www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

So..... have had this for a little while, and wondered what anyone thinks. It certainly gives a different take on the usual stuff in the books we are used to. Some of the distributions given are eyebrow raisers, at least from a Westerner's view point.
Presently, I'm most interested in what is said about Euphydryas aurinia debilis vs E. glaciegenita which is new to me. Could I have another species among my images of aurinia???? (!) I rather guess not
It is great to see the Western species shading their way into Asia, and how the resemblances change.

Has anyone else noticed oddities within?

According to the European Environment Agency Melitaea glaciegenita (Verity, 1928) ranks as a synonym of Euphydryas aurinia and is not considered a valid name. Ref: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90963/general

So, the EU won't grant you another species!

Mike

So far as I know the taxonomic conclusions cited in this book are derivative, not primary research, but I do know he did a lot of secondary research. One or two maps are quite significantly wrong, but so they are in a lot of books - and I find that Tshikolovets has let slip relatively few errors compared to many.

The debilis/glaciengenita/aurinia thing is a live issue. Some treat debilis as a subspecies of aurinia and glaciengenita as a form of debilis. Others (for a long time) have treated glaciegenita as having specific status. The first question is: is glaciegenita well defined? That is, do we know which individual butterflies, in collections or in the field, are correctly included in this putative taxon. The second question is: if it is well defined, is it cladal? Nowadays, this question is answered by biochemical analysis rather than morphologically, so most of us can have no reasonable hope of answering it. Tshikolovets correctly implies that research is ongoing and we don't know all the answers. The third question is: if it is cladal, does it merit specific status? This is far and away the least important question, as specific status (regardless of what GCSE biology books say) is ultimately an arbitrary decision.

My own field experience is that aurinia is a very complex and variable species (or species group) but in any given locality it has relatively well defined limits of variation. I tend to call all the mountain forms in Switzerland debilis (though according to T these are glaciegenita). However, if further research comes to definite conclusions I will amend my nomenclature accordingly. I don't think it will affect my butterfly-watching or my understanding of what I am seeing in any real way - it will just mean I have to update my website!

Guy

According to Kudrna the name debilis is a nomen nudum, that is a name published without an accompanying description, and is therefore invalid. The next available name for the distinctive alpine taxon is glaciegenita. As far as I know, the most recent research does not support the contention that glaciegenita is specifically distinct from aurinia. T. muddies the waters by using debilisfor the Pyrenean and western alpine populations.
There also seems to be mounting confusion around the dappled whites Euchloe. T.has both ausonia and crameri present in France and Spain. I have been unable to trace any recent research that would support that view, and there appears to be nothing in the extensive bibliography in his book. Fauna Europaea is in a muddle too. It has ausonia in France but not Spain. For crameri it has Spain, Italy and bizarrely Belgium, but not France.

M.

It's an interesting point about the Euchloe species, Misha. I wrote to T with a question about some Agrodiaetus species and he replied very promptly, giving his sources. Perhaps you could e-mail him about Euchloe - I'd like to know his answer. He obviously didn't conjure up these maps from nowhere. Kudrna is not much direct help here as he conflates the maps, but he does note that both species fly in SE France - something not apparent from T's maps.

Guy

Interesting page re: Euphydryas aurinia debilis vs E. glaciegenita
http://www.lepiforum.de/cgi-bin/lepiwik ... as_aurinia
The picture they say is glaciegenita does look quite different to debilis - but then one photo of a single individual does not seem enough to say it is a different sub species...
My own debilis from Valais 2010 were all quite similar... and very different to provincialis from Provence 2011.... A beautifully varied butterfly.....