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

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Concept of development of protected areas of the Russian Federation until 2020

Pages: 1 ...4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12... 17

31.01.2012 19:21, sergenicko

Actually, the work was done by a Spaniard, a Russian, a Canadian and an Italian.
You're talking nonsense for nothing.

Although an Ethiopian, the figures do not seem reliable, inflated. We need to look at the source code and find out by what principle mat-l was selected. In short, I don't trust this job yet. If there are similar percentages in a couple of others , I will agree with the species status of alfakariensis.
Percentages, as I understand it, are measured with a ruler at the bottom in the corner. But how precisely are the lines drawn? All this raises questions. The distance between chyale and alfacariensis, the disputed species, is greater than that between the undisputed chrysothemum and myrmidon, not to mention the minimal difference between the very different crocea and erate.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.01.2012 19: 35

31.01.2012 19:49, sergenicko

http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/spix34_1_08.pdf

1,9%

I'm not sure if this figure proves the difference between species. As far as I understand, they started with Bavaria, and then processed all of Germany. But this is too large an area, and the khiale live only in the north. Proof will be figures from a narrow range of shared habitat. Between Edusa and Daplidice, they make up 8.1%, while in northern Italy they behave like subspecies and interbreed fruitfully.
You see, free interbreeding between populations is a stronger argument than the DNA distance. In http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleIma....2307%2F2411208 it is shown that P. edusa and daplidice, and between them in Germany the distance is 8.1%. What prevents subspecies with a distance of 1.9% from existing in this case? There is another rule of thumb: in the zone of interaction between closely related non-interbreeding species, the differences are stronger than between the same species from separate habitats. In the case of chyale and alfakariensis, the situation is the opposite: there are too many undefined imagos (and probably caterpillars) in the places where they live together.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.01.2012 20: 51

31.01.2012 20:22, okoem

The so-called intergradation zone appears, where the differences between subspecies are erased.
....
Specifically, the data are only such that in the Tula forest-steppe there is a mass of hiale, a little alfacariensis (and here while they are the northernmost-then there is a forest field-anthropogenic where there is almost no elm, and a forest zone where it begins to climb extrazonally beyond the strip of large forests along the Oka. And there are butterflies that are intermediate in appearance. According to the genitals, it seems that alfakariensis males have fewer spines on the top of the aedeagus, but there are not 3 of them, as Lvovsky - Blinkers say, but maybe 4-5.

Differences in adult A and X phenotypes are minimal, and the species are variable. It is not clear how intermediate forms can be distinguished in this situation. And where is the confidence in the correct determination, if there is no inference material, i.e. the real local phenotypes of A/X are not known ?
I once found A, X and intermediate forms in the Crimea. Later, it turned out that all these were phenotypes of A.
As for the teeth, the brood A had from 3 to about 6 - 7. I saw more than a dozen in the caught ones.

31.01.2012 21:03, sergenicko

Differences in adult A and X phenotypes are minimal, and the species are variable. It is not clear how intermediate forms can be distinguished in this situation. And where is the confidence in the correct determination, if there is no inference material, i.e. the real local phenotypes of A/X are not known ?
I once found A, X and intermediate forms in the Crimea. Later, it turned out that all these were phenotypes of A.
As for the teeth, the brood A had from 3 to about 6 - 7. I saw more than a dozen in the caught ones.

I was bothered by the doctor who gave out the ultimate truth - that if the DNA distance between populations is 2%, they are necessarily different species. There is a distance of 8.1% between the German (almost non-co-occurring) populations of P. edusa and daplidice. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2411208 specifically studied the zone of their co-existence in northern Italy (south of Genoa) and came to the conclusion that "populations of daplidice and edusa on opposite sides of the hybrid zone share more identical-by-descent allels, than do populations of phenotypically pure daplidice in, say, France and Morocco. Accordingly, we think it best for systematists to consider dusa as a well-marked subspecies of P. daplidice". The situation is very similar to our hyale and alfacariensis-specimens from Italy and Denmark are unmistakably different, and external differences are hardly found between Kharkiv and Voronezh "species". Doesn't this just mean that "undefined" butterflies are hybrids of two subspecies?

31.01.2012 21:44, Seneka

Although an Ethiopian, the figures do not seem reliable, inflated. We need to look at the source code and find out by what principle mat-l was selected. In short, I don't trust this job yet. If there are similar percentages in a couple of others , I will agree with the species status of alfakariensis.
Percentages, as I understand it, are measured with a ruler at the bottom in the corner. But how precisely are the lines drawn? All this raises questions. The distance between chyale and alfacariensis, the disputed species, is greater than that between the undisputed chrysothemum and myrmidon, not to mention the minimal difference between the very different crocea and erate.

Let's then divide the races of people by biochemical characteristics into types.
Or, for example, by the presence of sickle cell anemia.
In appearance, they are also divided into white, yellow, etc.
Many practically do not assimilate, do not interbreed very willingly and eat other food, and do not live nearby.
I am sure that the same percentages for them will be obtained not twice or thrice, but much more.
Do these egg yolks cross? Do they produce fertile offspring?

This post was edited by Seneka - 31.01.2012 21: 51

31.01.2012 22:05, sergenicko

Let's then divide the races of people by biochemical characteristics into types.
Or, for example, by the presence of sickle cell anemia.
In appearance, they are also divided into white, yellow, etc.
Many practically do not assimilate, do not interbreed very willingly and eat other food, and do not live nearby.
I am sure that the same percentages for them will be obtained not twice or thrice, but much more.
Do these egg yolks cross? Do they produce fertile offspring?

That's the problem, it's not tested - unlike daplidice & edusa. Adherents of the "two species" in the Southern Russian and Black Sea steppes claim that both species are so variable that it is often impossible to distinguish them by imago. They are claimed to reliably distinguish between tracks. However, the caterpillars are also different: for example, in the Crimea there are caterpillars almost like hyale, but they are considered caterpillars of alfakariensis by default. No one checked what grows from different caterpillars in the shared habitat area - just during our discussion, we decided to do this, and this is great. References to "foreign experience" are unlikely to help here, since almost all works are devoted to the problem of proving that A and X are different types. Tsifir drew a conclusion that " Wiemers & Fiedler [2007] based on the analysis of a huge amount of material (236348 interspecific comparisons) showed that interspecific differences in DNA sequences in pigeons are 1.9% or more. Similar values are typical for other families of Papilionoidea. There are also a fair number of studies showing that variations in the DNA sequences of Papilionoidea species within, say, the Palearctic are very small and do not have "on the margins" of the area of increased variability." Meanwhile, in Germany, the DNA distance between hyale and alfacariensis is 1.9%, and between edusa and daplidice is 8.1%, but in northern Italy, edusa and daplidice are subspecies that actively interbreed with each other and exchange alleles.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 31.01.2012 22: 22

31.01.2012 22:45, Seneka

That's the problem, it's not tested - unlike daplidice & edusa. Adherents of the "two species" in the Southern Russian and Black Sea steppes claim that both species are so variable that it is often impossible to distinguish them by imago. They are claimed to reliably distinguish between tracks. However, the caterpillars are also different: for example, in the Crimea there are caterpillars almost like hyale, but they are considered caterpillars of alfakariensis by default. No one checked what grows from different caterpillars in the shared habitat area - just during our discussion, we decided to do this, and this is great. References to "foreign experience" are unlikely to help here, since almost all works are devoted to the problem of proving that A and X are different types. Tsifir drew a conclusion that " Wiemers & Fiedler [2007] based on the analysis of a huge amount of material (236348 interspecific comparisons) showed that interspecific differences in DNA sequences in pigeons are 1.9% or more. Similar values are typical for other families of Papilionoidea. There are also a fair number of studies showing that variations in the DNA sequences of Papilionoidea species within, say, the Palearctic are very small and do not have "on the margins" of the area of increased variability." Meanwhile, in Germany, the DNA distance between hyale and alfacariensis is 1.9%, and between edusa and daplidice is 8.1%, but in northern Italy, edusa and daplidice are subspecies that actively interbreed with each other and exchange alleles.

They live there over the hill in a different scientific reality, creating new science right in front of our eyes. Among the twin species of the Anopheles maculipennis complex, there are examples of the mechanism of speciation, in which new species could arise in nature, for 1-2 generations, as a result of systemic rearrangements of chromosomes. At the same time, there should have been no external morphological differences in the first generation. Genetically, the new species may differ less than different populations of the ancestral species, but at the oocyte stage, the intracellular architecture differs so much that hybrids are not formed. Later, as a result of multiple rearrangements already within the species, genetic differences accumulate, which is what we are seeing now.

This post was edited by Seneka - 31.01.2012 23: 10

31.01.2012 23:02, sergenicko

They live there over the hill in a different scientific reality, creating new science right in front of our eyes. Among the twin species in the genus Anopheles, there are examples of the mechanism of speciation, in which a new species can arise in nature, for 1-2 generations, as a result of systemic rearrangements of chromosomes. At the same time, there will be no external morphological differences. Genetically, they will differ less than different populations of the same species, but at the oocyte stage, the intracellular architecture will differ so much that hybrids will not form at all. Then, of course, genetic differences accumulate, which is what we are seeing now.

What just does not happen. But then there was a specific problem that was practically solved (to grow butterflies from certain caterpillars). And the discussion has grown into a useful and useless "theory".

Likes: 1

31.01.2012 23:20, Wild Yuri

I turned to Oleg Kosterin, a leading expert in the field of butterfly taxonomy.

Good afternoon, Oleg! On the entomological forum of molbiola (I think you know about it), another dispute arose about hiale and alfakariensis: are they species or subspecies? In the Voronezh Region, both taxa are found together as a population "cocktail": on the chalk hills - alfakariensis, on the meadows at their foot-hiale. Along the edge of the hills, taxa touch and fly together, and both often migrate to each other's stations. There is no doubt that these are hiale and alfakariesis. Butterflies, different food plants differ in the series, and, most importantly, I bred the caterpillars of those and other taxa that differed exactly as shown in the literature for them. Since there is no geographical and seasonal isolation between taxa, and butterflies are mixed in significant numbers, I do not think that they can be subspecies, but by all criteria of population biology they should be species. What is your opinion on this issue?

Oleg Kosterin's answer:

Of course the views! Subspecies cannot live on the same territory, because the essence is precisely the form of geographical variability - they always occupy certain areas, are connected with other subspecies by narrower transitions, but never together. Monogenic morphs can live together, but if several apparently independent traits are correlated, this is an indication of reproductive isolation and, therefore, a clear indication of the species status. Actually, you listed the arguments in favor of this status yourself.

(kosterin@bionet.nsc.ru)

Likes: 1

31.01.2012 23:36, sergenicko

I turned to Oleg Kosterin, a leading expert in the field of butterfly taxonomy.

Good afternoon, Oleg! On the entomological forum of molbiola (I think you know about it), another dispute arose about hiale and alfakariensis: are they species or subspecies? In the Voronezh Region, both taxa are found together as a population "cocktail": on the chalk hills - alfakariensis, on the meadows at their foot-hiale. Along the edge of the hills, taxa touch and fly together, and both often migrate to each other's stations. There is no doubt that these are hiale and alfakariesis. Butterflies, different food plants differ in the series, and, most importantly, I bred the caterpillars of those and other taxa that differed exactly as shown in the literature for them. Since there is no geographical and seasonal isolation between taxa, and butterflies are mixed in significant numbers, I do not think that they can be subspecies, but by all criteria of population biology they should be species. What is your opinion on this issue?

Oleg Kosterin's answer:

Of course the views! Subspecies cannot live on the same territory, because the essence is precisely the form of geographical variability - they always occupy certain areas, are connected with other subspecies by narrower transitions, but never together. Monogenic morphs can live together, but if several apparently independent traits are correlated, this is an indication of reproductive isolation and, therefore, a clear indication of the species status. Actually, you listed the arguments in favor of this status yourself.

(kosterin@bionet.nsc.ru)

Oleg answered correctly, only the message to him was inadequate to the essence. "Migrating"," touching " - mostly indeterminate butterflies.
Here is a mostly written text about 2 subspecies of arion in the Novosibirsk region, with which the authors of the article (including yours truly) worked very seriously:

"The subspecies M. arion rueli is characteristic of the steppe, forest-steppe and Priobsky forests in the western part of the region up to the Ob Valley. On the eastern bank of the Ob River, it is found in the valleys of small rivers, the Priobsky forests, and reaches the Gorny settlement in the Bugotak hills, where it is recorded in a joint summer with M. arion cyanecula. These taxa differ sharply in the area occupied by the brilliant greenish coating of the underside of the wing of cyanecula, which extends from the root to the basal black spots in rueli (Fig. 2a) and to the submarginal row of spots (i.e., occupies most of the wing area) in cyanecula (Fig. 2c). In the right-bank floodplain forests and Bugotak hills, there are transitional forms with deposition reaching up to a postdiscal series of black dots (Fig. 2b). The range of M. arion cyanecula in the Novosibirsk region has not been studied; the butterflies are collected only in the Bugotak hills near the village of Gorny. Thus, in the east of the Novosibirsk Region, there is a border between two subspecies that differ greatly in habit (we did not find any differences in genitalia between them, see also [Sibatani et al., 1994]), and in the valley of the Siberian River. The Ob River and the lower reaches of the rivers flowing into it from the east contain a "zone of uncertainty", where both "pure" representatives of M. arion rueli and its hybrids with M. arion cyanecula are found. < ... > Differences in the ecological affinity of various forms indicate their species status, the presence of transitions – about subspecies. Most likely, we are dealing with well-defined subspecies or even "semispecies" - vast geographically separated gene pools that did not have time to acquire non-crossing barriers during isolation, which leads to hybridization in the secondary contact zone. The further fate of such "half-species" may consist either in acquiring reproductive isolation during selection against hybrids, or in complete transgression and merging into one species. "(Ivonin, Kosterin, Nikolaev, 2011).

The ecological distribution of arion forms is described above in the same article. Exactly this is what I assume in relation to the two types of yolks. If there are hybrids, then subspecies; if there are no hybrids, then species.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 00: 02

31.01.2012 23:47, sergenicko

But the text is mainly by Kosterin in Ivonin, Kosterin, Nikolaev, 2011 in connection with the Novosibirsk eros (of which there is 1 species, although phenotypically eroides=krulikowskyi and erotides). For the sake of this conclusion, I sifted through a huge amount of material throughout Asian Russia and caught several unnoticed signs.

"There is no doubt that the material from the Novosibirsk region belongs to the same species. Its taxonomic attribution is rather problematic, given that the top color of males has traditionally been used as a subspecies trait, which, in our opinion, is often erroneous. Recently, researchers have tended to assign separate species status to such taxa as Polyommatus eroides (Frivalszkyi, 1835), P. boisduvalii (Herrich-Schäffer, [1844]), P. erotides (Staudinger, 271), and P. kamtschadalus (Sheljuzhko, 1933) (=extremiorientalis (Kurentzov, 1970); = taimyrensis Korshunov, 1982) [Gorbunov, 2001; Gorbunov and Kosterin, 2003; Stradomsky et al., 2006; Stradomsky and Polumordvinov, 2007]. According to our observations, the differences in male genitalia (in particular, the shape of valvae) between these hypothetical species, which are based on the analysis of a small number of specimens by B. V. Stradomsky et al. (see above), are not constant. These are typical quantitative traits that exhibit intra-and inter-population variability; differences between subspecies based on these traits can only be statistical in nature, and here it is possible that there are sufficiently wide latitude and/or longitude wedges, rather than narrow transition zones between subspecies. An equally unreliable distinguishing feature is the ratio of thigh/shin/tarsus lengths of the forelegs (cf. [Gorbunov, 2001: 144-145]). In this regard, we believe that all of the above taxa are subspecies of Polyommatus eros (Ochsenheimer, [1808]). It is likely that the only good species from the eros group in the fauna of Russia is the Far Eastern P. tsvetaevi( Kurentzov, 1970), which significantly differs from other taxa in the structure of the valva and the relative length of the aedeagus.
Two papers by B. V. Stradomsky et al. on Asian territories cited by the NMI show that the northern taxon kamtshadalus is not counted. Judging by the small size, very small spots on the lower side of the Cr, and a number of postdiscal spots "shifted" to the west of the CR, this is the specimen from the Urik River in the Eastern Sayan, assigned by the authors to P. e. krulikowskyi, which is the basis for their proposed distribution of the eastern range of this taxon up to the Baikal region [Stradomsky and Polumordvinov, 2007]. kamtshadalus also closely resembles Polyommatus pacificus Stradomsky et Tuzov, 2006 (Stradomsky et al., 2006) described from the Pacific coast of Primorye (although it is geographically the closest taxon to P. tsvetaevi).
It is noteworthy that later B. V. Stradomsky abruptly changed his taxonomic point of view to the opposite, and in [Volodazhsky and Stradomsky, 2008], based on the extremely high similarity of the sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene, he recognized the taxa eros, eroides Frivaldszky, 1835, and P. eros as conspecific and belonging to a single species. tshetverikovi Nekrutenko, 1977, meoticus Zhdanko et Stshurov, 1998, erotulus Nekrutenko, 1985, and taimyrensis Korshunov, 1982. The South Ural and South Siberian taxa were not included in this study, but the material from the Polar Urals was identified as taimyrensis, a taxon that we consider to be a synonym of kamtshadalus, i.e., a representative of the most distinct branch in the eros group in terms of external and morphological features, as well as the European taxa eros s. srt. and eroides, different from each other no less than boisduvalii and erotides. Even if taimyrensis accumulated only 0.3% of substitutions in the COI gene compared to eros s. str., there is no doubt that all Siberian representatives of the eros group accumulated no more differences than the taxa analyzed. Molecular traits are a powerful tool for reconstructing phylogeny – both the time of divergence of organisms and the branching topology of the phylogenetic tree. However, the use of certain DNA sequences for this purpose is based on a constant or close to constant rate of accumulation of substitutions in them (the so-called "molecular clock"). At the same time, the emergence of biological species – speciation, or rather the acquisition of reproductive barriers – does not occur continuously, but occurs under specific conditions (usually in small isolated populations on the periphery of the range) over relatively short periods of time (from tens to hundreds of thousands of years). For this reason, contrary to widespread misconceptions, molecular phylogenetic analysis is not able to answer such a pressing question – whether two specific populations belong to the same species or to different ones. The tree of biological species does not have to be congruent to the tree of population phylogeny. To solve this problem, time-consuming population-genetic studies are required, especially in the areas of contact of the proposed species. In this regard, we cannot consider the "molecular arguments" of the cited authors to be decisive. However, their conclusions coincide with our speculative ideas about the conspecificity of European and Siberian taxa in the group of eros species."

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 00: 32