Moscow and the Moscow region

By the way, did anyone notice that this year's camel is somehow bigger than usual? Even deep in the city come across, and not only entomologists.

I was surprised to be honest, I rarely noticed them. And this one is generally aggressive: it sits on one finger, and the next one bites. Evil little animal

Yes, they also saw Tolik in Alpatievo.

I have never met them in the Moscow region before

I met them as a child-in the floodplain part of Zhukovsky (there can be no mistake, I already had a set of postcards "Young entomologist" and I knew them=) - so they didn't just appear here, apparently they just bred now.

I generally catch something here, but I just don't have time to take pictures and write

Catch from 30.05:



Today I was very pleased with Sabra harpagula - I haven't seen it before.

In terms of the number of linden hawks, the year is a record in my memory.



There were two more people sitting on the screen, but in a different place

I had never met them in the Moscow region before

I've met a camel, but rarely.
And this year, near Zvenigorod, not exactly a lot, but quite a lot.
By the way, there were more sharpheads than usual.

This post was edited by PhilGri - 03.06.2012 00: 49

Moscow region, Orekhovo-Zuyevsky district
year of mass availability of caterpillars!
here are some, if anyone wants to name the types-welcome)
on honeysuckle, wild and garden:
1:
2-Apeira (Phalaena) syringaria:

on the oak tree, 3:
4:
on the mountain ash, 5-sinegolovka?:
on the birch tree,6:
7:

This post was edited by CosMosk-03.06.2012 13: 08

Moscow region, Orekhovo-Zuyevsky district
year of mass availability of caterpillars!
here are some, if anyone wants to name the types-welcome)
on honeysuckle, wild and garden:
7:

Parasemia plantaginis (Linnaeus, 1758)
Just idle interest (I plan to collect): are there many of them already?

I never saw these bears again, and I never strangled this one...

I had never met them in the Moscow region before

And I remember, even in my deep childhood, I met them in a park in the center of Moscow - in the Neskuchny Garden, and repeatedly

By the way, the other day I caught a male Ropalopus clavipes on logs in the Botanical Garden of Moscow State University. A very unexpected and pleasant find, by the way, I didn't find Ropalopus in Moscow before.

By the way, the other day I caught a male Ropalopus clavipes on logs in the Botanical Garden of Moscow State University. A very unexpected and pleasant find, by the way, I had never found Ropalopus in Moscow before.

Exactly clavipes? Not macropus? Only R. macropus I found here. In any case: a good find for Moscow and the Near Moscow region.

Well, it seems that according to the "green" determinant, clavipes are obtained, there are spines on the segments of the antennae. Although, judging by this one http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/ropmacjk.htm photos, macropus also has them on his antennae, so I don't give a damn that it was Clavipes who caught it. I wonder if there are any better signs to distinguish them?

June 02-03, Moscow Region, Sergiev Posad district, Zolototilovo village,
Xestia c-nigrum
Agrotis segetum
Agrotis exclamationis
Ochropleura plecta
Anarta trifolii
Lacanobia thalassina
Lacanobia suasa
Lacanobia oleracea
Ceramica pisi
Hada plebeja Sideridis
rivularis Hecatera
bicolorata Hadena
confusa Actinotia
polyodon Apamea
sordens
Abrostola triplasia
Autographa gamma
Autographa pulchrina
Protodeltote pygarga
Acronicta megacephala
Cucullia umbratica
Pyrrhia umbra
Pyrrhia exprimens

Drepana falcataria
Tethea ocularis

Chlorissa viridata
Cyclophora punctaria
Scopula immorata
Xanthorhoe ferrugata
Xanthorhoe fluctuata
Epirrhoe alternata
Hydriomena impluviata
Lomographa bimaculata
Petrophora chlorosata
Odontopera bidentata
Lomaspilis marginata
Macaria notata
Hypomecis punctinalis
Siona lineata
Chiasmia clathrata

Deilephila elpenor
Proserpinus proserpina
Laothoe amurensis
Mimas tiliae
Smerinthus ocellatus
Sphinx pinastri

Notodonta ziczac
Phalera bucephala
Ptilodon capucina
Clostera curtula
Furcula bifida

Calliteara pudibunda

Eilema sororculum
Spilosoma lubricipedum
Spilosoma urticae
Spilarctia luteum

A short report on a trip to a dacha in the Noginsky district, Yamkino village.
In the compost heap, where a dump truck of manure was brought 2 years ago,
I found a lot of stage 3 larvae, pupae and imagos of Oryctes nasicornis.

This post was edited by scarabaeinae-04.06.2012 17: 43

Pictures:

P6010236.JPG — (2.07мб)


P6010240.JPG — (1.78мб)


P6010242.JPG — (1.71мб)


P6010243.JPG — (1.8мб)


P6010250.JPG — (1.98мб)


P6020254.JPG — (1.81 mb)


P6020256.JPG — (2.03мб)


P6020257.JPG — (1.97мб)


P6020259.JPG — (1.79мб)


P6020262.JPG — (1.71мб)


P6020263.JPG — (1.8мб)


P6020264.JPG — (1.7мб)


P6020267.JPG — (1.78мб)


P6020272.JPG — (1.84мб)


P6020276.JPG — (1.81 mb)


P6020278.JPG — (1.98мб)


P6020279.JPG — (1.92мб)


P6020280.JPG — (1.96мб)


P6030281.JPG — (2.1 MB)


P6030282.JPG — (1.86 mb)


P6030283.JPG — (1.77мб)


P6030284.JPG — (2.03мб)

Please help us with this material

On May 26, in the area of platf. 41 km, Ramenskoye district, Moscow region, on concrete pillars along the railway, bag covers of the same size, but slightly different in appearance, were collected.




On June 4, a male (if I'm not mistaken, Canephora hirsuta) hatched from one cover, which soon settled on another cover for mating.


From the cover of the female, the pupa was pulled out with tweezers and a beautiful lady actually crawled out of the pupa. It crawled out itself backwards through a rather narrow opening at the end of the pupa, gradually stretching out and pumping its semi-liquid interior from the front to the back in 15-20 steps. There are no wings, and the legs (if they are legs) are rudimentary. But there are eyes, and the rest - you know what.


Empty female pupa:


Male cap:


Female cap:

Moscow region, Orekhovo-Zuyevsky district
year of mass availability of caterpillars!
here are some, if anyone wants to name the types-welcome)
on honeysuckle, wild and garden:
1:

Green caterpillar-Limenitis camilla

Luzhki village, Serpukhov district, Moscow region, 03.06.2012

Last Sunday, the weather was unlucky: it was cold, no more than +11A strong wind was blowing from and. In the morning, there were rare moments when the sun peeked out, but in the afternoon the sky was completely overcast and it began to rain. Consequently, the butterflies practically did not fly out. Among other things, there were fresh Melitaea cinxia, the freshest males of Lycaena alciphron and Aporia crataegi in abundance. In a clearing near the south-western corner of the PTZ, construction began.

Total:

Hesperiidae:
Ochlodes sylvanus
Pyrgus malvae

Lycaenidae:
Lycaena alciphron
Lycaena phlaeas
Lycaena tityrus
Polyommatus icarus
Satyrium pruni

Nymphalidae:
Melitaea athalia
Melitaea cinxia
Boloria selene
Coenonympha pamphilus

Pieridae:
Aporia crataegi

Sphingidae:
Sphingidae sp.
Hemaris fuciformis

Geometridae:
Aethalura punctulata
Angerona prunaria
Lomographa bimaculata
Siona lineata
Hypomecis punctinalis
Xanthorhoe biriviata
Scopula immorata
Odezia atrata

Erebidae:
Parasemia plantaginis
Euclidia mi

Pictures:

SDC12576.JPG — (2.57 mb)


SDC12579.JPG — (2.59мб)


SDC12589.JPG — (2.56 mb)


SDC12596.JPG — (2.59мб)


SDC12598.JPG — (2.57мб)

  

Total:

Hesperiidae:
Ochlodes sylvanus // Hesperia
Pyrgus malvae

Lycaenidae:
Lycaena alciphron
Lycaena phlaeas
Lycaena tityrus
Polyommatus icarus
Satyrium pruni // Fixsenia

Nymphalidae:
Melitaea athalia
Melitaea cinxia
Boloria selene
Coenonympha pamphilus // Chortobius

Pieridae:
Aporia crataegi

Sphingidae:
Sphingidae sp.
Hemaris fuciformis

Geometridae:
Aethalura punctulata
Angerona prunaria
Lomographa bimaculata
Siona lineata
Hypomecis punctinalis
Xanthorhoe biriviata
Scopula immorata
Odezia atrata

Erebidae:
Parasemia plantaginis
Euclidia mi

  
Coenonympha pamphilus // Chortobius

You know very well what a "citation index"is. Try entering the phrase "Chortobius pamphilus" in the search engine and see the results.
Quoting his own work of the previous year, even in collaboration with Bolshakov, does not, imho, give special grounds for a momentary serious revision of the established classification.

You know very well what a "citation index"is. Try entering the phrase "Chortobius pamphilus" in the search engine and see the results.
Quoting his own work of the previous year, even in collaboration with Bolshakov, does not, imho, give special grounds for a momentary serious revision of the established classification.

I don't cite any of my works - this is the first one.
I indicate the correct combination
In addition to the citation index, which has absolutely nothing to do with zoological nomenclature (that is, absolutely, in general, completely), there are also the principles of priority and coordination. Just like a search engine (Google, Yandex, Altavista, yahoo, etc.), it is not related to the nomenclature or taxonomy.

Let's - flies separately, cutlets separately. The system is built not by the citation index or Google, but by taxonomic and nomenclatural works. Which (in most cases) have an extremely low "index".

The classification is constantly reviewed, and the expression "established classification" does not cause me anything but a fit of homeric laughter. Trace at least the movements inside Rhopalocera over the last 25 years.

June 5 at the dacha, pl. Trudovaya Savelovskaya railway, on a lilac bush at the same time noticed:

PAPILIO MACHAON (2)
PARNASSIUS MNEMOSYNE (1 badly battered)
Aporia crataegi (many)
Pieris rapae (1)
Pieris napi (a little 3-5)

Hemaris fuciformis (3)
Hyles gallii (1)

Lots of beetles, mostly bronzes. I can't say for sure, I don't understand it.
Lots of different bumblebees, wasps and flies.

I specify the correct combination

Your "correct" combination is not given or confirmed by anyone (in the foreseeable future) more than in your own works and posts. So why should everyone else think it's correct at the moment? I will now call my goat Masha Hipparionoceras, and I will say that all her previous descriptions are invalid. So what? Is that how everyone follows me and will have to call her from now on?
With such an adventurous approach, any system can be turned into a brothel in a year.

And how many exactly opposite cases.
Good views continue to be rejected.
What should I do about it?

To begin with, do not rush to conclusions. A good view will eventually be recognized, and evidence of isolation will be found. But how many insufficiently justified subspecies appear, and then disappear without a trace? it seems to me that there are much more such cases now. And ask how many experts on dippers, for example, agree that they were classified as scoops?

Your "correct" combination is not given or confirmed by anyone (in the foreseeable future) more than in your own works and posts. So why should everyone else think it's correct at the moment? I will now call my goat Masha Hipparionoceras, and I will say that all her previous descriptions are invalid. So what? Is that how everyone follows me and will have to call her from now on?
With such an adventurous approach, any system can be turned into a brothel in a year.

To be honest, I hardly understood the first sentence. But I'll answer it anyway.

Very little time has passed since the publication of our work. If you think that nomenclatural and taxonomic works will take into account our current work in six months, this is naive. The period of publication of articles in imported journals is on average 6 - 10 months, in our journals-1-2 years. I hope you will draw your own conclusions.

What you call your goat is your business, personal and personally indifferent to me. In our article, we prove why Chortobius, Coenonympha, and Disommata are the most common names for pamphilus-arcania and the like, oedippus (geticus), and nolckeni, respectively.

At the end. Articles on nomenclature and taxonomy are written precisely to change the system / taxonomy/nomenclature. Large reports ("systems") are rare.

To begin with, do not rush to conclusions. A good view will eventually be recognized, and evidence of isolation will be found. But how many insufficiently justified subspecies appear, and then disappear without a trace? it seems to me that there are much more such cases now. And ask how many experts on dippers, for example, agree that they were classified as scoops?

Subspecies are a separate topic. Their manifestation in lepidopterology in most cases refers to sailboats (Parnassius s. l., Papilio, Ornithoptera, Troides), whiteflies (Colias, Colotis) and satyrs (Mycalesis, Erebia, Oeneis). To the logical question "why", we get the logical answer "because these are commercial groups".

And to the question "are there many experts on bears..." I have another question - "are there many of these same specialists on bears"? Is their opinion so weighty?

To be honest, I hardly understood the first sentence. But I'll answer it anyway.

Very little time has passed since the publication of our work. If you think that nomenclatural and taxonomic works will take into account our current work in six months, this is naive. The period of publication of articles in imported journals is on average 6 - 10 months, in our journals-1-2 years. I hope you will draw your own conclusions.

What you call your goat is your business, personal and personally indifferent to me. In our article, we prove why Chortobius, Coenonympha, and Disommata are the most common names for pamphilus-arcania and the like, oedippus (geticus), and nolckeni, respectively.

At the end. Articles on nomenclature and taxonomy are written precisely to change the system / taxonomy/nomenclature. Large reports ("systems") are rare.

To begin with, it is at least reckless to claim that something in your work is absolutely proven. You should wait until the scientific community recognizes the fact of proof. Until then, you should not over-sow your own emergency response and, if possible, use well-established terminology. At least in any case, Soepopumpha pamphilus will remain a valid name and will be used in synonymy indefinitely. Or do you want to challenge this statement as well?

 
And to the question "are there many experts on bears..." I have another question - "are there many of these same specialists on bears"? Is their opinion so weighty?

In response to such a passage , I can only refer you to my previous post about emergency situations.

  To begin with, it is at least reckless to claim that something in your work is absolutely proven. You should wait until the scientific community recognizes the fact of proof. Until then, you should not over-sow your own emergency response and, if possible, use well-established terminology. At least in any case, Soepopumpha pamphilus will remain a valid name and will be used in synonymy indefinitely. Or do you want to challenge this statement as well?

Poke me in my post, where the maxim "absolutely proven"is used there. I'll fix it.

Exactly. Wait. What did I write about?

I don't have time to cherish CHSV. Terminology is one thing, but the system and nomenclature are another. It seems to me that you are simply using the conceptual framework incorrectly.

Absolutely. But if you use, in your words, "well - established terminology" - then Papilio pamphilus.

I'll say it again: taxonomy, nomenclature, and taxonomy move mainly in small articles. Objectively covering the entire system of, say, even one family of diurnal butterflies is a challenge for many years and not for one author. That's why the analysis goes "brick by brick", and already from these bricks the wall of the system is formed. I put my bricks on a par with others.

In response to such a passage, I can only refer you to my previous post about ESV.

What's wrong with my passage? If you can't answer , just write: I don't know.
I only know three specialists from dipper. One Russian, one Belgian, one American.

in my humble opinion, the last arguments are not entirely consistent with the TOPIC in which they are conducted. there is a separate platform for this purpose.
PS Stanislav, in the warhead part I agree with you, but Everyone, and even you, understood what species/genera we are talking about. I'm not an expert on nomenclature, but if I'm not mistaken, in the "Code.." there is a point about preserving the generally accepted ones.... even bypassing priority-let's not be so critical, tb, that not everyone is familiar with your work yet. On the other hand, you are absolutely right, historical truth should prevail, but this is not a "momentary" matter (2-3 years).
Sincerely,....

in my humble opinion, the last arguments are not entirely consistent with the TOPIC in which they are conducted. there is a separate platform for this purpose.
PS Stanislav, in the warhead part I agree with you, but Everyone, and even you, understood what species/genera we are talking about. I'm not an expert on nomenclature, but if I'm not mistaken, in the "Code.." there is a point about preserving the generally accepted ones.... even bypassing priority-let's not be so critical, tb, that not everyone is familiar with your work yet. On the other hand, you are absolutely right, historical truth should prevail, but this is not a "momentary" matter (2-3 years).
Sincerely,....

the fact that offtop-I agree. But I didn't start this argument.

A clause in the Code does not give anyone other than the Commission the right to act against the priority principle.In other words, even if the name is exceptionally common, but there is an older one, the older one will automatically be used until the Commission issues an Opinion setting priority for a younger but more common name.

In the specific case we are discussing, everything is even simpler. There is a composite genus Coenonympha, which is paraphyletic in both genitalia and pharynx. Accordingly, we have divided it into separate genera.

In the specific case we are discussing, everything is even simpler. There is a composite genus Coenonympha, which is paraphyletic in both genitalia and pharynx. Accordingly, we have divided it into separate genera.

Purely by nomenclature, i.e. without going into the content of the question...

We have synonyms of the genus
Coenonympha Hübner, 1819 (valid by priority-by year)
Chortobius Dunning & Pickard, 1858 (fit, junior synonym)

Which species is the nomenclatural type for this (possibly paraphyletic) taxon? Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus, 1758) ?

Maybe I'm wrong, but IMHO the priority generic name should be reserved for the group in which the nomenclature type is located

If paraphyletic behavior is proven and the species is divided into two groups. Then, for all species that have a different synapomorphy from Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus, 1758). whatever it is. the highest priority of the junior synonyms, namely Chortobius, should be used.

The combination of Chortobius pamphilus does not fit into this logic.

I don't argue, since I'm not an expert on this group, but please explain why you see here the priority of the generic name Chartobius for the pamphilus species ?

And it would be nice if the moderator moved this discussion to the topic "educational program on nomenclature", I think that's what it's called.

This post was edited by Seneka - 07.06.2012 18: 52

Purely by nomenclature, i.e. without going into the content of the question...

We have synonyms of the genus
Coenonympha Hübner, 1819 (valid by priority-by year)
Chortobius Dunning & Pickard, 1858 (fit, junior synonym)

Which species is the nomenclatural type for this (possibly paraphyletic) taxon? Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus, 1758) ?

Maybe I'm wrong, but IMHO the priority generic name should be reserved for the group in which the nomenclature type is located

If paraphyletic behavior is proven and the species is divided into two groups. Then, for all species that have a different synapomorphy from Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus, 1758). whatever it is. the highest priority of the junior synonyms, namely Chortobius, should be used.

The combination of Chortobius pamphilus does not fit into this logic.

I don't argue, since I'm not an expert on this group, but please explain why you see here the priority of the generic name Chartobius for the pamphilus species ?

And it would be nice if the moderator moved this discussion to the topic "educational program on nomenclature", I think that's what it's called.

Type of Coenonympha-Papilio geticus (= oedippus)
Chortobius Type-Papilio pamphilus

Type of Coenonympha-Papilio geticus (= oedippus)
Chortobius type-Papilio pamphilus

I agree, everything is logical.

What's wrong with my passage? If you can't answer , just write: I don't know.
I only know three specialists from dipper. One Russian, one Belgian, one American.

Once again, for those in the tank: it doesn't matter how many dipper experts there are, what matters is how you treat them. And your attitude is expressed in the last sentence:
"Is their opinion so weighty?" Think at your leisure, but is your opinion so weighty for someone in this case? And what does it have to do with, it would seem, ESV?

Medveditsam-medveditsevo, satyram-satyrovo, nymphalidam-nimfalidovo. Everyone to Bolotnaya! I wish you to read reports in the summer-otchetovo.

Once again, for those in the tank: it doesn't matter how many dipper experts there are, what matters is how you treat them. And your attitude is expressed in the last sentence:
"Is their opinion so weighty?" Think at your leisure, but is your opinion so weighty for someone in this case? And what does it have to do with, it would seem, ESV?

It is extremely important how many specialists there are.
Their level of training is equally important.
About my attitude "to them" (to specialists? to the dippers? - and it all started with the system) I'll answer later, when I know who to contact.
My opinion is just as valid as it can be proved.

I will tell you an anecdote that fully characterizes your sequence of judgments.

Vinnie and Nickle meet. Vinnie has a cheesecake in her hand.
Dime: "Winnie, Winnie! Give me a bite of cheesecake."
Winnie, having a bite of cottage cheese: "This is not a cheesecake, but a bagel!"
Dime: "Winnie, Winnie! Let me take a bite of the bagel.
Vinnie, after biting off half of it: "It's not a bagel! It's a bagel.
Nickelback: "Winnie, Winnie! Give the bagel a try!"
Vinnie: "Fuck you, you filthy pig! You don't know what you want!!!!"

Medveditsam-medveditsevo, satyram-satyrovo, nymphalidam-nimfalidovo. Everyone to Bolotnaya! I wish you to read reports in the summer-otchetovo.

And what should we do on Bolotnaya? We need to reduce the world's population by 2 billion, then there will be no need for Bolotnaya.

It is extremely important how many specialists there are.
Their level of training is equally important.
About my attitude "to them" (to specialists? to the dippers? - and it all started with the system) I'll answer later, when I know who to contact.
My opinion is just as valid as it can be proved.

I will tell you an anecdote that fully characterizes your sequence of judgments.

Yes, I see that you are a great master of trolling. First, you blurt out an obvious topic for a long time, and then end up with bearded jokes.
My complaints to you come down to 2 simple points:
1. Do not rush to redescribe long-defined types (which, by the way, I was not the only one who told you about), and if you are already doing this, do not poke everyone's nose into your work, but wait until it is recognized, relatively speaking, by the "scientific community".
2. Learn to respect the opinions of others and do not consider yourself the navel of the earth. Your mentoring tone suits you as well as Soy's pince-nez.

Then I take my leave, because the question is flawed, as they say. Don't bother making excuses.

This post was edited by aleko-08.06.2012 09: 02