Beetles of the Moscow and adjacent regions

Community and Forum → Insects biology and faunistics → Beetles of the Moscow and adjacent regions

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

19.10.2007 10:41, omar

Question to Mr. Usach, as an expert of the group and the closest (if I'm not mistaken) colleague of Mr. Danilevsky. When compiling a checklist for the Moscow region, the species Rhopalopus clavipes is mentioned. I once collected this species in the Moscow region, identified it, and without attaching any importance to the find (I am weak in barbels), I put it in the back box. Once in a conversation with me, Nikitsky mentioned that he personally did not see any specimens from the region for this species. I was very surprised and said that I had one. N. B. was happy and said that he was not sure of my definition and wanted to see it personally. I brought it back and showed it to you. My definition was correct. Question: Based on which instances the view was included in the scope list? Do they exist at all? And, if possible, with labels.

25.12.2007 13:31, amara

I would like to inform you that Nikolai Yunakov (a specialist in this group from Zina) has kindly taken a look at my beetle, as Omiamima concinna (which now belongs to the genus Baromiamima Borovec, 2006) he was not known from the Russian Federation. Of course, I'm an amateur in general, but I'm also new to elephants, so I could have screwed up everything.

I got a response:

"Hello Boris.
I received the bug, signed it, and sent it back the same day.
This beetle is not Omiamima concinna, but Barypeithes (Exomias) pellucidus (Boheman, 1834)
All the best to you, and a Happy New Year!
Nikolai".

So I screwed up the definition.
But this is also interesting, since this species in "green" (=Barypithes) was given only for Pri - and Transcarpathia. I learned, however, that it is found all over Fennoscandia.

This post was edited by amara - 12/25/2007 13: 37

Likes: 2

25.12.2007 13:58, amara

It has long been known that there is something wrong with elephant ranges in green. Could you find out, if you have a contact fused together, with Yunakov, whether in this case it is possible to determine from the Isaev table and whether this species is still in the fauna of Russia?

It's most likely not in the determinant, but in my lack of skill in identifying this group (I'm learning).
Although the distribution data, such as in this case, may have become outdated. I asked Yunakov a question about the distribution of this type, and when I get an answer, I'll let him know, and I'll ask him about the tables in Isaev, too.
By the way, I learned from the literature that this species is spreading rapidly. For example, in the Wrighter's determinant (1915), it was given for France and on the very border with Germany, and now it is already known as entered from several points in the USA and Canada. So it is possible that it has also moved east in our country.

This post was edited by amara - 12/25/2007 15: 15

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

26.12.2007 9:44, amara

It has long been known that there is something wrong with elephant ranges in green. Could you find out, if you have a contact fused together, with Yunakov, whether in this case it is possible to determine from the Isaev table and whether this species is still in the fauna of Russia?

I got the answer here:

"Hello Boris.
The green determinant was written quite a long time ago. in those years, as far as I know, the collection of weevils in ZINA was not set up very well. And since the data on distribution in the determinant was based mainly on the ZIN collection, such inaccuracies are often found there. I've seen Isaev's book, but unfortunately I haven't looked at it carefully, so I can't give an assessment of the work at this time.
Dr. Nikolai N. Yunakov
Laboratory of Insect Systematics
Zoological Institute
Russian Academy of Sciences"

This post was edited by amara - 12/26/2007 09: 45

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 5

Likes: 1

Likes: 3

Likes: 2

Likes: 3

Likes: 2

10.01.2008 20:00, алекс 2611

I believe that the thickness of the dotted line is a very variable sign and it is hardly worth counting on it seriously. I've always been touched when the tag says "rough and thick dotted lines" and the antithesis says "less rough and thick dotted lines". This is where I start gritting my teeth, especially when there is no drawing of genitals and I have a female.

Well I do not know... For me, the "thickness of the dotted line" is a fairly constant sign (at least for eardrums).
When the tag says "the dotted line is rough and thick", and the antithesis says "the dotted line is less rough and thick" - this is of course annoying. But it's annoying when there's only one view available. And when there are both types-you clearly understand: the author of the determinant was right, the difference in the "thick of the dotted line" is so obvious....

Likes: 1