Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

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

Pages: 1 ...181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189... 277

07.03.2016 2:03, алекс 2611

Wings, except in flight, few of the membranes open. So a person who follows the " makrushnik code "(we live in natural conditions to take pictures) has to rely on other signs. Not to say, of course, that the determination from photos was 100% accurate and worked in all cases, but the efficiency of craftsmen to determine from photos is quite high. How they do it, it is better to ask them, I usually catch, but even on a pin.

...only in those cases, if the wings are closed, in the rest they are quite visible. In addition, we must assume that this is a resize, full-size ones will be more visible. In general, I note that the NakaRB photos are the best ones that I have met on this forum and not only. Therefore, writing about them "according to such photos" IMHO is only valid for the photographer who can do better.

I did not discuss at all when and how the wings of the eardrums open. And what codes do photo lovers have? I only mean that the tergites are almost invisible.
If you can see it, then tell us what the dotted lines of tergites 1 and 2 are. What are they - shiny, shagged, striated? The size of the vertex parts, how they are dotted, and how much they are indented. Tell us something about the structure of the propodeum. About the ratio of height and width of the head in front. About the size and shape of the clipeus.
Can you? That's just it...
Yes, a good specialist can sometimes say a lot about the view and such photos. But not in this case, I'm afraid. Of course, a certain number of species out of 35 can be immediately discarded. But there are still a lot of options in this case.

Well, beautiful photos from the respected NakaRB, who would argue. Only it is difficult to determine the view from them.
And to say this, I absolutely don't need to take pictures at this level.

Likes: 2

07.03.2016 3:02, ИНО

I've never understood all these "shagreen-streaked" things in the determinants. In the normal key, there should be either an exact indication of the type "the diameter of the pits is less/more (by so many times) the distance between them", or high-quality drawings are given, and even better-photos. And according to the Soviet definitions, where instead of all sorts of epithets, sometimes they are defined in such a way that God forbid. Moreover, they are determined by quite competent entomologists who simply have not encountered the species before. Only the Internet saves you. So I do not know what poetic epithets should be awarded to the dotted bees in NakaRBv photos, and I do not want to know. I can say something else: if you need to compare the sculpture of pokrov and khet with images from a normal western key, then the photos are quite standard, which is not so often. You just need to watch full-size ones, not resize ones. In general, I consider resizing with the current volumes of free storage justified only for previews that lead to a click on a full-size photo, but in other cases this phenomenon is extremely negative. Various articles with recommendations for" publishing photos on the Web", hanging on the sites of makrushnikov in relation to entomological tasks, are a form of sabotage.

Further, to determine with an accuracy of "almost probably" in the vast majority of cases, all the signs listed in the keys that are not visible in the photo are not needed, just one or two that are visible, and often absent in modern keys. Naturally, it is assumed that it will be determined by a specialist, and a specialist with rich experience in such work (the definition of this particular group is based on photographs). That's why I recommended Timofey Levchenko. Imagine, he somehow miraculously identifies galicotovs from photos, and even from less high-quality ones. I can identify our polists, but not by any photo, but the highly respected AVA-by almost any, is also a phenomenon. Therefore, if someone claims "it is impossible to determine from such photos", this often means not the impossibility of determining in principle, but only the impossibility of determining the approver.

07.03.2016 11:50, алекс 2611

I've never understood all these "shagreen-streaked" things in the determinants. In the normal key, there should be either an exact indication of the type "the diameter of the pits is less/more (by so many times) the distance between them", or high-quality drawings are given, and even better-photos. And according to the Soviet definitions, where instead of all sorts of epithets, sometimes they are defined in such a way that God forbid. Moreover, they are determined by quite competent entomologists who simply have not encountered the species before. Only the Internet saves you. So I do not know what poetic epithets should be awarded to the dotted bees in NakaRBv photos, and I do not want to know. I can say something else: if you need to compare the sculpture of pokrov and khet with images from a normal western key, then the photos are quite standard, which is not so often. You just need to watch full-size ones, not resize ones. In general, I consider resizing with the current volumes of free storage justified only for previews that lead to a click on a full-size photo, but in other cases this phenomenon is extremely negative. Various articles with recommendations for" publishing photos on the Web", hanging on the sites of makrushnikov in relation to entomological tasks, are a form of sabotage.

Further, to determine with an accuracy of "almost probably" in the vast majority of cases, all the signs listed in the keys that are not visible in the photo are not needed, just one or two that are visible, and often absent in modern keys. Naturally, it is assumed that it will be determined by a specialist, and a specialist with rich experience in such work (the definition of this particular group is based on photographs). That's why I recommended Timofey Levchenko. Imagine, he somehow miraculously identifies galicotovs from photos, and even from less high-quality ones. I can identify our polists, but not by any photo, but the highly respected AVA-by almost any, is also a phenomenon. Therefore, if someone claims "it is impossible to determine from such photos", this often means not the impossibility of determining in principle, but only the impossibility of determining by the approver.

"I've never understood all these "shagreen-streaked" things in the determinants."
It happens. It probably doesn't make sense to suggest taking a microscope and examining the bees?

"In the normal key, there should be either an exact indication of the type "the diameter of the pits is smaller/larger"
. Perhaps I will surprise you, but in addition to the pits, there are other types of body surface culture.

"to determine with an accuracy of "almost probably" in the vast majority of cases, you don't need all the signs listed in the keys, and which are not visible in the photo, just one or two"
Of course. The main thing is less of any signs. Nafiga they are needed. I compared it with photos from the Internet that were identified by someone who didn't know who, chose the most similar photo, and got the definitions with an accuracy of "almost certainly".

"That's why I recommended Timofey Levchenko."
Who would argue. Professional. Just like dear AVA and Carcharoth on wasps, IchMan on riders, or a specialist (I forgot my nickname) on sawflies. Only here and from them you often hear "you can't determine the type - the necessary signs are not visible."

This post was edited by alex 2611-07.03.2016 11: 51

07.03.2016 19:19, akulich-sibiria

"I've never understood all these "shagreen-streaked" things in the determinants."
It happens. It probably doesn't make sense to suggest taking a microscope and examining the bees?

"In the normal key, there should be either an exact indication of the type "the diameter of the pits is smaller/larger"
. Perhaps I will surprise you, but in addition to the pits, there are other types of body surface culture.

"to determine with an accuracy of "almost probably" in the vast majority of cases, you don't need all the signs listed in the keys, and which are not visible in the photo, just one or two"
Of course. The main thing is less of any signs. Nafiga they are needed. I compared it with photos from the Internet that were identified by someone who didn't know who, chose the most similar photo, and got the definitions with an accuracy of "almost certainly".

"That's why I recommended Timofey Levchenko."
Who would argue. Professional. Just like dear AVA and Carcharoth on wasps, IchMan on riders, or a specialist (I forgot my nickname) on sawflies. Only here and from them you often hear "you can't determine the type - the necessary signs are not visible."

Alexey, I fully support your point of view. Whatever high-quality and beautiful photos are, it is difficult to determine them, especially for such complex groups. I may not have much experience, but even if I have a determinant of the same Pesenko, the run-up goes to several types, between which I sometimes break my head for more than one week. I agree that narrow specialists are sometimes surprisingly accurate without difficulty, but they also always say that the determination was made from a photograph, not from a copy in kind.
Sometimes even first-class photos do not give anything. What to watch if you don't know what to watch.
Timofey also helped me with a number of bee groups, but at the same time I tried to describe in as much detail as possible what I see and send photos with these signs. More often, he threw me literature that I understood myself. This was the best help for me.
Of course, the collection region is also important. If this is an area where a specialist has been fishing for years, then I think that less high-quality photos are enough for him (not always), but if a copy with signs familiar to him from other areas, then more often you can hear from a specialist - drive yourself along the keys and look at the subject of this or that type.

Likes: 1

08.03.2016 18:27, алекс 2611

You called all the NakaRB photos together (in fact, the best photos of halicts in nature that I met on this forum, and in other places, perhaps, too) unsuitable for determining further than before the genus. I challenged that. But for some reason, our discussion has become more and more destructive, so I will conclude it. Everyone was left with their own opinion.

Well, if the photos are not very easy to identify, then what can I do?
This does not detract from the talent of the respected NakaRB. I also really like his photos and enjoy looking through them. Even if they are completely unfamiliar to me families. The riders are amazing. Although they are also sometimes undetectable to the point of appearance.

If you are not too lazy, then check out the photos of akulich-sibiria in this topic. These are photos that are easy to identify. Even then, experts sometimes have doubts.
Alas, hymenoptera is a rather specific order of insects. And in the sense of definition from the photo, it differs from large butterflies and beetles. We need very specific angles. And in a live insect shot in nature, the signs necessary for determining are fairly hidden.
Yes, I guess our conversation is over.

Likes: 1

08.03.2016 18:58, akulich-sibiria

I agree with ENO that the big disadvantage of the determinants of past years, the lack of high-quality photos, which are very helpful in determining and I would even say that I myself became dependent on such determinants. Sometimes I'm too lazy to go into the sources of the last century on elephants, it's easier to open Ilya Zabaluev's determinant for this family and drive it away. But even with a good photo and a detailed description, I often find myself at a dead end in my definitions. And there I will say a photo not of a general plan (an example here was a photo of NakaRB, excellent photos are possible for the most common genera, species or species with obvious clear signs that are easily identifiable), but detailed ones with photos of individual signs and still I fail for a number of genera. Here, of course, the help of Ilya himself is huge.
There are more and more such colorful determinants, but there are so few of them relative to even the main orders of insects, and therefore sometimes you have to determine from what is there.
In addition, such first-class qualifiers are mostly for the EC of the Russian Federation or European countries, but what to do with Siberia and the Far East? Mostly monographs on individual families and genera.
But how will you identify even super-high-quality photos of genital groups?
Or maybe Andren? I took my own to Dima Sidorov, so he, as an expert on this group, delivered a number of copies, bringing them only to the subgenus.
And remember that heated correspondence about my ants ala Formica rufibarbis, when I shot body parts from different angles and there we did not come to a common opinion with ENO and TimK (to my shame, I still did not show them to a local specialist, there is no time at all).
Let's say Cerceris arenaria I have several specimens that are not at all similar to each other and from the photo I would say that these are completely different species and only teza (antithesis) and experienced entomologists allowed to put everything in its place.
And the keys of the format
" 1(2) Srednespinka roughly dotted...
2(1)The Spednespinnka is thinly dotted..."
you can't get away from them. These signs are relative and only by experience do you understand the difference in these little things.
I see your discussion is over and therefore my opinion. A good photo is good, but it is better if it will be photos of different and important plans with visible signs, but the last word belongs to the key determinant.

This post was edited by akulich-sibiria-08.03.2016 19: 01

Likes: 2

08.03.2016 19:17, akulich-sibiria

Determining from the latest source (and my field photos) in many cases turned out to be quite feasible and not stressful, even for me, who understands beetles only a little better than nothing. And, on the Green, I strongly suspect, I would have driven for a long time and eventually drove somewhere very far.

Sorry, I couldn't get past this phrase of the respected ENO. So you didn't even try to identify by green? And why everything is stuck in green, it is clear that it is outdated, a number of keys cause more confusion...But after all, there are monographs on a number of families, there is, after all, the fauna of the USSR (also old, but the bulk is there), plus work on the region under study.
I'd just like to see some field photos, what do you mean? Again, often found or species with clear signs is yes. But I do not think that the genus Agrilus from goldenrods, or say Scymnus from coccinelids, or a number of ceutorhinchus from elephants in general can be determined from field photos, and genital cryptocephalus or gonioctera from leaf eaters, and Cardiophorus from nutcrackers. I'm scratching my head over a number of bumblebees with top-notch specialist photos.
Of course, I would ideally like a thesis(antithesis) with photos and a safety net expert opinion

Likes: 1

08.03.2016 21:28, ИНО

Of course, I didn't even open the Green one. There, after all, if you initially only know that it is a ground beetle and no more, for half a day of work, I don't need it so much. And according to the atlas - maximum, an hour. Of course, if in the atlas you come across a bunch of" identical " beetles of different species, then you will have to climb into the key (but not the Green One!). But, most likely, there will not be much sense there either - they will make you pull the pipka, or even inflate it. Genetics really can't be determined from field photos, we need to think about the X-ray nozzle

. And with non-genetic ones, my field photos in terms of resolution are slightly inferior to MBS (at least, those ancient shabby ones that are hidden in our university). Naturally, for such a result, it is necessary that the insect sits motionless during the shooting, there is the right light and generally good luck. And NakaRB's photos are much better than mine, you can't do them in one shot under MBS. By the way, look at his photos in the topic about weevils, there is generally no fun there.

Types-doubles, that on photos, that on on an instance, to define-one headache and uncertainty. And there are a lot of errors on the exhaust, especially if it is determined by a person who has not personally worked with these types before.

Likes: 1

12.03.2016 2:31, ИНО

So I agreed that this is probably a klarissima, but this is also a conclusion based on reviewing photos from the Internet. How else? Go to Siberia to compare collectible copies? Then immediately look at the types (if in some Western European museum, where in most cases they are stored, they will give). But I think you know how utopian this is. Therefore, the definition must have some balance between the accuracy and accessibility of the method. High-quality high-resolution photos that have started appearing on specialized sites recently are a very good way out. And what is considered the main thing. and what is auxiliary (key or photo) is a philosophical question.

This post was edited by ENO-12.03.2016 02: 32

Likes: 1

14.03.2016 13:47, алекс 2611

Thanks! Yes, it is very similar, but judging by the photos on the Internet, maxillosa's bandages are not yellow, but white. Maybe some close view? There would be at least some list ... at least understand what lives there.

Yeah. There's a snow-white pubescence, but here it's yellow. It's hard to say anything. Sometimes even in specimens of the same species from the same area, the color of the pubescence "walks" from bright orange to gray. And sometimes the color of pubescence is constant.
But you can't find any literature. I try to download everything that comes across the bees of the Old World, but alas. There is a fair amount of literature on African galicts. but you can't find it for the rest of the families.

Likes: 2