Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

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

Pages: 1 ...301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309... 854

Likes: 1

21.11.2010 16:08, Victor Titov

I ask for help in determining, in difficult cases, up to the genus.
Thank you.

Barbel: 49-1 Monochamus galloprovincialis Olivier, 1795 (female), and 49-2 Monochamus sutor Linnaeus, 1758 (male)

48-the angle is not quite good (the beetle is taken from above-from behind), but I will assume that Patrobus sp.

49-1 and 49-2 - I strongly disagree with Vasily! Both are unambiguously Monochamus sutor (Linnaeus, 1758) - 49-1 female, 49-2 male. Keys, Irina, at least look for yourself in the "green" - everything is simple there.

Here are two more small ground beetles. At first I thought it was just one view, but then I took a closer look, like No. 51 PRSP is wider and without constriction.
Thanks

51-I think it's Stomis pumicatus (Panzer, 1795)

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

22.11.2010 15:37, Victor Titov

I'll bet you that much. If in Athous the size does not play a key role in the definition. Then for example in Ampedus the size of the determined beetle is very important because many species differ only from each other. (if you don't take the genitals) Example in the photo, two snappers are completely similar, the difference is only in size and genital. And yet they are two different kinds.

Who's arguing? Size, as they say, matters

! Only, as for Ampedus, a small clarification: in addition to the size and genitalia, they have other differences (depending on the specific species, this is the nature of the dotted pronotum, and the color of pubescence, etc., etc.). In short, you need to take a determinant and drive along the keys. And just by appearance and size, trying to determine ampedusov is a lost cause! Among our exceptions, perhaps, only typical specimens of Ampedus sanguineus-of them, they are, indeed, giants.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 22.11.2010 15: 53

Likes: 1

23.11.2010 20:23, akulich-sibiria

thank you all, I still have both beetles signed this way. Which I identified Seredyuk Svetlana 14 mm, his pronotum is almost flat...It was caught in the summer of 2004 in the northern taiga, in general, this is the border of the taiga and forest tundra, somewhere at the latitude of Igarka in the Krasnoyarsk Territory.
The second 12 mm back is more convex, the Zap was caught.Sayan mountains Borus foothills. I found it in a snow field, where I could pick up a lot of things. ))
in general, what I'm telling you, tomorrow I'll try to throw a photo.
and in the proposed ampedus file, there are no selatosomes. We need to look for issue 3.
Another question about melanotus ... rufipes and castanipes, are they synonyms or not? if not, what are the differences?
And the first of the three nutcrackers I have signed so far as Agriotes compactus Cand. on Cherepanov drove

Likes: 1

23.11.2010 20:39, scarit

thank you all, I still have both beetles signed this way. Which I identified Seredyuk Svetlana 14 mm, his pronotum is almost flat...It was caught in the summer of 2004 in the northern taiga, in general, this is the border of the taiga and forest tundra, somewhere at the latitude of Igarka in the Krasnoyarsk Territory.
The second 12 mm back is more convex, the Zap was caught.Sayan mountains Borus foothills. I found it in a snow field, where I could pick up a lot of things. ))
in general, what I'm telling you, tomorrow I'll try to throw a photo.
and in the proposed ampedus file, there are no selatosomes. We need to look for issue 3.
Another question about melanotus ... rufipes and castanipes, are they synonyms or not? if not, what are the differences?
And the first of the three nutcrackers I have signed so far as Agriotes compactus Cand. on Cherepanov drove

Ampedus compactus Candeze, 1891 is a synonym of Ampedus gagatinus (Candeze, 1895). And gagatinus is widespread in Siberia and the Far East.
Melanotus rufipes is synonymous with Melanotus castanipes Paykull, 1800.

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

24.11.2010 21:11, алекс 2611

I'll bet you that much. If in Athous the size does not play a key role in the definition. Then for example in Ampedus the size of the determined beetle is very important because many species differ only from each other. (if you don't take the genitals) Example in the photo, two snappers are completely similar, the difference is only in size and genital. And yet they are two different kinds.

You responded to my message (I was abroad and couldn't register). Sorry, but I was surprised by the words about Athous niger. There is such a book "Determinant of insects of the European part of the USSR" ("green determinant"). If a person who is interested in beetles of the Moscow region did not download this determinant, then maybe studying beetles is not for them? If I have downloaded it, then I am struck by the amazement of the size of 12 mm for Athous niger. In the identifier, the dimensions of this type are written in Russian in white: 10-14mm. All the previous copies were 11mm, and now 12? Yeah. And you can catch both 13 and 14 mm. Or 10 mm.
Yes, plus it is not clear what method these beetles were measured and what the measurement error is. Probably not less than the same millimeter.
As for Ampedus, I don't agree. Species from the middle zone on the "Fauna of the USSR" are quite defined. Especially if, in addition to the size, you use the dotted pronotum, the structure of the antennae and the pubescence of the body.
By the way, what are these absolutely identical views in your photo?

Likes: 1

Pages: 1 ...301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309... 854