About the website "Butterflies of the Caucasus"

Comrades or gentlemen, I didn't look at the site for a week and what - everyone had a big fight!?? Have you seen enough of EUROMAIDAN? As in that proverb-we pull out the tail - the head gets stuck, we pull out the head, the tail is stuck!?

"Proplyusoval" so-as I consider the site useful and necessary. There should be more of these sites on the web . But criticism is good and should not be taken to heart, but should be taken into account in future activities.

I liked it

Great website!
Many thanks to the author!

Boris Khramov

This post was edited by Khramov - 09.12.2013 12: 21

It depends on what is meant by the word "professional".

"Proplyusoval" so-as I consider the site useful and necessary. There should be more of these sites on the web . But criticism is good and should not be taken to heart, but should be taken into account in future activities.

You're right, Vasily! But criticism! And not the blatant rudeness that all forum participants saw yesterday.

The site is a very good, necessary, best reference book on butterflies of the Caucasus on the Internet. Many thanks to the authors who created it and updated it with new information. There would be more such projects. And it is better to ignore the statements of "subversives". There will always be some for any project, but this is 2-3% of the people, while you work for the majority. Thank you again!

The site is good. I'll give you a plus. Respect to the authors!

Criticism, of course, is a good thing, but I think Messrs. Bolshakov and Korb have clearly gone too far.

But criticism is good and should not be taken to heart, but should be taken into account in future activities.

If you find at least one critical comment from Mr. Bolshakov in our address, please let us know.
I would be sincerely grateful to all forumchanam for criticism and help in creating the site. And thank you so much for your support.

If you find at least one critical comment from Mr. Bolshakov in our address, please let us know.
I would be sincerely grateful to all forumchanam for criticism and help in creating the site. And thank you so much for your support.

I did not read that srach, so I took this topic (in which I am writing now) as a response to criticism, and your site is very useful and necessary for people. And besides, the publication is now not only on paper, but also on the web.: this makes it more accessible to a wide range of readers. From the bottom of my heart: good luck in the development of the site

Dear forumchane, to the address of our site http://www.babochki-kavkaza.ru/ Mr. Bolshakov made an accusation about the authors ' professional unfitness.

I think we should not pay attention to these unfounded accusations.
The site is excellent.

The site is, without a doubt, quite professional, biologically complete and very useful in its work and, importantly, with first descriptions, which helps in solving some nomenclature issues. But there is one caveat. The borders of the territory are blurred and cover the Lower Volga region. This is a bit out of line, but, again, justified. Only then it is necessary to include here those subspecies that are described / geographically linked to the Lower Volga region - and there are usually no nomenclature calculations for them.
And more. I recently tried to find information on Polyommatus elena, which was described from Rostov-on-Don and seems to be an element of at least the Ciscaucasian fauna. Know that its (somewhat premature?) synonymized, but the search for such taxa on the site is extremely difficult, there are no primary descriptions of them, and the status is not clear... I would like to think about the option with such taxonomic changes.
Good luck.

This post was edited by dim-va-09.12.2013 16: 37

IMHO, one of the best - if not the best - regional site on Rhopalocera. It is very important that it is rapidly and dynamically developing. Thanks to Valentin, Boris and Gennady.

The site is, without a doubt, quite professional, biologically complete and very useful in its work and, importantly, with first descriptions, which helps in solving some nomenclature issues. But there is one caveat. The borders of the territory are blurred and cover the Lower Volga region. This is a bit out of line, but, again, justified. Only then it is necessary to include here those subspecies that are described / geographically linked to the Lower Volga region - and there are usually no nomenclature calculations for them.
And more. I recently tried to find information on Polyommatus elena, which was described from Rostov-on-Don and seems to be an element of at least the Ciscaucasian fauna. Know that its (somewhat premature?) synonymized, but the search for such taxa on the site is extremely difficult, there are no primary descriptions of them, and the status is not clear... I would like to think about the option with such taxonomic changes.
Good luck.

Very nice and constructive comment. I think the authors will take this into account, since the site is not dead, it is constantly updated. I always visit it with interest.

Something this topic reminds me of )))
The site is excellent, definitely professional(because the authors are entomologists) and useful,
just one request, Valentinus and GUK, PLEASE FINALLY CORRECT THE LINKS in your profile, they are not working, it should be exactly like this:

http://www.babochki-kavkaza.ru

I recently tried to find information on Polyommatus elena, which was described from Rostov-on-Don and seems to be an element of at least the Ciscaucasian fauna. Know that its (somewhat premature?) synonymized, but the search for such taxa on the site is extremely difficult, there are no primary descriptions of them, and the status is not clear... I would like to think about the option with such taxonomic changes.
Good luck.

Thank you for your constructive criticism!
There are still a lot of gaps on the site and a lot of things need to be filled in.
We will definitely create a page with comments about Polyommatus elena.

I have long wanted to contact you, Vadim, with a proposal to take on the "night". A lot of information just disappears. There are snapshots, new points, etc.

Night .... Discuss in PM. But it's a good idea.

The site is certainly excellent, and in my opinion the only one in the south of Russia. But why only daytime ones? I really wanted the authors to include other groups as well. Is it possible?

The site is certainly excellent, and in my opinion the only one in the south of Russia. But why only daytime ones? I really wanted the authors to include other groups as well. Is it possible?

If Vadim Zolotukhin takes it, then there will be other groups. I really hope to connect Igor Kostyuk, but you can see for yourself what the situation in Ukraine is like. They would have survived.

The main thing is to start, I would also be able to help as much as I can, if you need an amateur's help.

The main thing is to start, I would also be able to help as much as I can, if you need an amateur's help.

Any help is welcome. Your points of discovery in Yeisk are already available on the site.

IMHO, one of the best - if not the best - regional site on Rhopalocera.

I'll join you. This is a very wonderful site.

This post was edited by DYNASTES - 09.12.2013 22: 57

I can't say anything bad about the purely artistic side of the site - it's really good.
But from a scientific point of view, the taxonomy in most groups, except for the group of pigeons supervised by Boris Vitalyevich, is outdated, and in some places it is no good at all. I don't have time to climb all the species. Here are the most cursory remarks.
What kind of genus is Muschampia? For several years now, it has been in objective synonyms, although Korshunov has been in them for a long time (oh, this "majority", how much it has shat in taxonomy!).
The species mnemosyne has long been in the genus Driopa - only a blind person does not understand this. This is perhaps the main criterion for the authors ' ability to work in the field of taxonomy.
And I looked at the 2 groups that I specifically studied, including material from the Caucasus and the south of Russia.
For some reason, the only species that still appears is Leptidea sinapis. About his other double - only vague arguments at the level of 2003-04. Although the Caucasus is one of the two regions where the species that was then considered reali was found for the first time in Russia. And this information is completely ignored, although I was not the first in this revision.
And according to E. aurinia - and at all nonsense. That there is no taxon of merope, Higgins wrote back in 1950. Well, let one of our people make a mistake, but you need to read something else besides the untenable " Catalog...Russia" and work on their own.

I can't say anything bad about the purely artistic side of the site - it's really good.
But from a scientific point of view, the taxonomy in most groups, except for the group of pigeons supervised by Boris Vitalyevich, is outdated, and in some places it is no good at all. I don't have time to climb all the species. Here are the most cursory remarks.
What kind of genus is Muschampia? For several years now, it has been in objective synonyms, although Korshunov has been in them for a long time (oh, this "majority", how much it has shat in taxonomy!).
The species mnemosyne has long been in the genus Driopa - only a blind person does not understand this. This is perhaps the main criterion for the authors ' ability to work in the field of taxonomy.
And I looked at the 2 groups that I specifically studied, including material from the Caucasus and the south of Russia.
For some reason, the only species that still appears is Leptidea sinapis. About his other double - only vague arguments at the level of 2003-04. Although the Caucasus is one of the two regions where the species that was then considered reali was found for the first time in Russia. And this information is completely ignored, although I was not the first in this revision.
And according to E. aurinia - and at all nonsense. That there is no taxon of merope, Higgins wrote back in 1950. Well, let one of our people make a mistake, but you need to read something else besides the untenable " Catalog...Russia" and work on their own.

  
What kind of genus is Muschampia? For several years now, it has been in objective synonyms, although Korshunov has been in them for a long time (oh, this "majority", how much it has shat in taxonomy!).
The species mnemosyne has long been in the genus Driopa - only a blind person does not understand this. This is perhaps the main criterion for the authors ' ability to work in the field of taxonomy.
And I looked at the 2 groups that I specifically studied, including material from the Caucasus and the south of Russia.
For some reason, the only species that still appears is Leptidea sinapis. About his other double - only vague arguments at the level of 2003-04. Although the Caucasus is one of the two regions where the species that was then considered reali was found for the first time in Russia. And this information is completely ignored, although I was not the first in this revision.
And according to E. aurinia - and at all nonsense. That there is no taxon of merope, Higgins wrote back in 1950. Well, let one of our people make a mistake, but you need to read something else besides the untenable " Catalog...Russia" and work on their own.

I don't see anything strange - genera, subgenera, and synonyms are treated differently among our specialists, and these concepts are much more subjective than species. I can't name any surnames, it would be incorrect, because they are not on the forum. And I don't think these people are "blind." They are published just like you. The Code accepts everything until, as Stanislav once correctly pointed out, the Commission decides otherwise. The authors of the site have taken their own position or the position of these specialists . As long as there is no general agreement, they have the right to do so.
I looked at the Leptidaeae-everything is written in detail in the Notes on taxonomy. I think that few people doubt the presence of juvernica in the Caucasus, and the authors have probably read numerous articles in Eversmannia on this complex. But this is not urticaria with cabbage, making a separate page on juvernica is not all of a sudden. The authors ' caution is understandable here, and the site, as already mentioned, is under development. A page on sinapis may be enough later for comparison, but the authors know better.
For merope, it's probably best to ask the site authors.

I'm confused.
There is only one species on the site – E. aurinia.
For the Volgograd region, this species was listed as avrinia, orientalis, and sareptensis, so these primary descriptions are presented.
It is the same in the Caucasus.
For the Volgograd region, the position of Korb, Bolshakov 2011 was adopted, and this species is listed as - E. aurinia.

I didn't really look at it. The species accepted by the authors is one; merope is only mentioned as a previously considered taxon. Then it is not at all clear what Lavr Valeryevich did not like.

.. It's funny, having closely engaged in the review of Bulavousykh software, I visit various Internet resources on this topic and in particular your site is quite good and informative. My comment on the original description of Melanargia russiae (Esper, 1783) I look, even if not quickly, but corrected... and again - I come across the absence of Polyommatus elena Stradomsky et Arzanov, 1999 and the omission of the group Leptidea!?? Further, Vadim is right - as a regional faunalist, it is completely incomprehensible to me where the border of your resource passes in the north of the south of the European part of the Russian Federation... Take at least some latitude in the north and longitude in the east... and so you can cover the entire south of the Volga region by accident... Although, it would be useful that the site developed further and covered/was called well, for example: "Bulavousye Caucasus and Volga region", and then you look and "European part of Russia". Success. Suggestions and comments about the site SHOULD be reviewed promptly. If you do not have specialists in belyanochka, why not provide material for a comprehensive analysis of the region under consideration to Lavr Valeryevich, undoubtedly the most knowledgeable specialist on this group in the European part of the Russian Federation. Again, in all works or projects there are reviewers and opponents - you need to understand this.??
P.S.Only together at the present time can we develop further - "cooking in our own juice in our time is like death"!.

Here's another...
1. When you give someone's observations, please write specifically in what area they were held (ever?) For example, here you have the data of Boris Stradomsky (from where?) on the pigeon Polyommatus coelestinus (Eversmann, 1843). Then the last photo of a legume plant - what kind of plant is it? Did the female of this species lay eggs on it in nature? in your local area?

2. For example, you have the latest addition on Hipparchia fagi (Scopoli, 1763). Carefully read and not a word about the forage plant in your region (specific!!) or at least RELIABLE data for the Russian Federation. After all, no matter how you look at it, a number of types of diaries in the Russian Federation will have their own food plants for caterpillars! Naturally, it takes time and often professional collectors to identify it. Then write it in a separate paragraph and stanza. The caterpillar forage plant was not identified in the region under consideration. We need research.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 12/10/2013 13: 17

I don't see anything strange - genera, subgenera, synonyms are treated differently among our specialists, these concepts are much more subjective than the species...... The authors of the site have taken their own position or the position of these specialists - until there is a general agreement, they have the right to do so

There was no talk about the interpretation of genera-subgenera. And about the genus that is an OBJECTIVE synonym (you don't have time to explain what it is, you don't know - ask in the ZIN), as well as about the genus that is visible even to the blind. Well, at least as a subgenus it would be marked - and this is not the case.
I can see with the naked eye WHO is "responsible" here, so I can't consider the taxonomy adopted here (except for pigeons) adequate, starting with the location of the families. And I don't even see signs of rudimentary editing of many annotations.
But I generally don't use any websites in my work. The only decent site I found was a foreign one (but not by day, but by day), and that one only with pictures for amateurs.
In principle, this genre itself is purely amateur.

An absurd accusation! I consider it to be the best Russian site concerning the fauna of Russian diurnal animals. First of all, due to the presence of point maps of areas...

According to my observations, all satyrs are suitable for growing bluegrass and hedgehog team. They are not picky in their choice of food, and they eat what cereals they eat, although there are observations by Vladimir Savchuk that reflect their preferences - http://www.lepidoptera.crimea.ua/

They meant forage plants in nature. On which the females lay their eggs. In captivity, you can grow on many, but females lay eggs, as a rule, on strictly defined ones growing in their stations. And they also develop caterpillars there. In any case, the bulavous ones.

They meant forage plants in nature. On which the females lay their eggs. In captivity, you can grow on many, but females lay eggs, as a rule, on strictly defined ones growing in their stations. And they also develop caterpillars there. In any case, the bulavous ones.

And then Ostap got carried away...
The claim that butterflies lay their eggs on the caterpillar food plants of satyrs does not always work.
Of course, there are satyrs who lay their eggs exactly on the food plant. These are, first of all, representatives of the genus Lasiommata, well, and Pararge aegeria, which give two or more generations per year. The same group includes Proterebia afra, which throw their eggs into the curl of forage grasses, and Melanargia russiae, in which females lay eggs on dry panicles of tipchak. But this group, in my opinion, is not so large.
I can't immediately give statistics, but there is a group of species that just throw their eggs on the ground, for example: Melanargia galathea, Arethusana arethusa, Minois dryas, etc. There are satyrs that lay their eggs on any substrate, such as the Chazara briseis. There is a group of species that lays eggs not only on cereals, but also on any other plants. This behavior is observed, for example, in Erebia aethiops.
And one more thing. Most satyrs produce one generation per year. Their caterpillars are born in late autumn, do not feed immediately, but spread out. They start feeding with the onset of coolness or in spring. And they can eat almost all cereals and sedges. It is no coincidence that publications indicate a fairly large list of species, or limit themselves to a phrase such as"cereals and sedges".
Maybe I'm wrong. As I have already written, there are observations of Vladimir Savchuk about the feed priorities of satyrs. In any case, such observations accumulate.

I wrote it-usually. For most types. Many Parnassiuses lay near plants... But this is not the majority of all mace species. The vast majority of them still lay on plants. In marigolds and envelopes, they save money, just like in parnassiuses. But this is in captivity. The author also wrote about observations in nature. On what plants they lay there or near which ones. Everything should be observed, clarified and not extrapolated from laboratory experience, if we are talking about wild populations-this is what I meant.

Valentine! I'm with you! The site is simply very wonderful! I would replace the word very, even with another adverb reinforcing adjective, but alas, censorship...

This post was edited by Alexanor - 12/22/2013 18: 56

who are these three ghouls ?! more precisely-who is the third?

I consider the question / survey statement meaningless, due to the a priori usefulness and adequacy of the resource, and humiliating, in relation to myself = which of these 3 created something like this?

PROSPERITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what we can do, we will help you!

Thanks!I looked at photos of pigeons and satyrs-my favorite families...Cool !!!

Stanislav, I respect you very much as a specialist and have asked you for advice more than once. But I respect Valentine just as much. This survey was provoked by a polemic that developed in one of the topics of "image" (and as mentioned here, not entirely correct), in which you acted as a counterparty, and I consider it humiliating for the authors of the survey/the site.
Despite this, as you mentioned, this survey is anonymous, pm does not see any prerequisites to take my words personally.

Dear colleagues.
I would like to inform you that you have joined our small team of authors Sergey Alekseevich Andreev.
Thanks to his participation, we will be able to enrich the essays, using his many years of experience in observing the biology and ecology of butterflies in Armenia and the Tula region.
The first results are already available.
A wonderful gallery has been added Iridescent lilies-Apatura ilia.
New pages are being prepared on the most complex complex of species of the subgenus Agrodiaetus.

If I'm not mistaken, in the error identification plate some signs are mixed up

In paragraphs 2 and 3, the opposite is true

Thanks!
We will fix it now.