Karyotype and COI gene sequences of Chironomus melanotus Keyl, 1961 from the Yaroslavl region (Russia) were analyzed. A low level of chromosomal polymorphism has been confirmed, eventually eight banding sequences were found: melA1, melB1, melC1, melD1, melE1, melF1, and melG1; only melD2 was found in two larvae from the Sunoga river. Analysis of phylogenetic tree and estimated genetic distances has shown not all COI gene sequences of Ch. melanotus in GenBank and BOLD to belong to this species. The lower distance of 0.4% was observed between two sequences from the Yaroslavl region and Finland, apparently these are true Ch. melanotus sequences. The distances between true Ch. melanotus and other sequences from Finland were 9.5% and 12.4%, and from Sweden it was 11%. The average genetic distance between studied sequences of 9.1% is out of the range of the 3% threshold previously determined for chironomids. According to our estimates, there are two sequences with a distance of 2.9% that may belong to Ch. annularius Meigen, 1818, and one sequence with a genetic distance of 2.1%, may belonging to Ch. cingulatus Meigen, 1830, which has been confirmed karyologically. Another two sequences form a separate cluster. We suggest that they either belong to a known species, but are not present in the databases, or belong to a distinct, undescribed species.

中文翻译：

---

1961年俄罗斯雅罗斯拉夫尔地区摇蚊的核型和COI基因序列，以及使用GenBank和BOLD系统鉴定的困难

 分析了 1961 年来自雅罗斯拉夫尔地区（俄罗斯）的 Chironomus melanotus Keyl 的核型和 COI 基因序列。已经确认了低水平的染色体多态性，最终发现了八个条带序列：melA1、melB1、melC1、melD1、melE1、melF1和melG1；在 Sunoga 河的两只幼虫中仅发现了 melD2。系统发育树分析和估计的遗传距离显示并非所有 Ch. COI 基因序列。GenBank 中的 melanotus 和 BOLD 属于该种。在来自雅罗斯拉夫尔地区和芬兰的两个序列之间观察到 0.4% 的较低距离，显然这些是真实的 Ch。黑色素序列。真实通道之间的距离。来自芬兰的 melanotus 和其他序列分别为 9.5% 和 12.4%，来自瑞典的为 11%。9 的研究序列之间的平均遗传距离。1% 超出了先前为摇蚊确定的 3% 阈值范围。根据我们的估计，有两个距离为2.9%的序列可能属于Ch。annularius Meigen, 1818, 1个遗传距离为2.1%的序列可能属于Ch. cingulatus Meigen, 1830, 经核学证实。另外两个序列形成一个单独的簇。我们建议它们要么属于已知物种，但不存在于数据库中，要么属于独特的、未描述的物种。另外两个序列形成一个单独的簇。我们建议它们要么属于已知物种，但不存在于数据库中，要么属于独特的、未描述的物种。另外两个序列形成一个单独的簇。我们建议它们要么属于已知物种，但不存在于数据库中，要么属于独特的、未描述的物种。