Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

You are comparing incomparable quantities. The entire bark beetle family includes at least half as many species as the single genus Andrena. There is no need to talk about the genera of bark beetles - there are dozens of them at most...

the month of April and the middle zone of Russia sharply reduce the number of andren species
less than bark beetles will be

in general, friends, a specialist in a certain group will always determine the species with a certain degree of probability, but I think that's why he is a specialist, that he will always doubt this and will be sure if certain signs are visible. And the number of species sometimes does not play a special role. For example, beetles from the genus of pill beetles Byrrhus, we have found 3-4 species of them, and they are only determined by the aedeagus, because they are round and black, in general, they all look the same. And coccinelids, so there are several dozen species, and quite easy to identify from the photo.

on nomads, I communicated only with Maxim Proshchalkin from DV, for me this group is only by keys.

something I looked at Ectemnius, I think it will be more difficult with them. In general, and not that nafotagrofiroval at work. in general I will try to show
As it seems to me this is a male Ectemnius continuus F. about 10 mm long
Front thighs at the base without a prong, rounded. The 5th member of the forelegs is not dilated.
4 and 5 parts of the mustache with rounded teeth at the top, 3 parts slightly curved at the top from the inside.
The mandibles are two-pronged at the apex.
Bottom of the middle breast with a transverse keel. The sides of the middle breast are densely wrinkled.
The vertical part of the forehead without a limiting roller.
Crown, mid-spine and first tergite in rather long raised hairs.
3rd tergite without spots, the largest spots on the 2nd tergite. 1st tergite with very delicate and rare punctuation, hardly noticeable.
1-2 members of medium legs with spines on the sides at the top.
The 3rd part of the us is not more than 2.5 times longer than the width.
The shield of the mid-thorax is roughly and densely dotted, closer to the shield with poorly marked furrows.
the captured female has two yellow spots on the pronotum, but I did not find any in males







This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 29.04.2011 12: 08

Pictures:

P1010142_.jpg — (106.96к)

Here I have between the male Ectemnius cavifrons Thoms or ruficornis Zett
The bottom of the mid-chest in front without a transverse keel
, the upper part of the forehead is almost depressed to the eye, as I can see, almost along the entire length.
The 3rd part of the mustache is long, more than 4 times. It has two fairly strong prongs. The last part of the mustache is rounded.
No matter how hard I look, I can't find the golden gleam of hairs on the trim.
Trim with an elongated central part of the front edge.
The back of the gap. the segment is not separated from the sides by a vertical keel or furrow. Sides in very soft and thick folds.
The 5th member of the forelegs is extended and rounded.
I can't figure out where the prong is on the inner edge of the mandibles? is it visible or should I push my mandibles apart?








This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 29.04.2011 12: 52

I don't really understand anything about it at all. The subspecies was identified as Ectemnius martjanowii (F. Morawitz, 1892). It was caught in the Western Sayan, in the south of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. About 12 mm.
The sides of the mid-chest are matte, without a uniform dotted line. Midrib is dotted-shagreen, without wrinkles. Sredin. the interval field. the skin is not wrinkled, matte, smooth.
Only here on the 1st tergite there are small yellow spots, on the second baldric, the 3rd black, on 3-4 tergites side spots, on the 5th baldric at the base.
In the middle, the alichnik is glabrous, shiny, with a notch in the middle at the top and two weak teeth that point slightly forward.
Mid-chest bottom in front without keel.
Mandibles with 3 teeth on top.

I assume Ectemnius ruficornis Zett. The male
is similar to cavifrons, but on the 3rd part of the whisker, the teeth are weakly expressed, less than in this species. The apical tendril is pointed
and the middle of the forehead is less depressed.







This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 29.04.2011 15: 55

1-male-Ectemnius continuus (Fabricius, 1804)
the most characteristic features: tergites are slightly dotted; 1st tergite is almost polished; 3rd tergite without yellow spots; front thighs at the base (near the trochanter) without a flat angular protrusion; segments of the middle legs from the inside with the tops extended into a prong; 5-6th segments are weakly but clearly indented (cut out)

2-Male-Ectemnius cavifrons (Thomson, 1870)
The most characteristic features are: the posterior sides of the propodeum are not bounded by a sharp rib; the sides of the propodeum are thinly and densely hairy; the 3rd segment of the antennae is deeply incised, with strong teeth at the base and at the apex

3-female-Ectemnius martjanowi (F. Morawitz, 1892)
most characteristic features: mesopleurae without punctuation or wrinkles, leathery and opaque; mid-spine without wrinkles; dorsal field of the propodeum is not limited, smooth, but not shiny; 2nd and 5th tergites with solid yellow bandages, 3-4-with side spots

4-male-Ectemnius ruficornis (Zetterstedt, 1838)
The most characteristic features are: the posterior sides of the propodeum are not bounded by a sharp rib; the sides of the propodeum are thinly and densely hairy; the 3rd segment of the antennae is slightly incised, with short teeth at the base and at the apex

well, everything seems to be similar, but is Ectemnius martjanowi (F. Morawitz, 1892) a rare species or not?

This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 29.04.2011 17: 45

well, everything seems to be similar, but is Ectemnius martjanowi (F. Morawitz, 1892) a rare species or not?

Yes, it is infrequent in training camps. Mostly found in the east. Males of this species are very interesting, with characteristic outgrowths at the bottom of the head.
In general, the concept of "rare" is not quite clear. You just need to know the locations.

does it look like a Crabro??

does it look like a Crabro??

Yes, and most likely a female Crabro scutellatus (von Scheven, 1781).
Unfortunately, the antennae, platypus and sculpture of the 1st abdominal tergite are poorly visible.

at home we will check

I will also be inclined to Crabro scutellatus Scheven female.
The front edge of the platband is straight without teeth or corners. The surface of the forehead is without wrinkles, but densely dotted, not leathery. The punctuation of the midrib is not very thick, it is shiny itself. The sides of the chest are shiny, almost without dots. The gap. a segment with large longitudinal keels that are closed by transverse keels in a roughly cellular structure. The first tergite with yellow spots, shiny, without punctuation. The 3rd chl. us. is at least 1.5 times longer than the 4th, let's just say it doesn't hold up to be twice as long.
But quite similar to C. peltarius

I will also be inclined to Crabro scutellatus Scheven female..
.. But quite similar to C. peltarius

In Crabro peltarius (Schreber, 1784), the 1st abdominal tergite is rarely but clearly dotted, while in Crabro scutellatus (von Scheven, 1781) it is polished and with barely visible points at the base of the hairs.

well, if this is a defining feature, then Crabro scutellatus, thank you!

Please help me with the definition of the grinder. Tatarstan, Naberezhnye Chelny. 06.06.2009.

Pictures:

111.jpg — (138.03к)

Help identify the bees. Naberezhnye Chelny, 26.04.2011.

Pictures:

02.jpg — (208.77 k)


03.jpg — (206.58 k)


04.jpg — (176.47 k)


01.jpg — (144.48 k)


02.jpg — (150.94 k)

Please help me with the definition of the grinder. Tatarstan, Naberezhnye Chelny. 06.06.2009.

This is not a grinder (beetle), but a sawfly. Female Cimbex femoratus (Linnaeus, 1758).
And yet, isn't that enough?
http://macroid.ru/showphoto.php?photo=71143

This post was edited by AVA-04.05.2011 17: 09

Help identify the bees. Naberezhnye Chelny, 26.04.2011.

All bees are from the genus Andrena. Identifying them from photos is not a very reliable task. It is only possible to make guesses, discarding later views. But there are no guarantees here either.
The first two and last two belong to 2 different types. The middle one seems to be another view.

Don't you want to see the bees? Serpukhov district, Moscow Region:

http://kotbegemot.livejournal.com/545115.html

Don't you want to see the bees? Serpukhov district, Moscow Region:

http://kotbegemot.livejournal.com/545115.html

The upper one (with a red belly) is Sphecodes , the other two are Andrena, but different species. There is too little information before the view...

She was photographed today in South Karelia. Bombus sp? with this angle, probably not up to the view?

She was photographed today in South Karelia. Bombus sp? with this angle, probably not up to the view?

IMHO-Psithyrus sp.

IMHO-Psithyrus sp.

Let's take it in order.
First, the name Psithyrus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1832 has been considered a subgenus in the genus Bombus Latreille, 1802, rather than an independent genus, for almost 20 years. And in total there are more than 40 subgenera...
Secondly, this group of bumblebees does not include species with breasts that are evenly covered with red hairs.
Third, the species of the subgenus Psithyrus, which are breeding parasites, are characterized by slightly expanded, convex and dotted hind legs, as well as a reduction in the “basket”.

In this case, the chest is completely covered with red hairs without black bandages and even admixtures of black hairs, and the hind legs are expanded and shiny on the outside.
Up to the type without measurements, the definition is, of course, unguaranteed. But, in my opinion, this bumblebee is very similar to Bombus (Thoracobombus) pascuorum (Scopoli, 1763).

This post was edited by AVA-10.05.2011 09: 04

I was confused by the dark color of the wings - I always thought that this is a characteristic feature of psytirus (after the absence of baskets).

I was confused by the dark color of the wings - I always thought that this is a characteristic feature of psytirus (after the absence of baskets).

Indeed, many cuckoo bumblebees have darkened wings. But quite often there are also quite common ones, for example, in Bombus (Psithyrus) sylvestris (Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1832) or Bombus (Psithyrus) vestalis (Geoffroy, 1785).
At the same time, some "ordinary" bumblebees have dark wings. Such as in Bombus (Bombus) terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) or Bombus (Pyrobombus) impatiens Cresson, 1863. For some reason, this is especially common in mountain species.

For some reason, this is especially common in mountain species.

I think to warm up faster when the sun comes out between the clouds.

I think it's to warm up faster when the sun comes out between the clouds.

I wonder how you imagine this process in reality?

I understand the assumption due to the fact that the dark color of the wings takes more heat, well, like when the first insects (the same beetles) pile up....)))

I looked at my bumblebees, I also think that it is Bombus (Thoracobombus) pascuorum (Scopoli, 1763). At least in my collections, not much else is visually appropriate.

I understand the assumption due to the fact that the dark color of the wings takes more heat, well, like when the first insects (the same beetles) pile up....)))

But the whole "trouble" is that each wing of the membranes is connected to the body only at 4 points. These are not butterflies where the contact area is really significant. At the same time, the wings do not have any connection with the internal body cavity (i.e., the hemolymph) and, therefore, they cannot warm it up. So thermoregulation by the type of elephant or rabbit ears does not work here either. Finally, the same cuckoo bumblebees with dark wings fly out in the spring much later than their owners, who often have light wings. Then why do cuckoos need dark ones? Actually, functional-rational explanations don't always work in the wild.

It's a pity, such a hypothesis was good

This post was edited by Bad Den - 05/11/2011 14: 15

Good afternoon.You can suggest an atlas on bees or hymenoptera in general. Or some "determinant with pictures-fotografimyami". I decided to understand a little about bees, but there is not enough time or urine to master the "professional" determinant.
Thank you in advance.

A male like Ectemnius, with a species with no options at all. What about E. schlettereri???
1. front thighs without prong
2. antennae without outgrowths and teeth. The last member of the antennae is bent.
3. the sides of the mid-breast are relatively regular and densely wrinkled.
The gap. the segment is not bounded laterally by the keels. The mid-spine is densely and roughly dotted, sometimes forming sparse, short longitudinal wrinkles.
4. The 3rd part of the mustache is approximately 2.5 longer than the width.
5. tergites are rather rough and often dotted. 1-black, 2, 3 with yellow spots, 4-with a sling interrupted in the middle, 5-with a wide sling, 6 - with a small yellow spot in the middle of the tergite.







This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 13.05.2011 19: 11

A male like Ectemnius, with a species with no options at all. What about E. schlettereri???
1. front thighs without prong
2. antennae without outgrowths and teeth. The last member of the antennae is bent.
3. the sides of the mid-breast are relatively regular and densely wrinkled.
The gap. the segment is not bounded laterally by the keels. The mid-spine is densely and roughly dotted, sometimes forming sparse, short longitudinal wrinkles.
4. The 3rd part of the mustache is approximately 2.5 longer than the width.
5. tergites are rather rough and often dotted. 1-black, 2, 3 with yellow spots, 4-with a sling interrupted in the middle, 5-with a wide sling, 6 - with a small yellow spot in the middle of the tergite.

And why shouldn't it be Lestica, for example, alata Pz. - ?
Sort of like a trans-palaearct. Take a look. And the head is the same as the rough punctuation of tergites for Ectemnius, IMHO, atypic

I agree, she's a darling!!!! the most annoying thing is that I have this type and defined it as alata. Compared one to one indeed, that I dotted tergitov prinebreg...thank you!!

This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 13.05.2011 20: 07

Male Crossocerus. About 8 mm.
Abdomen without yellow pattern. Chest from below in rather long but sparse hairs, without thick pubescence.
The occipital keel does not form a complete ring. The second and third tergites have very weak transverse constrictions.
The 7th tergito is quite well developed, gradually tapering towards the top, not steeply rounded. It is difficult to say about the dotted line, but it is thicker and slightly rougher than on the 6th tergite and the pubescence is thicker.
The pronotum cushion is not raised high. Mesopleurae without spines
The front tibia are not dilated. Middle shins without a prong. Antennae without teeth. The last tendril is slanted and pointed.
The interval field.the segment is not limited to edging on the sides. In the middle with a furrow, on top quite shiny, unpunctured. The sides are crinkled with rough lines.
The platypus is without yellow, the mandibles are brown.
Mesopleurae are shiny, slightly dotted.
Front thighs from below without long hairs

Help us identify the client. Khar. obl. Bliz-kiy district 12.05.2011. Thanks!

Pictures:

Untitled1.jpg — (91.12к)

Hello!
Caught today in Karelia. I hope to see more of Bombus sp from these angles. perhaps.

Bombus lucorum L I think.