Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

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

Pages: 1 ...560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568... 854

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 4

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

19.08.2014 17:26, Oldcatcher

Yes, I was too hasty with cinctella.

Yes, a life-worn stinker. In principle, I did not answer, because a colleague himself correctly called her. But getting confused in this way (only at the top) is easier than easy! This is why you need a drawing on sternites... Yes, and a species with a very wide range, which only grows in new territories. Hp it is believed that in Israel this species is not present at all, but they bring me a bug that can only be called funesta...
But in general, the genus is not simple, I received several pieces from Afghanistan and Wed. Asia - and.... I clearly understand that something is missing - either literature, or a revision of the genus, or maybe a description of a new species... Please excuse the flood.

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

21.08.2014 15:28, Seneka

Colleagues, which beetles do you think are correctly identified in these photos?
I find a discrepancy in all of them on several grounds, subjectively...

1) http://www.trechinae.org/Carabidae_gallery...helopioides.jpg
Almost all the important signs are visible, except for the epipleura and episterna.

2) http://www.kaefer-der-welt.de/oodes_helopioides_1a.jpg
In the second case, the projection is unsuccessful, the shape of the pronotum is distorted. And the quality is not important.
Nevertheless, you can notice the proportion of the sides of the pronotum and the color of the first segment of the antennae and legs.
It is a pity that the brushes on the elytra were cut off by editing the photo, although this is an important sign.

3) http://carabidae.org/carabidae/Oodes%20hel...ides%202625.jpg

This post was edited by Seneka - 21.08.2014 15: 40

21.08.2014 16:41, Seneka

everything on everyone is defined correctly. what is the essence of the question? if you are not sure about your bug, then take a picture of it and throw it here or ask them to take a picture of the" incomprehensible " sign.

In all photos
1) the proportions of the pronotum correspond to gracilis-about 1.5
Take a ruler and check.
Actually, this is the main doubt.

2) It can be seen that the first segment of the antennae is red-brown, at least partially (gracilis).
3) the lower legs, and in some places the upper part of the thighs, are red-brown (gracilis).

My beetles are down to the smallest detail, as in the first photo, but the signs are clearer and they meet the gracilis requirements for the "Green" determinant and for Isaev. Except for the general proportions of the body. The beetles are quite wide, just like in these photos.

The epipleura, lower legs, and first segment of the antennae are red-brown, although very dark.
The episternes of the posterior thorax are wrinkled, if we can say so about the points connected by wrinkles. The sides of the posterior chest are dotted.

That is, in addition to the general proportions of the body (slightly slimmer) do gracilis have no visible differences from helopioides?

Initially, I identified my beetles as helopioides
Doubt crept in, because helopioides is a rarer and "good" species in our region, according to Nikitsky, than gracilis. I.e. signs + number of beetles led to doubt.

I find it difficult to take a picture of my beetles. If possible, please post a photo of the signs of these two types in comparison. Interested in pronotum, color of legs, first segment of antennae, episternes of posterior thorax, general appearance. Epipleures of elytra are unlikely to work for anyone, because their shade is very difficult to convey.

This post was edited by Seneka - 21.08.2014 17: 00

Likes: 1

21.08.2014 19:35, Seneka

unfortunately, I did not hold gracilis in my hands, and helopioides is found only in the far north, but if it helps, then here is another source, there are differences in males...
PS try to rely on more reliable signs than coloring, especially if there is no large series of different times and places, because you may fall "young" = under-colored beetle and it will be all "lighter" / "more red" and so on and so
on waiting for the verdict
[attachmentid()=207134]

Thank you for the pages. The signs there are slightly different than in our determinants, but
the contradictions are no less strong. For example, in this determinant, for males: the width of the first three extended segments of the front paw is 3 times wider than the fourth in O. helopioides and
2 times wider in O. gracilis.
The ratio of elytra length to width is less than 1.5 in O. helopioides and
greater than or equal to 1.5 in O. gracilis.

However, if we measure (in all the photos, for example in the second) the width of the widest segment of the three and compare it with the fourth, we get - twice, i.e. gracilis, while the proportions of the elytra are similar to those of helopioides.

The color has completely lost its significance.

That is, only the general proportions of the body work.

What zschit "the gap between the points in the 9 strip is finely dotted/smooth" I did not understand. I look, but I can't make out, it seems that there are dots along the entire length along the edge of the elytra. (like helopioides).

Even in the central part along the edge of the elytra, you can find 1-2 small bristles, this is a sign of helopioides/

And the proportions of the elytra when roughly measured, 1.6 - as in gracilis

Male paw segments, as pictured, i.e. helopioides.

Points with folds (wrinkles) on the episternes of the posterior thorax are very rough and deep, they can not be called gently or weakly dotted or gently wrinkled, i.e. like in helopioides. (In Green, dots and wrinkles in opposite theses)

In short, it is problematic to determine them from the photo and these determinants. It remains only to look at two standard copies at the same time, or contact a reputable expert, as he considers it so, despite the obvious inconsistencies.

This post was edited by Seneka - 21.08.2014 20: 08