Photo #6380: Celastrina sp.

Imago

Base gallery. Lateral/Underside. Alive insect.

Photo, and identified by: Yuri Semejkin. Image redone at the website

Date and time, location shooting/catching: 2009-06-16 00:00:00, Vladivostok, FEBRAS Botanical garden

Comments on this image

31.03.2013 18:26, Yuri Semejkin

Hello, Alexander!
I do not understand on what basis you put all of our discussion into question? Do you want a 100% guarantee determination, it just can not be (in this version). Special literature, as you write, difficult for an amateur Alexander, the theme on the matter in general is closed, so in poreshali agent Ira.But few will answer your questions. I do not doubt your determination. As you yourself said, in this case, 100% is impossible to define, but it was discussed more than once. Regarding the reference to the atlas, like the 2004 edition. All images are made on the film, quality video because I'm low and results in this example ..... I will not continue this topic, so as not to load the page.infoy not required. For me it is better to use the necessary literature, despite its complexity (I would like to modernizing sometimes it helped), or did not participate in the discussion at all. If we provide links, the sources for quality, not just ...I hope to answer no sooner had offended and, of something to say, and not always in the form of a smooth, but not me, not the sides never hurt each other. Now here before, to write something, we have to zadumyvatsya, and whether it is necessary. You can even remove the page or the top part of it, or leave it as is. To et al.It could see no need to conduct a dialogue. Ps not required to answer, and so there is already a lot of off-topic written

31.03.2013 17:28, Alexandr Zhakov

Yuri, say, their opinions have not changed, and specify. from "not argiolus" to "ladonides, inaccurate determination." The discussion considered all possible options. I do not understand on what basis you put all of our discussion into question? Do you want a 100% guarantee determination, it just can not be (in this version).Special literature, as you write, for an amateur difficult, and popular, where very often mistakes and outdated information, it is the truth.
So it is very difficult to come to concrete results.
I am very gracious to you for a large number of interesting photos from the Far East, the species that is rarely seen.But it is not necessary in this case to bring the situation to absurdity.
Peter. do not arrange dies. :). Strife is not present, there is a lack of understanding and acceptance of the views of others. As an exception to put some kind of three authors, Germans lepiforume do that.
To arrange such discussions under each photo inaccurately determined, it is too.Yuri, require that at least each photo for each definition, the result on the basis of which it was made, is not correct, if not clear, should be requested to specify the differences, and determined already decided to explain or not. Just do not always time and sometimes useless as an example here.No one wanted to offend and all have great respect for.

28.03.2013 18:12, Irina Nikulina

I am not going to add anything, but apparently will have to answer in detail to avoid misunderstandings and grew a tendency to "red stamp". You're absolutely right - I'm always for the truth, clarified in the correct form. Therefore, I explain:
1. Jura, please read carefully - I have not referred to the opinion of Al.Zhakova on the species, and his words about the fact that the information is sufficient, and I quote your correspondence with him:
03.21.2013 0:07 Alexander Zhakov: Yes, like enough.
03.20.2013 23:53 Yuri Semeykin: I would not tolerate, at least for now. Like all came to the conclusion that of information in this case is not enough.
03.20.2013 18:50 Alexander Zhakov: Peter and the transferred.:)
In this regard, I wrote yesterday - "I like Al. Zhakov, I think that seems to be enough said on this page, and here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21521 »

2. "What is it you find that the views have changed?" The answer to that. My views have not changed. From the very beginning, as soon as you sent me a link, I suggested (02.19.13), it is not Celastrina filipjevi (on the underside). Next, I have deleted and Celastrina oreas, becausethey are very similar to filipjevi. From 4 previously discussed here remains the most likely types of 2. Then I found in the guide: butterfly with almost the same underside, and wrote about it below 3.18.13. Again quoting the post with the comments Al. Zhakova:
19.03.2013 0:07 Alexander Zhakov Irina, I fully agree that the Forum will keep a record of the volume of comment. :))
03.18.2013 22:46 Irina Nikulina: Do not give rest to this photo). Ure, the new guide: "Fauna of the Ussuri taiga", edited by AEVrischa which acquired, flying away from you, this kind of early spring is uniquely defined as Celastrina ladonides (copper-butterfly ladonopodobnaya). This atlas you probably have (including "Flora" is exactly)), see pages 116-117. Photo, by the way, Yuri Chistyakov
3. Realizing that it does not give full confidence in the determination of the species, I started to look in their photo archives and found Celastrina ladonides.Yesterday I gave you the link to this photo and comment under him write again: http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/21521. There's no doubt in determining the form, because there is female lays eggs on the food plants lespedeza. I will not repeat, see comment. Comparing the butterfly on his photos, butterfly satin ed.Vrischa and butterflies on thine image, come, I think, the most probable conclusion - that this kind of photo Celastrina ladonides.
Actually, the same conclusion in appearance came earlier and more dvoe- Al. Zhakov and Eugene. Caroline (eschё17.02.13g)
Again I quote (not completely, so as not to prolong the post):
02.17.2013 15:48 Evgeny Caroline ... ..Netochny ladonides - the most obvious option ....
17.02.2013 15:35 Alexander Zhakov ... ..Privedennuyu pictured butterfly, I think you can put into the form ladonides inaccurate definition.
I suppose it meant Al. Zhakov when you wrote, "three members of the discussion came to the same opinion the most likely."Again, I agree with him that "on this particular photo can be no doubt, therefore, must make a determination (a type defined inaccurately)"
I do not see who and when to change opinion., As you write. In my opinion, it is such, and was at least 17.02. I have - especially since I have never been expressed here about any form except ladonides.And the question of how to transfer photos or not- that's really here just do not I decide, it's up to the moderators and it was suggested Alexander, I'm just reminded Peter, what kind of a question.
Here, perhaps, and all I can say about this, if no emotion.Sorry for the long post, I wanted to finally clarify his opinion, without insisting on its 100-% fidelity (especially because it is a question of determining the type of software image).

17.02.2013 15:35, Alexandr Zhakov

Yuri, see p. 143, it stated that in the Far East this species subspecies levetti, and in Japan it is replaced by a close subspecies ladonides. On the same page, two species of this genus sachalinensis and filipjevi.
The determinants of insect LW T5 ch5 on str.375 i376, we read:
C. ladonides de l'Orza (sachalinensis Esaki)
Hub., Cupid., Prim., Peninsula of Korea, SW China ....... C. l. ladonides
Sah., Yu Cours. ..... C. l. sachalinensis.
Hence, I think it follows that it was about Kurentsova C. ladonides.(synonym levetti, my assumption about synonymization, lit. instructions not found).
For other species of the genus Celastrina, where everything is not easy. But to quote the determinant LW T5 ch5, I probably is not worth it. And kind Celastrina oreas, is not there. Although his offer in the Russian spacecraft.
2. Yuri work Korshunova 1964, during which time many navorochat taxonomy.Celastrina argiolus and Cyaniris argiolus are not synonymous, and a combination of different kinds of species argiolus. This often happens initially Papilio argiolus, then Cyaniris argiolus, today Celastrina argiolus.
The initial view Celastrina argiolus ADVANCED several species and their respective habitats changed. Now examine the genes, and all will become even more difficult.Shown in the photo butterfly, I think you can put into the form ladonides inaccurate definition.

17.02.2013 15:21, Eugene Karolinskiy

Yuri! Here the key point - the year of publication in 1964, and (I think) 1970. lepidopterist does not stand still. As I understand it, somewhere to 70 it was considered that the type of C. argiolus - it Holarctic species inhabiting entirely Eurasia and North America. Polee modern isledovanija shown that it is not. All in.American researchers have gradually "destroyed" this complex 5 or 6 different species, and argiolus among them anymore. A similar story - in the Amur region and Primorye. Ie if satisfied state of science 40 years ago, we can assume that this argiolus. ;)

As for the generic names: simplistic - yes, it is synonymous.In fact, around the same time in the Soviet Union completely replaced the conventional classification of childbirth. Some names have fallen asleep in the Lord, some actually "moved" to another family (as happened to Cyaniris). (In fact, each of the generic name has the type species, that is just before us is the name used is incorrect.) Just look at the names of genera and Kurentsova at least compared to those on this website. In general, Linnaeus was one genus - Papilio. So if satisfied state of science 250 years ago - the butterfly on a picture called Papilio argiolus L.;)))

17.02.2013 4:44, Yuri Semejkin

There was a question about Celastrina argiolus.Ya seen in an Internet link that this butterfly in the Far East is not. It seems convincing? But:
1. The determinant Kurentsova, page 143 there is a description butterflies Cyaniris argiolus L (copper-butterfly spring). In an Internet it says that it is an invalid name. What kind of butterfly in question and how it is now called?
2. There are others. This article link http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/files/lib/Korshunov_1964.htm YPKorshunova Butterflies of Lepidoptera -yuzhny coast of Crimea. Where he writes: This article is supplemented appropriate (modern name) described in her Crimean species.
Then bring in the order [Celastrina argiolus] Cyaniris argiolus L. Is that synonymous? Ie Celastrina, -Modern name Cyaniris argiolus? ...... About the raprostraneniya: All of Europe, North Africa, small and Wed. Asia and Siberia to Japan.Therefore it is in the Far East is. For more information on the link, para 89

13.02.2013 13:52, Yuri Semejkin

"13.02.2013 3:29, Evgeny Karolinsky
I'm familiar with Y. A. Chistyakov's publication, holding it in my hands now. Sadly there are several serious mistakes made on the identification by photo (blues and skippers)."

Won't comment the mistakes. As for skippers, everything seems right instead. So again words without proofs. Please give me the species and page, I'll see what you're talking about? And argue these "serious mistakes" you found out. You seem to see this clear, no doubt, no difficulties with skippers. Then explain it to folks, "knowledge to people", as Petr said before. Elucidate why you don't agree with some of the books IDs, which you deem as species wrongly identified.
As for the books, I scanned Kurentsov's book and part of the "Identification guide to insects of Russian Far East", though these appear kinda tough for an amateur. I'd like someone to help.
Also this. The moving of species seems kinda weird. Like some old and reliable user says something like "Can't name the species, but I know it's identified wrongly". Amusing though meaningless word play. Ok, there are some species that require detailed genitalia examination to be identified. But when it's not the thing, you get a similar reply like "There are no such species in your hood". That's all "knowledge to people" so far.
Sometimes it really feels like certain commentators are naturally out of subject. Hence I'd like to get some detailed resume in comments or discussion board or wherever else with analysis of the ID and reasoned conclusions. Let's sort out all issues. Sure, each case can't be treated as ideal, no time for that, but some at least.

12.02.2013 18:51, Alexandr Zhakov

Yury, there is no need to believe me, I actually have a very poor knowledge of lepidoptera of Russian Far East and Primorye particularly, this region is out of my interest. Also I'm not familiar with Y. A. Chistyakov's publication, which issue year you never mentioned. I just wanted to lay out the situation. I referred to the publication that summarized the research of all Russian lepidopterists, Sinev's Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Russia. If this publication doesn't seem competent, let's refer to the corypheus of the Russian Far East butterflies, A. I. Kurentsov and his work "The Butterflies of the Far-East USSR" that mentions Celastrina argiolus yet subspecies levetti. There are only two species of this genus in Primorye.
Open the next book "Identification guide to insects of Russian Far East", vol. 5, pt. 5, 2005, where Celastrina argiolus is mentioned in the north of the Amur region, Yakutia, Chita, Buryatia, Siberia (except north), Caucasus, European Russia northwest, China, Mongolia, the Himalayas, Iran (mountains), Afganistan, Central Asia, Western Asia, Europe (west and east), and also three species in Primorye. Check this book, should be in the library of the Botanical Garden, the systematics couldn't quite change over the past 8 years.

12.02.2013 17:01, Yuri Semejkin

Petr! I've tried to question here the very identification process. Now look at this 11.02.2013 20:33, Alexandr Zhakov:

"Both Evgeny already said it right, now I'll try to explain it more thoroughly.
Also this is a clear example of two burning questions about common names and locations.
So the answer to Yury.
1. There is no Celastrina argiolus in Primorye, even somewhere nearby. See Sinev's Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Russia, already discussed here."

As for the statement "There is no Celastrina argiolus in Primorye", please elaborate where it actually is? Lazy to check the web now. So I ask you to refer to Y. A. Chistyakov, Ph.D. in Biological Science, and his book "Live Mosaic. Butterflies of the Primorye region, Vladivostok city", page 89. Let Alexandr Zhakov check it, this book should be available on the web (didn't check myself since I've got a print edition).
So the author says this very butterfly Celastrina argi0lus L. is expanded all around here. Larvae feed on beans.
Petr! Tell me then to whom should I listen to, to A. Zhakov who's not local and says that there is no Celastrina argiolus in Primorye, or to the local expert who got a book published?
Maybe we still need message board? This can be always deleted if doesn't work out.

11.02.2013 20:33, Alexandr Zhakov

Both Evgeny already said it right, now I'll try to explain it more thoroughly.
Also this is a clear example of two burning questions about common names and locations.
So the answer to Yury.
1. There is no Celastrina argiolus in Primorye, even somewhere nearby. See Sinev's Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Russia, already discussed here.
2. There are 4 Celastrina species in Primorye, Celastrina ladonides, Celastrina filipjevi, Celastrina oreas and Celastrina phellodendroni. They are all rather similar, and the last three are endemic in this region of Russia. Again, please refer to Sinev's Catalogue, already discussed here.
3. In case one or several of these species appear early in the spring, they all naturally share this general common name "spring blue". Distinctions might be hard to see to non-pros whilst the phenology is similar. If we assume that the Russian common name has something to do with the genus, then you must add which one is "spring". :)
Evgeny and another Evgeny both argue correctly noting the absence of this species in where the shot was taken and saying there is a bunch of species hard to identify by photo. Furthermore, if Yury didn't note the location, the species would stay wrongly identified on the website.
Only real expert who has deep knowledge of the blues in Primorye and especially of this very genus is able to make a relatively reliable conclusion using exclusion methods to come to the most possible variant.