Identification of beetles (Coleoptera)

It looks like some kind of Ceratapion. Possibly C. (Acanephodus) onopordi Kirby.

Yes, I also found this one the closest.

Something very good, I would say. What size is it? What of Paederinae-definitely, but then... Maybe something Medon-like.

Size - a little less than 5 mm
On the "green" is this at least up to the point of being realistic to determine, how do you think? or is it not worth trying?

This post was edited by Necrocephalus - 07/11/2008 13: 41

It looks like some kind of Ceratapion. Possibly C. (Acanephodus) onopordi Kirby.

As far as I'm concerned, this beetle is as similar to C. (Acanephodus) onopordi as many apionids are to each other. No more than that. http://www.koleopterologie.de/gallery/FHL1...to-dewilde.html
http://www.koleopterologie.de/gallery/FHL1...to-dewilde.html

As far as I'm concerned, this beetle is as similar to C. (Acanephodus) onopordi as many apionids are to each other. No more than that. http://www.koleopterologie.de/gallery/FHL1...to-dewilde.html
http://www.koleopterologie.de/gallery/FHL1...to-dewilde.html

And what, are you trying to say that in the photos you gave, the beetle (and there is the same species in both of them) does not look like mine? If the differences are so insignificant that they cannot be identified from the photo, then it probably wouldn't be a big mistake to name my beetle Ceratapion (Acanephodus) onopordi

This post was edited by Double A - 11.07.2008 15: 24

Yes, I do not argue-similar! But for apionids, the differences that are not noticeable in the photo can be very, very significant (dotted lines-the sculpture of the integument, the presence-size-shape of the bristles on the antennae, etc., etc.). Therefore, to name your beetle with confidence Ceratapion (Acanephodus) onopordi only by external similarity in the photo, in my opinion, is wrong. It is necessary to "run" a real copy of the beetle according to the characteristics of the defining tables when viewed under a good magnification (binocular).

Here are a couple more questionable trox files. I suspect that this is T. eversmanni, but I am confused by the practically absent setae on the elytra of the first trox (or is it just such a "worn-out" specimen?), and the setae on the elytra of the second that do not form complete rows. Another embarrassing time of capture-according to Medvedev, T. eversmanni occurs in May-April, and these trox were caught 08.07 of this year, in the light. In the Belgorod region.
This is not even close to T. sabulosus, T. hispidus, and T. scaber. It looks a bit like T. cadaverinus, but it's still not him - the size of the beetles is 6.5 and 7 mm, which is not enough for cadaverinus. Well, the sculpture of elytra is different.
It turns out, by the method of exclusion-T. eversmanni. But I doubt it
So is it him or not him?

Pictures:

trox1.jpg — (119.27к)


trox2.jpg — (144.3к)

And almost all apionids differ little from each other. Especially for a layman. But there are still many types of them. What do you mean it won't be a big mistake? An example is twin boys. Very similar to each other. Externally. But people are different. One can become a serial killer, and the other-an outstanding composer. One will be called Petya, and the other - Vasya. Wouldn't it be a big mistake to call Vasya Petya and put him in jail? Think about it.

What do you mean it won't be a big mistake? An example is twin boys. Very similar to each other. Externally. But people are different. One can become a serial killer, and the other-an outstanding composer. One will be called Petya, and the other - Vasya. Wouldn't it be a big mistake to call Vasya Petya and put him in jail? Think about it.

The question is philosophical, I decided it for myself a long time ago.:

If there are not enough available photos to determine, but you need to look at the details of the structure under a microscope, "cook genitals" or something else, then we will consider the photographed specimen to be a representative of the species (or at least genus) that is more common in this area and subjectively most similar. I don't need it for scientific work, but for personal needs. And if the photo goes somewhere else (for example, for KKMO, then I immediately warn you that I'm not sure about the definition). In other words, if you are looking for a photo of Petya for the honor roll, and there is a photo of Vasya, who looks different from Petya only by a mole on the heel, then Vasya's photo will do

Good day, ladies and gentlemen!
For Mr. Necrocephalus.

And what, you want to say that in the photos you gave a beetle ... doesn't look like mine?

that beetle does not look like yours absolutely and irrevocably - at least with one dotted line of the prsp.
according to good photos, many apions are determined, oddly enough, quite famously. in your picture, everything you need is clearly visible - the silhouette, the shape of the head and gr., the characteristic narrow-vertebral shape of the prsp. , its thin dotted line, lack of pubescence, thin regular grooves, wide flat dull spaces with a characteristic sculpture - in short, everything necessary for success. view the images yourself carefully on http://claude.schott.free.fr/Apionidae/Api...e-planches.html, http://www.biolib.cz/en/gallery/dir993/pos0,21/, http://www.kerbtier.de/Pages/Familien/Apionidae.html, http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/apihookm.htm -- and tell us who you think are the best candidates (and I'll tell you what they are not suitable for candidates. gyyy)
The main thing is that it will immediately become clear to you what to look at-and if you have at least green opr-l at hand, you will master them, just type more types-at least two dozen d/start (you will manage it in a week) - and then immediately sit down to pick with everyone.
sorry for being boring.

Size - a little less than 5 mm
On the "green" is this at least up to the point of being realistic to determine, how do you think? or is it not worth trying?

Try green, starting with the subfamily Paederinae. Or by Die Kaefer Mitteleuropas.
Or did I not post paederinae?

2 Nimrod: Thank you, I'll know!
2 Fornax 13: ran on green, go to Lathrobium. Unfortunately, there is no specific table for this genus. From Die Kaefer, you didn't post any tables on Paederinae, I think...

that beetle does not look like yours absolutely and irrevocably - at least with one dotted line of the prsp.

Thank you for the links, especially the French one. But, as an amateur, it is difficult for me to immediately grasp all the nuances of apionids, and unfortunately I cannot devote much time to their detailed study.
Indeed, now Acanephodus onopordi seems to me less similar than, for example, Perapion marchicum or Cynapion sp., but the question remains open.
If it were so simple, then I would not have applied to the forum

it is difficult to grasp all the nuances of apionids at once, but unfortunately I cannot devote much time to their detailed study

dyk, my dear fellow, what do you want - people spend their lives on learning apions, but take it out and put it to you... Such groups should be started as soon as the material accumulates - if you have a box of apionids stuffed, you will sit down for a few. days, after looking through all the eyes, arrange 80% of them in piles, something and up to the appearance will turn out reliably, something with a question... and it will be a meaningful time spent. And putting the general public on their ears with each apion is a hopeless idea. Well, it's another matter if you write a serious article there, or even a diploma, and one stray beetle remains unbaptized - then it's not a sin to beat the sovereign with your forehead. If you are seriously collecting beetles (and apion takers are usually suriozny), get used to the fact that a considerable proportion of zke-rov will for the time being stand without names waiting for the verdict of a connoisseur. And for God's sake, remember the lobster parable about peta-vasa and don't call the beetles names. You are discrediting your work, and they will not believe your definitions. If you can't answer for opr with your head, make a note - say, Tolstobruchus cf. oahuensis, no one will try.
And be happy that you get beetles that no one can identify. This is not the main indicator, but it is a good one. And what crawls on the flowers, you know... you can find it in any primer (there are exceptions, but they are rare).

oahuensis-named after the Hawaiian island of Oahu. I didn't think of it.
and don't put a soft sign in the word "nuance", it's not needed there

This post was edited by pygidiy - 11.07.2008 20: 31

2 pygidium

Eh... I'm afraid you're taking me for the wrong person. Well, it's a pity, but the collective farm is a voluntary matter, no one forces you to help.

Please understand that I have never "collected" a single insect in my entire life, and I don't even have a biological education. We are amateur photographers, animalists. And it's still difficult with a rush with apionids, you will agree, especially since this is the first one I have, I usually don't pay attention to such a trifle.

This post was edited by Double A - 11.07.2008 20: 52

...you take it for the wrong person... We are amateur photographers...

Oh, I'm sorry - I'll know from now on.

If the elephants are near Moscow, then what can we do? If the snapshot allows.

2 Nimrod: Thank you, I'll know!
2 Fornax 13: ran on green, go to Lathrobium. Unfortunately, there is no specific table for this genus. From Die Kaefer, you didn't post any tables on Paederinae, I think...

Miracles, that's all! Is it really Lathrobium??? Judging by the habit, something very soil-rich...
Well, if so, then try this...

This post was edited by Fornax13-12.07.2008 01: 18

File/s:



 14_Euaesthetinae_15_Paederinae_16_Xantholininae.zip

size: 1017.71 k
number of downloads: 312

that beetle doesn't look like yours absolutely and irrevocably...

Yes, indeed, he lied blackly... That's what it means I haven't looked at my own people in a long time... Maybe something like punctigerum?
In comparison, Ceratapion's sawyere is completely different. And the dotted line is different.
As far as I understand, the group is not so complicated, but you need to watch them a lot and "live". I even set up my own once. It seems to be correct... But that was a long time ago...

This post was edited by Fornax13-12.07.2008 03: 05

...Lathrobium???

Of course, what kind of Latrobe is he? -"not in any weather. I don't remember who mentioned meudon - clearly closer to the truth, in my opinion

Of course, what kind of Latrobe is he? -"not in any weather. I don't remember who mentioned meudon - obviously closer to the truth, in my opinion

Yes, in this group of miracles, all the time I have some creatures lying around - I also don't understand what they are... I already posted something like Micrillus + there is still some kind of disgrace..

you need to watch them a lot and "live"... set it up. It seems to be correct...

that's the point. while you're tinkering with them , everything is clear, you're guided smartly, just bring them up. brought openwork, you think-now with them on you. I switched to something else for a week -- and then again you learn to walk on prosthetics

that's the point. while you're tinkering with them , everything is clear, you're guided smartly, just bring them up. brought openwork, you think-now with them on you. I switched to something else for a week, and then you learn to walk on prosthetics again

That's it... There are such strange groups... And after all, by keys (and by signs of external morphology!) they are defined very well

This post was edited by Fornax13-12.07.2008 02: 52

There are such strange groups...

but here is another phenomenon: for example, Epuraea if you just draw a contour with a pencil is better recognized than sometimes even on high-quality photos.
But I never really understood the drawings of cryptophage pronotum. I look stupidly and do not see even a crack how they relate to the harsh reality.
and aphodians are almost easier to determine by keys than by collections. and Khrushchev, especially the big ones, should be banned from a lot of vopshe - they always caused me such impotent rage. so would prokhariami and trampled all. the eyes and soul of a person are somehow tuned to a strictly defined set of gestalts. please tell me - why do I remember a thousand small beetles in the face without working with them for 15 years, and the faces of artists in films are confused all the time like This-for general fun?

This post was edited by pygidiy - 12.07.2008 03: 25

but here is another phenomenon: for example, Epuraea if you just draw a contour with a pencil is better recognized than sometimes even on high-quality photos.
But I never really understood the drawings of cryptophage pronotum. I look stupidly and do not see even a crack how they relate to the harsh reality.
and aphodians are almost easier to determine by keys than by collections. and Khrushchev, especially the big ones, should be banned from a lot of vopshe - they always caused me such impotent rage. so would prokhariami and trampled all. the eyes and soul of a person are somehow tuned to a strictly defined set of gestalts. please tell me - why do I remember a thousand small beetles in the face without working with them for 15 years, and the faces of artists in films are confused all the time like This-for general fun?

Similarly... To our psychologists that whether to throw up a subject) I wonder what they'll say... Cryptophagous drawings also absolutely do not perceive... Either the drawings are like that, or something...

This post was edited by Fornax13-12.07.2008 04: 17

Miracles, that's all! Is it really Lathrobium??? Judging by the habit, something very soil-rich...
Well, if so, then try this...

According to the table, Lathrobium is obtained from green. I don't get to Medon because of this:
115 (120) The first segment of the hind leg is longer than the second

120 (115) The first segment of the hind leg is not longer than the second

I attach a photo for clarity.
So latrobium is, according to green.
Fornax 13, thank you for your literature. I'll try to run the beetle along it, but I'm afraid it won't be so effective. Problems with German...
Ah, I have one more small request for you. Could you post a list of abbreviations from Die Kaefer? Most of all, when trying to translate, it is just the need to guess what kind of term is hidden behind these 2-3 letters...

Pictures:

lapka.jpg — (19.76к)

According to the table, Lathrobium is obtained from green. I don't get to Medon because of this:

The top of the hind tibia is edged with a dense row of setae (long hairs) on both sides of the front and back - - - - subtribe Latrobiina
- - - if without edging or only on one, back side, subtribe Medonina and others too.
If I remember correctly, Latrobium has this characteristic almost ring at the top of the shin.

If I remember correctly, Latrobium has this characteristic almost ring at the top of the shin.

That's exactly what it is. The top of the hind leg is framed by a ring of very tight-fitting bristles. Another argument in favor of Lathrobium.

That's exactly what it is. The top of the hind leg is framed by a ring of very tight-fitting bristles. Another argument in favor of Lathrobium.

According to Reitter, this genus is also characterized by single long setae on the outer side of the middle tibia.

This post was edited by amara - 12.07.2008 13: 12

According to Reitter, this genus is also characterized by single long setae on the outer side of the middle tibia.

And they are also available
they are even more or less visible in the photo that I posted... it is on the middle shins.

This post was edited by Necrocephalus - 12.07.2008 13: 52

To Necrocephalus:

Aed. - edeagus
B. - leg (s)
Br. - chest
d. - Dorsal
E. - Europe
F. - mustache (s)
Fl. - wing, wings
Fld. - elytra
g. - ordinary, simple
G. - genus
Gld. - segment
h. - frequent
H. - rear, rear, behind
Hlb. - Abdomen
Hsch. - pronotum
Hü. - basin
K. -
Kf head. - jaws, mandibles
Kf. Ts. dipstick.
L. Ts. - labial dipstick.
M. - mid, middle
N. - north, north
O. - East, East
Pe. - penis
Pm. - paramera, paramera
Rd. - edge, border
s. - rare, rarely
S. - side (+ south, south)
Schl. - hip
Schn. - shin
Tr. - foot
Ts. - feeler
U. - lower type
U. F.-subfamily.
U. G. - subgenus
ü. "everywhere, everywhere."
- ventral, ventral
V. - front-
var. -
vbr variation. - common
W. - west, West
Wi. - corner

I think it will be easier this way. The rest is b. m. translatable.

Fornax 13, thank you very much!!! I'll try again.

Fornax 13, thank you very much!!! I'll try again.

You're welcome

And they are also available
they are even more or less visible in the photo that I posted... it is on the middle shins.

If the diameter of the eye is also larger than the diameter of the first segment of the antennae, and there is no clear microsculpture on the head and prsp (they are shiny in addition to dotted lines) I would tentatively suggest, as a layman, that it might be Lathrobium pallidum Nordm.
The beetle is quite rare in the literature. Try to confirm (or deny, of course) the software using the tables you received, page 153, from item 18.

If the diameter of the eye is also larger than the diameter of the first segment of the antennae, and there is no clear microsculpture on the head and prsp (they are shiny in addition to dotted lines) I would tentatively suggest, as a layman, that it might be Lathrobium pallidum Nordm.
The beetle is quite rare in the literature. Try to confirm (or deny, of course) the software using the tables you received, page 153, from point 18.

Oh, by the way, it may very well be that of this pile. I've never encountered such creatures... Just not the fact that it will be determined. It is necessary to pull the genitals in any case.

It is necessary to pull the genitals in any case.

It is interesting that it is for this species (as well as for the closely related L. dilutum) that they are not listed in the Middle European Beetles that you kindly provided us with. Probably, the authors considered that external signs are enough for these types.

This post was edited by amara - 12.07.2008 14: 41

It is interesting that it is for this species (as well as for the closely related L. dilutum) that they are not listed in the Middle European Beetles that you kindly provided us with. Probably, the authors considered that external signs are enough for these types.

Yeah... It's always like this...