Identification of Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)

It seems without options Argogorytes mystaceus mystaceus L female. On the hindwings, the medial vein begins far behind the anal cell. 2nd sternite with a strongly angular protrusion with large dots at the base. The apex of the hind thighs is brown only at the very top. On the 4th tergite, the yellow band is reduced, in the form of a yellow spot in the center.





This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 23.05.2011 14: 03

7-8 mm. I think it's a male Crossocerus quadrimaculatus. Although the platypus and mandibles are black. The scapus on the side is yellow. The top of the platband with two paired teeth, in the middle a clear notch, behind these teeth a little further on another pair of teeth, then poorly visible, hidden behind the hairs.
What are the parietal areas, this is on the side of the side eyes? There are clearly bounded rounded shiny bumps. The top of the forehead is clearly and rather densely dotted. The occipital suture was never fully understood. It is written that ends with clear denticles. Do they need to be looked after by the front basins? The last segment of the mustache is cut off.
On 2-3 tergites there are very small yellow spots with blurred edges.

That's right-male Crossocerus quadrimaculatus (Fabricius, 1793).

It is one of two species of the subgenus Hoplocrabro that live on our territory. Characteristic features - mandibles without teeth at the top and double teeth on the sides of the platypus. The second species, Crossocerus pseudopalmarius (Gussakovskij, 1932), which occurs in the Far East, is distinguished by a completely black belly.
Parietal areas are located at the top of the head between the inner edge of the eye and the lateral eye. The shape is very diverse (convex and depressed; shiny, opaque, dotted; with or without clear borders, etc.) and is used as a species feature. Remember, Lestica has a clear groove there?. So these are the same dark areas.
On the back side of the head, two rounded keels may or may not be developed. The one that delineates the oral cavity is called hypostomal. And the one that is located between the occipital opening and the back edge of the eye is occipital (or occipital). The occipital keel can be closed when its lower ends meet, separating the occipital part of the head proper from the crown at the top and temples on the sides. But often the lower ends are directed towards the base of the mandibles or towards the hypostomal keel. These ends may be smoothed, but they may end in an angular shape, or even form a prong.

It seems to me that this is Gorytes bilunulatus female. The first tergite with deep constriction. Median field of the gap. the face is wrinkled, the wrinkles disappear at the base, where the surface is smooth. On the first tergite, there is a fairly clear transverse indentation at the base. The second tergite with an interrupted yellow stripe. 1-2 tergites are quite clearly dotted.

More precisely, Lestiphorus bilunulatus A. Costa, 1867.
This species was assigned to the genus Gorytes by Handlirsch (
1888), and it is mentioned in this genus in our "Green" Guide.
By the way, carefully count the segments of the antennae and segments of the abdomen. Unfortunately, they are not sharp in the pictures, but it seems to me that this is a male.

It seems without options Argogorytes mystaceus mystaceus L female. On the hindwings, the medial vein begins far behind the anal cell. 2nd sternite with a strongly angular protrusion with large dots at the base. The apex of the hind thighs is brown only at the very top. On the 4th tergite, the yellow band is reduced, in the form of a yellow spot in the center.

Yes, Argogorytes mystaceus (Linnaeus, 1761).
The main differences are the absence of spines on the sides of the propodeum, the pygidial field pubescent at least from behind (the 6th tergite of the female), the angular protruding 2nd sternite with large pits closer to the base, and mostly black-brown hind thighs.

It is difficult with this copy, but not at my home. The size is about 6 mm, no more. I'm leaning towards Crossocerus elongatulus, Female.
The punctuation of the forehead is quite thick, clear. Pronotum with poorly visible, small light spots.
The last sternite is black, the pygidial field is triangular, not narrowed.
In the posterior part of the mid-spine, short longitudinal ribs are visible in front of the scutellum.
The middle shins are black on the outside, only at the knees with yellow dots.

I think it's Ectemnius spinipes A. Mor female. Quite large, about 14-15 mm. The disc of the midspine is longitudinally striated almost to the anterior edge. The eyes are clearly indented, the forehead is double dotted between the eyes, large and small dots. The sides of the mid-spine are clearly lined with thick wrinkles. Abdomen with very delicate punctuation.
The top of the architrave is in the center with a shallow notch, behind it there are small teeth at a distance.





This post was edited by akulich-sibiria - 23.05.2011 16: 10

About 11 mm, I think it is Ectemnius spinipes A. Mor male. Longitudinal ribs on the mid-spine shield. Indentations at the eyes are noticeable, there is a thick dotted line on the forehead. On the front vertebrae and thighs on a powerful spike.

About 11 mm, I think it is Ectemnius spinipes A. Mor male. Longitudinal ribs on the mid-spine shield. Indentations at the eyes are noticeable, there is a thick dotted line on the forehead. On the front vertebrae and thighs on a powerful spike.

It is difficult to confuse it with another species - the spines on the trochanter and thighs immediately indicate the male Ectemnius spinipes (A. Morawitz, 1866), even if we do not take into account the longitudinal wrinkles on the mid-spine (a sign of the subgenus Metacrabro)

I think it's Ectemnius spinipes A. Mor female. Quite large, about 14-15 mm. The disc of the midspine is longitudinally striated almost to the anterior edge. The eyes are clearly indented, the forehead is double dotted between the eyes, large and small dots. The sides of the mid-spine are clearly lined with thick wrinkles. Abdomen with very delicate punctuation.
The top of the architrave is in the center with a shallow notch, behind it there are small teeth at a distance.

Judging by the continuous longitudinal hatching of the midspine (subgenus Metacrabro) and the absence of transverse wrinkles in its anterior part, as well as by the shape of the platypus and developed parietal depressions, this is a female Ectemnius spinipes (A. Morawitz, 1866)

It is difficult with this copy, but not at my home. The size is about 6 mm, no more. I'm leaning towards Crossocerus elongatulus, Female.
The punctuation of the forehead is quite thick, clear. Pronotum with poorly visible, small light spots.
The last sternite is black, the pygidial field is triangular, not narrowed.
In the posterior part of the mid-spine, short longitudinal ribs are visible in front of the scutellum.
The middle shins are black on the outside, only at the knees with yellow dots.

Judging by the listed characteristics and what is visible in the photo, it is most likely a female Crossocerus elongatulus (Vander Linden, 1829)

Quite a large copy. Female, I think it's Ectemnius fossorius. On the midspine, they are thick with longitudinal hatching, in front with transverse. Sides of the collar of the pronotum with sharp edges. The 3rd part of the mustache is three times longer than the width.

About 8-9 mm. Crossocerus. The female. All black, no yellow pattern. The pygidial field is flat and triangular. The points are rough, the hairs are thicker at the top. The platypus is black, the mandibles are black, only brownish-brown in the center. Mid-spine at the posterior edge without longitudinal ribs.
As far as I can tell, the spurs of the front legs are quite light, but not dark. Although the signs for tarsatus are suitable.
Median field of the gap. the segment has a poorly visible sloping striation. In the middle with a deep furrow. From the sides it is limited to ribs, which rise from the bottom to the middle of the height, then disappear.
Forehead in the middle with a narrow groove, clearly and densely dotted.
I can't understand what kind of bump on the sides of the middle chest, in front of the middle. tazikov… The sides are not rounded, but angularly rounded, maybe this is meant?
All parts of the legs are dark, without yellow spots.
As a variant of pusillus (=varius).

About 8-9 mm. Crossocerus. The female. All black, no yellow pattern. The pygidial field is flat and triangular. The points are rough, the hairs are thicker at the top. The platypus is black, the mandibles are black, only brownish-brown in the center. Mid-spine at the posterior edge without longitudinal ribs.
As far as I can tell, the spurs of the front legs are quite light, but not dark. Although the signs for tarsatus are suitable.
Median field of the gap. the segment has a poorly visible sloping striation. In the middle with a deep furrow. From the sides it is limited to ribs, which rise from the bottom to the middle of the height, then disappear.
Forehead in the middle with a narrow groove, clearly and densely dotted.
I can't understand what kind of bump on the sides of the middle chest, in front of the middle. tazikov… The sides are not rounded, but angularly rounded, maybe this is meant?
All parts of the legs are dark, without yellow spots.

This is the female Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau and Brullé, 1835.

The view was described on page 775 of the classic work:
Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau, A., A. Brullé. 1835 (1834). Monographie du genre Crabro, de la famille des Hyménoptères Fouisseurs. - Annales de la Société Entomologiques de France, 3:683-810.

Crossocerus pusillus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau and Brullé, 1835 was described in the same publication, but on page 778.

Later, the name Crossocerus pusillus was reduced to junior synonyms for Crossocerus varus on page 297 in the survey of burrowing wasps of France and Western Europe:
Bitsch, J., J. Leclercq. 1993. Faune de France. France et régions limitrophes. 79. Hyménoptères Sphecidae d'Europe occidentale. Volume 1. Généralités – Crabroninae. - Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles, Paris. 325 pp.

Quite a large copy. Female, I think it's Ectemnius fossorius. On the midspine, they are thick with longitudinal hatching, in front with transverse. Sides of the collar of the pronotum with sharp edges. The 3rd part of the mustache is three times longer than the width.

What does "fairly large" mean? Ectemnius fossorius is almost the largest species of the genus in our fauna. The length of its female is usually about 20 mm, or even more.
In addition, the platypus of the female Ectemnius fossorius is covered with silvery hairs and bears a strong medial keel at the apex (similar to a flat blunted beak).
Your specimen has golden platelet hairs, but the medial keel is missing (this is clearly visible in the 3rd photo).
Look carefully to see if there is clear cross hatching in the anterior part of the midspine and how well developed the longitudinal hatching is.

In my opinion, this is a female Ectemnius cavifrons (Thomson, 1870)

varus and varius what is the relationship between them? if varius is a synonym for pusillus in the definition, and you also specify what... "Later the name Crossocerus pusillus was reduced to junior synonyms to Crossocerus varus"

varus and varius what is the relationship between them? if varius is a synonym for pusillus in the definition, and you also specify what... "Later, the name Crossocerus pusillus was reduced to junior synonyms for Crossocerus varus "

I have already written that the work of a taxonomist is akin to the work of a lawyer. In both cases, we constantly have to deal not with materials, but with various kinds of documents, which are, first of all, primary descriptions and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which regulates the use of certain names.

The history of the specific name in this case (with some abbreviations) looks like this::

1. Panzer described Crabro varus Panzer, 1799 [later Jean Leclercq (1979) reduced this name to synonyms with Crabro vagabundus Panzer, 1798, which, after the work of Lepeletier and Brullé (1835), belongs to the genus Crossocerus].

2. Lepeletier and Brullet described a species with the same name, but in a different genus:
Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835

3. 10 years later, Lepeletier discovered that the species Crabro varus Panzer, 1799 should be assigned to the genus Crossocerus. As a result, the name Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835 turned out to be a junior homonym of the name Crossocerus varus (Panzer, 1799).

4. Accordingly, Lepeletier considered it necessary to replace the original name Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835 with a new one:
Crossocerus varius Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1845.

5. O. Richards (1935) concluded that the correct name should still be considered Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835

6. In the revision of Bohart and Menke (R. Bohart and Menke, 1976), there is some confusion with the years and authors. Thus, the species name “Crossocerus pusillus Lepeletier and Brullé, 1834 "was first mentioned as a junior synonym of" Crossocerus varius Lepeletier and Brullé, 1834 " (p. 403). However, the Appendix (p.628) takes into account homonymy and name changes, and the name “Crossocerus pusillus Lepeletier and Brullé” is listed as the senior synonym of the name “Crossocerus varius Lepeletier and Brullé”.

7. On 1 January 2000, the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature entered into force, which introduced some new provisions concerning old and problematic names. In particular, Article 23.9.1 of the Code states: "A senior synonym or homonym may be rejected if it has never been used as a valid synonym after 1899 (nomen oblitum), and a junior synonym or homonym may be retained if it has been used in at least 25 works by 10 authors for a period of 10 to 50 years." years (nomen protectum)."

According to this article, the name Crossocerus varus (Panzer, 1799), which has never been mentioned as a valid name, should be rejected as a nomen oblitum (i.e." forgotten name"), while the name Crossocerus varus, which is a junior homonym, should be recognized by Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835. as a nomen protectum (i.e.," preserved name"), since it is generally accepted and has been mentioned very often and by many authors. In turn, the name Crossocerus varius Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1845 becomes an unnecessary correction and simply "goes" to the list of junior synonyms.

Thus, the name Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835 is valid, whereas the names Crossocerus pusillus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835 and
Crossocerus varius Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1845 are its junior synonyms.

Here is such a bureaucracy...

rough. .
Thank you Alexand very much for the "short" narration. Indeed I am very interested in

rough.   .
Thank you Alexand very much for the "short" narration. I'm really interested

Hmm, it's really short. The fact is that the name Crossocerus varus Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau et Brullé, 1835, in addition to the disassembled C. pusillus and C. varius, has 5 more junior synonyms. If I were to take them apart, it would be much longer.

  

Here is such a bureaucracy...

Thank you!!!!
Sharp, clear and very interesting.

Alexander thank you for taking your time and helping out on the forum. Your help is simply invaluable to me. That's how I would sit with this group.
Well, I at least approximately began to distinguish three different, previously virtually indistinguishable for me, kinds.
I am glad that in some cases I found the right types by definition.

Alexander thank you for taking your time and helping out on the forum. Your help is simply invaluable to me. That's how I would sit with this group.
Well, I at least approximately began to distinguish three different, previously virtually indistinguishable for me, kinds.
I am glad that in some cases I found the right types by definition.

Always happy to help to the best of my ability. Good luck.

What does "fairly large" mean? Ectemnius fossorius is almost the largest species of the genus in our fauna. The length of its female is usually about 20 mm, or even more.
In addition, the platypus of the female Ectemnius fossorius is covered with silvery hairs and bears a strong medial keel at the apex (similar to a flat blunted beak).
Your specimen has golden platelet hairs, but the medial keel is missing (this is clearly visible in the 3rd photo).
Look carefully to see if there is clear cross hatching in the anterior part of the midspine and how well developed the longitudinal hatching is.

In my opinion, it is a female Ectemnius cavifrons (Thomson, 1870)

I take off my hat, this is Ectemnius cavifrons, it looks like I made a mistake either in the photos or in the captions to them. I can't understand it myself , maybe I already grabbed a certain female Ectemnius fossorius in my hands ... Because this instance did not fit the previous definition at all

Alexander thank you for taking your time and helping out on the forum. Your help is simply invaluable to me. That's how I would sit with this group.

To make life easier, I offer an express key for distinguishing the genera of the Crabronini tribe that live on our territory. Some of them are rare or locally common, but many are background ones.


1. The lower edge of the mandibles at the base with a more or less deep notch; eyes are pubescent with short hairs; relatively small and stocky
......................................................................................... Entomognathus

- Lower edge of the mandibles without cutting ........................................................... 2

2. the 1st segment of the abdomen is strongly elongated, club-shaped, separated by a constriction from the 2nd; the abdomen is always without yellow spots
................................................................................................ Rhopalum

- the 1st segment of the abdomen is short, if somewhat elongated, then the abdomen with yellow spots .......................................................................................... 3

3. The apices of the mandibles are without teeth; the parietal eyes are arranged in a very obtuse triangle; the abdomen is always without a yellow pattern; stocky
................................................................................................ Lindenius

- Vertexes of the mandibles with 2-3 teeth (if without teeth, then the eyes are located in an equilateral triangle) ................................................................... 4

4. The inner edges of the eyes are almost parallel; the distance between them and the antennal pits is greater than the diameter of the pits ..................................................... 5

- The inner edges of the eyes are clearly drawn together at the bottom of the face; the distance between them and the antennal pits is less than the diameter of the pits .................................................... 6

5. Pronotum roller without medial notch; anterior trochanter is normal; the posterior side of the propodeum is bordered on the sides by clear keels
............................................................................................... Tsunekiola

- Pronotum roller with a clear medial notch; anterior trochanter is thin and long; the posterior side of the propodeum is not bordered on the sides by keels
............................................................................................. Tracheliodes

6. The keel behind the lateral lobes of the pronotum is strongly arched back (almost reaching the episternal suture of the mesopleur); the propodeum is smooth, without a pronounced dorsal field; the antennae of the male are 12-segmented; very small
........................................................................................... Odontocrabro

- The keel behind the lateral lobes of the pronotum is not arched back (far from reaching the episternal suture of the mesopleur).) ........................................... 7

7. The return vein is connected to the submarginal cell near its middle; the male's antennae are 13-segmented ........................................................ 8

- The return vein is connected to the submarginal cell near its outer edge; the male's antennae are 12-segmented ............................................... 9

8. The parietal eyes are arranged in an obtuse triangle
.................................................................................................... Crabro

- The parietal eyes are arranged in an almost equilateral triangle
............................................................................................. Crossocerus

9. Parietal areas are not pronounced or in the form of not deep, oval and not limited depressions; body with more or less weak sculpture, including punctuation of the abdomen
................................................................................................ Ectemnius

- Parietal areas in the form of deep, narrow and clearly bounded furrows or depressions; body with more or less rough sculpture, including punctuation of the abdomen
..................................................................................................... Lestica

This specimen is more similar to Pemphredon flavistigma Thomson female .
The 2nd return vein departs from the 2nd radiomedial cell. The central part of the Gap. the segment is cellular and wrinkled, with more longitudinal wrinkles on the sides.
The top of the architrave has one rather deep notch. The pygidial field is relatively wide, slightly concave, and bordered on the sides by keels. The forehead is without a process. The 3rd part of the mustache is long, at least 3 times longer than the width.

Help us identify the rider. Tatarstan. 2.06.2011

Pictures:

IMG_0444________.jpg — (172.38к)

Hello!

Please tell me who it is.

2009-06-09, East Kazakhstan, coast of Bukhtarma reservoir.

Pictures:

00.jpg — (117.62 k)

Hello!

Please tell me who it is.

2009-06-09, East Kazakhstan, coast of Bukhtarma reservoir.

Carpenter bee Xylocopa valga Gerstaecker, 1872, female

This specimen is more similar to Pemphredon flavistigma Thomson female .
The 2nd return vein departs from the 2nd radiomedial cell. The central part of the Gap. the segment is cellular and wrinkled, with more longitudinal wrinkles on the sides.
The top of the architrave has one rather deep notch. The pygidial field is relatively wide, slightly concave, and bordered on the sides by keels. The forehead is without a process. The 3rd part of the mustache is long, at least 3 times longer than the width.

Most likely, it is. Although the clipping of the platband is not very visible.

Help us identify the rider. Tatarstan. 2.06.2011

It is difficult to identify ichneumonids from photos, especially when you consider that there are about 5 thousand species in the European part of the country alone. In most cases, the guessing game is obtained with varying degrees of confidence.
In this particular case, I would venture to assume that Diplazon tibiatorius (Thunberg, 1824) was removed, but this is nothing more than an assumption, since 3-toothed mandibles, muzzle are not visible, the shape and sculpture of basal tergites are also visible, as are venation and other diagnostic signs.
For this version - the color of the legs and chest, general proportions, the 1st segment of the metasome, as well as the presence of aphids in the same image-diplazontins parasitize the larvae of babbler flies, and they, in turn, (n / sem. Syrphinae) are trophically related to aphids.

  
In this particular case, I would venture to assume that Diplazon tibiatorius (Thunberg, 1824) was removed, but this is nothing more than an assumption, since 3-toothed mandibles, muzzle are not visible, the shape and sculpture of basal tergites are also visible, as are venation and other diagnostic signs.

Or perhaps Diplazon tetragonus (Thunberg, 1822).
I fully agree, ichneumonids are not butterflies, so that it is so easy to determine the appearance from photos...

Or perhaps Diplazon tetragonus (Thunberg, 1822).
I fully agree, ichneumonids are not butterflies, so that it is so easy to determine the appearance from photos...

I do not think that D. tetragonus, in females of this species, the hind basins are b. h. black, whereas in the photo-red

Most likely, it is. Although the clipping of the platband is not very visible.

the play of light and shadow, it is difficult to bring the hole to light. But it is there

it was me

It was me

I understood.
Tip : if the platelet is covered with adjacent hairs, then it is better to direct light along the hairs from their endings when shooting. Then they do not camouflage the leading edge so much (the border of which may even be slightly highlighted).

I do not think that D. tetragonus, in females of this species, the hind basins are b. h. black, whereas in the photo-red

Well no... In D. tetragonus, the hind basins are also often red. As well as the middle ones, whereas in D. tibiatorius the middle basins are more often black.
In general, I strongly doubt that such nuances of color should be given decisive importance, since they strongly depend on the conditions of development of a particular individual.

I understand that the question is "nakakoy" (and that "it is impossible from the photo")... But, nevertheless (and suddenly?): what kind of riders?
Novosibirsk, 4-8. 06. 2011, on eli. One (xx1) is about 2 cm (without ovipositor), the other (xx6) is about 2.5 cm (without ovipositor).

Pictures:

xx1.jpg — (142.24 k)


xx6.jpg — (143.18к)

Well, I don't know... For a carpenter bee, the size is specified up to 27 mm, and such animals, as I remember, are somewhere all 40.
Here, by the way, for some reason a bumblebee flew over it, for scale, probably )))

Pictures:

000.jpg — (107.12к)

Kolya, there are no others like this in Kazakhstan, and the size in the literature is not always given the maximum!

Well, I don't know... For a carpenter bee, the size is specified up to 27 mm, and such animals, as I remember, are somewhere all 40.
Here, by the way, for some reason a bumblebee flew over it, for scale, probably )))

Bumblebee wanted sex.
I have repeatedly observed how male antidium bees, for example, fly over thickets of flowering legumes and try to mate with anyone - with flies, bumblebees, bees of other species

Bumblebee wanted sex.
I have repeatedly observed how male antidium bees, for example, fly over thickets of flowering legumes and try to mate with anyone - with flies, bumblebees, bees of other species

Well, actually, it's a bumblebee, and a working one at that. And they are not up to sekes... It is the males of some bees that are only concerned with them.