Coenonympha oedippus

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Coenonympha oedippus

PG18, 22.01.2013 13:23

Coenonympha oedippus is one of the few species that we have never found in the Urals. References in literature or old (19th century. There are a lot of them) or erroneous ones, as it turns out. It seems to me that it is bent in the European part and should be recommended for inclusion in the new edition of the CC of Russia. Mentioned for the Volga Delta (Reutskaya, 2001; Morgun, 2003) - four points... It seems that there was relatively recent information on the Bryansk region, I think from Aniskovich... I'll look for it. I've already forgotten everything.

This post was edited by PG18-22.01.2013 14: 01

Comments

Pages: 1 2

Likes: 1

23.01.2013 10:19, Лавр Большаков

If it is possible to estimate at least approximately the total area of its known local habitats in Russia, and it turns out to be less than 2000 square kilometers, then this is category VU according to criterion B2 according to the IUCN system. This is provided that the range of the species is fragmented into isolates, and there is no continuous contact between populations, as for example in the case of some swallowtail or rutabaga. And if there are no isolates on a large segment of the range in Siberia, then the B1 criterion - "area of the range" - begins to work. It should not exceed 20,000 square kilometers. Otherwise, it turns out that the species has such a large range that it is not yet threatened with extinction. However, criterion A can also work for insects - a reduction in the number of at least 10 years of observations by 30%. But in the vast expanses of Siberia, this is unlikely to be caught..
Finally, we can talk about the general trend of reduction in the conditions of destruction of biotopes, but we must prove that this is really relevant in the vast expanses of Siberia. For example, the area is confined to a narrow strip, where forests are most actively reduced, agriculture and urbanization are developing.

23.01.2013 16:28, PG18

Rather-with meadows in river valleys, possibly with specific floristic composition...
But, it seems that it is time to forget about this particular species in Europe. Was – yes ended. In European Russia, there are still several populations-somewhere along the western borders (possibly), and in the southern part of the Volga Delta. Although numerous crosses in the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia (2008) say that everything seems to be in order… The species is extinct in Bulgaria, Germany, and Slovakia. General range trend in Europe: "decrease 80-100 % "(Red Data Book of European Butterflies, 1999) – the highest value!
The example of this hayloft shows that not all species need to become rare (extremely small in number) before disappearing. Wherever oedipus is observed, populations are always numerous, local, and absolutely sedentary (butterflies fly extremely slowly)…

Likes: 1

23.01.2013 17:12, Penzyak

..I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was something about the number in insect populations... when the moment comes and, in general, a fairly ordinary view (local) begins to disappear rapidly... something about critical mass...
I just don't understand why they wanted to remove the Rimma and Pyrenean pigeons from the new version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation... In the European part of the Russian Federation, the species are very local... and worthy of protection.
In general, there is a very noticeable bias towards the protection of butterfly species in the Far Eastern European part of the Russian Federation... For some reason they threw out polixena... lucila was removed...
Can we outline a discussion list of rare diaries for the territory of the European part of the Russian Federation and the Urals???

This post was edited by Penzyak - 23.01.2013 17: 17

Likes: 2

23.01.2013 18:24, Лавр Большаков

The very phrase "rare" in the scale of the CC of the Russian Federation, and even in the scale of a single region, is not correct. For this purpose, the phrase "threatened" or "threatened"has long been invented. But if a species is "under threat" because of unfavorable climatic conditions or because it is a random migrant, then we can hardly help it. It is another matter if the "threat" is the destruction of natural biogeocenoses during economic development of the territory - then it is already possible to create protected areas where, with a sufficient area, species can be preserved.
All the above - listed species are polyxena, rhymnus, etc. - in the conditions of development of virgin lands, they have long been threatened. The density of local populations is a completely abstract concept that does not affect the degree of "threat"in any way. This is affected by only 3 factors: 1) reduction of the area of habitats; 2) isolation of preserved habitats; 3) continuation of destructive anthropogenic impacts on them. If the rise of industry and agriculture begins in the south of Russia, demographic growth, as well as the influx of immigrants and migrant workers - all dense local populations will continue to decline, and some - and disappear. The only question is the rate of disappearance.
In order to assess the degree of threat to populations, there is an IUCN system. It is a good thing that we have finally recognized it (on the heads of a handful of cabinet experts who clung to the management of the CCRF with a "bulldog grip" and did not let anyone near it) and forced experts to evaluate species based on it, and not from the ceiling, and not from museum collections, as it was previously.
In relation to insects, by the way, it is also poorly used in Z. Europe. This is due to the fact that many office and non-office scientists believe that 1) dense local populations are "safe" (this is a short-term illusion, it can collapse at any time); 2) flying insects move freely anywhere, local populations are not isolated and are constantly replenished with migrants. This last one is the most serious misconception. It is enough to walk around agricultural fields, and even relatively moderately disturbed wastelands, to see that the majority of even very massive stenotope species almost never leave their stations, and only in rare cases are found outside of them. I.e., "replenishment by migrants" is a pure fantasy in relation to many local species.
There is no need to invent a "rarity scale" at the level of the Russian Federation or its large parts (such as the European one) - there is an IUCN scale. But our permanent Red Book experts have not yet been able to apply it - to do this, you need to work not only with the collections of 1-2 museums, not only in the library, but with large amounts of information, including unpublished ones. That is, you need to "get out" of your "Chinese towers" and not only interview regional entomologists, but also take them as co-authors ("share the glory"), as well as share royalties with them (!).
That is why I say that almost nothing constructive can be done before February 1. Unless someone already has ready-made information about the state of populations. Such information can be quickly obtained only for very narrow-range species, and for wide-range ones, it is necessary to raise everything that is available from all over the Russian range.

Likes: 4

23.01.2013 23:24, Kharkovbut

I just don't understand why they wanted to remove the Rimma and Pyrenean pigeons from the new version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation... In the European part of the Russian Federation, the species are very local... and worthy of protection.

Two words about it. We (perhaps, in Russia, this is better, I don't know) have a scary trend: afforestation of steppes. After all, from the point of view of the average person (even those who consider themselves "nature lovers") the forest is cool, but the steppe... Okay, bullshit. For example, in the Pyrenaicus biotopes on the Volchya River, some areas are terraced and planted with Crimean pine. On p. Oskol some quality plots are planted with acacia trees. As far as I know, this situation is even more dramatic in the south of Ukraine. From this point of view, the inclusion of any steppe specialists in various CC is IMHO justified. At least it won't make it any worse.

Yes, there are still a lot of polyxenes in the floodplains, but it is worth starting to re-graze cattle and at the same time - the main thing is to arrange continuous fires ("so that the grass grows better") - and remember polyxenus as his name was. Plus the overall negative anthropogenic impact on floodplains (recreation)...

I apologize for the off-topic (I'm responding to a post from this topic); you can move the discussion to acc. the topic.

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

11.04.2014 17:29, Natura

In a rather outdated work: Anikin V. V., Sachkov S. A., Zolotuhin V. V. 1993. "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 1. Rhopalocera (Insecta, Lepidoptera) / / Atalanta. Vol. 24 (1/2). P. 89-120. - C. oedippus, indicated only for Bashkiria. Write directly to PG18.

Oleg! If you have this article, then please drop it to me. On the merits of the issue, Sachkov was previously informed by S. A. about the capture in the 80s of one specimen of C. oedippus in the area of Kurumoch airport (30 km from Samara). Initially, the find seemed to be stray, but the other day I found another one from the vicinity of Sernovodsk in the old collections, which I immediately informed A. S. Sachkov about. Maybe this information will interest someone else.

Pages: 1 2