Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

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

Pages: 1 ...161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169... 277

Likes: 1

28.07.2015 17:30, ИНО

SORRY FOR THE CONSTANTLY REPEATING TAUTOLOGY (I looked at several pages) - but it is impossible for an ignorant person to immediately understand even families! Therefore, I hope for the leniency of my senior colleagues, and I will dose my questions.
Taken from us on June 14. I understand that this is a winged female from the family Formicidae
With respect, Andreas.

Wow, what a cool photo: the hat is mostly visible. But still, the resolution almost falls short of clearly distinguishing some key features. In particular, I can't figure out whether there are a few small hairs on the underside of the head, or whether it's just an artifact of the image. Does the original photo have a larger size? In this case, try to cut out the area that captures the bottom of the head and the pronotum. Still, it is clear enough to narrow the "circle of suspects" from the whole subgenus to three species: Formica subpilosa Formica subpilosa Ruzsky, 1902-if there are hairs on the bottom of the head, Formica glauca Formica glauca Ruzsky, 1896 (=Formica cunicularia glauca Ruzsky, 1895) or Formica rufibarbis Fabricus, 1793 - if not. Formica imitans (=Formica cinerea imitans), I think, can be excluded immediately - in such a photo it would be much shaggier.

This post was edited INO-07/28/2015 17: 30

Likes: 1

28.07.2015 19:15, TimK

Wow, what a cool photo: the hat is mostly visible. But still, the resolution almost falls short of clearly distinguishing some key features. In particular, I can't figure out whether there are a few small hairs on the underside of the head, or whether it's just an artifact of the image. Does the original photo have a larger size? In this case, try to cut out the area that captures the bottom of the head and the pronotum. Still, it is clear enough to narrow the "circle of suspects" from the whole subgenus to three species: Formica subpilosa Formica subpilosa Ruzsky, 1902-if there are hairs on the bottom of the head, Formica glauca Formica glauca Ruzsky, 1896 (=Formica cunicularia glauca Ruzsky, 1895) or Formica rufibarbis Fabricus, 1793 - if not. Formica imitans (=Formica cinerea imitans), I think, can be excluded immediately - in such a photo it would be much shaggier.

Add Formica cunicularia first to the "circle of suspects" (if the back is completely brown on top) or second after Formica rufibarbis, if there is a light T-shirt pattern on the top of the chest) and suffer for your health.

Likes: 1

28.07.2015 22:28, ИНО

So the back is (medium -) with a distinct brick-red pattern. Here is a typical cuniculary in a narrow sense, the difference is very noticeable:

In addition, in the monograph of Dlussky (1967), the area of pure cunicularia is quite far from the Stavropol Territory (as I understand it, the photo is from there?). There is glaucoma, just like in our country. The only question is its taxonomic status. Should it be considered a separate species? If not, then cunicularia really comes out. But I, following the leading Ukrainian myrmecologists, prefer to count. Pay attention to the article Formica cunicularia is not mentioned in it at all, that is, it is obviously absent in the Donetsk and South Ukrainian steppes, and glauca is quantitatively dominant. It is very doubtful to me that in the Stavropol region cunicularia suddenly appears.

The subpilosa also does not coincide with the area, but still comes close. I mentioned it only because the photo seems to show faint hairs on the underside of the head in the amount of four pieces. But for cinerea / imitans, "wool" is not enough both there and all over the body. But I still think that this is an artifact, there is still some kind of strip clearly of software origin. So I see glauca or rufibarbis, rather, glauca. But this is already on the verge of fortune-telling on coffee grounds. But if you managed to get the right part of the photo with a high resolution, you might be able to determine up to the view with a significant degree of confidence. The person clearly wants to accurately sign his masterpiece of macro photography. And before the subgenus-so you can shoot with a "soap box".

More on the taxonomic status of glauca:

"The taxonomical status of this species is unclear. Initially, these ants (found in C Europe) were suspected to be rufibarbis × cunicularia hybrids (SEIFERT, 1994a). Later on SEIFERT (1997) described a new species F. lusatica and synonymized it with ants named F. rubescens Forel, 1904 (SEIFERT, 1994b) and F. glauca Ruzsky, 1896 (SEIFERT, 1996). Whether lusatica is conspecific with glauca or theyboth are good allopatric species is uncertain and stands an open question (CZECHOWSKA et al., 2004)". A source.

Likes: 1

28.07.2015 23:26, ИНО

Andreas, is it really the same specimen? It's not just a species, it's a different genus. Or am I already buggy in the late afternoon?

Who's bullying whom? The quality is awesome, for the final definition of the formics only slightly lacked. And for a similar purpose, I have to go under a microscope. Then I take it off in chunks. And you have in one photo almost all the bristles can be pre-counted and cuticle wrinkles. I have never seen a photo of a formica uterus in nature of comparable quality. And "dinosaur" - from AntWiki, they shot I don't know what, apparently, something expensive bourgeois. But, note, a fixed instance.

The answer to the last question (about venation) is unequivocally negative.

This post was edited by ENO-07/28/2015 23: 36

Likes: 1

Pages: 1 ...161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169... 277