Xylobiont ground beetles(?)

Ground beetles (all sorts of different) very often hide under shelters. And such shelters are most often tree trunks. Under them and in them it is very convenient to collect all sorts of animals. But call it all xylobionts... Then you also need to record woodlice, millipedes, gastropods, etc.

They are not related to wood. Although I found some of my own under the wet and rotted bark of a poplar tree, next to Hololepta plana. And Syntomus has never been caught at all in my life, just rather looking for shelter, here AlexEv is right.

Yes, of course. But the label did not indicate exactly where the beetles were found in the wood and in what condition (more precisely, how it was located in space ) this wood was. Maybe the collector found them by gouging out a rotten tree trunk. In this case, they can be xylobionts (i.e. there is such a possibility).

Yes, of course. But the label did not indicate exactly where the beetles were found in the wood and in what condition (more precisely, how it was located in space ) this wood was. Maybe the collector found them by gouging out a rotten tree trunk. In this case, they can be xylobionts (i.e. there is such a possibility).

The fact that the author indicated in detail on the label the place of collection indicates that a person just collects (correctly, by the way). And as for the xylobionts and rotten wood , of course you did. Open a dictionary thread and read who the xylobionts are...

And as for the xylobionts and rotten wood , of course you did. Open a dictionary thread and read who the xylobionts are...

I found it here: "Xylobiont-an organism that lives in wood". What is the flexion?

I found it here: "Xylobiont-an organism that lives in wood". What is the flexion?

Well, if you really want to, call them " facultative xylobionts." Although this is also wrong. They're just looking for shelter there. If there is a stone, it will hide under a stone, if there is a piece of wood, it will hide under a piece of wood. Xylobints are those that specialize in living in wood. All sorts of zlatki, barbels, bark beetles...

Xylobints are those that specialize in living in wood. All sorts of zlatki, barbels, bark beetles...

All sorts of zlatki, barbels, bark beetles...these are xylophages.
There are several other trophic groups of
Sapro-xylo-mycetophages (pit. rotten bark, wood and similar fungal mycelium)
True mycetophages and myxomycetophages (they are also divided into groups)
Predators
Parasites
These groups are distinguished by the type of larval food, and the imago food may be different or it may not be.

Well, if you really want to, call them " facultative xylobionts." Although this is also wrong.

Why wrong?

I have a suspicion that the larvae of this species develop in the wood of a certain degree of "smoothness", and in the spring the imago comes out of the wood. I want to check this in the spring in the places where these instances were collected.

I have in my hands A. F. Bartenev's abstract "Xylophage beetles of the mountain Crimea" (by the way, V. A. M. gave it to me). It says: "Coleoptera associated with trees as a habitat include a number of ecological groups based on common food regimes (Mamaev, 1977). Most representatives of the small families: Scydmaenidae, Ostomatidae, Cucuidae, etc. belong to necrophages, mycetophages, and saprophages. A significant group consists of zoophages (predators): Carabidae, Histeridae, Staphylinidae, Cleridae, Elateridae, Nitidulidae, etc."

Dzanat, Tachyta nana in this case xylobiont after all?

Yes.

N. P. Krivosheina and B. M. Mamaev, 1967
" The ecological group of xylobiont invertebrates includes not only those communities whose representatives develop in the thickness of bark and wood, but also inhabitants of the surface zone of decomposing stumps and trunks, resin deposits and leaking and fermenting tree sap on freshly cut stumps or damaged trees. "

Dzanat, Tachyta nana in this case xylobiont after all?

A microlestes - no

Why not? I.e. where does the information come from?

Because Microlestes just don't care. And this, by the way, I specifically found out from N. B. Nikitsky. It has nothing to do with xylobionts. And the fact that the collector indicated the location of the find, he could indicate that a butterfly was caught on a flower, and a fly, for example, on the wall of a house. But this means absolutely nothing.

Because Microlestes just don't care.

What do you mean? I'm talking primarily about this particular subspecies. It is clear that almost all Microlestes are herpetobiont beetles.

I have no information about this subspecies

All sorts of zlatki, barbels, bark beetles...these are xylophages.
There are several other trophic groups of
Sapro-xylo-mycetophages (pit. rotten bark, wood and similar fungal mycelium)
True mycetophages and myxomycetophages (they are also divided into groups)
Predators
Parasites
These groups are distinguished by the type of larval food, and the imago food may be different or it may not be.

Yes, that's right, th then I messed up at all.
On mikrolestes all the same "pofigisty". I totally agree with that.
By the way, read Sharova's Life Forms. What she writes about the adaptations of ground beetles to living in wood.

What do you mean? I'm talking primarily about this particular subspecies. It is clear that almost all Microlestes are herpetobiont beetles.

The fact is that I saw only a few specimens from the RO (the stake of our zoomuseum) and only two of them were found not in wood: one specimen - somewhere in the north of the region, the "substrate" is not specified (collection of V. A. Minoransky); the second-in Rostov-on-Don "flew in in the window". (collection of Yu. G. Arzanov).
The rotten wood beetles were in perfect condition (not battered), all as one. The collection date is the same for everyone (collection of Yu. G. Arzanov).

This is what makes me uneasy, because it is caught very rarely, and in wood "in bulk".

But the fact that the date and place of collection are the same should be alarming "in the opposite direction". In the sense that Arzanov could accidentally stumble upon a cluster of these beetles in one place. After all, in other places they simply did not find them? M. B. the female laid her eggs in this very wood, the larvae did not spread out from there, but fed there, then pupated, came out and then Arzanov collected "new" beetles.
And once again , the fact that the collector describes the collection location in detail only means that it is a very outdated collector. And everything...

And yet, there is no evidence that this species (subspecies) does not live in wood, as well as in favor of the fact that it lives there. Right?

But I forgot to read Sharov, by the way .

Well, from all this reasoning, I conclude that everything that we find in wood (insects, millipedes, woodlice, spiders, mollusks, earthworms, leeches) that are not specialized xylobionts and xylophages, we can classify as some "facultative xylobionts"... Does everyone agree with me?

Well, from all this reasoning, I conclude that everything that we find in wood (insects, millipedes, woodlice, spiders, mollusks, earthworms, leeches) that are not specialized xylobionts and xylophages, we can classify as some "facultative xylobionts"... Does everyone agree with me?

This is also how to understand "specialized xylobionts" (it is clear that xylophages are xylobionts). If there are " specialized "ones, then there should be "optional" ones. Therefore, probably "optional" is not "any".
The main question in this situation is: who are xylbionts?

Can xylobionts be considered organisms that live in wood at a certain stage of its decomposition (a link in succession)? If so, the microlestes I was interested in might be a xylobiont.
If they can live without this wood, they are "optional", and if they can't, they are "specialized or strict". I think so...

By the way, I looked at the work of I. H. Sharova
here is something on the topic:

  

This post was edited by Adamov - 23.11.2007 16: 58

Pictures:
Dromina.JPG — (82.24к) 23.11.2007 — 07.12.2007

Well, from all this reasoning, I conclude that everything that we find in wood (insects, millipedes, woodlice, spiders, mollusks, earthworms, leeches) that are not specialized xylobionts and xylophages, we can classify as some "facultative xylobionts"... Does everyone agree with me?

No
I had such a case this spring: in the drive biotope (the bank of the vdhrn, densely overgrown with reeds), I found a fairly rotten log. Naturally, I decided to get acquainted with its inhabitants. Under the bark and in its rotten wood, I caught several Patrobus septentrionis, some Pterostichus (I don't remember the type anymore, but something from the usual privodnik), many Oxypselaphus obscurus, and also one Demetrias monostigma. The rotten wood was plentifully stuffed with beetles, but then consider them xylobionts?.. It seems that all their connection with wood is accidental, they just found a convenient daytime shelter there.
At the beginning of the summer, there was another similar interesting find: 1 specimen was caught in the dust of an old, rotten poplar tree in a wooded area near the field. Paradromius linearis. Moreover, there is not a single reservoir within a radius of 5-7 km from the place of capture . In this case, I do not undertake to unequivocally deny the xylobionty of paradromius...
Probably, everything here is determined by the ecological plasticity of the species - if it is rigidly stenobiont, it can only live in a certain type of biotope, then it can only be found there. If a species is able to adapt more or less to conditions that are somewhat different from "normal" for it, then its habitat in nature will be much wider... Thus, the most "plastic" species that are not specialized for living under bark and in wood can also be found in these conditions.

Most Dromius and related genera are indeed xylobionts, inhabiting thin bark scales on tree branches. This is a fact. Paradromius linearis is no exception. They are collected by shaking off branches. Patrobus septentrionis-are you sure about the definition? This is a rather northern view, it is strange that it turned out to be in Kursk (or the region).

This post was edited by omar - 11/23/2007 17: 36

Most Dromius and related genera are indeed xylobionts, inhabiting thin bark scales on tree branches. This is a fact. Paradromius linearis is no exception. They are collected by shaking off branches. Patrobus septentrionis-are you sure about the definition? This is a rather northern view, it is strange that it turned out to be in Kursk (or the region).

As for the patronbus, the most interesting thing is that this species was caught not even in Kursk, but even further south - in the Belgorod region, almost on the border with Ukraine . Moreover, in the specified place (vdhrn coast), the species is quite massive, it goes very well into traps. I am sure of the definition, by all signs this is exactly this type, I have already shown it to a specialist.
As for paradromius-in green it is said that it occurs along the banks of reservoirs, in Isaev - the same thing, with the addition that on grassy vegetation... Therefore I was surprised to find this species in a rotten piece of wood and a fairly dry place

In fact, if the species is massive-do not be lazy, pick up the beetle (you can not even get to the genitals) remove the elytra - this species does not have wings, all other representatives of the genus (ours) they are there. There's a lot of nonsense written in green. Isaev copied a lot of ground beetles without looking at it. In fact, this species is confined to dry places, mainly dry forests.

at a certain stage of wood decomposition, it is penetrated by species of soil fauna. Here is Krivosheina species of flies, the appearance of which marks the beginning of the transformation of wood into soil refers to xylobionts, even those that usually develop in the litter or on organic residues.

And before these flies settle, the log will be considered a tree, and the beetle found in it can be a xylobiont?

In fact, if the species is massive-do not be lazy, pick up the beetle (you can not even get to the genitals) remove the elytra - this species does not have wings, all other representatives of the genus (ours) they are there. There's a lot of nonsense written in green. Isaev copied a lot of ground beetles without looking at it. In fact, this species is confined to dry places, mainly dry forests.

Does Patrobus septenrionis have no wings? Omar, are you sure? In green and in Isaev it is said that just this species of Patrobus, the only one of the entire genus, has normally developed wings... Is this also a mistake that has moved from one book to another?
Even when the first beetle of this species was captured, I inquired about the presence of wings. They are there, they are developed quite normally, you can't call them reduced in any way...

Sorry, Necrocephalus, my mistake. It's all mixed up in my head, I'm writing from work, the end of the day, I don't have a book at hand, I wrote from memory. There's no mistake about that. The mistake is only about Paradromius linearis, its biotope, that's what I wanted to say. I repent.
If you will kindly excuse me, I almost misled a man.

In this case, your find is very interesting. I wouldn't mind a couple." But you haven't had your genitals dissected yet? try it by all means, to be 100% sure I won't be wrong again

In this case, your find is very interesting. I wouldn't mind a couple." But you haven't had your genitals dissected yet? try it out by all means, so that you can be 100% sure I won't make any more mistakes

Yes, it's okay, it doesn't happen to anyone... Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, without exception.
I haven't dissected the genitals yet. If you want, you can do it yourself - I'll save you a couple of pieces for sure, maybe more, I just don't remember how many of them I have on the mattresses... I usually don't take a lot of material, even if it comes across in the mass

The same garbage, but I don't ask for much, I try to take no more than 10 copies if the case is interesting, and in the next few years for 5-6 pcs.

I. e. if a stable population is found, I wanted to say

And before these flies settle, the log will be considered a tree, and the beetle found in it can be a xylobiont?

A tree, but what about standing ones - a stand of trees, lying ones - dead wood, dead wood.
I very much understand your interest in this matter. I've never found any beetles that aren't on the list of xylobionts myself.
Judging by what the authors write and what they refer to as xylobionts, it turns out that yes. Here, for some staphylins, it is written-they live in the soil, litter, but it is often found under the bark (what it does there is not said)
Or Cyphon larvae live in water bodies feeding on unknown things, beetles with flowers, mushrooms, sap, sometimes isolated finds.
You probably need to look for these beetles, larvae yourself, then already...

And Sharova, what does she write about Microlestes and Syntomus? I don't understand ground beetles, but in her article I didn't find what group she assigned them to?

In the subject, but without claiming anything...
In Transcarpathia, Crabus intracatus was found by me in various places for 3 consecutive years exclusively either under the bark of fallen or dead wood, or inside fallen rotten trunks lying on slopes of varying degrees of decay...