Noctuidae: Noctuinae

Community and Forum → Insects images → Noctuidae: Noctuinae

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

22.04.2012 12:16, vvdubatolov

For barko:

I'm not at all sure that the Noctuoidea system in NE13 is the final option for decades. The division into subtribes of dippers is too inconsistent with my published phylogeny models. I suspect that the system doesn't ALWAYS have to be proven for the bears. That is, I do not object at all to the fact that the ursa group shares a common ancestor with the Hermniniinae, but the following changes in the system are highly questionable:
1. the separation of the Diacrisia-Rhyparioides-Rhyparia group into Spilosomatina, in contrast to the other "Micrarctiini" (which fell into Arctiina) - the male genitalia in the first group have a lot in common with Grammia;
2. the placement of Ocnogyna and Artimelia in the Arctiina group; according to many characteristics (at least the structure of the valvae) - this is one
of the most important differences in the structure of the male genitalia. 3. Placing Phragmatobia in Arctiina rather than Spilosomatina (the closest group to Phragmatobia is the subgenus Praephargmatobia in the genus Spilosoma/Spilarctia (as you like).

It seems to me that these cases can still be reviewed.

Likes: 2

22.04.2012 16:30, barko

For barko:

I'm not at all sure that the Noctuoidea system in NE13 is the final option for decades. The division into subtribes of dippers is too inconsistent with my published phylogeny models. I suspect that the system doesn't ALWAYS have to be proven for the bears. That is, I do not object at all to the fact that the ursa group shares a common ancestor with the Hermniniinae, but the following changes in the system are highly questionable:
1. the separation of the Diacrisia-Rhyparioides-Rhyparia group into Spilosomatina, in contrast to the other "Micrarctiini" (which fell into Arctiina) - the male genitalia in the first group have a lot in common with Grammia;
2. the placement of Ocnogyna and Artimelia in the Arctiina group; according to many characteristics (at least the structure of the valvae) - this is one
of the most important differences in the structure of the male genitalia. 3. Placing Phragmatobia in Arctiina rather than Spilosomatina (the closest group to Phragmatobia is the subgenus Praephargmatobia in the genus Spilosoma/Spilarctia (as you like).

It seems to me that these cases can still be reviewed.

Not the final one, but the main one. There are no final systems in principle.

Likes: 1

22.04.2012 21:10, rhopalocera.com

For barko:

I'm not at all sure that the Noctuoidea system in NE13 is the final option for decades. The division into subtribes of dippers is too inconsistent with my published phylogeny models. I suspect that the system doesn't ALWAYS have to be proven for the bears. That is, I do not object at all to the fact that the ursa group shares a common ancestor with the Hermniniinae, but the following changes in the system are highly questionable:
1. the separation of the Diacrisia-Rhyparioides-Rhyparia group into Spilosomatina, in contrast to the other "Micrarctiini" (which fell into Arctiina) - the male genitalia in the first group have a lot in common with Grammia;
2. the placement of Ocnogyna and Artimelia in the Arctiina group; according to many characteristics (at least the structure of the valvae) - this is one
of the most important differences in the structure of the male genitalia. 3. Placing Phragmatobia in Arctiina rather than Spilosomatina (the closest group to Phragmatobia is the subgenus Praephargmatobia in the genus Spilosoma/Spilarctia (as you like).

It seems to me that these cases can still be reviewed.

Approximately the same thing is said about the Staudinger system, but this does not prevent it from still being used in the main one. Any system developed with extreme resolution will only be supplemented or slightly changed until the critical mass of accumulated new data initializes its cardinal revision.

Likes: 1

Likes: 12

Likes: 13

Likes: 9

Likes: 1

25.06.2012 18:40, barko

By the way, Oleg -- ask Laszlo or someone else: the Fibiger-Lafontaine list of European scoops (in the 11th Esperian) for the south of Ukraine contains "Isochlora viridis" with a reference to someone local (I have Esperian in London) -- what was it all about? A confused label that resolved itself? Otherwise, there is no such thing in NE at all, including add-ons.

Asked. A copy with the Kherson label exists. At the time of compiling the Fibiger-Lafontaine list, the label was trusted, while at the time of compiling the list for NE, it was not. Arguments against the Ukrainian isochlora - for 15 years, no one has caught it again; those who have this copy have a lot of isochlora from different places, something could just get mixed up. In general, isochlora flies at the level of 2 thousand meters above sea level, there are simply no suitable habitats in Ukraine, especially in the Kherson region. But these are all words. Here someone will go to the Kherson region and catch