Woodworms (Cossidae)

Community and Forum → Insects images → Woodworms (Cossidae)

gumenuk, 09.03.2008 11:35

I didn't find anything on this topic.
I'll start with the tracks.

Woodworms Cossidae Odorous woodworm Cossus cossus caterpillar
Moscow region, Ramenskiy district, near the village of Khripan 09.08.2007

This post was edited by Bolivar - 19.03.2009 17: 14

Pictures:
picture: 08_03_09_A011456.jpg
08_03_09_A011456.jpg — (135.29к)

picture: 08_03_09_A011432.jpg
08_03_09_A011432.jpg — (140.8к)

Comments

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5... 8

Likes: 7

Likes: 9

Likes: 14

Likes: 9

Likes: 3

Likes: 14

Likes: 15

Likes: 1

Likes: 11

Likes: 10

Likes: 8

Likes: 1

Likes: 8

Likes: 3

09.02.2009 8:06, Yakovlev

The genital patterns of cossids are striking in their uniformity, especially in the subfamily Zeuzerinae - two different genera (one is endemic to Australia of a yard in size, the second is small in the Palearctic, completely different in appearance) do not differ in genitals at all. Well, almost at all! If you look at it genitally , you can say-yes, there seems to be one view.
The system of the family, which is currently being developed by me, will clearly be perceived by colleagues with hostility (by many), because there are no signs! I'm relying on genetics, but I'm still just collecting material.
I wrote a revision of the genus Cossulus - it is in Eversmania, even like it is already displayed in the PDF. Look - very different butterflies have the same genitals. I write there - genitals don't work. But I do it for everyone. Degrease and look like Grandpa Otto Staudinger. Such is the group.

Likes: 3

09.02.2009 13:04, Yakovlev

Of course, genitals aren't the most important thing. The most important thing is biology, the range, the engines of the evolutionary process, so to speak.
There are groups where genitals do not help - many baggies, thinworms...
Unfortunately, the taxonomist mainly works with museum materials. These are dead butterflies with a label and genitals, which in some cases help, in some cases do not, and in some cases interfere when the variability of the genitals interferes. If you put naked men in a row like in the military enlistment office, you can also describe the types.
Preimaginals are bad in my group.
Forage plants are known in 7% of the species.
But there are good external differences, there is zoogeography, there are accumulated dry matrials... In a year's time, I hope to publish a Catalog of Old World cossids, because now the revision of everything available at the moment is very active. It is strange that the group has almost fallen out of the entomologists ' attention - only two in the world are engaged in the family-young lady Patricia Gentili from Washington-works all over America (great, I must say)and yours truly.
I want to put all the available PDF files of my articles on cossides in free access. How to do this on the forum....??? Bring cossidology to the masses. Thank you all so much for your cooperation.

Likes: 2

Likes: 4

Likes: 5

Likes: 4

Likes: 2

24.02.2009 19:57, okoem

The system of the family, which is currently being developed by me, will clearly be perceived by colleagues with hostility (by many), because there are no signs! I'm relying on genetics, but I'm still just collecting material.
I wrote a revision of the genus Cossulus - it is in Eversmania, even like it is already displayed in the PDF. Look - very different butterflies have the same genitals. I write there - genitals don't work.

Yakovlev
There was such a question. If genitalia do not differ, and "genetics" is assumed only in the future, on the basis of which new species are distinguished? Solely based on appearance? But after all, the appearance of many butterflies varies greatly depending on the climate, food plants, and you never know what. For example, the scoop Mesapamea secalis has a large number of different color options. They're sitting on their own screens , and they're all so different.

Likes: 1

25.02.2009 9:57, Yakovlev

New species are distinguished by a complex of characteristics - appearance, geographical data, genitals.
Unfortunately, cossids aren't the only ones where genitals don't work or don't work well - there are also hepialids and sacs.
It should be said that just the appearance of most cossids is quite conservative. Having a large series of species, you understand where intraspecific variability is, and where it is already interspecific.
The question is quite correct, but my right as the first auditor remains with me. When you see an admiral and a burdock, you realize that they are two different species... I think that there is a certain percentage of error, but I am sure that it is small.
For example, not so long ago, Witt co-authored a new species from Greece. See the article in the Note - and there is proof of my words.

25.02.2009 11:37, okoem

New species are distinguished by a complex of characteristics - appearance, geographical data, genitals.

With geographical data, for me personally, the issue is ambiguous. For example, I compared a series of Kharkiv and Crimean Idas - the genitals are similar, but the appearance is noticeably different.
If we talk about cossids, Dyspessa salicicola and Dyspessa kostjuki are not geographically separated, I can not judge the difference in genitalia, but as I understand it, they are not great. But how typical is the appearance? Unfortunately, I do not have a series of Crimean Salicicola that would draw any conclusions for myself, but it would be very interesting to understand. By the way, I still haven't received an answer from you regarding the definition of my photosSalicicola sp.

Likes: 2