Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

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.

I've never seen one like it. Apparently your glaucoma is very different from ours.

I proceeded from the postulate that all the ants in the akulich-sibiria photos are from the same family (relying on the decency and literacy of the collector). Otherwise, this discussion generally loses all meaning, just one photo with two ants pasted on the die IMHO to determine the type (types?) impossible.

On Antwiki, the color of ants is not the same as in real life. And why-you can guess as much as you want.
"I've never met anyone like this. Apparently your glaucoma is very different from ours."
You can view it here:
http://www.antvid.org/Gal1/Formicinae/Formica%20glauca.html
This sample is from the Baikal region.
"I proceeded from the postulate that all the ants in the akulich-sibiria photos are from the same family (relying on the decency and literacy of the collector)."
P-F-F-F! You're saying something wrong.
"just one photo with two ants pasted on the die IMHO determine the type (types?) impossible."
I do not determine, but make an assumption based on the appearance and place where the insects were found. In this case, I write that these insects are similar in appearance to glauca and do not look like rufibarbis. I'm changing my mind. Purely amateur, by the way. And the author of the photo can draw his own conclusions, which he considers necessary to do.

Hello! From the gall of goatgrass (gall-forming flies), a parasite came out. I would very much like to determine, since the flies may be new to the Russian Federation. The photo is only sideways, I conduct observations, it is difficult to remove. Thanks!

Pictures:

IMG_5131.JPG — (272.26к)

On Antwiki, the color of ants is not the same as in real life. And why-you can guess as much as you want.
"I've never met anyone like this. Apparently your glaucoma is very different from ours."
You can view it here:
http://www.antvid.org/Gal1/Formicinae/Formica%20glauca.html
This sample is from the Baikal region.
"I proceeded from the postulate that all the ants in the akulich-sibiria photos are from the same family (relying on the decency and literacy of the collector)."
P-F-F-F! You're saying something wrong.
"just one photo with two ants pasted on the die IMHO determine the type (types?) impossible."
I do not determine, but make an assumption based on the appearance and place where the insects were found. In this case, I write that these insects are similar in appearance to glauca and do not look like rufibarbis. I'm changing my mind. Purely amateur, by the way. And the author of the photo can draw his own conclusions, which he considers necessary to do.

Dear colleagues, it is difficult for me to judge these specimens from the same family or different, as I said above that they fell into Merika cups in the same biotope, possibly in one cup. Of course, I tried to determine by signs, especially not taking into account the color.
Of course, the camera is not so hot and the color reproduction is lame, tomorrow I will try to take pictures at work.
Can I explain what signs are not visible in the photo? As I understand it, the main breeding signs on different sides are the presence and number of spaced hairs on the pronotum and mid-spine, their number is exactly 5 or more pairs.
scales with abundant spaced hairs, arranged in two rows and directed obliquely forward and backward. I have a question about the word "plentifully", I would like to see it again. My (all copies even with non-black heads, but only 5 copies have hairs that I counted about 10 pcs, some have less, I understand this does not fit the word plentifully???
I think I will decide on these and other ants when I show them to a local specialist in early September, I will report their findings

ocd. Krasnoyarsk, 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

Definitely not E, subpomiformis, I can't say anything more, this species shown in the photo is clearly not familiar to me.

TimK, I can only repeat my own words, but in an affirmative form: your glaucoma is very different from ours. We do not meet with a pure red head (correction: I did not come across it), the upper half is always dark. Just like in the photo from Antwiki. Geographical variability, probably.

About the photo of ants on the die. You said yourself recently that you don't do fortune-telling. Have you decided to do something after all? Well, that's your right. But still, your claim that rufibarbis can be distinguished from glauca based on the color of the head alone, I dare to give in to doubt.

akulich-sibiria, how can you do that? Why do you mislead the honest people? Who knows who and from what nests could get into your traps? Then let's take photos through a microscope of each specimen separately: the head in front, the head on the side, the back and the scales on the side. Try to set up the microscope so that all or at least almost all the hairs are visible in the photo. Then it will be possible to say something with a certain degree of probability. However, it is far from 100%, since it is known that in families of one formica species there may be a certain percentage of workers with signs of another similar species. Therefore, for a reliable determination, take a series of instances from the same family. With ants, this is not difficult at all, their foraging area is small, look for nests near the place where your traps are set. Formica nests are not difficult to find, even if you don't need to dig.

The ant whose hairs you have already shown is very likely not glauca, it is too hairy for glauca. On the scales of glauca, I met only a couple of hairs, and then very short, clearly visible only under high magnification. There were also cases with no hairs at all. By keys (I tried three, but only made sure that after Dlussky for 50 years, no one came up with anything new in this area) rufibarbis comes out clearly. But keep in mind the above paragraph. In any case, you will have to show the find to a specialist in order to move the known range of rufibarbis, if this definition is confirmed. But it is better to show a series at once.

Definitely not E, subpomiformis, I can't say anything more, this species shown in the photo is clearly not familiar to me.

Well, I'll wait for what Roman has to say. Thank you

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?

This is definitely Solenopsia imitatrix from the Diapriidae family
http://pte.au.poznan.pl/we/2013/07_borowiec.pdf

Then let's take photos through a microscope of each specimen separately: the head in front, the head on the side, the back and the scales on the side. Try to set up the microscope so that all or at least almost all the hairs are visible in the photo. Then it will be possible to say something with a certain degree of probability. However, it is far from 100%, since it is known that in families of one formica species there may be a certain percentage of workers with signs of another similar species. Therefore, for a reliable determination, take a series of instances from the same family. With ants, this is not difficult at all, their foraging area is small, look for nests near the place where your traps are set. Formica nests are not difficult to find, even if you don't need to dig.

I tried to make other angles.
1. copy. with a darker head




2. an instance with a less dark head






3. by the above Companotus ? vagus It is difficult to photograph the structure of the mandibles. Black, shiny, slightly elongated dots, no special wrinkles, almost no hairs.
I attach photos of mandibles and abdominal hairs

Hello! From the gall of goatgrass (gall-forming flies), a parasite came out. I would very much like to determine, since the flies may be new to the Russian Federation. The photo is only sideways, I conduct observations, it is difficult to remove. Thanks!

It is a male from the family Eurytomidae (superfamily Chalcidoidea). Males of this family are difficult to identify. The closest specialist in Kiev.

However, it is far from 100%, since it is known that in families of one formica species there may be a certain percentage of workers with signs of another similar species.

I wonder what explanation there is for this fact?

Dear colleagues, it is difficult for me to judge these specimens from the same family or different, as I said above that they fell into Merika cups in the same biotope, possibly in one cup. Of course, I tried to determine by signs, especially not taking into account the color.
Of course, the camera is not so hot and the color reproduction is lame, tomorrow I will try to take pictures at work.
Can I explain what signs are not visible in the photo? As I understand it, the main breeding signs on different sides are the presence and number of spaced hairs on the pronotum and mid-spine, their number is exactly 5 or more pairs.
scales with abundant spaced hairs, arranged in two rows and directed obliquely forward and backward. I have a question about the word "plentifully", I would like to see it again. My (all copies even with non-black heads, but only 5 copies have hairs that I counted about 10 pcs, some have less, I understand this does not fit the word plentifully???
I think I'll decide on these and other ants when I show them to a local specialist in early September and report on their findings.

I think the local specialist knows better than us what species live there and knows them perfectly "by sight". It would be very interesting for me to get acquainted with his opinion. And the determining factor, in my opinion, is the presence and number of distant hairs on the body. In glauca, there should be no hairs on the epinotum, either there are no scales at all, or there are several pieces in a row along the upper edge. Rufibarbis is significantly hairier. There and on the scale of the stalk of spaced hairs more and, usually in 2 rows forward and back and on the epinotum can be. I am most interested in where and what hairs light-headed ants have, since I have never seen rufibarbis of such color. Yes, even in glauca, part of the first segment of the abdomen (at the junction) is usually lighter, brownish.

  
3. by the above Companotus ? vagus It is difficult to photograph the structure of the mandibles. Black, shiny, slightly elongated dots, no special wrinkles, almost no hairs.

Here I am in complete uncertainty. And so I looked and so... Unfortunately, your camera's capabilities are superior to mine. The pubescence of the abdomen is perfectly removed. I will try to send your photo to Alexander Grigoryevich. My pubescence is exactly the same. I am more inclined to Japonicus. Unfortunately, I don't have any vaguses to compare right now. A friend has them, but it's a long way to go, to a different area.

I think the local specialist knows better than us what species live there and knows them perfectly "by sight". It would be very interesting for me to get acquainted with his opinion. And the determining factor, in my opinion, is the presence and number of distant hairs on the body. In glauca, there should be no hairs on the epinotum, either there are no scales at all, or there are several pieces in a row along the upper edge. Rufibarbis is significantly hairier. There and on the scale of the stalk of spaced hairs more and, usually in 2 rows forward and back and on the epinotum can be. I am most interested in where and what hairs light-headed ants have, since I have never seen rufibarbis of such color. Yes, even in glauca, part of the first segment of the abdomen (at the junction) is usually lighter, brownish.

the camera and copies are still at hand, I don't quite understand what exactly you need to photograph with a less colored copy? Photos on it go under the number 2.
Yes, I think I'll know the results in a week. In general, the specialist has a lot of interesting finds around the edge and a good collection of ants. I want to find out where all this is published.

the camera and copies are still at hand, I don't quite understand what exactly you need to photograph with a less colored copy? Photos on it go under the number 2.
Yes, I think I'll know the results in a week. In general, the specialist has a lot of interesting finds around the edge and a good collection of ants. I want to find out where all this is published.

Personally, I would like to see the location of hairs on the epinotum (if they are there) and the scale of the stalk IN PROFILE in a less colored specimen. The photo shows no hairs on the epinotum. There are three of them visible on the scale, but it is not entirely clear how they are located. One more angle, if possible.
And make sure that there are no separate hairs on the bottom of the head of the LIGHT-headed specimen. Otherwise, it may even be Formica subpilosa. On the photo of an ex. 2 it looks like there are hairs. (Here I meant Formica subpilosa ruzskyi, now it is Formica clarissima, if I am not mistaken). Personally, I'm looking at snapshots of copies. 2 I'm starting to lean more towards Formica clarissima.
In general, if your specialist has a desire to meet me , I am always in favor. If he has interesting materials about ants or wasps , I can create a page on my site for these materials (if he is a professional) or just post them (if he is an amateur). If he's interested.

This post was edited by TimK-26.08.2015 13: 07

1-probably rufibarbis: all signs converge.
2-copies. - also, probably, rufibarbis: more than 5 pairs of spaced hairs on the anterior and middle back, at least one spaced hair on the epinotum, with a scale is not entirely clear, but the combination of other signs turns out that way. However, keep in mind about the need for series to be accurate.

1-probably rufibarbis: all signs converge.
2-copies. - also, probably, rufibarbis: more than 5 pairs of spaced hairs on the anterior and middle back, at least one spaced hair on the epinotum, with a scale is not entirely clear, but the combination of other signs turns out that way. However, keep in mind about the need for series to be accurate.
The explanation is simple: these signs are not absolute, absolute in the strict sense for distinguishing many closely related species of ants, so no one was able to deduce. You haven't seen the signs Seifert uses yet, but it's really a nightmare.

If you have an ex. 2 there will be 2-3 separate hairs on the underside of the head - I will vote for Formica clarissima

So there are no hairs there: and the photo is not visible, and the author separately stipulated this. But the trick is that in this species, sometimes the hairs may be missing. So I don't even know how to reliably distinguish them from rufibarbis. Since we don't have such a view, I wasn't interested in this question. And in the Krasnoyarsk Territory it can be. So it's quite a realistic version.

This post was edited by ENO-26.08.2015 13: 42

What a heated discussion. ))) I'll try to get more angles tomorrow. The presence and absence of hairs on the underside of the head, I will approach this sign more responsibly! I might have missed it, especially if there are 2-3 of them. If I identified the Nomada bee as the Gorytes wasp a long time ago, and moreover, I found most of the signs from another family, then perhaps I could have missed a couple of hairs. :-)
And of course, I will wait for the decision of a local specialist.

You are not the only one who will be looking forward to it.

Here I am in complete uncertainty. And so I looked and so... Unfortunately, your camera's capabilities are superior to mine. The pubescence of the abdomen is perfectly removed. I will try to send your photo to Alexander Grigoryevich. My pubescence is exactly the same. I am more inclined to Japonicus. Unfortunately, I don't have any vaguses to compare right now. A friend has them, but it's a long way to go, to a different area.

If necessary, mole to remove the vagus, what parts are needed?

If necessary, mole to remove the vagus, what parts are needed?

I wanted to see the pubescence of the abdomen and the surface of the mandibles of the vagus. And compare them with your own samples and photos of akulich-sibiria
This has not lost its relevance, although I received a response from Radchenko today. I sent him photos taken by akulich-sibiria.
Alexander Grigoryevich reminded me that he does not identify ants from photographs and will not subscribe to such a definition. Can only speak approximately. so in his opinion, the photo is most likely still japonicus.

I wanted to see the pubescence of the abdomen and the surface of the mandibles of the vagus. And compare them with your own samples and photos of akulich-sibiria
This has not lost its relevance, although I received a response from Radchenko today. I sent him photos taken by akulich-sibiria.
Alexander Grigoryevich reminded me that he does not identify ants from photographs and will not subscribe to such a definition. Can only speak approximately. so in his opinion, the photo is most likely still japonicus.

As long as the camera allowed

[attachmentid()=235438] [attachmentid()=235445] [attachmentid()=235440] [attachmentid()=235441] [attachmentid()=235442] [attachmentid()=235443] [attachmentid()=235444] [attachmentid()=235439]

This post was edited by Collector - 08/27/2015 18: 40

Surroundings of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov region. August 27.
Anomaloninae?



This post was edited by Woodmen - 08/27/2015 22: 15

Kingdom of Cambodia;
Bayon Temple complex.
July 30, 2015
leg. A. Lukin



Thailand.
Scolia sp.
leg. A. Lukin

[quote=Collector,27.08.2015 23: 38]


This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 28.08.2015 04: 42

a few more photos on the light-colored formica
propodium, by the way, completely without hairs.

lower part of the head without raised hairs, viewed from all angles


scales with 6 hairs, two bent back, one up, three more directed forward. Bent forward marked with blue, back red arrows



This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 28.08.2015 04: 59

This discussion will last forever!
Colleagues, if you are so serious about studying the taxonomy of forms, then you should have built a reference collection based on it long ago.

This discussion will last forever!
Colleagues, if you are so serious about studying the taxonomy of forms, then you should have built a reference collection based on it long ago.

Well, they asked for other angles, and I did it. I just wondered if we were right or wrong. We'll find out soon

Well, they asked for other angles, and I did it. I just wondered if we were right or wrong. We'll find out soon enough

Yeah-a-a-a... Well, the interest has been whetted up, you can place bets!
I don't even know who it is. I'm not in the mood for rufibarbis. I would choose between F. glauca and F. clarissima. We are waiting for a specialist.

As long as the camera allowed

Thank you very much! My mandibles aren't like that. They are very shiny and smooth. There are no such wrinkles. Only dots. The teeth are slightly oblong. The color of the hairs depends on the lighting. here it is difficult to judge from the photo. I watched my friends in the sunlight. looks like they're golden after all. I will consider Japonicuses.

a few more photos on the light-colored formica
propodium, by the way, completely without hairs.

What's this?"

What's this?"

No, I don't think so.!!!! this is volosyushka!! a speck of dust I removed it with a needle and it can be seen that it remained there

Are you sure? Because in all your photos this "hair" is present. Quite a typical place for a detached hair, here is a photo of F. clarissima:



Hetotaxy is very similar, however. So, too, following Timk, I am inclined to this type, but only I hesitate not between it and glaucoma, but between it and rufibarbis. Because glauca does not look like our own, at least (maybe there is some other geographical form beyond the Urals, HZ). And there is a photo without a "speck of dust"? Just don't try too hard with the removal, otherwise you'll still manage to pull out a hair, who knows ...
Revising Seifert with the key might help: http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/f/f1/Se...hultz_2009A.pdf
I didn't read it, so you can figure it out for yourself. How to perform the described statistical analysis procedures, you can ask in the branch "Biophysics and mathematical methods in biology".

This post was edited by ENO-28.08.2015 12: 16

This discussion will last forever!

So be it. It's raining outside in autumn, and it's boring. At least listen to the conversation of smart people

Py Sy Kostya, you often go to Asia. Cambodian scolia and pompila in any way? Or wasps are not your thing at all?

Help me determine it. Saint Petersburg, 23.08.2015

Help me determine it. Saint Petersburg, 23.08.2015

The female is either Lasius niger or Formica fusca.

TimK, and why why only fusca, and not, say, lemani, picea or any other of the black ones? IMHO, it doesn't look like formica at all. In my opinion, Lazius is. Maybe a nigger, but I can't judge from this photo. Lasius (s. str.) sp.

This post was edited by ENO-29.08.2015 00: 07

TimK, and why why only fusca, and not, say, lemani, picea or any other of the black ones? IMHO, it doesn't look like formica at all. In my opinion, Lazius is. Maybe a nigger, but I can't judge from this photo. Lasius (s. str.) sp.

Lasius niger is the scariest. Purely by the shape of the body, as the defining features are not visible. As a fallback option - Formica fusca. It is more shiny in relation to the lasius, has a larger head and a somewhat more modest size of the abdomen. It is difficult to judge the gloss and shape of this photo, so I mentioned Formica fusca as a fallback option. The other black forms are either mirror-like or brownish with light legs (lemani) and do not resemble this one. I remind you that I am expressing my opinion, not the ultimate truth. The author of the photo may agree or disagree.

According to my observations, in queens, the formic is much lower than the middle of the pronotum in relation to the pronotum, in lasiuses (in the narrow sense) it rises in a steep hump, probably the wing musculature is more powerful. The wings themselves are also much longer. Compare:


Lasius niger


Formica fusca (from your site, by the way).

But in addition to Niger, it may well be L. platytorax, L. alienus, or L. paralienus. They differ with difficulty even in the copy, not like in this photo.

This post was edited by ENO-08/29/2015 13: 28

So be it. It's raining outside in autumn, and it's boring. At least listen to the conversation of smart people

Py Sy Kostya, you often go to Asia. Cambodian scolia and pompila in any way? Or wasps are not your thing at all?

Alexey, we have a heat wave of 25 almost the whole week, although the nights are already cold, come to us in Siberia, we are warm )))