E-mail: Password: Create an Account Recover password

About Authors Contacts Get involved Русская версия

show

Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

Community and Forum → Insects identification → Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

Pages: 1 ...189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197... 854

30.08.2009 22:16, evk

Chaetopteroplia segetum or something... confused.gif

Without options - it is the same! Kuzka-krasun on Russkaya mova wink.gifIn the second picture, the pubescence of the elytra is clearly visible!

This post was edited by evk-30.08.2009 22: 17
Likes: 1

30.08.2009 22:42, Алексей Сажнев

I apologize for my nonsense ))
I finally decide that this is a female Monochamus (Monochamus) galloprovincialis pistor (Germar, 1818) .

30.08.2009 23:36, Ilia Ustiantcev

Has a small beetle just arrived in Moscow, bystryanka? If it's a terrible rarity, you can still try to find it.
picture: DSC06623.JPG

30.08.2009 23:37, Алексей Сажнев

nope, ground beetle
Likes: 1

30.08.2009 23:46, Victor Titov

Has a small beetle just arrived in Moscow, bystryanka? If it's a terrible rarity, you can still try to find it.

It looks like Dromius fenestratus.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 30.08.2009 23: 47
Likes: 3

30.08.2009 23:54, RippeR

Dromius beetle

Monochamus sutor or sartor - there is no smell of galloprovincialis and urussovs. But I don't know how to distinguish the first from the second smile.gif
Likes: 1

30.08.2009 23:55, RippeR

evk: there are beetles with one hard wing! (if one is torn smile.gifoff )

30.08.2009 23:57, Алексей Сажнев



Monochamus sutor or sartor - there is no smell of galloprovincialis and urussovs. But I don't know how to distinguish the first from the second smile.gif


well, if you consider that sartor'a in Russia is not, it is easy to distinguish )) Yes, the habit of the beetle looks like Monochamus sutor, but the shield does not fit, I'm still for galloprovincialis

31.08.2009 1:10, RippeR

I'm for Sartor. I read volume 2..
the scutellum of galloprovincialis is divided to half. The photo, after all, does not show any separation..

in our country, all conifers are imported and planted. But monohamuses of 2-3 species and other coniferous inhabitants are found. (about Moldova)
By the way, Vogograd is not so far from Ukraine, it seems.

This post was edited by RippeR - 08/31/2009 01: 14

31.08.2009 5:03, evk

I'm for Sartor. I read volume 2..
the scutellum of galloprovincialis is divided to half. The photo, after all, does not show any separation..

in our country, all conifers are imported and planted. But monohamuses of 2-3 species and other coniferous inhabitants are found. (about Moldova)
By the way, Vogograd is not so far from Ukraine, it seems.

Everything will be checked in a few days or even earlier. I won't say anything wink.giffor now

31.08.2009 10:04, Алексей Сажнев

I'm for Sartor. I read volume 2..
the scutellum of galloprovincialis is divided to half. The photo, after all, does not show any separation..

in our country, all conifers are imported and planted. But monohamuses of 2-3 species and other coniferous inhabitants are found. (about Moldova)
By the way, Vogograd is not so far from Ukraine, it seems.


The scutellum is not always an indicator, and hybrid forms are likely to occur, as mating attempts between different Monochamus species are not uncommon. But we will wait for the final decision, because without having a beetle on your hands, you can't exactly speak from the photo )

31.08.2009 12:00, RippeR

it looks like a dent is visible there, but it's not exactly clear. I hope wise snake took the bug smile.gif

I wrote to Danilevsky and received a reply today. There are ekzs without a stripe on the shield. Ext. it can be considered a suthor. And sartor, it turns out, can not be considered a species at all, but only a geographical form 0_o

31.08.2009 12:03, Трофим

Is it really all A. Segetum?
1 and 11) Two males. The one on the left - pronotum is more fluffy in yellow hairs, the one on the right is less fluffy and has a green tint. The main feature is elytra without hairs, there are only M-shaped hairs at the base of the elytra
picture: 1.JPGpicture: 11.JPG
2 and 22) Two males. The one on the left pronotum is more pubescent ,the one on the right is less and also has a greener ebb. The main feature is the elytra of both in the second part with hairs.
picture: 2.JPGpicture: 22.JPG
3 and 33) Females-both with hairs in the second part of the dorsum. But the one on the right has a fart spot with almost no pubescence in the central part, and the one on the left is more pubescent. Both females have a dorsum in the second part with hairs.
picture: 3.JPGpicture: 33.JPG
4) Anisoplia lata? Pronotum glabrous.
picture: 4.JPG
The problem is that they all have bristles on their elytra. Please help me with the definition.

31.08.2009 12:05, Трофим

The photos on the right are a general view. For some reason they didn't want to become

31.08.2009 12:09, Трофим

Help us determine up to the genus, up to the species. Guesses by species are welcome – then it will just be easier to work in the determinant if you know what to cling to. So make assumptions. Thank
you in advance. P. S. all Moldovan

Pictures:
picture: S7301536.JPG
S7301536.JPG — (89.95к)

picture: S7301539.JPG
S7301539.JPG — (105.1к)

picture: S7301544.JPG
S7301544.JPG — (61.51к)

picture: S7301545.JPG
S7301545.JPG — (89.66к)

picture: S7301549.JPG
S7301549.JPG — (64.33к)

picture: S7301552.JPG
S7301552.JPG — (76.67к)

picture: S7301555.JPG
S7301555.JPG — (69.83к)

picture: S7301557.JPG
S7301557.JPG — (74.15к)

picture: S7301562.JPG
S7301562.JPG — (81.14к)

picture: S7301563.JPG
S7301563.JPG — (78.77к)

picture: S7301566.JPG
S7301566.JPG — (63.13к)

picture: S7301568.JPG
S7301568.JPG — (75.22к)

31.08.2009 12:11, Алексей Сажнев

it looks like a dent is visible there, but it's not exactly clear. I hope wise snake took the bug smile.gif

I wrote to Danilevsky and received a reply today. There are ekzs without a stripe on the shield. Ext. it can be considered a suthor. And sartor, it turns out, can not be considered a species at all, but only a geographical form 0_o


Yes, in terms of habit, he looks just like sutor, I initially took him for him, but it's interesting with sartorius, given that M. L. still has him listed as a species in the list for Europe, apparently he hasn't had time to publish it yet. The beetle seems to have been taken, so it remains to wait for a decision ))

31.08.2009 12:12, evk

Is it really all A. Segetum?

All this is the same thing - H. segetum. The view is relatively variable, but not much. The prishchitkovoe dark spot is absolutely typical for segetum females, since I'm afraid you seem to have confused the males and females there, although the females may be without a spot. Anisoplia lata does not have thick setae along the lateral edge of the elytra-the genus is different!
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 12:17, Трофим

The view is relatively variable, but not much.
And how to explain the pubescence on the pronotum is thick and its absence + males in some cases have a half-pubescent back, and in some cases the back is naked. Is this all mutability? Smort the first two large photos in the center of the screen.
Anisoplia lata does not have thick setae along the lateral edge of the elytra-the genus is different!
[/quote]
And what kind of gender?

31.08.2009 12:43, evk

Help us determine up to the genus, up to the species. Guesses by species are welcome – then it will just be easier to work in the determinant if you know what to cling to. So make assumptions. Thank
you in advance. P. S. all Moldovan

Photo snappers ... frown.gif I will try, but it is very much without a guarantee, you can make a gross mistake.
1.? Cardiophorus sp.? ruficollis L.
2. Selatosomus latus F.
3. Agriotes ?sputator L.
4. It is not clear - the proportions resemble Cardiophorus (Platynychus) equiseti Hbst.
5. ?
6. Ampedus ?sanguinolentus (Schrank, 1776)
7. Melanotus sp. (erythropus, brunnipes)
8,9,10 - ??? Probably all 3 Agriotes ustulatus (Schaller, 1783)
11. I don't understand frown.gif
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 12:47, evk

To Trofim:
Everything is within the limits of variability! The pubescence is primitively erased as on prsp. so on nadkr. And whether the tide is green or not, it doesn't matter at all.
And the genus Anisoplia! The subgenus Haetopteroplia has now been given the status of a genus, i.e. segetum is not Anisoplia.

This post was edited by evk - 08/31/2009 12: 53
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 12:50, scarit

To Trofim:
6. - Ampedus sanguinolentus
7. Melanotus sp.
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 12:59, Victor Titov

Help us determine up to the genus, up to the species. Guesses by species are welcome – then it will just be easier to work in the determinant if you know what to cling to. So make assumptions. Thank
you in advance. P. S. all Moldovan

The latter is most likely Denticollis, I don't understand the type. confused.gif

31.08.2009 13:01, scarit

Denticollis borealis Pk.?
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 13:02, Victor Titov

Denticollis borealis Pk.?

I also thought so at first, but it's Moldovan... Is it that far south?
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 13:23, evk

Denticollis borealis Pk.?

It does not look like borealis - the elytra are not brown. Some western view! Then it hardly reaches Moldova.
I'd rather say it's some Athous.

This post was edited by evk - 08/31/2009 13: 29
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 14:22, Victor Titov

I'd rather say it's some Athous.

Nooo, not Athous at all. Pronotum is clearly Denticollis(a). As for the fact that borealis is unlikely to occur in Moldova, so I'm talking about that smile.gif. What kind of Denticollis(s) are found there? confused.gif
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 14:38, evk

Nooo, not Athous at all. Pronotum is clearly Denticollis(a). As for the fact that borealis is unlikely to occur in Moldova, so I'm talking about that smile.gif. What kind of Denticollis(s) are found there? confused.gif

Yes, do not clit here with Denticollis! According to the Valley in Ukraine (the closest of the well-cultivated regions), there are only two species D. rubens and D. linearis. Neither of them was lying next to each other. I repeat that only some Western European species can be. But I do get confused. Not denticollis is.
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 14:58, rpanin

it looks like a dent is visible there, but it's not exactly clear. I hope wise snake took the bug smile.gif

I wrote to Danilevsky and received a reply today. There are ekzs without a stripe on the shield. Ext. it can be considered a suthor. And sartor, it turns out, can not be considered a species at all, but only a geographical form 0_o


Geographical form of who?
If sutor, then I strongly disagree. Caught them in on logs at one point. The difference between them is enormous.

31.08.2009 15:01, Victor Titov

Yes, do not clit here with Denticollis! According to the Valley in Ukraine (the closest of the well-cultivated regions), there are only two species D. rubens and D. linearis. Neither of them was lying next to each other. I repeat that only some Western European species can be. But I do get confused. Not denticollis it.

I agree that identifying snappers from photos is a thankless task, little better than guessing on coffee grounds. Personally, it strongly resembles Denticollis(a), but 100% (even 90 wink.gif) I can't guarantee it.

31.08.2009 15:06, RippeR

urussovi
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 15:07, Fornax13

1-I also first thought of Cardiophorus ruficollis! Ampedus ?sinuatus imho.
2-Selatosomus gravidus (like that's what latus is called right now)
4-Dicronychus like, M. B. even cinereus
5-maybe even shabby Hemicrepidius shuffle.gif
6 - Ampedus ?sanguinolentus
8 - Melanotus ?brunnipes
12-nope, not denticollis-Athous type jejunus, even, most likely, it is

And after sanguinolentus, how is the small one assembled?

This post was edited by Fornax13-08/31/2009 15: 59
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 15:12, Victor Titov

12-nope, not denticollis-Athous type jejunus, even, most likely, it is

But really similar! http://www.elateridae.com/zobrbruk.php?id=3040
Hats off to Fornax!
Likes: 1

31.08.2009 15:39, косинус

HELP ME IDENTIFY A LEAF EATER

Pictures:
picture: DSC01382.JPG
DSC01382.JPG — (53.56к)

31.08.2009 15:47, evk

But really similar! http://www.elateridae.com/zobrbruk.php?id=3040
Hats off to Fornax!

After all, I said-Athous wink.gif! smile.gif

31.08.2009 15:49, KDG

Then 100% Judolia sexmaculata, just outwardly this species is almost indistinguishable from the close Judolia parallelopipeda (Motsch., 1860) - the genital group.

J. sexmaculata has shorter and wider, rather roughly dotted elytra. The sculpture of the elytra of J. parallelopipeda is smoothed, the elytra are more elongated.

31.08.2009 15:50, evk

HELP ME IDENTIFY A LEAF EATER

Well, is it possible to determine by such a photo! confused.gif confused.gif
Probably some Chrysolina.

31.08.2009 15:53, Fornax13

cosine: Chrysolina sp., you should have a lot of endemics from them, so it's unlikely that anyone will say for sure...

31.08.2009 15:59, косинус

HERE'S ANOTHER PHOTO

Pictures:
picture: DSC01390.JPG
DSC01390.JPG — (120.69к)

31.08.2009 16:00, Fornax13

Aaa... Well, then-like Ch. marginata.

31.08.2009 16:05, косинус

Ch. marginata. SAME BLACK AND THIS ONE IS SOME KIND OF KARICHNEVY

Pages: 1 ...189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197... 854

New comment

Note: you should have a Insecta.pro account to upload new topics and comments. Please, create an account or log in to add comments.

* Our website is multilingual. Some comments have been translated from other languages.

Random species of the website catalog

Insecta.pro: international entomological community. Terms of use and publishing policy.

Project editor in chief and administrator: Peter Khramov.

Curators: Konstantin Efetov, Vasiliy Feoktistov, Svyatoslav Knyazev, Evgeny Komarov, Stan Korb, Alexander Zhakov.

Moderators: Vasiliy Feoktistov, Evgeny Komarov, Dmitriy Pozhogin, Alexandr Zhakov.

Thanks to all authors, who publish materials on the website.

© Insects catalog Insecta.pro, 2007—2024.

Species catalog enables to sort by characteristics such as expansion, flight time, etc..

Photos of representatives Insecta.

Detailed insects classification with references list.

Few themed publications and a living blog.