Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

Three more types like. And somehow they are not very similar in the photo.

Prosvirov said that it was bimaculatus

At the end of November, I was on a business trip to the Primorsky Territory of Khasan...I really wanted to find some animals for the collection,but unfortunately I found only a few dead, collapsed beetles.If you can identify it ,please help me.

Pictures:

1.JPG — (169.28к)


2.JPG — (116.26 k)


3.JPG — (40.71к)


4.JPG — (71.59 k)


5.JPG — (121.19 k)


6.JPG — (162.13 k)


7.JPG — (296.73к)

1-Agrypnus argillaceus
2, 5, 6-Holotrichia
3-Harmonia axyridis, apparently
4-Panagaeus probably robustus
7-Carabus maacki (C. clathratus ssp. maacki)

Surroundings of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov region. 13.07.2016.

ID? Israel, Nahariya, 2013-05-29, 14mm, to light.
http://alsphotopage.com/image/show/id/8568 Thank you all!

Surroundings of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov region. 13.07.2016.

female Poecilus lepidus with a difficult fate

A couple more beetles from the Lviv region.
Please help me identify it.
According to staff, there is an assumption

Staff - 07-09. 05. 2015-Ukraine; Lviv region, Drohobychsky district, Skhidnitsa village.
Path inside the spruce forest,"Barbera" traps
I assume that Ocypus (Pseudocypus) picipennis (Fabricius, 1793) is a male ????



Leaf beetle - 09.05.2015-Ukraine; Lviv region, Drohobychsky district, Skhidnitsa village.
On the path at the foot of the spruce forest, hand picking on mixed grasses
Some Oreina-male ????



Thank you in advance

  
I assume that Ocypus (Pseudocypus) picipennis (Fabricius, 1793) is a male ????

no, definitely not picipennis!

A couple more beetles from the Lviv region.
Please help me identify it.
According to staff, there is an assumption

Staff - 07-09. 05. 2015-Ukraine; Lviv region, Drohobychsky district, Skhidnitsa village.
Path inside the spruce forest,"Barbera" traps
I assume that Ocypus (Pseudocypus) picipennis (Fabricius, 1793) is a male ????

This is Ocypus macrocephalus!

Thank you so much for the hint
I still have a question about the upper Oreina

And then there's this little animal for confirmation



Thanks!

It is advisable to pull the genitals from the cracks and otsypus. The second matidus is definitely a male. About macrocephalus, I probably agree (although it is a female). However, O. ormayi could also be found in those places.

Please tell me about watermarks. Penza region

1.





2.






3.





4.

Please tell me about watermarks. Penza region

1. Hydrobius fuscipes. Is that a drop of water on it?
Floaters only up to the genus.
2. Dytiscus sp., you need to see the sharp processes of the pelvises of the hind legs.
3. Acilius sp., you need a picture from below or so that the head pattern is visible.
4. Most likely Ilybius.

This post was edited by botanque - 12/13/2016 10: 43

And my vertyachek learn please (sorry for the quality). It was shot in a shallow cold river under a canopy of trees at our KMV.

Pictures:

K20D7998.JPG — (296.2к)

And my vertyachek learn please (sorry for the quality). It was shot in a shallow cold river under a canopy of trees at our KMV.

Vertyachki in most cases, even on very high-quality photos are not detected . Gyrinus sp.

Help identify the bug! Size 5-7 mm. Karelia, September.

Pictures:

20160924__155_2_3.jpg — (371.36к)


20160924__168_2_2.jpg — (455.04к)

Help identify the bug! Size 5-7 mm. Karelia, September.

Cyphon sp., now the genus Contacyphon is called.

Vertyachki in most cases, even on very high-quality photos are not detected . Gyrinus sp.

And how are they defined? And who can I contact? My brother caught 2-3-4 specimens in this stream.

And how are they defined? And who can I contact? My brother caught 2-3-4 specimens in this stream.

Just pull. And better than males. Then simply. You can, of course, run your own keys based on external signs. But if there is no comparative material , it is easy to make a mistake.

1. Hydrobius fuscipes. Is that a drop of water on it?

Yes, I just pulled him out of the water. Thanks for the definition!

 
2. Dytiscus sp., you need to see the sharp processes of the pelvises of the hind legs.

And here you can just see the basins, only poorly. Like Dytiscus marginalis?

 
3. Acilius sp., you need a picture from below or so that the head pattern is visible.

Will this one work?

 
4. Most likely Ilybius.

Is this clear, I meant Ilubius fuliginosus or Ilubius fenestratus?
This photo probably shows better?

Cyphon sp., now the genus Contacyphon is called.

and, most likely, variabilis or laevipennis. However, all this fraternity is genital

And how are they defined?

so-so

My brother caught 2-3-4 specimens in this stream.

Such biotopes are more likely to contain distinctus. At least, in the streams in the Krasnodar Territory, I only came across this species. His genitals are characteristic, so if there is a beetle, this is easy to check.

This post was edited by Fornax13-12/14/2016 02: 43

 
And here you can just see the basins, only poorly. Like Dytiscus marginalis?

In general, it is similar to marginalis, but the processes are very poorly visible.

  
Such biotopes are more likely to contain distinctus.

I think so too, but still...

Please help me determine the goldilocks before the appearance. At least presumably. Penza region.

1. Probably the genus Agrilus. May





2. Probably the genus Agrilus. June





3. Probably the genus Anthaxia. May.





4. Probably the genus Anthaxia. June.





5. Probably the genus Anthaxia. June.

Please help me determine the goldilocks before the appearance. At least presumably. Penza region.

1 - What are your doubts? I want to call cyanescens, I don't even know why Agriluses are often not very definable in the presence of a beetle.
2 - Of course Agrilus. What was she sitting on at least?
3,5-Anthaxia (Melanthaxia), most likely quadripunctata, but what the hell is wrong
4-Phaenops cyanea

Put today chernotelok and noticed such a thing.

I have 3 specimens of the Uloma genus: 1 Saratov and 2 Tambov.

Saratovskaya - 100% male U. culinaris-the base of the pronotum is completely bordered, there is a fossa and tubercles on it, and the throat notch is rounded and without teeth. One Tambov - on the contrary, 100% male U. rufa-the base of the pronotum is not bordered, the fossa and tubercles are barely noticeable, the throat notch is trapezoidal and with teeth.

But here is the 3rd copy. it is very strange, the base of the pronotum is not bordered, but the throat notch is similar to U. culinaris (rounded and without teeth). Pronotum without a trace of fossa and tubercles (so it is a female). In addition to copies. it is distinguished by a dark chestnut color, small size, rough grooves of the elytra and a different shape of teeth on the front legs.
What can it be?
I suspect that this is how females actually look in U. rufa...

I'll take a photo a little later

2 - Of course Agrilus. What was she sitting on at least?

On the rosehip. But not on a flower, but on a leaf - here is the same photo

On the rosehip. But not on a flower, but on a leaf - here is the same photo

Thank you. They don't even sit on flowers. If on rosehip, then almost certainly A. cuprescens

Good day, confirm with. arvensis? primorye
male 23mm

female 25mm

rather venustus

Good day, confirm with. arvensis? primorye region

Dmitry, not advertising, but in my opinion the link you need (not a bad option):
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=574648
It is not good for stationery to prick even dies

Please tell me about myagkotelkam. Penza region.

1.





2.





3.





4.





5.





And also on the leaf-eater-skrytoglav. Penza region.

6.

1-these are often difficult to deal with. A big one at least?
2, 3-Cantharis rustica
4-is there a different angle?
5-Cantharis nigricans
6-Cr. laetus meant

All the best, I still ask for help with carabuses
1 China, would you say C. intracatus ??

2 China

3 China

4 China

5 zamyatysh from Kazakhstan

1-these are often difficult to deal with. A big one at least?

No, it's small, like Rhagonycha fulva. Is it even Rhagonycha or Cantharis? And what kind can be assumed? - even if not exactly!

4-is there a different angle?

No, at the time of shooting, I thought it was Cantharis rustica. So I only clicked it once.


7. And who is this, can you tell me? I also thought about rustica at first, so I didn't try to shoot well!

No, it's small, like Rhagonycha fulva. Is it even Rhagonycha or Cantharis? And what kind can be assumed? - even if not exactly!

Cantharis, from the group for which it is desirable to look at the genitals. Judging by the habit, it can be a figurata, whose color is extremely variable.

7. And who is this, can you tell me? I also thought about rustica at first, so I didn't try to shoot well!

There may also be pellucida, since there is no spot on the prsp disk. But rustica occasionally also has a single-color prsp. But they differ in their genitals.

P.S. Cantharid is a perversion to determine from photos. The majority of the band is, to put it mildly, not an easy one: http://www.coleo-net.de/coleo/texte/cantharis.htm It is necessary to collect and carefully look at the beetles, and in addition, in many cases, it is necessary to study the genitals.