Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

Notoxus monoceros (Linnaeus, 1760)

Thanks!

   C. semigranosus

Thank you, but I'm completely confused!

Is this all Calosoma auropunctatum (Herbst, 1784)??? The latter is confusing, it is noticeably more opaque and the dots are red, not green.
Kiev region. Into the light, one of these days.
Thank you.

Is this all Calosoma auropunctatum (Herbst, 1784)???

Да

And who will recognize this bronze? hungarica ssp.?
18 mm, Turkey, Antalya, July 2014

Judging by the location and habit:
Ungarica anatolica Medvedev

Is this all Calosoma auropunctatum (Herbst, 1784)??? The latter is confusing, it is noticeably more opaque and the dots are red, not green.
Kiev region. Into the light, one of these days. Thank you.

Curvature of the hind thighs is a reliable sign! Only in women (you guys) it is not so pronounced.

Still-the curvature of the hind legs. These are two big differences

I'll duplicate it from the barbel theme.

Can you help me identify it?
Georgia, Telavi.

Please identify the beetles and tell us what they are worth.
All from China.

Pictures:

IMG_4584.jpg — (147.24к)


IMG_4585.jpg — (206.62к)


IMG_4587.jpg — (229.15к)


IMG_4589.jpg — (229.49к)


IMG_4590.jpg — (236.15к)


IMG_4591.jpg — (227.3к)


IMG_4593.jpg — (179.38к)

beetles were found on a rotting onion, tell me what they are doing there. 6-9 mm. I would even say en masse. Krasnoyarsk Territory. Are they carnivores or do they eat organic food?

Hello,
Help me determine (caught in Khabarovsk Krai)

Hello,
Help me determine (caught in Khabarovsk Krai)

Cucujus haematodes

beetles were found on a rotting onion, tell me what they are doing there. 6-9 mm. I would even say en masse. Krasnoyarsk Territory. Are they carnivores or do they eat organic food?

It would be better if there were photos with side lighting. It seems like this is Bisnius (until recently it was in the genus Philonthus), they are predators, they fly to any rot to profit from meat (for example, fly larvae). You can probably determine up to the type only by the material, and I have my own problems.

It would be better if there were photos with side lighting. It seems like this is Bisnius (until recently it was in the genus Philonthus), they are predators, they fly to any rot to profit from meat (for example, fly larvae). You can probably determine up to the type only by the material, and I have my own problems.

I will try. what is needed to be seen? Yes, I read that some species are predators of the same onion fly, perhaps it attracted them? And these beetles can feed on larvae of, say, spangles, which can also reproduce in bulbs?

I will try. what is needed to be seen? Yes, I read that some species are predators of the same onion fly, perhaps it attracted them? And these beetles can feed on larvae of, say, spangles, which can also reproduce in bulbs?

Probably dotted pronotum...

And a head wouldn't hurt, either. But it doesn't matter - I'm not going to show up and try. The food specialization of these staffs is not well understood, but apparently they eat everything that moves and fits in size.

And a head wouldn't hurt, either. But it doesn't matter - I'm not going to show up and try. The food specialization of these staffs is not well understood, but apparently, they eat everything that moves and fits in size.

Thank you, the main thing is that I realized that these are definitely predators!

Isn't that Arhopalus rusticus?

Pictures:

CM140731_15463702.jpg — (313.89к)

Isn't that Arhopalus rusticus?

very similar, but better to check http://www.coleo-net.de/coleo/texte/arhopalus.htm

Colleagues who have dealt with Microlestes, please tell me.

I determine by Isaev, page 49, starting with thesis 7 (8).
My instance of Microlestes from the Moscow region has obvious contradictions with the determinant:
The segments of the antennae definitely correspond to teza 7 (8), all more or less long, expanding, I have something to compare with. However, in this thesis, the reference to the illustration with the aedeagus is Fig.30. 3, and it is said that the aedeagus is with a simple vertex, while in the figure it is with a prong. At the same time, the one with a simple vertex in Figure 30.5 refers to maurus.
In my specimen, the top of the aedeagus is simple, without a prong, as in the picture of maurus,
the lower legs of the middle legs do not coincide with the 7(8) minutulus teza, respectively,maurus fits,
but the whiskers are like minutulus.

So far, I've decided that this is maurus, if only the edeagus is viewed from the drawing, and not from tez 7 (8).

At the same time, according to the table, maurus and fissuralis are in the same branch, opposite to minutulus. While the prong on the aedeagus, judging by the figure, is present in fissuralis and minutulus, although of different shapes. I.e., as if the paraphyly is allowed or the table does not correlate with phylogeny at all...

Maybe there are some typos somewhere?

This post was edited by Seneka - 01.08.2014 00: 50

Colleagues who have dealt with Microlestes, please tell me.

I determine by Isaev, page 49, starting with thesis 7 (8).
My instance of Microlestes from the Moscow region has obvious contradictions with the determinant:
The segments of the antennae definitely correspond to teza 7 (8), all more or less long, expanding, I have something to compare with. However, in this thesis, the reference to the illustration with the aedeagus is Fig.30. 3, and it is said that the aedeagus is with a simple vertex, while in the figure it is with a prong. At the same time, the one with a simple vertex in Figure 30.5 refers to maurus.
In my specimen, the top of the aedeagus is simple, without a prong, as in the picture of maurus,
the lower legs of the middle legs do not coincide with the 7(8) minutulus teza, respectively,maurus fits,
but the whiskers are like minutulus.

So far, I've decided that this is maurus, if only the edeagus is viewed from the drawing, and not from tez 7 (8).

At the same time, according to the table, maurus and fissuralis are in the same branch, opposite to minutulus. While the prong on the aedeagus, judging by the figure, is present in fissuralis and minutulus, although of different shapes. I.e., as if the paraphyly is allowed or the table does not correlate with phylogeny at all...

Maybe there are some typos somewhere?

http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/microles.htm

Colleagues who have dealt with Microlestes, please tell me.

I determine by Isaev, page 49, starting with thesis 7 (8).
My instance of Microlestes from the Moscow region has obvious contradictions with the determinant:
The segments of the antennae definitely correspond to teza 7 (8), all more or less long, expanding, I have something to compare with. However, in this thesis, the reference to the illustration with the aedeagus is Fig.30. 3, and it is said that the aedeagus is with a simple vertex, while in the figure it is with a prong. At the same time, the one with a simple vertex in Figure 30.5 refers to maurus.
In my specimen, the top of the aedeagus is simple, without a prong, as in the picture of maurus,
the lower legs of the middle legs do not coincide with the 7(8) minutulus teza, respectively,maurus fits,
but the whiskers are like minutulus.

So far, I've decided that this is maurus, if only the edeagus is viewed from the drawing, and not from tez 7 (8).

At the same time, according to the table, maurus and fissuralis are in the same branch, opposite to minutulus. While the prong on the aedeagus, judging by the figure, is present in fissuralis and minutulus, although of different shapes. I.e., as if the paraphyly is allowed or the table does not correlate with phylogeny at all...

Maybe there are some typos somewhere?

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1346505

  http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/microles.htm

Ilya, thank you! somehow missed this page

Colleagues who have dealt with Microlestes, please tell me.

I determine by Isaev, page 49, starting with thesis 7 (8).
My instance of Microlestes from the Moscow region has obvious contradictions with the determinant:
The segments of the antennae definitely correspond to teza 7 (8), all more or less long, expanding, I have something to compare with. However, in this thesis, the reference to the illustration with the aedeagus is Fig.30. 3, and it is said that the aedeagus is with a simple vertex, while in the figure it is with a prong. At the same time, the one with a simple vertex in Figure 30.5 refers to maurus.
In my specimen, the top of the aedeagus is simple, without a prong, as in the picture of maurus,
the lower legs of the middle legs do not coincide with the 7(8) minutulus teza, respectively,maurus fits,
but the whiskers are like minutulus.

So far, I've decided that this is maurus, if only the edeagus is viewed from the drawing, and not from tez 7 (8).

At the same time, according to the table, maurus and fissuralis are in the same branch, opposite to minutulus. While the prong on the aedeagus, judging by the figure, is present in fissuralis and minutulus, although of different shapes. I.e., as if the paraphyly is allowed or the table does not correlate with phylogeny at all...

Maybe there are some typos somewhere?

in minutulus without a prong
in maurus with a prong

http://coleo-net.de/coleo/texte/microlestes.htm

  http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/microles.htm

Thank you, Ilya! Maybe there is a list of typos of this determinant?

in minutulus without a prong
in maurus with a prong

http://coleo-net.de/coleo/texte/microlestes.htm

So I have Microlestes minutulus, now I'm trying to figure out where the curvature of the middle legs and the spike at the top are.

Today, in Karelia, some staphylinids were running on the ground, no more than half a centimeter.

So I have Microlestes minutulus, now I'm trying to figure out where the curvature of the middle legs and the spike at the top are.

You have M. minutulus, that's for sure. In this case, the structure of the genitals is an absolute specific feature.

I don't consider myself a professional biologist, but rather an amateur naturalist. So I might be wrong. But, as far as I understand population biology and genetics / phenetics, within the habitat (and M. minutulus has such a wide distribution range [http://coleoptera.ksib.pl/search.php?taxonid=3066&l=pl&dds=par]) a species may have a significant degree of individual variability, i.e. there may be differences in quantitative (morphometric characteristics) and qualitative characteristics at the population level. Therefore, your specimens may differ slightly from the type specimen (which may have been captured in both Central and Western Europe) that was used to describe the species itself. This is me to the mustache and legs, with which difficulties + here you need rich material for comparison

Specialists, please correct me if I'm wrong..

By the way, in my opinion, the genus Microlestes is very difficult to diagnose, so I determine my animals by their genitals. Fortunately, only 2 species live in belarus

Today, in Karelia, some staphylinids were running on the ground, no more than half a centimeter .

Stenus sp.

Dear experts, Is it possible to determine the species of insects in these photos? Especially interesting are ladybirds, very large, about the size of a five-kopeck coin. It was shot in Cheboksary, on the bank of the Volga River, on driftwood and logs washed up on the shore. May 2013.

ladybug-Anatis ocellata
Barbel on the leg-Rhagium inquisitor

Dear experts, Is it possible to determine the species of insects in these photos? Especially interesting are ladybirds, very large, about the size of a five-kopeck coin. It was shot in Cheboksary, on the bank of the Volga River, on driftwood and logs washed up on the shore. May 2013.

Easy
From top to bottom:
1-2-4) Ladybug Anatis ocellata (Linnaeus, 1758)
2) Leaf beetle Chrysomela (Strickerus) vigintipunctata Scopoli, 1763
5) Barbel Rhagium (Rhagium) inquisitor Linnaeus, 1758
P.S. I didn't notice it right away: in the second photo, to the right of the leaf beetle, the cow Hippodamia (Hemisphaerica) tredecimpunctata Linnaeus, 1758

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 02.08.2014 17: 33

Thank you all for the definition!

Harmonia axyridis from quadripunctata on the rib at the top of the elytra to distinguish? or else like

Dear experts,

and Choita Galerucella no one rushed to determine, there are a lot of them there? I think it's luteola
and in the third photo, next to the leaf - eating cow-Hippodamia tredecimpunctata

This post was edited by AGG-03.08.2014 09: 42

Harmonia axyridis from quadripunctata on the rib at the top of the elytra to distinguish? or something else

http://www.coleo-net.de/coleo/texte/harmonia.htm

and Choita Galerucella no one rushed to determine, there are a lot of them there? I think it's luteola
and in the third photo, next to the leaf - eating cow-Hippodamia tredecimpunctata

I don't know Entich Galerucell, so I didn't rush.
And the cow, by the way, is defined
I just got confused yesterday with these photos, well, I registered it under the wrong number, along with the leaf eater

Dear experts, Is it possible to determine the species of insects in these photos? Especially interesting are ladybirds, very large, about the size of a five-kopeck coin. It was shot in Cheboksary, on the bank of the Volga River, on driftwood and logs washed up on the shore. May 2013.

Top left with spread elytra Calvia
quatuordecimguttata Bottom left Hippodamia variegata
Bedbugs Kleidocerys sp.

Some very strange sawyere, I'm so on zin.ru I didn't find it. Caught yesterday at the light in the suburbs. Or is it just a wiped out Saperda perforata?