Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

tell me, I tend to Camponotus vagus, about 10 mm. Krasnoyarsk Territory. surroundings of Krasnoyarsk. The
adjacent pubescence is developed, the mandibles are without obvious wrinkles, rather shiny, with dots. trim plate without recess.

I have the same problems myself. I can't identify a Camper from the Krasnoyarsk Territory (Lesosibirsk). Photo on the previous page. It is defined as a vagus, but it should not be there in theory. Usually, the vagus is indicated to the east only as far as the Altai. I wrote a letter to Radchenko, but he has not yet responded. I'll duplicate it in a couple of weeks.

This post was edited by TimK-08/15/2015 22: 02

Krasnoyarsk. Mowing, forest area. about 5 mm. Formica fusca?

In my opinion, yes. I think about 70 - 80 percent. I don't see anything that contradicts this opinion. The rest of the interest goes to some other type. For example, Formica lemani.
I have seen Fusok many times under good magnification. I can easily recognize them in person. It's much more difficult to use a photo. And the hairs are often not so visible and the color is not all clear. And I have not seen Formica lemani in person, which means I can make a mistake if I take them for fusok in the photo. (In person, I think I'll understand that it's not fusca). Like this somehow.

I have the same problems myself. I can't identify a Camper from the Krasnoyarsk Territory (Lesosibirsk). Photo on the previous page. It is defined as a vagus, but it should not be there in theory. I wrote a letter to Radchenko, but he has not yet responded. I'll duplicate it in a couple of weeks.

Yes, I saw your photos from the Krasnoyarsk Territory, I also asked who collected them. Lesosibirsk is more than 300 km to the north.
As I understand it, vagus lives in wood? Where I fished, there were only acacias nearby and much lower birch trees. There is also a dry slope, without any trees.
I will be waiting for your response!

Vagus nests were found in trees and in the roots of trees, and even in the ground under snags and between concrete slabs. I think they are more plastic in this matter (not strict arborists), although they are naturally drawn to trees. I will try to get an answer from the experts. I'll definitely let you know if I find out anything.

oxybeluses accumulate.
Here was caught a completely different specimen from the others. Krasnoyarsk, ostepnenny slope. about 6-7 mm. The thighs are black, only light at the top, the legs and legs are red, including the hind legs, and there is a yellow spot at the base of the legs. The sides of the mid-chest are densely dotted. The mandibles are light in the middle. The pygidium at the very top is slightly brown. Wing caps are light red-brown.
The spike of the intermediate segment is short, with a triangular notch at the apex. The lateral scales are forked at the apex.
For the European part, I go to latidens

Definable? Karelia, August.

Pictures:

P8030123.jpg — (145.04к)


P8030125.jpg — (121.23к)


P8030126.jpg — (133.13к)

Is it possible to identify this eardrum prior to the species ?
Germany 12.07.15 in a 26mm span

Cephalcia abietis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Definable? Karelia, August.

Arge ustulata (Linnaeus, 1758)

Surroundings of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov region. August 12.
What can you say about this bee?

Hylaeus sp. can say.
Further on such a photo, it is even difficult to fantasize.

Donetsk region, 17.08
A medium-sized bee with a bright yellow underside of the abdomen (which, alas, did not really get into the frame, on the third and fourth pictures it is slightly visible), very often the abdomen lifts 60 degrees up. This is the first time I've seen such bees here (although I usually don't look too closely )

Donetsk region, 17.08
A medium-sized bee with a bright yellow underside of the abdomen (which, alas, did not really get into the frame, on the third and fourth pictures it is slightly visible), very often the abdomen lifts 60 degrees up. This is the first time I've seen such bees here (although I usually don't look too closely )

Some leafcutter bee Megachile sp., pretty common bees.

Hello! I represent two Kalmyk beauties! From galls collected in the area of Elista on 31/07/2015.

These are chalcidoids from the family Eulophidae, yellow from the genus Sigmophora.

Thank you very much! Sigmophora has a beautiful mating ritual!

Please define it. The photo was taken on August 16 in the city of Zuevka, Zuyevsky district, Kirov region.

Pictures:

DSC_3439_JPG.jpg — (291.69к)


DSC_3440_.JPG — (292.8к)

Please define it. The photo was taken on August 16 in the city of Zuevka, Zuyevsky district, Kirov region.

Someone from the Tenthredo arcuata Forster complex, 1771

is Formica rufibarbis Fabricius, 1793 possible in the Krasnoyarsk Territory
By using the determinant http://antvid.org/Gal1/Formicinae/Formica%20rufibarbis.html I go to this view.
Questions remain about the area.
Perhaps we can have something else, similar in features to this species?

IMHO why not? This will be the easternmost find, it seems. However, on the map of Dlussky, one point is selected close to the borders of the region. But it is necessary to differentiate from Formica galauca, which is known reliably in the south of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. You can only do this reliably by using a series of copies collected from the same family. Still, we should pass the material on to some professional myrmecologist.

This post was edited by ENO-08/22/2015 22: 37

Please tell me what kind of insect? The photo was taken at a dacha near the city of Kirov, Kirov region, on August 20.

Pictures:

DSC_3582.JPG — (281.91к)


DSC_3583.JPG — (300.39к)


DSC_3584.JPG — (300.55к)

Krasnoyarsk Territory, Yemelyanovsky district, Kubekovo village, sandy slopes, into the Merike trap

Well, I have encountered very few ants. Here's what happened.
the leading edge of the platband is without a recess, and a rather strong longitudinal keel is located in its center. Occipital margin without recess. The frontal area is matte. The abdomen and forehead with the back of the head are dark brown, almost matte black in color, the rest of the body is lighter.
The occipital margin and underside of the head are hairless.
Scales with hairs that form two rows and are obliquely directed back and forth.
ON the anterior and middle back, well-marked raised hairs.





This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 23.08.2015 09: 23

vla-mityanin, Polistes nimpha, like, but I can't completely exclude P. dominula-the distinctive features are not very clearly visible. Female / worker.

akulich-sibiria, and exactly the frontal area is matte? You can't tell from the photo." If so, then, it seems, except for rufibarbis they have no one to be. Not glauca exactly. But some of them are very big-headed and robust compared to ours, habitually more like Formica (s. str.). Can you try taking better head shots from the front?

my camera doesn't allow me to transmit everything. I made some ant heads, and that's what happened. BUT I can say for sure that the frontal field does not differ in structure from the side parts of the head. Plus, I also tried to photograph the hairs on the scales. I wouldn't say that it's such a dense row, but the fact that they stick out in different directions, it looks like that.

is it possible to tell from the genitals which species they belong to? Trypoxylon? figulus

I compared it with my own photos. IMHO quite similar to rufibarbis. For glaucoma, hairiness is definitely excessive. But be sure to show it to a professional myrmecologist if possible, since if the determination is confirmed, this will be the first find in the territory of the region and the easternmost point of the range.

This post was edited by ENO-08/23/2015 20: 08

Please tell me what kind of insect? The photo was taken at a dacha near the city of Kirov, Kirov region, on August 20.

Definitely a female Polistes nimpha (Christ, 1791).

is it possible to tell from the genitals which species they belong to? Trypoxylon? figulus

You can, although with questions. In principle, it is Trypoxylon figulus (Linnaeus, 1758) if:
1. This is a specimen from our fauna.
2. The specimen does not have a high pointed bump at the bottom of the forehead just above the base of the antennae (as in T. frigidum, T. fronticorne, T. gussachaos, or T. turkestanicum).
3. If the length of the first segment of the abdomen is not more than 2.5 times its maximum width (see above).
4. The specimen does not have a backward-curved spike on the leading edge of the bottom of the mesopleurae between the bases of the anterior basins (as in T. minus).

You can, although with questions. In principle, it is Trypoxylon figulus (Linnaeus, 1758) if:
1. This is a specimen from our fauna.
2. The specimen does not have a high pointed bump at the bottom of the forehead just above the base of the antennae (as in T. frigidum, T. fronticorne, T. gussachaos, or T. turkestanicum).
3. If the length of the first segment of the abdomen is not more than 2.5 times its maximum width (see above).
4. The specimen does not have a backward-curved spike on the leading edge of the bottom of the mesopleurae between the bases of the anterior basins (as in T. minus).

1. Yes nasha, Krasnoyarsk Krai.
2. there is no high ridge, fronticorne excluded
3. here it is more difficult, I think it is larger. I have a male figulus, whose first segment seems much shorter to me, but I may be wrong here. But 2.5 times I think the ratio is preserved.
4. There is no spike.





This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 24.08.2015 17: 58

Krasnoyarsk region, sukhodolny sandy slope, on the fly.
Platypus only in short hairs (some hairs are raised, but clearly inferior in size to the hairs on the forehead or back of the head), black, at the base with two small yellow spots. The mustache is completely black, the headpiece is yellow.
Prothorax in long thick shaggy hairs
, Second sternite and tergite in short hairs. The marginal lamellar border of the latter is darkened, transparent in the lumen. Tergite punctuation is relatively sparse and clear.
Pronotum with a developed yellow stripe, srednespinka without spots, scutellum and posterior scutellum with developed yellow spots.
Sternites are black, except for a yellow spot in the center, at the top of the 2nd sternite.
Thighs slightly more than half from the base are black, the rest of the legs and legs are red. Paw parts are not darkened.
The axillary plates are brown, not black, and translucent.
A similar specimen was caught in Tyva (near the city of Kyzyl), similar to E. Mongolicus, but this specimen has only short hairs on the platypus. The copy is not shabby, the sign is clearly visible. According to Kurzenko, I go to E. Subpomiformis, but the pictures in the Internet are not particularly similar

1. Yes nasha, Krasnoyarsk Krai.
2. there is no high ridge, fronticorne excluded
3. here it is more difficult, I think it is larger. I have a male figulus, whose first segment seems much shorter to me, but I may be wrong here. But 2.5 times I think the ratio is preserved.
4. There is no spike.

It was necessary to immediately give a general view. Of course, this is without the Trypoxylon figulus variants.

It was necessary to immediately give a general view. Of course, this is without the Trypoxylon figulus variants.

I agree
I couldn't find an image of the genitals of this species anywhere, so I tried to figure out how to distinguish them. Well, yes, there are still three females trapped in the same place of the same species

I agree
I couldn't find an image of the genitals of this species anywhere, so I tried to figure out how to distinguish them. Well, yes, there are still three females trapped in the same place of the same species

It's strange that nowhere. If my memory serves me correctly, I gave them at least twice - in the Fauna of France and in an article about the discovery of T. attenuatum in North America.

BITSCH, J., H. DOLLFUSS, Z. BOUČEK, K. SCHMIDT, CH. SCHMID-EGGER, S.F. GAYUBO, A.V. ANTROPOV, and Y. BARBIER
* 2001. (Jan.). Faune de France. France et régions limitrophes. 86. Hyménoptères Sphecidae d'Europe occidentale. Volume 3. Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles, Paris. 459 pp.

ANTROPOV A.V.
2003. (June). (2002). On the occurrence of Trypoxylon attenuatum F. Smith, 1951 [sic] (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae: Trypoxylini) in North America. Russian Entomological Journal 11:437-439. [review of North American members of Trypoxylon figulus group]. Available through:
http://kmk.entomology.ru/pdf/rej11-2002.pdf

It's strange that nowhere. If my memory serves me correctly, I gave them at least twice - in the Fauna of France and in an article about the discovery of T. attenuatum in North America.

BITSCH, J., H. DOLLFUSS, Z. BOUČEK, K. SCHMIDT, CH. SCHMID-EGGER, S.F. GAYUBO, A.V. ANTROPOV, and Y. BARBIER
* 2001. (Jan.). Faune de France. France et régions limitrophes. 86. Hyménoptères Sphecidae d'Europe occidentale. Volume 3. Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles, Paris. 459 pp.

ANTROPOV A.V.
2003. (June). (2002). On the occurrence of Trypoxylon attenuatum F. Smith, 1951 [sic] (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae: Trypoxylini) in North America. Russian Entomological Journal 11:437-439. [review of North American members of Trypoxylon figulus group]. Available through:
http://kmk.entomology.ru/pdf/rej11-2002.pdf

So I didn't look well, yes, there are these sources, I'll look again at home. Thank you Alexander for your patience with my slowness

2. V Near the town of Liski, I met this type of ant under a rock,
[attachmentid ()=235016]

they were very small, and I took a lot of individuals at once, spread out a few, and the rest were in a jar, then decided to divide the ants and the soil in which they were. In addition to the dried larvae, I found the following:
[attachmentid()=235017]
For a female, it's kind of dark, can males be wingless or is it some kind of parasitic wasp?

The first photo is of the worker ant Solenopsis fugax (Latreille, 1798). Now they are, by the way, years old, so you can find both males and queens, including fertilized ones.

The second photo is not an ant at all.

2. V Not far from the town of Liski, I met such a species of ants under a stone,

In the first photo, I think it's Solenopsis fugax.
You can see what their females look like here:
http://www.antvid.org/Gal1/Myrmicinae/Sole...gax%20foto.html

The second photo doesn't open. I don't see her. try restarting it.
I can see the photo. Some kind of wasp, I think.

This post was edited by TimK-25.08.2015 14: 47

In pedivikia, I found a mention of a very similar insect from the second photo of a rider from the Diapriidae family from the nests of the solenopsis fugax - Solenopsia imitatrix Wasmann, 1899. However, there is also mentioned another species from the same family-Lepidopria pedestris Kieffer, 1911-photos of which could not be found. But the truth is definitely somewhere nearby.

Krasnoyarsk Territory, Yemelyanovsky district, Kubekovo village, sandy slopes, into the Merike trap

Well, I have encountered very few ants. Here's what happened.
the leading edge of the platband is without a recess, and a rather strong longitudinal keel is located in its center. Occipital margin without recess. The frontal area is matte. The abdomen and forehead with the back of the head are dark brown, almost matte black in color, the rest of the body is lighter.
The occipital margin and underside of the head are hairless.
Scales with hairs that form two rows and are obliquely directed back and forth.
ON the anterior and middle back, well-marked raised hairs.

The description exactly matches Formica rufibarbis, but it doesn't look like this species in the photo with two glued ants. The head is almost without a dark spot on the back of the head with clearly defined borders. The ants in this photo look more like Formica glauca. When I get home , I'll look at the photo carefully and dig through the literature.

tell me, I tend to Camponotus vagus, about 10 mm. Krasnoyarsk Territory. surroundings of Krasnoyarsk. The
adjacent pubescence is developed, the mandibles are without obvious wrinkles, rather shiny, with dots. trim plate without recess.

I received a reply from A. G. Radchenko. He advises you to look carefully at the sculpture of mandibles. If they are any (i.e. without short wrinkles) and only with pits, then it can be C. japonicus.
If not, and the hairs are really all very silvery, including the thick and long ADJACENT pubescence of the abdominal tergites, then there may be a vagus. In principle, it sporadically reaches the Altai. But if the pubescence (adjacent) is still more rare and golden, then this is japonicus (what was aterrimus).
In the evening I will look at my own people under a microscope. Then, I think, we will share the results.

I don't quite understand what you mean.

Here is a photo of rufibarbis from Antviki:

Where is the clearly defined spot here?
It doesn't look like a glaucoma at all - there are too many hairs on the anterior, mid-back and scales. Still, I think this sign is more reliable than the color, which by the way in those two ants is very different from each other (one head is mostly red, the other - mostly dark). By the way, this
is quite consistent with the same "Antviki":

If this is glaucoma, then all existing keys are lying.

Antwiki has photos of collectible ants and their color is not at all the same as that of live ones. The color has changed from long storage. In live Rufibarbis, there is always a dark spot on the head with fairly clear (not blurred) borders (look in the area of the cheeks). I've never seen a rufibarbis with a light, single-colored head.
In glauca, the head is almost entirely monochrome, only the back of the head may be slightly darker. But even if it is darker, the boundaries of darkness are blurred. I wrote that in the photo with two ants, the ants do not look like rufibarbis, but most likely glauca. I don't see any hairs in this photo and only judge them by their appearance. and in appearance, they are exactly like glauca. I was surprised by the discrepancy between the text description and what I see in the photo with two ants. I think we should take several individuals FROM ONE nest and look carefully. In those photos where the details are taken, there may be rufibarbis. But in the photo with two glued ants purely externally, most likely glauca.

This post was edited by TimK-25.08.2015 17: 17

Hmm, I have N-year-old glaucasus lying on my desk - I don't see the slightest color change. One uterus in general seems to be alive, the pose is vital, just that it does not move. The problem may be something else: the camera's lighting and color reproduction used for shooting.