Concept of development of protected areas of the Russian Federation until 2020

I watched "riddle" and "solution" there, and it didn't convince me.

That riddle was not intended to convince.

The discussion was accidentally formed, and smoothly flowed from Serdobskaya erebia to Kharkiv zheltushki. I watched "riddle" and "solution" there, and it didn't convince me. Until I am convinced that the habit of caterpillars is strictly correlated with the habit of males, I will remain of the opinion that in Europe Colias hyale has 2 good subspecies - hyale and alphacariensis, conditionally north-western and south-eastern, which consistently differ in the set of imaginal and preimaginal primates and features of biology. There is a wide "zone of uncertainty" between the ranges, in which subspecies co-exist, partly preserving specific somatic and ecological differences, while actively hybridizing, and their offspring are fertile. The transition zone includes black earth steppes in the Volga and Don basins, Black Sea steppes, and steppes south of the Carpathians (southern Slovakia and Hungarian Pushta). Outside of this zone, subspecies are represented in pure form and do not occur-with the exception of flights and migration results, to which alfacariensis is prone.

Goodnight!

I can't sleep... We'll bring both of them out of the same area in the summer and send you a series. Plus a photo report. It will even be possible to check by protein electrophoresis...
Good dreams!

For the sake of completeness, I will add that hyale and alfacariensis differ in their DNA. About this, it is written, for example, here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/con.../1704/347.short

I quote you: "In fact, DNA barcodes distinguish several very similar
taxa that are often impossible to identify based on the
morphology of the adult even with genitalic examination.
Such cases include Aricia agestis and Aricia artaxerxes
(data on collection locality is needed, but not always sufficient)
or Colias hyale and Colias alfacariensis (the larval
stage is necessary for reliable identification; see the
electronic supplementary material, annex 3)."

The discussion was accidentally formed, and smoothly flowed from Serdobskaya erebia to Kharkiv zheltushki. I watched "riddle" and "solution" there, and it didn't convince me. Until I am convinced that the habit of caterpillars is strictly correlated with the habit of males, I will remain of the opinion that in Europe Colias hyale has 2 good subspecies - hyale and alphacariensis, conditionally north-western and south-eastern, which consistently differ in the set of imaginal and preimaginal primates and features of biology. There is a wide "zone of uncertainty" between the ranges, in which subspecies co-exist, partly preserving specific somatic and ecological differences, while actively hybridizing, and their offspring are fertile. The transition zone includes black earth steppes in the Volga and Don basins, Black Sea steppes, and steppes south of the Carpathians (southern Slovakia and Hungarian Pushta). Outside of this zone, subspecies are represented in pure form and do not occur-with the exception of flights and migration results, to which alfacariensis is prone.

Goodnight!

What is "Hungarian Pushta"?

What is "Hungarian Pushta"?

Steppe

For the sake of completeness, I will add that hyale and alfacariensis differ in their DNA. About this, it is written, for example, here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/con.../1704/347.short

I quote you: "In fact, DNA barcodes distinguish several very similar
taxa that are often impossible to identify based on the
morphology of the adult even with genitalic examination.
Such cases include Aricia agestis and Aricia artaxerxes
(data on collection locality is needed, but not always sufficient)
or Colias hyale and Colias alfacariensis (the larval
stage is necessary for reliable identification; see the
electronic supplementary material, annex 3)."

The summary doesn't say anything specifically. Meanwhile, lepidopterologists have not so long ago already messed up with the classification of allozyme markers: they separated P. daplidice and edusa with fanfare, bearing in mind that different aalozymic markers make up the reproductive barrier. Then it turned out that these are subspecies, hybrids of which are fertile, and in the transition zones butterflies with different and transitional allozyme markers co-exist within the same population http://www.jstor.org/pss/2411208. The same applies to the DNA codes, to the chromosome set, etc. - the differences between them can be a feature of both species and subspecies, individually for each species. Contrary to a widely held misconception, molecular phylogenetic analysis is not able to answer the actual question of whether two specific populations belong to the same species or to different ones. It is necessary to prove that molecular factors are a reproductive barrier. In the case of hyale-alfacariensis, no evidence is provided.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 12: 31

"Wow, how lively this place is! And interesting!! Well, finally we got not only to the outer shell of the protected area (flora) - but also looked at who lives there and why he CAN live there!!! I have long "drawn" a number of zoogeographical questions about butterflies and not only... We need to" fish " them out of the diaries...

WELL, okay, we were convinced - that the" Serdobskaya " euryale is of Carpathian origin... let's say... BUT what about the Saratov and Samara euryals??? We somehow quietly "merged" them in the process of a VERY INTERESTING and USEFUL DISCUSSION...

Yes, of course, I personally "tortured" Yuri Starikov about where, when and how he caught this butterfly... He confirmed everything and even pointed out the place of the Chesnochny tract, I was there... alas, these sparse, sandy, grass forests (obviously of boreal origin) have now been cut down! And in their place they planted a young pine tree... Floristic finds of boreal species in those places were pointed out by Keller in 1890-1910....

In the 20s and 30s, Professor of Botany I. I. Sprygin (let me remind you that the Zhiguli Nature Reserve is named after him) published a number of works devoted to the survey of a number of UNUSUAL floral finds in the Middle Volga region (such as Ephedra dvukhkoloskovaya, vetrennitsa Altaiskaya, etc.).

Further, the types of doppelgangers are clear - but what should we do with the spread of such mace-moustaches as, for example, Hesperia comma L. (we have only dry STEPPES (south of the region) and less in the meadow (center)) and P. aegeria L. (we have only dry grasslands and sunny oak forests-south-west of the region). In other biotopes, alas, we have not found...

This post was edited by Penzyak - 30.01.2012 13: 24

In the Omsk region, there is at least a subtaiga with upper swamps, forests, and associated fauna. Therefore, C. palaeno can easily fly into the forest-steppe there - and by the way, there are also extrazonal taiga islands in it.

This is all clear. but from the southern border of the subtaiga zone to the southernmost point of C. palaeno capture in the steppe, more than 350 km in a straight line! So you can't get knocked up. There are no extrazonal taiga islands in those places.

"- Wow, how lively it is here! And interesting!! Well, finally we got not only to the outer shell of the protected area (flora) - but also looked at who lives there and why he CAN live there!!! I have long "drawn" a number of zoogeographical questions about butterflies and not only... We need to" fish " them out of the diaries...

WELL, okay, we were convinced - that the" Serdobskaya " euryale is of Carpathian origin... let's say... BUT what about the Saratov and Samara euryals??? We somehow quietly "merged" them in the process of a VERY INTERESTING and USEFUL DISCUSSION..."


What else are the Saratov and Samara Euryals? It's already like catching a Bigfoot.

"Yes, of course, I personally" tortured " Yuri Starikov about where, when and how he caught this butterfly... He confirmed everything and even pointed out the place of the Chesnochny tract, I was there... alas, these sparse, sandy, grass forests (obviously of boreal origin) have now been cut down! And in their place they planted a young pine tree... Floristic finds of boreal species in those places were pointed out by Keller in 1890-1910....

In the 20s and 30s, Professor of Botany I. I. Sprygin (let me remind you that the Zhiguli Nature Reserve is named after him) published a number of works devoted to the survey of a number of UNUSUAL floral finds in the Middle Volga region (such as Ephedra dvukhkoloskovaya, vetrennitsa Altaiskaya, etc.)."


Relict flora is not always accompanied by relict fauna. For example, in the relict lipnyak near the village of Kuzedeyevo (Kemerovo region), the fauna is poorer than in the surrounding area, and there are no relicts... In the case of euryals, it's just nonsense - and they don't live in boreal grass forests.


"Further, the species of doppelgangers is clear - but what should we do with the spread of such mace-moustaches as Hesperia comma L. (we have only dry STEPPES (south of the region) and less in the meadow (center)) and P. aegeria L. (we have only dry grasslands and sunny oak forests-south-west of the region). In other biotopes, alas, we have not found..."


These are the" classic " biotopes of komma (dry forests) and egeria (sunny forest clearings, clearings in dry pine forests and broad-leaved forests). Egeria is thermophilic - it is probably warmer in the south of the region than in St.
Petersburg.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 13: 47

"What are the Saratov and Samara Euryals? It's already like catching Bigfoot."

Anikin, Sachkov,and Zolotukhin (1993):
Anikin V. V., Sachkov, S. A., Zolotuhin V. V., 1993. "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgaur-alensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 1. Rhopalocera (Insecta, Lepidoptera) // - Atalanta. N. 24 (1/2). P. 89 - 120.
№ 67. Read: Saratovskaya +; Samarskaya ? Bashkiria +. In others, there are -.

These are the" classic " biotopes of komma (dry forests) and egeria (sunny forest clearings, clearings in dry pine forests and broad-leaved forests). Egeria is thermophilic - it is probably warmer in the south of the region than in St. Petersburg.
- we DO, but I mean that to the north these two species fly/live in dark coniferous spruce forests (!??) - as some authors CLAIM....

I can't sleep... We'll bring both of them out of the same area in the summer and send you a series. Plus a photo report. It will even be possible to check by protein electrophoresis...
Good dreams!

Thanks! I would be very happy if two geographical subspecies of lowland butterflies turned out to be separate species. The first thing to find out is whether there is a reproductive barrier between hyale and alfacariensis. The listed distinct features do not serve as proof that the types are different. There are no stable external differences in adults at all; where the species boundary between the transitional phenotypes of caterpillars and pupae passes is not established. In Western Europe, hyale and alfacariensis are two "classical" subspecies with a narrow transition zone.

"What are the Saratov and Samara Euryals? It's already like catching Bigfoot."

Anikin, Sachkov,and Zolotukhin (1993):
Anikin V. V., Sachkov, S. A., Zolotuhin V. V., 1993. "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgaur-alensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 1. Rhopalocera (Insecta, Lepidoptera) // - Atalanta. N. 24 (1/2). P. 89 - 120.
№ 67. Read: Saratovskaya +; Samarskaya ? Bashkiria +. In others, there are -.

These are the" classic " biotopes of komma (dry forests) and egeria (sunny forest clearings, clearings in dry pine forests and broad-leaved forests). Egeria is thermophilic - it is probably warmer in the south of the region than in St. Petersburg.
- we DO, but I mean that to the north these two species fly/live in dark coniferous spruce forests (!??) - as some authors claim....

Therefore, you have koma and egeria flying in classic biotopes. I saw egeria in dark coniferous spruce forests, in the warmest and driest clearings.

About the Saratov euryale-you should ask the authors. Maybe in the Saratov region. it is caught on the edge of a coniferous forest on the slope of a ravine with a northern exposure? But I'm afraid that this is a forgery or an incorrect definition. I studied euryale very much and watched her in the Carpathians and Bulgaria, and was also interested in her life in the Russian Language and in Western Europe. Everywhere the biotopes are similar, and there are no reliable finds outside these biotopes. It is demanding to the climate, so in the Polar Urals it lives almost on the plain, in the Carpathians its lower threshold is 900, in the Alps it is 1200 m.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 15: 07

That's where the legs grow from.
Kumakov, Korshunov. 1979.

I wonder if Korshunov saw them. But at least "in the coniferous forest".

And I kept looking for the image of the Vitebsk euryale, which came to Korshunov from Kumakov (!). Here it is, lost on the disk - well, at least with a white sash, and not with a golden one. The collector is not marked, the label in my drawing is dead. But I don't really believe in her Belarusian origin.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 16: 15

Pictures:

zhurav_02.jpg — (82.62к)


euryale_Vitebsk2.jpg — (28.35к)


euryale_Vitebsk.jpg — (24.51к)

The dispute about Saratov and Penza euryals resembles another one on the forum: is the fat man extinct or not? Talk about nothing. Maybe falsified finds, or maybe inhabited. A matter of faith. I believe that they did, because we had many taiga species in our region (see above), but they disappeared. Global succession processes. Fauna is never constant. There is no need to argue where faith is concerned. But you can make extrapolations: once mezuda was caught near Voronezh... Employees of the Voronezh Nature Reserve. Instances in its collection. Even the quarter is specified! And one of my friends says: well, I don't believe it. This can't be happening! In today's" Voronezh " biocenoses, where the stations of the taiga zone have practically disappeared,it cannot be. But even 50 years ago, when they remained, it could have been. I believe in the Saratov and Penza Euryals who lived there in the past. I don't believe you stayed today. That's it.

The dispute about Saratov and Penza euryals resembles another one on the forum: is the fat man extinct or not? Talk about nothing. Maybe falsified finds, or maybe inhabited. A matter of faith. I believe that they did, because we had many taiga species in our region (see above), but they disappeared. Global succession processes. Fauna is never constant. There is no need to argue where faith is concerned. But you can make extrapolations: once mezuda was caught near Voronezh... Employees of the Voronezh Nature Reserve. Instances in its collection. Even the quarter is specified! And one of my friends says: well, I don't believe it. This can't be happening! In today's" Voronezh " biocenoses, where the stations of the taiga zone have practically disappeared,it cannot be. But even 50 years ago, when they remained, it could have been. I believe in the Saratov and Penza Euryals who lived there in the past. I don't believe you stayed today. That's all.

Faith is a good thing. But if you ignore it, it is strange why only euryala, one of the most vulnerable species, remains from the taiga fauna. What does this have to do with the medusa, a meadow mesophilic butterfly that has nothing to do with the taiga? It belongs in the Voronezh Region. Its disappearance is unlikely to be caused by climate change-unless there was a hundred-year drought.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 16: 12

The problem of some biologists (I'm not sure that all the people who are talking about this topic have a biological education, but let's use this word) is that they see biota in a constant way. That's what it is now. In these 30-40 years of their adult life. But 50, 70, 100 years ago it was different. There are global successions, the climate is changing, anthropogenic pressure is "growing", some genetic changes are taking place, etc., and all this leads to biotic changes: the disappearance of some species in a certain territory and the appearance of others. Nature is a very plastic and unpredictable "lady", and nothing can be done about it. Here we have already Suvorov trees in the region flew, mantises crawled, the last population of tullia was covered (the swamp finally dried up), poplar tapeworms went to the north... Yes, a lot of things happened even with my not very long life. And someone will shout to me later, in my old age: yes, you're all lying! What ribbons with tullias! I've outlived my brains... Look out the window! Podaliria, briseida, crocea...

What does this have to do with the medusa, a meadow mesophilic butterfly that has nothing to do with the taiga? It belongs in the Voronezh Region. Its disappearance is unlikely to be caused by climate change-unless there was a hundred-year drought.

Maybe you're confusing it with an Ethiopian? We don't have a jellyfish. I was in the Voronezh Nature Reserve-in the glades. A biotope of the Ural forest type, where it now lives.
I'll answer you about alfakariensis later today - I'm still busy...

Somehow you are too categorical!
In the topic "Yolks" it was very, very discussed.

I carefully reread everything, being not much of an expert on jaundice - I only dealt with the hyale / alfacariensis problem east of the Urals. There is no main point in the discussion-confirmation that these yolks are separated by a reproductive barrier and therefore different species. The concepts of "two species" and population/individual variability are discussed. I have not found (perhaps due to inattention) an explicit criticism of the hypothesis that the Southern Russian steppes are a zone of interaction between two hyale subspecies.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 17: 01

Maybe you're confusing it with an Ethiopian? We don't have a jellyfish. I was in the Voronezh Nature Reserve-in the glades. A biotope of the Ural forest type, where it now lives.
I'll answer you about alfakariensis later today - I'm still busy...

No, I don't confuse it with the Ethiopian, and I'm very familiar with the jellyfish. This is a meadow mesophilic butterfly - it does not live in too dry stations.

Faith is a good thing. But if you ignore it, it is strange why only euryala remains from the taiga fauna

And who said that one euryale? Have you read my messages?

And who said that one euryale? Have you read my messages?

I read it, but I didn't notice it in the lists of "taiga complex".
As for the geographically closest euryale to Penza, Korb has it in butterflies of the Nizhny Novgorod region (2006): "It is reliably established only from a few males from the vicinity of the village of Staraya Pustyn in the Arzamas district ... collected in sparse pine forests and near them in dry meadows." Jellyfish are found there in the "middle part of the region".

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 17: 42

This is all clear. but from the southern border of the subtaiga zone to the southernmost point of C. palaeno capture in the steppe, more than 350 km in a straight line! So you can't get knocked up. There are no extrazonal taiga islands in those places.

Tell me, how many instances were caught? More than once I caught migrant butterflies at God knows what distance from the stations. This is how species spread - up to 5% of larger populations (and in some years even more) migrate, flying long distances, until they meet a new suitable station. In addition, belyanki are good fliers. 350 km for the "mad yellow" is not a detour!

As for the UNEXPECTED finds of boreal diary species in the Penza region:
1. Bolshakov L. V., Polumordvinov O. A. 2006. Finding of Leptidea morsei (Fenton, 1882) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in the Penza region // Eversmannia. Entomological research in European Russia and neighboring regions. Issue 5. Tula, pp. 36-37
. 2. Polumordvinov O. A., Kichigin R. M. 2009. Eastern mother-of-pearl Clossiana selenis (Eversmann, 1837) - a new species for the fauna of diurnal butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) Priroda Simbirskogo Povolzhya [Nature of the Simbirsk Volga region]. Collection of scientific works XI mezhregion. Scientific and practical conference "Natural science research in the Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk region", Issue 10, Ulyanovsk: Publishing House "Corporation of Technologies", pp. 200-204.

But I have a question for Sergey Lvovich - can euryale cross with other blackies? will they be viable?

Interestingly, Andrey Tatarinov (Tatarinov and Dolgin, 1999) points out two forms of the euryala inhabiting it and 3 degrees of severity of the sling (111 pages) of its wing pattern.

According to the medusa , I found out that the old references to the Penza and Mordovian territories of this species (Popov, 1901) are obviously explained very simply - in the Lampert atlas, which was then most widely used as a determinant, there was no image of an Ethiopian woman - but a similar jellyfish was depicted...

Thanks! I would be very happy if two geographical subspecies of lowland butterflies turned out to be separate species. ... where the species boundary between the transitional phenotypes of caterpillars and pupae passes is not established.

What about the fact that A and X have different food plants?
And what are the transitional phenotypes of caterpillars? Do you have any images?
Transitional pupal phenotypes?
And you didn't answer the question about where your data came from.

What about the fact that A and X have different food plants?

Nothing. If there are different subspecies, then the food plants are slightly different. As far as I understand, hiale eats 2 species, and A only eats one of them.

And what are the transitional phenotypes of caterpillars? Do you have any images?

See it anywhere, even on the Internet. It's not clear where the border is.

Transitional pupal phenotypes?  

It was stated above that " they differ in caterpillars and pupae." I didn't see any pupae myself.

And you didn't answer the question about where your data came from.

My information about what? May have missed the question, sorry.

As for the UNEXPECTED finds of boreal diary species in the Penza region:
1. Bolshakov L. V., Polumordvinov O. A. 2006. Finding of Leptidea morsei (Fenton, 1882) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in the Penza region // Eversmannia. Entomological research in European Russia and neighboring regions. Issue 5. Tula, pp. 36-37.

This is not surprising.

2. Polumordvinov O. A., Kichigin R. M. 2009. Eastern mother-of-pearl Clossiana selenis (Eversmann, 1837) - a new species for the fauna of diurnal butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) Priroda Simbirskogo Povolzhya [Nature of the Simbirsk Volga region]. Collection of scientific works XI mezhregion. Scientific and practical conference "Natural science research in the Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk region", Issue 10, Ulyanovsk: Publishing House "Corporation of Technologies", pp. 200-204.

Selenis is quite common on the Upper Volga, in the Kama basin. Is the population reliable in the Ulyanovsk region? I don't have this job.

But I have a question for Sergey Lvovich - can euryale cross with other blackies? will they be viable?

I caught 1 hybrid in my life-uryale x ligea, located in the SPMN, I didn't see any others. Erebian groups differ more morphologically than many traditional genera, and hybridization is expected only within the group. I don't remember about the euryale x manto hybrids, but they probably do exist.

Interestingly, Andrey Tatarinov (Tatarinov and Dolgin, 1999) points out two forms of the euryala inhabiting it and 3 degrees of severity of the sling (111 pages) of its wing pattern.

These forms are geographically distributed, one of them is taiga (with white bandages), the other is euryaloides (=flaveoides) (with yellow ones). Tatarinov found the border between them on the railway literally with an accuracy of one kilometer. The severity of the sling seems to be population-specific.

According to the medusa , I found out that the old references to the Penza and Mordovian territories of this species (Popov, 1901) are obviously explained very simply - in the Lampert atlas, which was then most widely used as a determinant, there was no image of an Ethiopian woman - but a similar jellyfish was depicted...

No way! For the Nizhny Novgorod region, it is listed according to modern fees (Korb 2006), and in the Urals it is common. The Penza region is not contraindicated in it at all.

I read it, but I didn't notice it in the lists of "taiga complex".

Tullia and gero (see the mention in the section "Choosing a topic for your dissertation") are not a taiga complex? And I'm not saying that Euryale lived in the Lipetsk region. I have no such facts. I say that theoretically I could live in Penza. It's farther east, and there are more forests there. Winters are colder. The climate is more continental. Intrazonal taiga islands in the local forests are much more represented. Spruce grows there (we have stunted single trees in the very north of the region), there are a lot of wild rosemary, cranberries are no longer uncommon... Local populations of Euryala may well have lived there, in those years of "greater borealism". Probably also in the north of the Saratov region.
In general, I repeat, there is no need to argue here. This is an object of faith. Some people believe in extraterrestrials, others do not believe in literary sources... I have already written that after some time there will be people who will not believe that tullias, gero, poplar tapeworms, etc. were found near Lipetsk. They will say: there was no such thing. Invalid instances. We don't believe it. And you can't change their minds.

One hundred percent. Direct evidence that these two egg yolks are different species will only be confirmation that there is an actual fairly stable reproductive isolation.

The difference between actual reproductive isolation is that sometimes it happens that there is no physiological isolation, but in fact it is (different terms of mating or different types of sexual behavior)
For its isolation, confirmation, you can perform a study of a series of genitalia, if there are clear differences between females and males, you can conduct a study of copulating pairs in places of joint habitation to detect crosses.

Were there any such studies?

If there is even a small but interpenetration of these expected populations, they are no longer species.

All other signs - different food plants, different caterpillars-are not clear signs that may overlap, but this fact may not be detected. Differences in DNA can only be commented on by a specialist, and then, this difference in a good way should be proved by the fact of the presence of isolation.

As for the UNEXPECTED finds of boreal diary species in the Penza region:
1. Bolshakov L. V., Polumordvinov O. A. 2006. Finding of Leptidea morsei (Fenton, 1882) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in the Penza region // Eversmannia. Entomological research in European Russia and neighboring regions. Issue 5. Tula, pp. 36-37
. 2. Polumordvinov O. A., Kichigin R. M. 2009. Eastern mother-of-pearl Clossiana selenis (Eversmann, 1837) - a new species for the fauna of diurnal butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) Priroda Simbirskogo Povolzhya [Nature of the Simbirsk Volga region]. Collection of scientific works XI mezhregion. Scientific and practical conference "Natural science research in the Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk region", Issue 10, Ulyanovsk: Publishing House "Corporation of Technologies", pp. 200-204.

But I have a question for Sergey Lvovich - can euryale cross with other blackies? will they be viable?

Interestingly, Andrey Tatarinov (Tatarinov and Dolgin, 1999) points out two forms of the euryala inhabiting it and 3 degrees of severity of the sling (111 pages) of its wing pattern.

According to the medusa , I found out that the old references to the Penza and Mordovian territories of this species (Popov, 1901) are obviously explained very simply - in the Lampert atlas, which was then most widely used as a determinant, there was no image of an Ethiopian woman - but a similar jellyfish was depicted...

By the way, I read your letter again and realized that I hadn't answered the question whether Kumakov had sent euryalus to Korshunov for identification. No, I did not send them, Korshunov did not see them, and the definition of butterflies is on Kumakov's conscience. Therefore, Korshunov seriously doubted the reality of these euryals.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 18: 09

Tullia and gero (see the mention in the section "Choosing a topic for your dissertation") are not a taiga complex? And I'm not saying that Euryale lived in the Lipetsk region. I have no such facts. I say that theoretically I could live in Penza. It's farther east, and there are more forests there. Winters are colder. The climate is more continental. Intrazonal taiga islands in the local forests are much more represented. Spruce grows there (we have stunted single trees in the very north of the region), there are a lot of wild rosemary, cranberries are no longer uncommon... Local populations of Euryala may well have lived there, in those years of "greater borealism". Probably also in the north of the Saratov region.
In general, I repeat, there is no need to argue here. This is an object of faith. Some people believe in extraterrestrials, others do not believe in literary sources... I have already written that after some time there will be people who will not believe that tullias, gero, poplar tapeworms, etc. were found near Lipetsk. They will say: there was no such thing. Invalid instances. We don't believe it. And you can't change their minds.

Tullia is not taiga, it is tied to peat bogs. Where they exist, there is potentially tullia (along with optilete, eunomia, etc.). Hero is also from the "peat" complex. But, in addition, it is an inhabitant of wet meadows.

One hundred percent. Direct evidence that these two egg yolks are different species will only be confirmation that there is an actual fairly stable reproductive isolation.

The difference between actual reproductive isolation is that sometimes it happens that there is no physiological isolation, but in fact it is (different terms of mating or different types of sexual behavior)
For its isolation, confirmation, you can perform a study of a series of genitalia, if there are clear differences between females and males, you can conduct a study of copulating pairs in places of joint habitation to detect crosses.

Were there any such studies?

If there is even a small but interpenetration of these expected populations, they are no longer species.

All other signs - different food plants, different caterpillars-are not clear signs that may overlap, but this fact may not be detected. Differences in DNA can only be commented on by a specialist, and then, this difference in a good way should be proved by the fact of the presence of isolation.

As far as I know, there are no systematic differences between the genitalia of hyale and alfacariensis - and in general, this is the weakest distinguishing feature between similar whiteflies.

If there are different subspecies, then the food plants are slightly different. As far as I understand, hiale eats 2 species, and A only eats one of them.

Two "subspecies" fly together in the same clearing, imagos differ in appearance, differently colored caterpillars that do not have transitions eat different plants.
With this approach, you can reduce other species to subspecies, for example, Everes spp.

That's it, the topic is gone!
And it was very interesting!
It would be nice to have at least a little understanding of what you write.

Why is it missing? The correct question is: what is the evidence that hyale and alfacariensis are not subspecies in the transition zone, but different species? So far, there are no other justifications from supporters of heterogeneity, except that there are contrasting phenotypes. Whether there are transitional phenotypes is not stated, although European authors mention them. At the same time, it is not even proven that mottled caterpillars grow in alfakariensis, and not in chial! And in Slovakia (in the cohabitation zone), this was not checked. Obtaining the" correct " butterflies from geographically distant caterpillars does not prove the species difference.

Direct evidence that these two egg yolks are different species will only be confirmation that there is an actual fairly stable reproductive isolation.

Were there any such studies?

And, by the way, have there been studies on the presence of reproductive isolation of many other species? Half of the poliomattin pigeons have identical green caterpillars that feed on legumes, and the adults look similar. It turns out that until such studies are conducted, they are all "subspecies"? Or is there something I don't understand?

In order to understand this issue, first of all you need to read the descriptions of these species, has anyone read them? That is, nomenclature acts? After all, these are sort of formally different types.
What criteria are used there?

Then, we need criteria that distinguish these species, and coefficients, as in the usual morphological tables.
What morphological criteria were used in the works of forum members?

The presence of different food plants can prove reproductive isolation, if it can be accurately proved that these two different plants are not suddenly common to similar-looking butterflies and their caterpillars.
Different tracks? It is necessary to prove that the estimated different species of caterpillars are always different, there is no variability.

And, by the way, have there been studies on the presence of reproductive isolation of many other species? Half of the poliomattin pigeons have identical green caterpillars that feed on legumes, and the adults look similar. It turns out that until such studies are conducted, they are all "subspecies"? Or is there something I don't understand?

There is no proof in URL 120-121. Similar pigeons have a long history of study, and no one doubted that they belong to different species. They have stable complexes of distinctive features, different biology, etc. In the case of A-X, we have a problem that needs to be solved, because there are no more advocates of heterogeneity than supporters of conspecificity, and the arguments in favor of both points of view are weighty. This means that we need to prove that alfacarensis is a separate species, and not a geographical subspecies of hyale. You don't need to prove the opposite!

okoem, as specific taxonomists distinguish species in their groups, so it will be The taxonomist is usually guided by a number of traits that indirectly confirm the presence of reproductive isolation, such as differences in genitalia, the number of claws, their length, and the like.
Sometimes it is not possible to investigate the behavior and direct fact of the presence of insulation, there is only dry material, sometimes it is not necessary, because the signs are too clear.
So this question is exclusively for those who are engaged in these pigeons.

As I understand it, these types of jaundice X and A do not have clear signs in morphology?

In order to understand this issue, first of all you need to read the descriptions of these species, has anyone read them? That is, nomenclature acts? After all, these are sort of formally different types.
What criteria are used there?

Then, we need criteria that distinguish these species, and coefficients, as in the usual morphological tables.
What morphological criteria were used in the works of forum members?

The presence of different food plants can prove reproductive isolation, if it can be accurately proved that these two different plants are not suddenly common to similar-looking butterflies and their caterpillars.
Different tracks? It is necessary to prove that the estimated different species of caterpillars are always different, there is no variability.

We've read the descriptions. There is a different set of differences between adults of European hyale and alfacariensis than between South Russian hyale and alfacariensis (the latter was described by Alferaki as saretensis, he considered it a hybrid between hyale and erate). However, these differences are unstable. The differences between the two caterpillar phenotypes are the same in Western Europe and in our steppes, but in the area of cohabitation of taxa, no one has checked whether they strictly correspond (and in general, whether they correspond!)to each other. caterpillar phenotypes to butterfly phenotypes. And it is not known to which species to include caterpillars with poorly expressed signs.

sergenicko, ah, so that's what it is! So the "genetics" referred to here was also done for European species?
So, the type of hyale itself is European and South Russian - is it identical at least?
And the one here in general turns out, it is not clear who to distinguish from whom.

What about genetics?

See my answer in URL 126! Genetic differences are no more obvious than morphological differences, etc., if they do not form a reproductive barrier. Biochemical differences between subspecies that do not form a reproductive barrier are common.