Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

I wanted to show fragments of a wasp, I think it's a male Vespula rufa, but there is no red color on the abdomen (I already asked about it once)
1. 1 abdominal tergite with black hairs. there are no long black hairs on the hind legs,

2. light border of the eyes only up to the middle of the tenderloin

3. the 6th sternite is arc-cut, the 7th sternite is not cut on the sides

Hello!
Very beautiful sawfly false caterpillar. Maybe someone knows my name? I didn't find it anywhere...
The picture was taken on September 3, 2005, Leningrad region, pos. Toksovo. I vaguely remember sitting on an apple tree (but I can't guarantee it)...

Pictures:

Caterpillar01.jpg — (138.66к)

I wanted to show fragments of a wasp, I think it's a male Vespula rufa, but there is no red color on the abdomen (I already asked about it once)
1. 1 abdominal tergite with black hairs. on the hind legs there are no long black hairs,
2. light edging of the eyes only up to the middle of the tenderloin
3. the 6th sternite is arched out, the 7th sternite is not cut out on the sides

That's right, it's a male Vespula rufa (Linnaeus, 1758).
By the way, the strongly expanded aedeagus vertex indicates the same thing. visible on foo 3.

Hello!
Very beautiful sawfly false caterpillar. Maybe someone knows my name? I didn't find it anywhere...
The picture was taken on September 3, 2005, Leningrad region, pos. Toksovo. I vaguely remember sitting on an apple tree (but I can't guarantee it)...

Dima hi, I saw this caterpillar if I'm not mistaken on the macroid, I think that Andreas Tayeeger would help with the definition, just unsubscribe to him.
Sincerely, Andrey.

another couple of operating systems.
1. I think Dolichovespula norvegica
platypus with rare punctuation

2. the distance between the back eyes is twice as long as between the back and front eyes. BUT I don't see any particular differences from saxonica

3. red spots on the sides of the abdomen

4. the cheeks are quite short


2. I think D. saxonica
is also a platypus with a rare dotted line

2. the distance between the eyes is actually the same

3. light hair on the sides of the chest

4. no red spots on the abdomen

another couple of operating systems.
1. I think Dolichovespula norvegica
platypus with rare
punctuation 2. the distance between the posterior eyes is twice as large as between the posterior and anterior ones. BUT I don't see any particular differences from
saxonica 3. red spots on the sides of the abdomen
4. the cheeks are quite short

2. I think D. saxonica
is also a platypus with a rare
dotted line 2. the distance between the eyes is actually the same
3. light hairs on the sides of the chest
4. no red spots on the abdomen

That's right: the first one is Dolichovespula norwegica (Fabricius, 1781) [note the spelling of the species name], and the second one is Dolichovespula saxonica (Fabricius, 1793)

Only D. sylvestris (Scopoli, 1763) has a densely dotted platypus in females of our species of this genus, but it does not have a broad black longitudinal stripe, but only sometimes a small brown or black median spot.
In D. norwegica, the lateral red spots may also be almost invisible, or even completely absent. But its parietal eyes are slightly obtuse - angled triangles and the cheeks are shorter, while in D. saxonica they are almost equilateral and the cheeks are relatively longer. In addition, in D. norwegica, the broad black mark on the platypus gradually narrows to its apex, and in D. saxonica, it is usually sharply narrowed before the apex of the platypus, or even generally has the shape of a trident.

This post was edited by AVA - 14.01.2011 15: 55

I drove my Pemphredon through Cazenas. it turned out to be P. rugifer, according to it wesmaeli is separated into a separate species, according to green it goes as a subspecies, before that I signed this copy.
1. The 2nd return vein flows into the 1st submarginal (radiomedial)vein
2. the top of the platypus with a recess (rather deep), equal to the antennal fossa.
3. the stalk is 3 times longer than its width.
4. the head behind the eyes is strongly developed, with parallel edges
5. forehead without keel or bump.
6. srednespinka in rough dense dotted line, in the middle a little discharged.
7. The 2nd submarginal cell is larger in height than the width.
8. the median field of the gap. the body is roughly wrinkled. The smooth area is convex, without an obvious longitudinal furrow ???? (like there is)
9. on the hind thighs there are 5 spines on the tubercles
10. the body is entirely black
11. the pygidial field is narrow, from the sides it is limited by obvious keels.







This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 14.01.2011 21: 39

I drove my Pemphredon through Cazenas. it turned out to be P. rugifer, according to it wesmaeli is separated into a separate species, according to green it goes as a subspecies, before that I signed this copy.
1. The 2nd return vein flows into the 1st submarginal (radiomedial)vein
2. the top of the platypus with a recess (rather deep), equal to the antennal fossa.
3. the stalk is 3 times longer than its width.
4. the head behind the eyes is strongly developed, with parallel edges
5. forehead without keel or bump.
6. srednespinka in rough dense dotted line, in the middle a little discharged.
7. The 2nd submarginal cell is larger in height than the width.
8. the median field of the gap. the body is roughly wrinkled. The smooth area is convex, without an obvious longitudinal furrow ???? (like there is)
9. on the hind thighs there are 5 spines on the tubercles
10. the body is entirely black
11. the pygidial field is narrow, from the sides it is limited by obvious keels.

So, you see, it's not so complicated.
But this is at first glance. In reality, it is still unclear whether to call this species by the name rugifer, or whether it is a minor synonym for unicolor. Future research will show...
As for wesmaeli, it was not Cazenas who singled it out as a separate species, but also A.Moravitz (it was he who described this species from St. Petersburg in 1864). In many works, it appeared as a subspecies of unicolor.

Male, about 7 mm. Khakassia, forest belt, on a poplar tree.
1. The 2nd return vein flows into the 1st submarginal (radiomedial)vein
2. antennae with teloids (as I understand it, it is in the form of ribs on each segment of the mustache.??). It is difficult to describe the shape of teloids. I didn't look at it at high magnification, and it's hard to see at home.

3. sternums are poorly pubescent, without wrinkles, marginal (is it the same as vertex ones?) the parts are indented.

4. The sternum stalk is equal to the first segment of the abdomen, the length is 3 times the width, not longer. Densely populated.

5. the cheeks behind the eyes are developed and straight.


6. smooth parts of the intermediate segment are convex and isolated. Behind it is interrupted by a longitudinal furrow.

7. the crown of the head seems to be well developed.

Here between mortifer and rugifer

As it seems to me, this is Psen ater Oliv. The female. It was caught in Krasnoyarsk, Krai, forest nursery, on pine seedlings.
1. the pygidial field is wide and triangular, with large dots.
2. platbands with a wide weak notch
3. the spike between the antennal pits is sharp, high.

4. face in adjacent. light pubescence and sparser long hairs.
5. the distance between the rear peepholes is equal to the distance between the peephole and the eye.
6. srednespinka in a weak sparse dotted line. The sides of the mid-breast are smoothed, almost not dotted.

7. back surface of the gap. the segment is coarsely cellular and wrinkled.
8. the stalk is long and shiny (I didn't catch the trick)


9. tergums with sparse and weak punctuation, shiny.
10 the body is black.
11. Whiskers are brown from below.

Male, about 7 mm. Khakassia, forest belt, on a poplar tree.
1. The 2nd return vein flows into the 1st submarginal (radiomedial)vein
2. antennae with teloids (as I understand it, it is in the form of ribs on each segment of the mustache.??). It is difficult to describe the shape of teloids. I didn't look at it at high magnification, and it's hard to see at home.
3. sternums are poorly pubescent, without wrinkles, marginal (is it the same as vertex ones?) the parts are indented.
4. The sternum stalk is equal to the first segment of the abdomen, the length is 3 times the width, not longer. Densely populated.
5. the cheeks behind the eyes are developed and straight.
6. smooth parts of the intermediate segment are convex and isolated. Behind it is interrupted by a longitudinal furrow.
7. the crown of the head seems to be well developed.
Here between mortifer and rugifer

In my opinion, this is a male Pemphredon rugifer.

But you have touched on the” sore " point of taxonomy. The fact is that different researchers, based on their own experience and methods of work, hold different views on what exactly they consider species.

In this particular case, G. Dollfuss (one of the leading experts on the taxonomy of pemphredonines) is characterized by the study of as many materials as possible and the mandatory study of types. It was with this approach that, when revising the genus Pemphredon in 1991 and 1995, he considered the names P. wesmaelli and P. mortifer to be junior synonyms for the name P. rugifer, since he did not reveal any specific differences between materials from the entire range (which is actually the Holarctic).

Y took a different approach. van der Smissen in his "revision” of the European species of the "subgenus Cemonus" (2003), in which he “restored” the species status of the first two names. And it's not just that the name Cemonus is a junior synonym for Pemphredon (the differences between these “subgenera” are only in the place of the end of the 2nd return vein, which varies considerably). It's just that van der Smissen studied an order of magnitude less material and did not study types at all. Thus, his work “pulls” no more than a review, but not a revision.

In the identification tables of Pemphredon species of the Russian Far East prepared by E. Budris, P. mortifer appears as an independent species for the reason that the manuscripts were submitted long before the Dollfuss revision was published (somewhere in the mid-80s, I certainly don't remember). But the gap in the range of P. mortifer , whose easternmost distribution borders barely reach Turkey in the south and Karelia in the North, as well as the absence of P. rugifer in the fauna, is still alarming.

Thus, van der Smissen's approach is to treat any noticeable difference as a sign of a different species. In this respect, it is not original. But I personally prefer Dollfuss ' deeper analysis, which also solves the disjunction problem.

As it seems to me, this is Psen ater Oliv. The female. It was caught in Krasnoyarsk, Krai, forest nursery, on pine seedlings.
1. the pygidial field is wide and triangular, with large dots.
2. platbands with a wide weak notch
3. the spike between the antennal pits is sharp, high.
4. face in adjacent. light pubescence and sparser long hairs.
5. the distance between the rear peepholes is equal to the distance between the peephole and the eye.
6. srednespinka in a weak sparse dotted line. The sides of the mid-breast are smoothed, almost not dotted.
7. back surface of the gap. the segment is coarsely cellular and wrinkled.
8. the stalk is long and shiny (I didn't catch the trick)
9. tergums with sparse and weak punctuation, shiny.
10 the body is black.
11. Whiskers are brown from below.

Yes, this is Psen ater

Krasnoyarsk, on a pine tree. It was mistakenly identified from the genus Passaloecus, after studying a little I realized that it is again from the genus Pemphredon, there is an assumption that it is P. inornata Say.
8 mm.
1. The top of the platband is elongated into a prong, not very sharp, raised. Mandible with 3 teeth. Forehead without a spike



2. The midrib is shiny, sparsely and finely dotted.
3. intermediate segment with an arched shiny area narrowed in the middle, rough and densely dotted on the sides.

4. hind legs with 4 spines on the outer edge.
5 pygidial field without a median keel, but rather narrow, and with lateral keels at the edges, points are rare.

6. the second sternite with a gentle dotted line

Krasnoyarsk, on a pine tree. It was mistakenly identified from the genus Passaloecus, after studying a little I realized that it is again from the genus Pemphredon, there is an assumption that it is P. inornata Say.
8 mm.
1. The top of the platband is elongated into a prong, not very sharp, raised. Mandible with 3 teeth. Forehead without a spike
2. Midspine is shiny, sparsely and finely dotted.
3. intermediate segment with an arched shiny area narrowed in the middle, rough and densely dotted on the sides.
4. hind legs with 4 spines on the outer edge.
5 pygidial field without a median keel, but rather narrow, and with lateral keels at the edges, points are rare.
6. the second sternite with a gentle dotted line

Most likely, this is Pemphredon inornata, which is quite easily distinguished by the shape of the platypus and very sparse (sometimes shallow. but sometimes quite large) dotted mid-spine on a smooth shiny background. It is quite difficult to confuse it with close views.

P.S. Passaloecus easily differs from Pemphredon in the shape of the mandibles with a roundly expanded outer lobe, a relatively weak body sculpture, the presence of two parallel cellular grooves on the mesopleurae (in some species, the upper one is a scrobal suture, not developed, but the lower one is a hypersternulus, there is always one), weak spines on the legs, and most importantly, the absence of an elongated abdominal stalk and the pygidial field.

It seems to me that this is a male Pemphredon lugubris Latr . length 8 mm
. 1. The 2nd return vein departs from the very edge of the 2nd radiomedial vein, almost interstitial.

2. the notch at the top of the platypus is wide, not deep, hidden by a thick silvery pubescence.


3. the gap. the segment is densely wrinkled, with more smoothed but dense wrinkles on the sides.

4. the stem is more than twice as long as it is wide.
5. the third part of the mustache is long, 3 times longer than the width.

6. hind shins without spines, 1st part posterior. legs straight.
7. the body is black, the veins are dark brown.

It seems to me that this is a male Pemphredon lugubris Latr . length 8 mm
. 1. The 2nd return vein departs from the very edge of the 2nd radiomedial vein, almost interstitial.
2. the notch at the top of the platypus is wide, not deep, hidden by a thick silvery pubescence.
3. the gap. the segment is densely wrinkled, with more smoothed but dense wrinkles on the sides.
4. the stem is more than twice as long as it is wide.
5. the third part of the mustache is long, 3 times longer than the width.
6. hind shins without spines, 1st part posterior. legs straight.
7. the body is black, the veins are dark brown.

Everything is right.
The correct name for this species is Pemphredon lugubris (Fabricius, 1793).
Fabricius originally described it in the genus Crabro. Latreille included this species in the genus Pemphredon described by him (1802), and later, under the same name, gave his redescription of this species (1805-1806) and indicated it in a review of the genus (1825). Because of this confusion, many followers were guided by the description of the genus by Latreille, and not by the species by Fabricius.

The most important characteristics of a male are:
- 2nd return vein (postfurcal)
- the shape of the apical notch of the platypus and its lateral edges (wide, straight sides)
- petiolus length (3>pet>2,5)
- pubescence of the hind legs (without spines)
- foot color (black)

This post was edited by AVA - 24.01.2011 10: 05

super!! thank you very much. I think I'll switch to the genus Gorytes, if my wife lets __go for the computer))))

As it seems to me Mountains sulcifrons Costa. Khakassia, Shirinsky district
1. Midrib without dots, smooth

2. The upper lip is yellow, the inner edge of the eyes converges.

3. The median field of the gap.the whole segment is wrinkled. The gap. a segment with rather short but protruding light hairs. What are stigmata?

4. zadneschitik without wrinkles.
5. The cubital vein of the hindwing begins before the end of the anal cell.

6. Bottom of the mid-chest without a pronounced ridge.
7. The distance between the antennal fossa and the eye is less than the diameter of the antennal fossa itself.
8. Wrinkled pygidium



According to the DV determinant, there are Mountains sulcifrons mongolicus Tsun.given for Krasnoyarsk Krai

As it seems to me Mountains sulcifrons Costa. Khakassia, Shirinsky district
1. Midrib without dots, smooth
2. The upper lip is yellow, the inner edge of the eyes converges.
3. The median field of the gap.the whole segment is wrinkled. The gap. a segment with rather short but protruding light hairs. What are stigmata?
4. zadneschitik without wrinkles.
5. The cubital vein of the hindwing begins before the end of the anal cell.
6. Bottom of the mid-chest without a pronounced ridge.
7. The distance between the antennal fossa and the eye is less than the diameter of the antennal fossa itself.
8. Wrinkled pygidium

According to the DV determinant, there are Mountains sulcifrons mongolicus Tsun.given for the Krasnoyarsk Territory

Everything is right.
But I'm not sure about the subspecies (including Gorytes sulcifrons mongolicus). The fact is that there are no geographical gaps in the range between them. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out later that these are just color forms.

thanks for the literature, but is there a definitive table where you can spread out my types???

thanks for the literature, but is there a definitive table where you can spread out my types???

What kind of literature? I on burrowing wasps also want

thanks for the literature, but is there a definitive table where you can spread out my types???

Types of what genera? There is a 1990 work covering the entire territory of the USSR (but practically the Palearctic). Nothing particularly new has happened since then. Even the DV Determinant includes fewer species.

What kind of literature? I also want to learn about burrowing wasps

Sorry mua, but the list of literature on burrowing wasps has long gone off scale for 8000 bagels from revisions to notes. Therefore, it would be good to specify groups, regions, and areas (faunistics, biology, taxonomy...)
I'll help you with anything I can. But only on a personal soap, as it is not quite correct to upload pdf*s here (copyright, however...)

Khakassia, again Gorytes sulcifrons, but already a male like ON the forehead there are clear fairly large dots, srednespinka without those. True, according to Kazenas, it is difficult to get to this species, many theses with antitheses contradict, then the lip is black, then yellow , then the segments of the antennae are short, then like long...

Caught in Khakassia again. I think it's Gorytes quadrifasciatus F female.
1. Tergite bandages are yellow, solid

2. the front thighs are black with yellow spots.

3. the inner edge of the eyes slightly converges downwards, the distance between the eye and the antennae.the hole is equal to the last one or slightly larger.

4. Interlude. a segment with spaced short hairs. So what are stigmata??

5. The cubital vein of the hindwing begins earlier than the anal cell ends



Although the color of the legs looks more like G. ambiguus Handl. - thighs OTHER THAN THE BASE, LOWER LEGS and LEGS RED (ACCORDING to DV)

Khakassia, again Gorytes sulcifrons, but already a male like ON the forehead there are clear fairly large dots, srednespinka without those. True, according to Kazenas, it is difficult to get to this species, many theses with antitheses contradict, then the lip is black, then yellow , then the segments of the antennae are short, then like long...

That's right, male G. sulcifrons.
The fact that "according to Cazenas" there may be difficulties is quite understandable. In order to write a" working " key for a group, you need to deeply feel this group in order to understand exactly what features and how important they are for distinguishing taxa. Otherwise, the key will consist of formal attributes that often don't help, but only confuse you.
V. L. Kazenas is a specialist mainly in the genus Cerceris and some close relatives. And only P. G. Nemkov (Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok) deals with bembicins specifically. So, it is more logical to use Nemkov's keys when determining bembicin. Fortunately, they really work.

Caught in Khakassia again. I think it's Gorytes quadrifasciatus F female.
1. The bandages of tergites are yellow, solid
2. the front thighs are black with yellow spots.
3. the inner edge of the eyes slightly converges downwards, the distance between the eye and the antennae.the hole is equal to the last one or slightly larger.
4. Interlude. a segment with spaced short hairs. So what are stigma plates??
5. The cubital vein of the hindwing begins earlier than the anal cell ends
, although the color of the legs is more similar to G. ambiguus Handl. - thighs except the base, lower legs and legs are red (according to DV)

This is a female G. quadrifasciatus .
G. ambiguus is immediately distinguished by almost completely red legs (the thighs are black only at the base), as well as slightly shorter antennae, especially the 3rd segment. Here, too, the thighs are black for the most part. The most noticeable and characteristic feature of G. quadrifasciatus is a very specific light pattern of the face, especially the platelet.
item 4. Stigmal plates are obliquely vertical "caps", as if covering the spiracles in front in the anterior corners of the propodeum. What is important is not them, but the sculpture of the upper part of the metapleura in front of these spiracles. In G. quadrifasciatus, the upper metapleura has longitudinal folds.
item 5. This trait is characteristic of the entire genus Gorytes and is one of its differences from similar genera, in particular Harpactus. (This is the result of a formal approach to key composition.)

This post was edited by AVA - 26.01.2011 10: 14

so far everything is correct, thank you )))

Hello!
Please help me identify the bumblebee.
The photos were taken in Western Ukraine, on a clearing in the middle of a forest.
Thanks!
Sincerely, Kolya.

Pictures:

DSC02262.JPG — (153.07к)

little information, top view at least possible?? I understand that the pronotum hairs are light with a large admixture of black hairs??

little information, top view at least possible?? I understand that the pronotum hairs are light with a large admixture of black hairs??

So the pronotum is not visible here at all. Only on the left a little bit of light hair is visible... And black hairs interspersed with light-this is on the middle back.

Sorry about that..That's what I meant.

Oh, and I got drunk with this copy. On DV I go out on Gorytes luticinctus coreanus male, confused distribution, on green Gorytes luticinctus confused size. According to Cazenas, I did not find anything similar at all, close to quadrifasciatus
In general, about 10-11 mm long. Caught in Khakassia, Shirinsky district.
1. Wrinkle
-free face shield 2. Pubescence of sternites is very short
3. punctuation of the abdomen is hardly noticeable
4. Base of the 1st tergite with two keels and clear wrinkles
5. Punctuation of the mid-spine with very weak almost imperceptible points
6. The flagellum of the antennae is black, the teloids are well developed., the entire surface of the gap.the skin is wrinkled.
7. platypus yellow, pronotum collar with yellow border


8. what is the limit of the head guard? I can't understand a bit, it should often have a yellow spot on it.
9. the band of the second tergite occupies about a fifth of its length, not wide, and wrinkles on the gap. the data in this segment is not quite correct


I ran it through Nemkov

Oh, and I got drunk with this copy. On DV I go out on Gorytes luticinctus coreanus male, confused distribution, on green Gorytes luticinctus confused size. According to Cazenas, I did not find anything similar at all, close to quadrifasciatus
In general, about 10-11 mm long. Caught in Khakassia, Shirinsky district.
1. Wrinkle
-free face shield 2. Pubescence of sternites is very short
3. punctuation of the abdomen is hardly noticeable
4. Base of the 1st tergite with two keels and clear wrinkles
5. Punctuation of the mid-spine with very weak almost imperceptible points
6. The flagellum of the antennae is black, the teloids are well developed., the entire surface of the gap.the skin is wrinkled.
7. the platypus is yellow, the pronotum collar with a yellow border
8. the headpiece is limited to what? I can't understand a bit, it should often have a yellow spot on it.
9. the band of the second tergite occupies about a fifth of its length, not wide, and wrinkles on the gap. the data in this segment is not quite correct

I ran it through Nemkov

As far as I can tell from the photos, this is the male G. quadrifasciatus
G. L.a more delicate sculpture of the abdomen on a shiny background, as well as a distinctly yellow (I would say "yolk") light pattern. In addition, G. laticinctus is relatively larger, and the subspecies G. laticinctus koreanus is known only from the Far East and Korea.

Moreover, the headpiece is a small, seam-bounded area, usually 5-square in shape and tapering at the top. Its base is adjacent to the upper border of the platypus (to the so-called supra-clypeal suture, which is why it is sometimes called supra-clypeal sclerite), and the apex can go between the antennal pits. In this case, it is black and clearly visible in the first photo.
The forehead is developed only in forms where the antennal pits do not adjoin the platypus.

in Nemkovuk, the range of G. laticinctus koreanus is more widely specified. You can really see the headpiece!!! Well, at home I'll look again, there's just a small yellow spot visible...although it does eat garbage. Also, the color of the platypus, for G. quadrifasciatus it is said that it has two yellow spots on a black background, immediately fits the description of G. laticinctus, besides, one of the sources says about yellow elongated spots on the inner side of the eyes, descending to the platypus...The description of the apical bands on the abdominal segments seems to be clearly described. But that's just my guess. Here I think I will not argue with you. )))

I understand this is also a male G. quadrifasciatus

I understand this is also a male G. quadrifasciatus

It looks like if the other signs converge.
However, my yellow upper lip is somehow alarming. I just don't remember how much its color varies.

something like the female G. quadrifasciatus was previously defined as G. albidulus? but the light pattern is not white, it is still yellowish. From the previous female, it differed in the location of spots on the platypus and the fact that this specimen has completely dark antennae, while the same one has light brown antennae on the inner side.there is no yellow spot on the front legs

something like the female G. quadrifasciatus was previously defined as G. albidulus? but the light pattern is not white, it is still yellowish. From the previous female, it differed in the location of spots on the platypus and the fact that this specimen has completely dark antennae, while the same one has light brown antennae on the inner side.there is no yellow spot on the front legs

In my opinion, it looks more like G. ambiguus

Good afternoon!
Please tell me! Is it someone from Hymenoptera?
The sawyer?
Or am I wrong?


Moscow region, 2003

Similar to the predatory sawfly Tenthredo fagi Panzer, 1798;
But the color of the abdomen and antennae is different.

This post was edited by Seneka - 31.01.2011 15: 44