. Biol., belonging to the A.I.Kurentzov scientific scool, educated in the Nizhny Novgorod State University. I know something about biology .

I agree!
It is impossible to prove that the species originated there and then settled in another territory on the review material.
There is a similar article on blackheads. There, the authors hypothesize that Erebia Iranica originated in Iran and then settled in the Caucasus. But why is this so? Why not the other way around?

DNA samples give you quite a good picture of how and where was species evolving, you just need to coordinate this information with "evolution" of mountains, rivers and than it fits like puzzle.

Sure Staudinger, Rothschild..and more old times collectors have many synonymes, because they did not know that something like genotype or phenotype do exist.
As you studied biology you know that phenotype (the morphology) is only an expression of a certain genotype in specific environmental conditions. Means- 1 the same genotype + 2 different enviironmantal conditions=2 different phenotypes. That is the reason why descriptions made only according to phenotype are not reliable.

To Valentinus: The maternal populations of the species have always wide genotype full of different genes-all of them are present here. When a certain group of butterflies migrate to other place they take only a certain genes from the maternal populations, so the genotype is shorter-not so rich as the maternal population..

Based on the review material, we can assume that the view originated somewhere (and very, very blurry). To search for primitive traits and build a phylogeny based on them is still very difficult at the generic level, but at the level of species, where adaptive radiation, population surges, waves of life, mutations, and so on are very common - this is at least naive. The same apollo, even in the Quaternary period (yes, what is there - the last 500 years), had an uncountable number of variants of settlement, reproduction, mutation. How do I know which one was used by the view at a particular point in time? This, I will tell you, is just guessing on coffee grounds - and I am very surprised that such an article was published in such a serious magazine. Usually, historical zoogeography on the plains deals not with species, or even genera, but with families or faunas. In the mountains, everything is somewhat simpler - they are relatively better studied in terms of glaciology and geology (due to relatively more accessible material), and you can more or less confidently assume (but again-just assume!!!) trends and paths. It is extremely difficult to prove anything.

As a person who deals specifically with historical zoogeography, I can say that it is extremely difficult to convince your opponent that you are right; after all, even in paleoclimatology, you can find data in contrast to the hypotheses put forward, after which the entire tree of constructions collapses.

DNA samples give you quite a good picture of how and where was species evolving, you just need to coordinate this information with "evolution" of mountains, rivers and than it fits like puzzle.

Sure Staudinger, Rothschild..and more old times collectors have many synonymes, because they did not know that something like genotype or phenotype do exist.
As you studied biology you know that phenotype (the morphology) is only an expression of a certain genotype in specific environmental conditions. Means- 1 the same genotype + 2 different enviironmantal conditions=2 different phenotypes. That is the reason why descriptions made only according to phenotype are not reliable.

To Valentinus: The maternal populations of the species have always wide genotype full of different genes-all of them are present here. When a certain group of butterflies migrate to other place they take only a certain genes from the maternal populations, so the genotype is shorter-not so rich as the maternal population..

Radusho, I am sorry, but your opinion is incorrect (I want to say wrong).
Nobody. NOBODY!!! Sampled even 1 % of mature population. No such DNA studies exists and will never be made, because it is extremely expensive first of all and of course nobody will take so many examples secondly. We have very few fragments of genotypes, we will never have even one statistically supported DNA sampled population (one small population, even not metapopulation). So all your words about "puzzle", "DNA samples" etc are just a words: nobody knows genotype variability. And nobody will know that until we will have very cheap technology. Of course if we have fragments taken from different places, we can have differences (but very small in apollo - according to GenBank, 0.05% average - this is almost nothing (COI)). We have a lot of specimens which can show variability (including clinal, which is present); DNA samples also show the same clinal variability, but need much more (thousand times more) sequences to show that statistically.