Genus Parnassius

https://pp.userapi.com/c846418/v846418291/2...gMxjrYYAzbs.jpg

Apollonius
https://pp.userapi.com/c850416/v850416214/4...S9LWbasWZUU.jpg

Unknown Parnassus from Dolon. Probably delph. waiting for the output.

Pictures:

DSC05844.JPG — (281.1к)

My new hybrid!
apollonius (f) X apollo (m)
As I understand it, these companions are not found in nature.

Pictures:

67772145_10157375811413674_384262005189509120_n.jpg — (121.86к)


VVrEcGLpAbM.jpg — (295.87к)


_____.jpg — (300.83к)

the female came out

Pictures:

DSC06091.JPG — (299.03к)

meanwhile in Penza.

Pictures:

______.jpg — (296.67к)

here's from the last one

Pictures:

DSC06106.JPG — (288.86к)


DSC06145.JPG — (293.72к)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyqLLXQe2n8

A Japanese entomologist asked me, " Why is Mr. Shleyenkov?" He got Bremeri with the attached label. Kunashirskie... He does not believe in their existence on Kunashir and asks to meet with the trapper or at least find out if such a person really exists. Who knows what? Thanks for the information.

This is the first time I've heard it.

There are some out there)
In the annotated catalogue of insects of the Russian Far East, 2016, it is listed for the Southern Kuril Islands as Parnassius bremeri nipponus Kreuzberg, 1992

The post was edited by Alexanor-02/04/2020 22: 02

There are no Bremer people in the Kuril Islands or Hokkaido. Most likely, these are labels to. Vodianova Street.

The post was edited by saurodata - 31.01.2020 20: 55

https://abs.pensoft.net/article/55925/
I think this is the most beautiful Apollo find since Davydov's description. Many thanks to Yuri for his dedicated work.

here they are, the beauties. Many thanks to all the colleagues who worked on this article!
bottom row normal arcticus.

Pictures:

Figure_04.jpg — (304.15к)

I think this is the most beautiful Apollo find since Davydov's description.

Good joke. Funny.

Good joke. Funny.

What's the sarcasm?

apparently there is no red just))))
and so it's even cooler in some ways. I think that Davydovi already has about a thousand pieces in collections, and this will never be collected more than a hundred

What's the sarcasm?

It's one thing to find an absolutely undeniably good view in well-traveled Kyrgyzstan.

Another is when a subspecies of a "species" is described from a new ridge that no entomologist has ever set foot on before, which is most likely only an extremely Mordor form (namely, a form, not a subspecies) of tenedius from the mountains of the pole of cold.

Good sales to authors! Sucker and money must part.

The post was edited by kotbegemot - 03.09.2020 02: 39

But Vlad is right. And why didn't I check this pair earlier? The differences are much smaller than they should be. It's all one view, and it's obvious.

  

But Vlad is right. And why didn't I check this pair earlier? The differences are much smaller than they should be. It's all one view, and it's obvious.

Clearly the case! Here are the molecular differences between P. davydovi davydovi and P. davydovi risto, probably beyond the boundaries of interspecies.

This post was edited by saurodata - 03.09.2020 18: 04

It's one thing to find an absolutely undeniably good view in well-traveled Kyrgyzstan.

Another is when a subspecies of a "species" is described from a new ridge that no entomologist has ever set foot on before, which is most likely only an extremely Mordor form (namely, a form, not a subspecies) of tenedius from the mountains of the pole of cold.

Good sales to authors! Sucker and money must part.

This, if you'll excuse my ignorance, is what? Other than davydovi?? Broken jacobsoni? Or staudingeri, which is hunza?? Or maybe autocrator, which no one else caught there in an area where there are no forage plants??? I would be very grateful in advance for any clarifications.

Yes, and the paratypes of risto were not given for thanks=))))

This post was edited by saurodata - 03.09.2020 18: 37

This, if you'll excuse my ignorance, is what? Other than davydovi??

It was just about davydovi.

But Vlad is right. And why didn't I check this pair earlier? The differences are much smaller than they should be. It's all one view, and it's obvious.

You still corybas / bremeri look!

  

But Vlad is right. And why didn't I check this pair earlier? The differences are much smaller than they should be. It's all one view, and it's obvious.

is this how you perform species identification for all taxa? less than 2% - one type, more-different types?

You still corybas / bremeri look!

So they are already Todisco & Co looked =)))

It was all about davydovi.

Then I see. And then I already thought that all the species described recently from Kyrgyzstan are bona species.

When external differences are clearly seen and a person with very poor eyesight, then all scientific things (genitals, COI) go by the wayside for collectors. And the species Parnassius arcticus will remain in the collections. No collector who has it will not rewrite the labels on Parnassius tenedius . You can write a bunch of articles proving the specific inconsistency, referring to what no one has seen. but people will believe their eyes.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080...1.2008.10697541

When external differences are clearly seen and a person with very poor eyesight, then all scientific things (genitals, COI) go by the wayside for collectors. And the species Parnassius arcticus will remain in the collections. No collector who has it will not rewrite the labels on Parnassius tenedius . You can write a bunch of articles proving the specific inconsistency, referring to what no one has seen. but people will believe their eyes.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080...1.2008.10697541

An original and harsh view of the problem! Yes, just let the collectors have their way...

When external differences are clearly seen and a person with very poor eyesight, then all scientific things (genitals, COI) go by the wayside for collectors. And the species Parnassius arcticus will remain in the collections. No collector who has it will not rewrite the labels on Parnassius tenedius . You can write a bunch of articles proving the specific inconsistency, referring to what no one has seen. but people will believe their eyes.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080...1.2008.10697541

Based on this beautiful statement, you can go very far. For example, label the listed butterflies as two different species. Although this is not the case=).

Thank God, science is not made by collectors. Although in Parnassiology their pressure is very great, but there are people who do not care about it.

Then I see. And then I already thought that all the species described recently from Kyrgyzstan are bona species.

What if there are more than one of them? Share your innermost knowledge, curious.

is this how you perform species identification for all taxa? less than 2% - one type, more-different types?

Not for everyone.
But for Parnassians, due to the island effect, this principle works very well. Read at least the article by Lukhtanov and his co-authors from 2016 about the apollons of the delphius group.

This, if you'll excuse my ignorance, is what? Other than davydovi?? Broken jacobsoni? Or staudingeri, which is hunza?? Or maybe autocrator, which no one else caught there in an area where there are no forage plants??? I would be very grateful in advance for any clarifications.

Yes, and the paratypes of risto were not given for thanks=))))

Obviously, you should ask me for clarification, not him.

But I don't owe you anything. If you want to check me out, go to Kyrgyzstan. Look for it. Maybe you'll get lucky. If someone somewhere didn't find what someone else found before, then they were looking for the wrong place. Or not then. Or both. Do not allow this option?

For those who were interested, we came and watched it. And we missed some of the things you're so upset about here. But in order for this to happen, you need to have a slightly more positive attitude.

Oh, I've always been amazed at the squabbling of entomologists. Yura Berezhnoy caught a good animal in a super cool place, which the Japanese would immediately describe as a new species, we made a good article, we did it for a long time and very diligently. It's not like that. And the taxon sucks, and the place is not right... Drive yourself to the Koryak Highlands, catch something good there, then process it efficiently. We should be happy that the fauna of our vast country is becoming more studied. Now we are working on all the butterflies of the Momsky ridge. Well, and so on for small things. By cossides.

https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/9422243
https://rg.ru/2020/09/10/reg-dfo/v-iakutii-...j-babochki.html

  https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/9422243
https://rg.ru/2020/09/10/reg-dfo/v-iakutii-...j-babochki.html

Great, of course, but the journalists, as always, were "on top". The photo for the article shows quite a nearcticus, I think...

Oh, I've always been amazed at the squabbling of entomologists. Yura Berezhnoy caught a good animal in a super cool place, which the Japanese would immediately describe as a new species, we made a good article, we did it for a long time and very diligently. It's not like that. And the taxon sucks, and the place is not right... Drive yourself to the Koryak Highlands, catch something good there, then process it efficiently. We should be happy that the fauna of our vast country is becoming more studied. Now we are working on all the butterflies of the Momsky ridge. Well, and so on for small things. By cossides.

Roma, it's just the envy of a foreigner, don't pay heed

Business took me away from the forum, as well as its "blackout" with a photo, but a rumor about... And belatedly, but – I will answer. Until recently, no significant genetic differences were found between the gray and black crow, but they were considered species. Finally found it: https://elementy.ru/novosti_nauki/432277/Ge...idoobrazovaniya. And why were they considered species? And by the difference in color, voice, and other characteristics. So here:
– imagos of tenedius and arcticus differ greatly in their pattern and size (see the photo);

– caterpillars differ: in tenedius, they have orange round spots, while in arcticus, they have pale yellow elongated ones;


- the biotopes of these species are radically different: tenedius lives on plains and in low mountains in places with "raised" soil (a big fan of landfills!), arcticus-in high mountains, on scree;


- different forage plants.


There are more differences than these crows!
And-who said that the genetic analysis for tenedius and articus was more correct than in this ornithological case?!
There will be a double-check on the tenedius-arcticus pair, using new methods, which will be taken up by one of the leading entomologists-geneticists. I'll let you know about the results.

To all critics, read about the evolution of mitochondrial genes and what happens to COI. It is rather stupid to make a decision - "view-not view" - only on the percentage of distances, as well as to include commerce here. The guys described an "honest" subspecies, unlike most of the shameful writings that are published on Parnassus in our time. A lot of work has been done, there is nothing to complain about.

  

"Oh, how many wonderful discoveries we have... "
"There are many things in the world, friend Horatio..."

What amazing battles!
What would fundamentally change in this world if tenedius and arcticus turned out to be the same species?
The sun won't rise? "The earth will hit the celestial axis"? Will a good subspecies become a bad one? Will the remarkable point cease to be such?
Or is arcticus "cool" and tenedius "lame"? Or is arcticus a pass to an elite club? Or is it "a matter of honor, glory, valor and heroism"?
Why is it that when new species are described on the basis of genetic data, it is perceived as everyday, but when the opposite situation develops, the universal cry rises, and "the distance is not the same", these are "half-species", this "does not work here"? You can't do that. This is unscientific. This is the artist's view. So I see!
So, we need to throw genetics on the dustbin of history, as a "prostitute of imperialism" and return to counting the number of" claws "and the length of" nails", if you do not like the percentage of distance. Will this add to our understanding? I don't think so.