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

Tell me, how many instances were caught?

already wrote that 4 and absolutely fresh!

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.

Genetics were made for geographically remote butterflies - in Europe (except Slovakia and other small areas), hyale and alfacariensis are geographically vikar. Hiale (without alfacariensis) is approximately the same everywhere, only Yakut butterflies claim subspecies status. As for the southern Russian steppes, there are gradual transitions between the extreme phenotypes of "hiale" and "alfacariensis", and in general, the "species" cannot be distinguished by eye.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 19: 04

Well, if the genetic analysis was done correctly, for samples, and interpreted by a specialist, then it may well be evidence-based. Do the descriptions use genetic data? For the sample, individuals were taken not from Z. Europe? If so, then basically different types..

PS
Wrote and already answered!
Well, now everything is clear-of course, it is interesting, ideally, to make a gene analysis for local species, or to find good morphological differences. At least from caterpillars to adults to grow, from the offspring of different females, I would do the same, but now other plans

This post was edited by Hierophis - 30.01.2012 19: 12

The first thing to find out is whether there is a reproductive barrier between hyale and alfacariensis.

They fly together in the same area - the vicinity of the Divnogorye Nature Reserve in the Voronezh Region, in the Pavlovsk, Lisok and other places. Geographical isolation in each location - no more than 100 meters. Alfakariensis fly on the chalk hill, and hiale flies on the meadow below. They meet along the borders of biotopes and probably even fly after each other. But if they mated, these two subspecies (as you call them) would no longer exist in a few generations, they would mix and form one common!

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.

In transition zones - on the borders of ranges, but not inside, in the form of a "mixture" of contacting populations!

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!

Reinforced concrete!

"Lavr Fedotovich finally tired of this difficulty, and, interrupting the speaker, he uttered only one word:
"That's not convincing.
A heavy thud rang out. A large Round Seal bit into my application." ©

I'm so sorry, but I couldn't resist... Nothing, as they say, personal, just, IMHO, your logic is broken.

You say that there is a clinal variability in the tracks. Please provide links!

Wild Yuri, why would they merge into one common species?? These subspecies did not appear 100 years ago and not 1000 years ago! Enough small focal and time-separated interpenetration of honey between these two groups and all-your "species" are already blurred.

In my understanding, a "species" still needs a more stable isolation - and as a result, there would be morphological differences.

They fly together in the same area - the vicinity of the Divnogorye Nature Reserve in the Voronezh Region, in the Pavlovsk, Lisok and other places. Geographical isolation in each location - no more than 100 meters. Alfakariensis fly on the chalk hill, and hiale flies on the meadow below. They meet along the borders of biotopes and probably even fly after each other. But if they mated, these two subspecies (as you call them) would no longer exist in a few generations, they would mix and form one common!

In transition zones - on the borders of ranges, but not inside, in the form of a "mixture" of contacting populations!

Why not "mixtures", it also happens. Cases when standard geographical subspecies in a shared habitat become ecological are not so rare. And hybridization occurs at the borders of local microareals. The speed of complete mixing of subspecies in this case should not be overestimated.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 19: 25

In transition zones - on the borders of ranges, but not inside, in the form of a "mixture" of contacting populations!

By the way, the full text of Porter and Co. ' s article on Pontii is here: http://people.umass.edu/aporter/pubs/Porte...l_Evol_1997.pdf

But Kharkovbut figured it out! And Voronezh entomologists dealt with local hiale and alfakariensis. Large differences in imago in the series, caterpillars radically different, pupae... Different stations: khyale has meadows, and alfakariensis has dry steppe "uvalys" and various forage plants. Clearly two different views.

What are the main differences between imagos in the series? Quote, please?
because on the question of the presence of morph. differences there was a stormy silence

What are the main differences between imagos in the series? Quote, please?

The topic is "Colias", it is discussed there in okoem's post two hundred and some, I have already given the link three times...

Reinforced concrete!

"Lavr Fedotovich finally tired of this difficulty, and, interrupting the speaker, he uttered only one word:
"That's not convincing.
A heavy thud rang out. A large Round Seal bit into my application." ©

I'm so sorry, but I couldn't resist... Nothing, as they say, personal, just, IMHO, your logic is broken.

You say that there is a clinal variability in the tracks. Please provide links!

No, it's not broken. There are several proofs of the existence of God, but not a single proof of non-existence exists. Because it can't exist in principle.
As for the caterpillars, I think there are a lot of photos in the "Colias" section. The only permanent distinguishing feature is the black spines, presumably in alfakariensis. However, no one has shown that only butterflies with habitus A are produced from such caterpillars in common habitats, and only X is produced from caterpillars without black spines. It goes without saying that, for example, in Turkey there is only A for adults and caterpillars, and in Denmark only X for them. But this is not proof that A and X are different species.

The topic is "Colias", it is discussed there in okoem's post two hundred and some, I have already given the link three times...

The problem is that the series are randomly selected. With marginal phenotypes, it is clear, but what is between them is grouped based on the fact that we are necessarily looking at two species. The French tried to tell the difference between the imagos of their chiale and alfacariensis (they do not meet together, but geographically close enough), and nothing really worked out. There are "cores" with a cloudy transition zone between them.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 19: 40

No, it's not broken. There are several proofs of the existence of God, but not a single proof of non-existence exists. Because it can't exist in principle.

I don't see what connection this has with the A-X case.

To put it bluntly, my colleague Hooke just summed it up. I have nothing to add.

The French tried to tell the difference between the imagos of their chiale and alfacariensis (they do not meet together, but geographically close enough), and nothing really worked out. There are "cores" with a cloudy transition zone between them.

Link, link!

Some kind of throwback to forty years ago.
For me, it's like this.
There are genetic differences.
There are differences in appearance.
There are differences in the genitals.
There is a correlation between genitals and appearance.
There are differences in preimaginal stages.
In the Volgograd region, these two species have different ecological preferences: A flies exclusively in the cretaceous.
My data coincide with the European results, and with the results of V. Savchuk and E. Karolinsky.

You have listed the typical differences between the two subspecies, which in most areas of their habitat are simply geographical, while in your case they are ecological. Two subspecies have developed preferences during their separate existence that do not break down immediately. Chyale is a northern subspecies, mesophilic, meadow; alfakariensis is southern, its main range is dry substropics.

What data with what results???

Here is a quote from that article

"For the Kharkiv region, C. hyale was previously cited [7, 6, 2, 5, 4]. However
, currently there are no known methods for reliably distinguishing the imago
of this species from the imago of C. alfacariensis by studying morphological
features (including genitalia) [12, 10], and therefore it
is very likely that there were errors in determining the material. At the same time, reliable
identification of species is possible based on external characteristics of caterpillars [9, 12, 1].
Our data refer to females from which
eggs were obtained and caterpillars were bred under laboratory conditions; thus, the reliability
of our material determination is beyond doubt. We indicate C.
alfacariensis as a new species for the fauna of the Kharkiv region and confirm the presence of C. hyale in
the fauna of the region. Both species were observed sympatrically and synchronously.
"
What does it say about morphological features?
And after information about the variability of caterpillars, you can write "no doubt"?


Some kind of throwback to forty years ago.
For me, it's like this.
There are genetic differences. * there is no genetic analysis for the discussed populations
, there are differences in appearance. * which no one really can give
There are differences in the genitals. * which are denied in the article mentioned, the most reliable signs
are the correlation between genitals and appearance. * it is not clear from where if see above
There are differences in preimaginal stages. * insufficient data

Here will be the norm. genetic analysis of local populations - then hell, the rest is life in an imaginary world.

Link, link!

http://www.scribd.com/xmerit/d/20684937-BL...e-alfacariensis NB: The article examines butterflies from different regions of France. Unfortunately, the origin of specific instances is not specified.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 19: 56

Did the "French" study the signs of imago? I wonder why exactly the signs of imago should shed crucial light on this question. What kind of imagocentrism is this? Imagine that there are no visible differences between imagos at all. Well, no. What then is inevitably one species?

In general, I unsubscribe from this discussion - it was interesting, but the result was not impressive. Only self-confidence and mutual encouragement.
The rest is already a matter of faith, so for all those who are interested-in accordance with the Law. subject

Here is a quote from that article

...

What does it say about morphological features?
And after information about the variability of caterpillars, you can write "no doubt"?

Nothing is written about the morphological features of imago in the article. This is a faunal article; we did not set out to prove the species differences between X and A. However, imagos from the brood series mentioned in the article are exhibited by okoem in the topic "Colias".

What is this information about caterpillar variability? Where is this information? Did I miss something?

Well, here is another article on the topic. http://dare.uva.nl/document/40380. Views confirmed!

Well, here is another article on the topic. http://dare.uva.nl/document/40380. Views confirmed!

The article carefully examines the biochemical differences between geographically distant populations. So what if they group them in two types - they could also group them in 5.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 20: 04

Why not "mixtures", it also happens. Cases when standard geographical subspecies in a shared habitat become ecological are not so rare. And hybridization occurs at the borders of local microareals.

Microareals! When one" network " of some populations contacts point-by-point with another, for example, at the point where different mountain ranges meet. But not on the Voronezh plain, where there is a population cocktail of hiale and alfakarinsis! Where populations contact in a broad front!

Microareals! When one" network " of some populations contacts point-by-point with another, for example, at the point where different mountain ranges meet. But not on the Voronezh plain, where there is a population cocktail of hiale and alfakarinsis! Where populations contact in a broad front!

You yourself say that, despite the cocktail, they are ecologically different.

Well, here is another article on the topic. http://dare.uva.nl/document/40380. Views confirmed!

We know this article.

In the" French " article, by the way, there is also no doubt that A and X are different types. As far as I understood after a cursory review of the article, a mathematical probabilistic method for determining imago based on morphometry is proposed. It is clear that it cannot give a 100% reliable result. This is not the only original article, but there is also a similar article by Czech authors (Vacha and Povolny, 1983). IMHO, if such methods work, then for a narrow territory. We tried to apply the results of Vakhi-Povolny to our instances - it doesn't work.

Where is the genetic analysis for the discussed populations? Not.. it's not serious. Too much for a subspecies.. The last time I will try - You already and sergenicko wrote the same-types A and X exist, but within Z. Europe. It is not a fact that these are also species in local populations; they may also be overlapping populations. To prove it, we need a series of morphological differences, no matter who has them: caterpillars, eggs, pupae, and adults. It's just that sometimes you get the impression that no one is theor here. I didn't study biology and didn't read textbooks) Even gen. analysis is not needed, although I am for the pier. sitematics. In general, all this is difficult

Wild Yuri, you should at least read the article

Individuals of both C. alfacariensis and C. hyale were sampled for an allozyme study in France and Italy in the summer of 1992.

We know this article.

In the" French " article, by the way, there is also no doubt that A and X are different types. As far as I understood after a cursory review of the article, a mathematical probabilistic method for determining imago based on morphometry is proposed. It is clear that it cannot give a 100% reliable result. This is not the only original article, but there is also a similar article by Czech authors (Vacha and Povolny, 1983). IMHO, if such methods work, then for a narrow territory. We tried to apply the results of Vakhi-Povolny to our instances - it doesn't work.

The French have just "succeeded" - they claim that there is a 99% difference in species by imago. But they had butterflies drawn from all over France.

Vacha, Povolny, p. 98-no hyale and australis from the same place. In Pannonicum (i.e. in the steppe) only hyale (?!). The same picture as in the north of Italy and France - a mosaic, probably ecologically determined.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 30.01.2012 22: 18

The French just "got it"

Well, so much the better. I'll have to read more carefully at my leisure.

You yourself say that, despite the cocktail, they are ecologically different.

Some fly on the hill, others at the base. Both fly at the border. In the mass. How can genetic isolation occur?

Some fly on the hill, others at the base. Both fly at the border. In the mass. How can genetic isolation occur?

And it doesn't exist. Genetic differences of subspecies have formed in nuclear ranges, but they do not prevent the fertility of hybrids. About a third of adults in the hybridization zones (in particular, in the Kharkiv region, I did not see Voronezh ones) do not know what "species" they belong to. And what comes out of different caterpillars-let's wait for the summer!

Where is the genetic analysis for the discussed populations? Not.. it's not serious. Too much for a subspecies.. The last time I will try - You already and sergenicko wrote the same-types A and X exist, but within Z. Europe. It is not a fact that these are also species in local populations; they may also be overlapping populations. To prove it, we need a series of morphological differences, no matter who has them: caterpillars, eggs, pupae, and adults. It's just that sometimes you get the impression that no one is theor here. I didn't study biology and didn't read textbooks) Even gen. analysis is not needed, although I am for the pier. sitematics. In general, all this is difficult

Wild Yuri, you should at least read the article

Individuals of both C. alfacariensis and C. hyale were sampled for an allozyme study in France and Italy in the summer of 1992.

I never thought I'd get into a discussion about hiale! It all started with the mythical Euryale from Serdobsk.

sergenicko, it's just that this topic is close to me in some way, I was trying to do something at the time, and I also came across all these incomprehensible problems with yolks, and not only that. It's a long way to Euryale, so I don't know anything about them

In general, questions are answered with silence. Everyone sees clear differences, everyone "respects" each other, everyone held something in their hands, and in the general biological sense, no one has formed a lot of subjectivism. Although take the same French article - there should be no problems at all with imago or with anything.

And after information about the variability of caterpillars, you can write "no doubt"?

Information on the variability of caterpillars has not yet been provided. "View online" links are not information.

There is no proof in URL 120-121.

URL 120-121 was a question, not a proof. You have evaded the question.
As for the transitional phenotypes of caterpillars, you also evaded the question.
Selective responses to questions are one of the signs of trolling.
I don't want to continue the argument, I'm sorry.

There are several proofs of the existence of God,

Amen.

And it doesn't exist. Genetic differences of subspecies have formed in nuclear ranges, but they do not prevent the fertility of hybrids. About a third of adults in the hybridization zones (in particular, in the Kharkiv region, I did not see Voronezh ones) do not know what "species" they belong to. And what comes out of different caterpillars-let's wait for the summer!

Let's wait. Which series should you catch? After all, you still need to have imagos, both of them for analysis. Geneticists will need to be involved... In general, I am ready to grow and catch. (More precisely, the familiar "babochnik", because I myself will be in distant lands in the summer).

Why aren't there any answers to my questions? The questions are quite specific.
Data should be objective, and not based on the principle "you're my friend, so I'm in favor".

sergenicko, in general, I am also ready to help, I have the resources - I have the opportunity to digest, I have binoculars, and some other opportunities, I know where to catch them, in general, if there is a desire and opportunities for the season, I will try to catch a series, and we'll see!
It may be true that one of the expected taxa is missing, but let's see, in principle, the criteria are in the article

From three times.. I will try, because the genetic analysis for specific South Russian populations has not been performed, and specific objective morphological features for these populations have not been established. And everyone writes that everything is sorted out

If we have already switched to medusa, then in the old works it was indicated for many areas, in modern ones - for very few. The view seems to disappear. Moreover, it disappears more sharply than Apollo and many others. And of course, this is not a boreal species, but a non-moral one-the south of the forest zone+forest steppe. Indeed, the Penza region is the place for her. But all the boreal species there are found exclusively in the western corner-Kuznetsky district, the junction with the Ulyanovsk region and Mordovia! There is nothing like this from Serdobsky. Of course, you can "believe" that there was something there, but only at the forum level.
There was also a mention of Egeria. Indeed, it was rare in the Tula and more northern regions (very little data is available from the southern regions) until about 2002. Indeed, it was caught mainly in mixed forests. But then it went to settle, and now it is a widespread eurytopic forest species. Apparently, this "wave" has just reached Penza.
But in the North Caucasus, egeria is one of the common species (in the mid-1980s). So it's not a boreal species in any way, but it's a non-moral one. I am inclined to attribute the fact that mixed and coniferous forests are confined to the north to their better heating capacity compared to the old broad-leaved forests. In addition, if mixed forests on the sands, then these are the most xerothermal forest biotopes in the middle zone. In the Tula region, according to long-term phenological observations, the flight of butterflies in the west (in pine-mixed forests on sands) occurs simultaneously or even earlier than in the south-east in open sedimentary biotopes on chernozems. And in the strip of old broad-leaved forests in the center (Tula zaseki), it is delayed by 1-1. 5 weeks.

I'm sorry, in Penza boreal-in the EASTERN corner-the border with Ulyanovsk.

sergenicko, it's just that this topic is close to me in some way, I was trying to do something at the time, and I also came across all these incomprehensible problems with yolks, and not only that. It's a long way to Euryale, so I don't know anything about them

In general, questions are answered with silence. Everyone sees clear differences, everyone "respects" each other, everyone held something in their hands, and in the general biological sense, no one has formed a lot of subjectivism. Although take the same French article - there should be no problems with imago or anything at all.

If the article had been written on borderline material, I'm sure the results would have been different. And they took aggregate data for the whole of France-naturally, " taxa "(species, subspecies is not important) they were statistically different. No one disputes the contrast between hyale and alfacariensis, as well as between jurtina and janira. But satyrs were not declared separate species (although they tried), and the yolks were not lucky. Although hyale and alfacariensis do not cohabit anywhere except in the South Russian steppes. In my opinion, there is a transition zone between two subspecies of C. hyale, the hybridization of which is rejected a priori by the defenders of the two species.