Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

Community and Forum → Insects identification → Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

Pages: 1 ...154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162... 277

Likes: 1

23.04.2015 13:55, Василий Л.

Please tell us whose opinion you are leaning towards, and also by what signs you have identified at least the genus of this wasp.

Well, I have my own opinion.

And by definition of the OS, I have my own scheme. First, of course, the size, which, unfortunately, is not specified here, and the range. Secondly, the color of the antennae to distinguish Polistinae (they have black antennae on the bottom and yellow - brown on the top) from Vespinae (they have completely black antennae). Third, the color of the mandibles (in Polistinae they are black, and in Vespinae they are yellow). The type is determined by the pattern on the abdomen (the number, shape, distance between the stripes, the presence of spots). Also important for me is the presence, size, etc. of the pattern on the pronotum, the color of the legs and the color and pattern on the head (for example, in the common wasp (Vespula vulgaris), the pattern in the form of an anchor). After adding up all the data obtained with the help of a photo or a collector's copy, I "select" a native os based on this data. A species is also defined using this scheme only within the genus boundaries.
PS In determining the species, data on the spines on the legs (shape, color, pubescence, degree of pointiness) are also useful. This is my very personal scheme, so please do not judge strictly.

This post was edited by Vasily L. - 04/23/2015 13: 56

Likes: 1

23.04.2015 14:53, AVA

Well, I have my own opinion.

I'm sorry, but you just killed me with your lengthy story.

No serious osyatnik will determine the wasp by drawing, as it is very much dependent on a lot of factors, ranging from "caste" and gender, ending with the temperature of development and nutrition of larvae, and even the degree of parasitization of ticks on wasp larvae.

By the way, with the coloring of the polistov and vespin antennas, you mixed everything up. And they do not differ at all in these signs.

So, according to the proposed photo, you can only say that it shows a male Vespinae, but nothing can be said even in relation to the genus, let alone the species.

PS Tell me honestly, does the date of your birth indicated in your profile correspond to reality?

Likes: 2

23.04.2015 15:17, IchMan

To tell the truth, at first I confused them, but then, having gained some experience, I learned to distinguish them just by these signs (if someone distinguishes them differently, then of course, but it seems to me that this is more reliable not only to the family, but also to the genus (again, this is just mine personal opinion)).

Vasily Vasilyevich, this forum in the part of its "Definition by photos" aims to help people who are more knowledgeable (who know some specific groups) and less knowledgeable identify various insects. Different people have different goals, but by posting their photos here, they would like to get as accurate a definition of their subjects as possible. I don't think anyone is interested in anyone's assumptions (hypotheses, fantasies).
Often the photo is not able to convey the full range of features necessary for unambiguous identification of a species, and then they are determined with accuracy to the genus, tribe, subfamily, and sometimes family.

To identify insects (and not only), we use definition tables that indicate the key features by which species are consistently divided by theses and antitheses into smaller taxa. For ease of use, these tables are compiled separately for taxa of different ranks. All these tables are compiled by intelligent people with extensive experience in determining species and have already passed a good test of time.
When the main defining features are grouped in a table, it eliminates the need to keep a lot of information in your head at the same time, it is very easy to lose sight of something important.
So I recommend that you switch to using ready-made qualifiers and hone your identification skills at your training sessions. From a photograph, without seeing many of the necessary features, it is possible to determine only by "stuffing your eyes", after a fair number of certain specimens (hundreds or even thousands), when you are already able to adequately assess the boundaries of variability within species. And all this takes time and practice. Something like this.

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

23.04.2015 15:36, Василий Л.

PS Tell me honestly, does the date of your birth indicated in your profile correspond to reality?

Of course, the date of my birth that I have indicated here corresponds to reality. I don't want to brag, but for three years in a row I won first place in the biology competition in Cherkasy (there are 40 schools here), so I know the basics of biology and entomology. I am very interested in the world around me (especially zoology), so I want to seriously study entomology as a branch of zoology and get to know the insects of my region. But I've always been taught, and up to this point I thought that the OS should be defined exactly as I wrote it. Well, educate the novice, dear specialists. More than once I will ask you to identify the insect.

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

23.04.2015 18:00, IchMan

This is a rider from the Ichneumon family. I dare to assume that something externally about Ichneumon suspicious.

Well, it looks like it, so what? There are a number of other views that are also similar to this picture. What can you see here? Indistinct spots on the top of the abdomen, a band on the flagellum, b. m. coloring of the legs - and that's it! No propodeum, no back basins... Color variations are sometimes quite significant within the species.
I have already repeatedly written here about the reliability of the definition of ichneumoninus, and in particular, ichneumons, so I just refer to what I have already written http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=133599&st=4400 - URL #4440

Hilpert seems to be here, who is interested in this eurekamag.com

Yes, there are species that have specific features that make it possible to accurately identify them. However, in the network you can find photos of only a small part of the species of these riders - and then by b. h. determined mistakenly and it is unclear by whom

Even molecular methods often do not work here, possibly due to symbiotic bacteria (Wolbachia) -
"Even the mitochondrial locus used for DNA barcoding [28], cytochrome oxidase 1, did not allow distinguishing among all the included Ichneumon species, with identical barcodes observed at least in two species pairs, and pairwise distances below 1% in many more. (Tschopp et al. 2013)

I talked about this topic with a colleague - Matthias Riedel, who specializes in ichneumonins - he categorically opposes the definition of ichneumonins from photographs in nature; he says that you can not believe this, with very few exceptions. And I agree with him on this, although my experience in identifying representatives of this subfamily is incomparably less. Only when there is a copy on hand that can be turned over and examined purposefully with optics all the necessary key signs, only in this case a reliable determination is possible.

Likes: 1

24.04.2015 12:57, Evgeniy Ribalchenko

Well, it looks like it, so what? There are a number of other views that are also similar to this picture. What can you see here? Indistinct spots on the top of the abdomen, a band on the flagellum, b. m. coloring of the legs - and that's it! No propodeum, no back basins... Color variations are sometimes quite significant within the species.
I have already repeatedly written here about the reliability of the definition of ichneumoninus, and in particular, ichneumons, so I just refer to what I have already written http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=133599&st=4400 - URL #4440

Hilpert seems to be here, who is interested in this eurekamag.com

Yes, there are species that have specific features that make it possible to accurately identify them. However, in the network you can find photos of only a small part of the species of these riders - and then by b. h. determined mistakenly and it is unclear by whom

Even molecular methods often do not work here, possibly due to symbiotic bacteria (Wolbachia) -
"Even the mitochondrial locus used for DNA barcoding [28], cytochrome oxidase 1, did not allow distinguishing among all the included Ichneumon species, with identical barcodes observed at least in two species pairs, and pairwise distances below 1% in many more. (Tschopp et al. 2013)

I talked about this topic with a colleague - Matthias Riedel, who specializes in ichneumonins - he categorically opposes the definition of ichneumonins from photographs in nature; he says that you can not believe this, with very few exceptions. And I agree with him on this, although my experience in identifying representatives of this subfamily is incomparably less. Only when there is a copy on hand that can be turned over and examined purposefully with optics all the necessary key signs, only in this case a reliable determination is possible.

Dear IchMan, I apologize if I wrote something unacceptable or defined it somehow too artistically, but I didn't lose out on the genus? And as for the appearance, I wrote "outwardly about", mind you, not even "probably". I understand that science does not accept something superficial, but an assumption is just an assumption. And thank you for the useful links. I wonder about molecular methods, I haven't heard about it before

This post was edited by Redactor-08.08.2016 13: 13

24.04.2015 16:28, IchMan

Dear IchMan, I apologize if I wrote something unacceptable or defined it somehow too artistically, but I didn't lose out on the genus? And as for the appearance, I wrote "outwardly about", mind you, not even "probably". I understand that science does not accept something superficial, but an assumption is just an assumption. And thank you for the useful links. I wonder about molecular methods, I haven't heard about it before

The problem is that, as you wrote, this is at the level of "did not lose" - (guessed - did not guess). If the definition boils down to a guessing game , what can we talk about here?

I am not an expert in ichneumonins, I am only familiar with the regional fauna (in the north it is largely depleted compared to even the middle zone), and even there I do not feel like an expert - not the easiest group.
Most likely, the photo shows some representative of Ichneumon. In other genera of ichneumoninus, there are also species similar in habit, for example, in Diphyus, Chasmias, Spilothyrateles...
The Ichneumon genus, according to the Fauna Europaea website, includes 206 valid West Palaearctic species. There are very few decent quality photos of them on the web, let alone that they are correctly identified (there are very few specialists in Stenopneustica)... As I understand it, this is how this view was defined?

The use of the word "about" in this context is incorrect. Its use is permissible only when discussing a" tree", a cladogram, when analyzing the position of a species there relative to others, but here it turns out-something like on the side...

25.04.2015 0:08, Evgeniy Ribalchenko

The problem is that, as you wrote, this is at the level of "did not lose" - (guessed - did not guess). If the definition boils down to a guessing game , what can we talk about here?

I am not an expert in ichneumonins, I am only familiar with the regional fauna (in the north it is largely depleted compared to even the middle zone), and even there I do not feel like an expert - not the easiest group.
Most likely, the photo shows some representative of Ichneumon. In other genera of ichneumoninus, there are also species similar in habit, for example, in Diphyus, Chasmias, Spilothyrateles...
The Ichneumon genus, according to the Fauna Europaea website, includes 206 valid West Palaearctic species. There are very few decent quality photos of them on the web, let alone that they are correctly identified (there are very few specialists in Stenopneustica)... As I understand it, this is how this view was defined?

The use of the word "about" in this context is incorrect. Its use is permissible only when discussing a" tree", a cladogram, when analyzing the position of a species there relative to others, but here it turns out-something like on the side...

In that case, thank you for your comment. I'll take it into consideration.

Likes: 1

27.04.2015 10:14, AVA

Date of shooting the wasp from Sakhalin 28.08.2014. Tell me, please, and riders and sawflies can be asked to identify also in this section, if they are in the larval stage?

Of course, you can ask for something. But there can be big problems with riders. Try.

Thank you very much for the date. The question was not accidental. The fact is that D. saxonica is characterized by a so-called "short life cycle", i.e. their nests function from at most until mid-August. At the end of summer, you won't even be able to find males, unlike species of the genera Vespula or Vespa.
So, draw conclusions. Your image may contain representatives of several Vespula species [for example, V. flaviceps, V. koreensis, V. vulgaris], but NOT D. saxonica.

Likes: 2

27.04.2015 14:07, AVA

Is this characteristic only for D. saxonica, or for all representatives of Dolychovespula?

This is an interesting question.

According to my data, a short cycle is typical for all" our " Dolichovespula, as well as Vespula rufa. At the end of August, you can accidentally meet only their female founders, "delayed" with the search for secluded places for wintering. With parasites, the same is true, but everything is already clear here - they usually give one generation and only in exceptional cases two.
However, I can't say anything about Vespula koreensis - there is simply not enough information about this strange species.
Among the species with a long cycle, the most "long - lived" are Vespula flaviceps, Vespula germanica, Vespula shida i and, especially, Vespula vulgaris.
For hornets and most polysts, too, as a rule, a long cycle is typical.