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

They do not live together judging by the reports of participants who are even for separate species!

Roman, you're not reading carefully. I have already written that they live together.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand this post, in the part that concerns "two Phoebus".
Please explain.

Phoebe and mystical tolona (subspecies-sassanides). Kolesnichenko probably knows the price of tolone, I didn't deal with phoebes.

Roman, you're not reading carefully. I have already written that they live together.
You can see the correlation for yourself if you remove the imago, as I said before, but you said you were too lazy to remove it
Formally-types.

Guys, this is a fairy tale about a white bull. In the Crimea, by all accounts, there is no hyale, but only alfacariensis. Since geographically this is the closest place to the South Russian steppes, you need to "dance" from there. It is claimed that A and X differ in their tracks. However, in the Crimea, A has tracks that would probably be considered hyale tracks near Voronezh: http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/1_Pieridae/...1124-113242.jpg. To what extent is this consistent with the claim that species are reliably distinguished by their caterpillars?

Please take a look at this:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=187326&st=100#
Post 145 et seq.

I haven't studied Phoebe, and I don't know much about her. I asked Kosterin, here is his answer: "The view is now recognized by everyone, Pavel was convinced between the books. John Tennent even specially came to Orenburg for her. But the name punica is an unmistakable mistake of Gorbunov, which he also recognized after the book was published (the name was proposed for butterflies from the Phoebe species) In Europe, this second species is called Melitaea telona. Chikolovets, in his last determinant of Europe and the Mediterranean Region, attributed the name ornata to it as a valid species."So ornata, not punica. I knew this species as telona.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 11: 30

One more thing.
Please check out the latest posts in Zheltushki.
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=214195&st=300#
You can leave a response there, so that further discussion can be moved there.

I looked at it and answered it. Thank you.

By the way, I have another suggestion - there is no Hyale species in Ukraine, but only Alfakariensis, whose caterpillar variability is explained by trophic preferences or intraspecific variability, because according to the cladogram from Boron-Alfakariensis has a certain intraspecific variability.

In general, here only the onset of the season will show what's what

To prove or disprove this hypothesis, it is necessary to detect or not detect the variability of caterpillars within species A, and the presence of hybridization where the supposed A and X live. By the way, in principle, not X and G Although one of the other is Still interseno why many people write "croceus", because colias is she, and Croceus is he

Here is an opportunity to check whether there is hybridization can Kharkovbut, if of course it is interesting to him, but it turns out that in the south of the Mykolaiv region there is still such an assumption that X is not present.

About what they write about subspecies in textbooks - that they can't live together - this is pure office nonsense.
The range of each species (if it is not eurybiont and ubiquitous) is dynamic under the influence of climate and biocenotic changes. For example, during some favorable period, a species has settled the maximum range. A cold snap has set in, the forest or the sea has overflowed, and the area has fragmented into isolates. In isolates, first local areas of subspecies are identified, which can evolve into species., i.e. these are proto-species and if the warm phase has occurred, the forest has dried up or the sea has receded, then the areas of subspecies/proto-species can reconnect. If subspecies / proto-species have not evolved into species, they will naturally interbreed. But since the activity radii of butterflies are small, the crossing will be in a narrow contact band - the intergradation zone. This is often referred to as"clinal variability". In fact, a huge number of interacting subspecies are observed in nature: some have a very narrow intergradation zone, others have it somewhere, somewhere not, and others have reached hundreds of km due to the high mobility and eurytopicity of adults. Unwillingness to deal with this has led to the emergence of armchair theories of "clinal variability" and the widespread recognition of only narrowly localized static subspecies as geographical isolates. In addition, this nonsense is compounded by attempts to establish certain" percentages " of variability, when to count subspecies and when not.
And about the" two Phoebes " in the Urals, Korb and I decided like this: the fact that the recently discovered "2nd Phoebe" - telona - is quite well proven, especially just by Gennady Kuznetsov. But then it is ornata - you need to check the standard material of ornata - no one has done this yet, which means that ornata is not there YET.
About erate and crosea - very similar to the secondary intergradation of widely diverged subspecies. But there seemed to be only one work-you can't always trust the mechanics, sometimes you get methodically bad experiments - you need new experiments.

there are a lot of things written here, like on the fence

About what they write about subspecies in textbooks - that they can't live together - this is pure office nonsense.
The range of each species (if it is not eurybiont and ubiquitous) is dynamic under the influence of climate and biocenotic changes. For example, during some favorable period, a species has settled the maximum range. A cold snap has set in, the forest or the sea has overflowed, and the area has fragmented into isolates. In isolates, first local areas of subspecies are identified, which can evolve into species., i.e. these are proto-species and if the warm phase has occurred, the forest has dried up or the sea has receded, then the areas of subspecies/proto-species can reconnect. If subspecies / proto-species have not evolved into species, they will naturally interbreed. But since the activity radii of butterflies are small, the crossing will be in a narrow contact band - the intergradation zone. This is often referred to as"clinal variability". In fact, a huge number of interacting subspecies are observed in nature: some have a very narrow intergradation zone, others have it somewhere, somewhere not, and others have reached hundreds of km due to the high mobility and eurytopicity of adults. Unwillingness to deal with this has led to the emergence of armchair theories of "clinal variability" and the widespread recognition of only narrowly localized static subspecies as geographical isolates. In addition, this nonsense is compounded by attempts to establish certain" percentages " of variability, when to count subspecies and when not.
And about the" two Phoebes " in the Urals, Korb and I decided like this: the fact that the recently discovered "2nd Phoebe" - telona - is quite well proven, especially just by Gennady Kuznetsov. But then it is ornata - you need to check the standard material of ornata - no one has done this yet, which means that ornata is not there YET.
About erate and crosea - very similar to the secondary intergradation of widely diverged subspecies. But there seemed to be only one work-you can't always trust the mechanics, sometimes you get methodically bad experiments - you need new experiments.

It happens in different ways, and each type must be studied individually. The "thresholds" and "universals" that are set from time to time (except for the obvious ones) are not absolute, but statistical. Gradational variability naturally exists, but it does not describe all events even on flat plains, such as the West Siberian Lowland. In these conditions, a wedge is more common than painful showdowns between "half-species". Kuznetsov lured me to the forum "Zheltushki", so now I'm there, if anything.

I haven't studied Phoebe, and I don't know much about her. I asked Kosterin, here is his answer: "The view is now recognized by everyone, Pavel was convinced between the books. John Tennent even specially came to Orenburg for her. But the name punica is an unmistakable mistake of Gorbunov, which he also recognized after the book was published (the name was proposed for butterflies from the Phoebe species) In Europe, this second species is called Melitaea telona. Chikolovets, in his last determinant of Europe and the Mediterranean Region, attributed the name ornata to it as a valid species."So ornata, not punica. I knew this species as telona.

Chikolovets was based on the 2010 Hungarian book Macrolepidoptera of Hungary, in which the text on telona was written by Varga. I sent Chikolovets a scan of this page at his request.

This post was edited by barko - 01.02.2012 16: 05

Pictures:

telona.jpg — (873.34к)

Chikolovets was based on the 2010 Hungarian book Macrolepidoptera of Hungary, in which the text on telona was written by Varga.

For more information, see this article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic...044523111000350

I'm sorry, you gave him a lot of bullshit!
They do not live together judging by the reports of participants who are even for separate species! They just have "narrow" transitions. There's no doubt about it, of course

I REPEAT ONCE AGAIN: they live together in the Voronezh region, in the same places, contacting and mixing at the borders of stations. Hiale is available all over the region. EVERYWHERE it surrounds populations of alfacariensis. I was displaying both views from the same location. From individuals caught on a chalk hill ("appearance" of alfakariensis) and in an adjacent meadow (looking like hiale). They had different caterpillars corresponding to their descriptions and photos for alfakariensis and hiale, and bred different butterflies in the series corresponding to the same photos for alfakariensis and hiale. It was 20 years ago. I am ready to repeat the experiment and even conduct it with separate rearing of individuals from each female (see above). Two subspecies, if allowed to live together, will merge into one taxon in 2-3 seasons. Non-fusion of areally contacting subspecies occurs only when their territories are "narrow" in contact, as is the case, for example, in the mountains. With extensive contact, in the form of a cocktail of populations of both subspecies that are not isolated geographically and seasonally (in summer terms), as in the specified conditions of the Voronezh Region, they will quickly merge and form one common taxon. These are the fundamental principles of population biology. If you want to refute them, then explain your "theory" in more detail and give links to other publications.

Wild Yuri, do you perceive only geographical and seasonal isolation? What else is "my theory"- this is elementary, if there is ethological isolation - then here you have two subspecies together, with the same terms of summer!

Here's a quote from the dictionary :

SYMPATRIC SPECIES (POPULATIONS) — some closely related but not interbreeding species, subspecies, or populations that live in the same geographical area (but in different ecological niches). See also Sympatry. Ecological encyclopedia.

And what are 2-3 seasons like? This is some kind of strange concept of population biology.
And why are you arguing with me, I'm an amateur, argue with Blshakov, since you need links to publications and "authoritative opinions"

From individuals caught on a chalk hill ("appearance" of alfakariensis) and in an adjacent meadow (looking like hiale).

Please answer me, a layman, simple questions about Voronezh A and X: 1) Whether there are hybrids between them or not. 2) What is the intraspecific variability of the adults of these jaundice in the Voronezh region, where is the border between them, and how to evaluate indeterminate adults (are they hybrids?). 3) What is the variability of caterpillars in both species? In the Crimea, reliable alfacariensis has caterpillars without black spots.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 16: 43

About what they write about subspecies in textbooks - that they can't live together - this is pure office nonsense.
The range of each species (if it is not eurybiont and ubiquitous) is dynamic under the influence of climate and biocenotic changes. For example, during some favorable period, a species has settled the maximum range. A cold snap has set in, the forest or the sea has overflowed, and the area has fragmented into isolates. In isolates, first local areas of subspecies are identified, which can evolve into species., i.e. these are proto-species and if the warm phase has occurred, the forest has dried up or the sea has receded, then the areas of subspecies/proto-species can reconnect. If subspecies / proto-species have not evolved into species, they will naturally interbreed. But since the activity radii of butterflies are small, the crossing will be in a narrow contact band - the intergradation zone. This is often referred to as"clinal variability". In fact, a huge number of interacting subspecies are observed in nature: some have a very narrow intergradation zone, others have it somewhere, somewhere not, and others have reached hundreds of km due to the high mobility and eurytopicity of adults. Unwillingness to deal with this has led to the emergence of armchair theories of "clinal variability" and the widespread recognition of only narrowly localized static subspecies as geographical isolates. In addition, this nonsense is compounded by attempts to establish certain" percentages " of variability, when to count subspecies and when not.

When subspecies come into contact over wide ranges, they merge in the border zone, forming some "transitional" and "middle" taxa, but remaining in the areal centers. But when they come into contact, as in the Voronezh region (Samara, Volgograd...), where the areas of the POPULATIONS of chyale and alfakariensis border, where the map of the distribution of alfakriensis resembles a scattered millet on the" sheet " of the chyale area, they will all immediately, in a matter of seasons, mix!

Wild Yuri, okay, then what about crocea and erate - they also fly together somewhere, and their populations are probably also mosaic somewhere, and even they seem to interbreed exactly, why do they still have polymorphism?

And in the case of Voronezh populations, interbreeding due to ethological isolation can be isolated, very rare. Why not?

Wild Yuri, okay, then what about crocea and erate - they also fly together somewhere, and their populations are probably also mosaic somewhere, and even they seem to interbreed exactly, why do they still have polymorphism?

And in the case of Voronezh populations, interbreeding due to ethological isolation can be isolated, very rare. Why not?

Wild Yuri sometimes does not think about what he writes. "From individuals captured on a chalk hill ("appearance" of alfakariensis) and in an adjacent meadow (looking like chialeae). " I.e. ecological isolation. Why should they actively mix if they live separately?

The clearest evidence of the long-term co-existence of two subspecies of the same species is the wolf+dog pair and the wild+domestic cat. The fact that these "generally accepted species" can be considered subspecies, I, not "spine", learned only the other day.
Here is the book: Alekseev, Dudkovsky, Margolin, Rogulenko.Vertebrate Fauna of the Kaluga region, Kaluga, 2011. I b. - m. know all the authors, selfless field workers, not imitators.
I quote (with abbreviations) about the dog. "As the results of the study show ... By DNA and gene drift, the domestic dog is a direct descendant of the wolf, ... usually considered a subspecies of the wolf."
In fact, they cross freely with a great desire, the offspring are simply excellent. But there is no complete mixing due to anthropogenic ethological barriers. A man pursues a wolf, and a dog, on the contrary. There are 2 subspecies of anthropogenic origin. Isolation is partial due to ethological opposites.
Cit. about the cat.
"Based on the data obtained by modern phylogenetics, the house cat is one of the 5 subspecies of the wild forest cat . Decision to assign a wild card...the clot of the name F. silvestris and its domesticated subspecies ... F. s. catus, ... adopted in 2003 by the ICZN."
Here the picture is that stray domestic cats in densely populated areas assimilated their wild ancestor. But he still lives somewhere. Watching cats in the city, I see that many of them are quite wild in relation to humans, but many are tame. But not every cat will be entrusted with the creation of offspring-these animals have whole "viewing parties" with "tournaments". And probably the wild cat will not really like the home "groom", who has forgotten how to growl like a micro-tiger.
I'm not even talking about the non-carnivorous races of homo sapiens-classic subspecies that are isolated by the fact that an individual of an alien race does not like it, + there are already a lot of prejudices that no unintelligent animal can invent.
As for butterflies , if almost indistinguishable taxa have no visible barriers to interbreeding, then pheromones are such. Pheromones have diverged greatly during the isolation of daughter protoids - they become species. Not really-they remain the same species. But immediately after 2-3 seasons, they are unlikely to mix, because there are still habits to their forage plants, stations.

The clearest evidence of the long-term co-existence of two subspecies of the same species is the wolf+dog pair and the wild cat+domestic cat. The fact that these "generally accepted species" can be considered subspecies, I, not "spine", learned only the other day.
Here is the book: Alekseev, Dudkovsky, Margolin, Rogulenko.Vertebrate Fauna of the Kaluga region, Kaluga, 2011. I b. - m. know all the authors, selfless field workers, not imitators.
I quote (with abbreviations) about the dog. "As the results of the study show ... By DNA and gene drift, the domestic dog is a direct descendant of the wolf, ... usually considered a subspecies of the wolf."
In fact, they cross freely with a great desire, the offspring are simply excellent. But there is no complete mixing due to anthropogenic ethological barriers. A man pursues a wolf, and a dog, on the contrary. There are 2 subspecies of anthropogenic origin. Isolation is partial due to ethological opposites.
Cit. about the cat.
"Based on the data obtained by modern phylogenetics, the house cat is one of the 5 subspecies of the wild forest cat . Decision to assign a wild card...the clot of the name F. silvestris and its domesticated subspecies ... F. s. catus, ... adopted in 2003 by the ICZN."
Here the picture is that stray domestic cats in densely populated areas assimilated their wild ancestor. But he still lives somewhere. Watching cats in the city, I see that many of them are quite wild in relation to humans, but many are tame. But not every cat will be entrusted with the creation of offspring-these animals have whole "viewing parties" with "tournaments". And probably the wild cat will not really like the home "groom", who has forgotten how to growl like a micro-tiger.
I'm not even talking about the non-carnivorous races of homo sapiens-classic subspecies that are isolated by the fact that an individual of an alien race does not like it, + there are already a lot of prejudices that no unintelligent animal can invent.
As for butterflies , if almost indistinguishable taxa have no visible barriers to interbreeding, then pheromones are such. Pheromones have diverged greatly during the isolation of daughter protoids - they become species. Not really-they remain the same species. But immediately after 2-3 seasons, they are unlikely to mix, because there are still habits to their forage plants, stations.

Pheromones, yes. But they are not a spiritual entity, but a chemical one, and they can be measured. Why they are not used as a feature.

Please answer me, a layman, simple questions about Voronezh A and X: 1) Whether there are hybrids between them or not.

Hybrids between butterfly species? The usual story. And there must be some between hialeah and alfakariensis. I did not observe hybrid caterpillars when rearing offspring from females caught in the alfacariensis and hiale stations.

2) What is the intraspecific variability of the imago of these jaundice in the Voronezh region?,

What series of these and those should I send you? Order now. You don't investigate the variability of text descriptions.

where is the border between them

Imagos of Voronezh alphacariansis and chyale differ quite well. The first ones are yellower, slightly larger, and more "rounded" wings. Fly on chalk hills, the second-meadows. Contacts are made en masse at their borders. But if you catch on the top of a chalk hill, only alfacariensis are found (according to the appearance described above and the caterpillars I hatched), and if you catch in a meadow, just moving away from the hill, you will find hiale (also determined by me by the appearance and caterpillars bred).

and how to evaluate indeterminate imagos (aren't they hybrids?).

So you'll find out. Get into the topic in practice. I'll send you the material. Not only reared animals (see the suggestions you didn't answer at the top), but also captured ones.

3) What is the variability of caterpillars in both species? In the Crimea, reliable alfacariensis has caterpillars without black spots.

Provide a link to the information and the author.

Hybrids between butterfly species? The usual story. And there must be some between hialeah and alfakariensis. I did not observe hybrid caterpillars when rearing offspring from females caught in the alfacariensis and hiale stations.

Good.

What series of these and those should I send you? Order now. You don't investigate the variability of text descriptions.

I still didn't have enough yolks to do. I got into this topic by accident and portray here advocatus diaboli.

Imagos of Voronezh alphacariansis and chyale differ quite well. The first ones are yellower, slightly larger, and more "rounded" wings. Fly on chalk hills, the second-meadows. Contacts are made en masse at their borders. But if you catch on the top of a chalk hill, only alfacariensis are found (according to the appearance described above and the caterpillars I hatched), and if you catch in a meadow, just moving away from the hill, you will find hiale (also determined by me by the appearance and caterpillars bred).

This is suspicious - it looks like ecological subspecies that really want to become species (or they started to become species in geographical isolation, and when they meet, they strive for at least an ecological one). The "good" species probably wouldn't need to avoid each other so much. For example, in the Novosibirsk region, khiale live in almost all stations where legumes grow.

So you'll find out. Get into the topic in practice. I'll send you the material. Not only reared animals (see the suggestions you didn't answer at the top), but also captured ones.

Thank you. But probably not necessary. I am quite sure that your observations are correct. I just still have doubts about the interpretation...

But I don't have any more questions. Two views, and good. It is impossible to consider them simply subspecies in all parameters, to wander between "two forms of the existence of a species" or to construct complex relationships between "half-species"- to go against Occam. It is easier to recognize them as fully formed in isolation from each other, closely related species.

This post was edited by sergenicko - 01.02.2012 21: 51

The clearest evidence of the long-term co-existence of two subspecies of the same species is the wolf+dog pair and the wild+domestic cat.

So there's isolation here! Dogs don't live together with wolves. They're chained up. And if they live (wandering flocks), then they interbreed. And the forests are full of their hybrid descendants right now. About wildcats, what kind did you have in mind?
Pigs crossbreed with wild boars. Let the pigs out to live in the forest - there will be mixed offspring.
There is such a thing in population biology: isolation. It can be geographical, high-altitude, seasonal, and so on. In such isolation, two subspecies can live in a common range. If there is none, they mix to form a common taxon. In the case of dogs ,cats (let's call a wild cat species) and pigs, they are isolated from their wild "subspecies" by a stable, chain, angry owner with a gun, etc. They cannot interbreed freely. Isolation.
Gentlemen, read population biology.

Provide a link to the information and the author.

Yuri, there will be no link. In the Crimea, caterpillars A without black spots have never been observed. http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1289985

Yes? What kind of caterpillar is this? From this page?



http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/1_Pieridae/...facariensis.htm

Yuri, there will be no link. In the Crimea, caterpillars A without black spots have never been observed. http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1289985

I don't have any more questions about X and A . Two views, and good. It is impossible to consider them simply subspecies in all parameters, to wander between "two forms of the existence of a species" or to construct complex relationships between "half-species"- to go against Occam. It is easier to recognize them as fully formed in isolation from each other, closely related species.

That's right!
What does it say

A star fell from the sky
....
....
Lick if there was no war!

Yes? What kind of caterpillar is this? From this page?



http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/1_Pieridae/...facariensis.htm

Crocea.

I think I took a ride on a trolley bus. Thank you. Lesson.

This post was edited by Wild Yuri - 02.02.2012 10: 07

I think I took a ride on a trolley bus. Thank you. I don't regret it.

I don't regret it either - I made sure that hyale and alfacariensis are different species. What I am very happy about.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD BOTH VOLUMES OF THE RED BOOK OF THE PENZA REGION ON THE WEBSITE OF THE ALEXANDER RUCHIN MORDOVIA NATURE RESERVE.

http://zapovednik-mordovia.ru/index.php?op...catid=44&id=389

Let's continue the discussion about the "Serdobskaya Euryale" on the branch of the "Marigold" - Although I would call it the good old word "SATIRE".

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?act=ST&...00#entry1295787

Vyacheslav Okulov, at our request, filmed episodes of his collections of black euryals in Izhevsk and posted them to continue a very interesting discussion - could euryals live in the Volga region and in general in the middle zone of the European part of the Russian Federation.

Can you reconstruct the biotopes that were there 50 years ago? Follow the succession changes? Then we can continue the discussion. As it is, it's about nothing... We had a lot of things in the region before and what we didn't have. There were tullii, hero, and even paleno. Now there are suvorovki, podaliriya, crocea... There is no constancy in the fauna. There is a retreat of borealism. I've already written about this many times. What was, is gone. And we'll never know if Euryale was there... It could have been. There could be a lot of things in nature, because it is a thousand times more complex than our understanding and regulations.

This post was edited by Wild Yuri - 12.03.2012 18: 47

Yura, by and large, this is not about what WAS, but about what IS, how to study it (what grows and lives there) and try to preserve it.
Places unaffected by humans are becoming less and less, so we rush around the area-looking for FRAGMENTS of the past...

Asked , I answer:
Here is our story with Igor Kryukov about "Penza Finland" and entomological research.
http://coleop123.narod.ru/krrbela2.html

Yura, by and large, this is not about what WAS, but about what IS, how to study it (what grows and lives there) and try to preserve it.
Places unaffected by humans are becoming less and less, so we rush around the area-looking for FRAGMENTS of the past...

I wrote to the fact that it is impossible to say: such species did not exist, because they do not exist now! They say that they can't live here in any way: the wrong zone, the wrong biotopes. This is the wrong zone and the wrong biotopes. Half a century ago it was significantly different. In any case, in our region. Therefore, I do not promise to judge the past fauna. Moreover, observing the extinction in the area of a number of species of the subtaiga zone, the islands of which (sphagnum swamps, blueberries, spruce forests...) literally melting with the current warming climate.

If the forests were not cut down as they are now (see at the beginning of the branch), then boreal species could continue to live... Again, if not burned by forest fires in the summer dry... Our Sura River has lost its water level by 2 times in relation to the beginning of the last century! Where next then....

Yes, these intrazonal elements, with small populations living "on the edge", are very sensitive to anthropogenic influences. In our region, tullia "glowed" on one forest swamp, but the current mass enthusiasm of the people for "mushroom car rides" led to the appearance of wide trails along its edge, the place was trampled, and I don't see tullias there for 10 years ...

Here is an interesting book for sale on Alibi - with autographs!!!

Reimers N. F., Stilmark F. R. Specially protected natural areas. With the authors ' donation inscription on the title. Moscow, Mysl, 1978, 295 p., fig., schemes. Hardcover, regular format. Price 270 rubles
(BS-Krebs) All copies on sale
are Specially protected natural areas - nature reserves, nature reserves, national parks, resort areas. The book attempts to analyze the geographical, economic and some socio-economic problems of forming a network of these territories. The main idea of the authors is the need to create a functional system of protected areas that would ensure ecological balance and optimal development of the economy. Circulation of 14,000 copies.
Condition: Excellent

So we opened the 2012 field season. The trip to the south-west of the Penza Region on April 25 was very interesting. The steppe gully south of the village of Baika on the border with the Saratov region pleased us with new bees, beetles, new plants, an owl's nest, spring wind, and nature of course...

Pictures:

_______________2012.jpg — (89.75 k)


___________________2012.jpg — (135.65 k)


_______________________________2012.jpg — (131k)