Definition of ground beetles of the genus Carabus

So, here's what happened (it turned out strange, to be honest):
Judging by the top - still errans? And judging by the base - in general neither one nor the other. I certainly cooked it, maybe not very well....


UPD: I put a link to Entalex's drawing from his previous post, for clarity


This post was edited by Bad Den-08.04.2018 18: 08

In my opinion, it is better to inflate the bag for both subspecies and compare them.

errans is, as I said, I really haven't seen them once, but I've seen enough of haeres, it's not like them.

errans is, as I said, I really haven't seen them once, but I've seen enough of haeres, it's not like them.

I'm confused by the shape of the base of the aedeagus - it doesn't look like it at all even once. Neither one nor the other. And other males, as luck would have it, are no more-all females.

This post was edited by Bad Den - 10/19/2007 10: 26

Maybe you damaged the base during the preparation?

It's possible, but unlikely...

By the way, as a comrade of Necrocephalus told me, Prisny told him that with C. sibiricus and related species (?) haeres and errans have an unclear relationship. Whether these are subspecies or independent species. Kovalchuk (?) now he is working on this issue, trying to clarify it by analyzing the genitals of females (like species-specific ones). Soon, it seems, there will be a full publication.

So, here's what happened (it turned out strange, to be honest):
Judging by the top - still errans? And judging by the base - in general neither one nor the other. I certainly cooked it, maybe not very well....

Thank you, Bad Den, you did a great job for the whole procedure!
Indeed, according to the drawings of Aedeagus (Deuve, 2004), it is similar to C. errans. But I can't really confirm or deny anything right now, because I don't have errans in my collection. Here, thanks to KDG, I may soon have instances for comparison. Then maybe I'll post my thoughts.
1. The "Base of the Aedeagus" is, as I understand it, a preputial field. Indeed, I have learned from my own experience that it is conspecific. I'm having trouble pinpointing the taxon C. circassucus. Some of the details in the drawings (I analyzed them according to the Deuve Catalog, 2004) did not match the original. This suggests to me that a comparison of similar species (subspecies) in the form of aedeagus is possible if you have a lot of experience and compare a large amount of material. Although the general shape of the aedeagus should match.
2. Mylabris ' suggestion to inflate the endophallus (the inner sac of the pennis) may help to identify the visual difference. The technique of inverting the inner sacks of the aedeagus (which, in my opinion, is the most valuable method for accurately determining the taxon) is necessary for anyone interested in the taxonomy of the family Carabidae, as well as the need for a good catalog with drawings of endophallus (which are practically absent at the moment). Moreover, the most bloated endophallus is necessary, since only this form is species-specific. With my little experience in this business, I will say that it requires practical skills.
3. Indeed, the taxa errans and haeres are very close. No wonder they are reduced to subspecies. I think that there really is a need for their practical and thorough comparison.
3. Of course, if possible, the photos displayed in the topics for identification should be of high quality and large. Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand and comprehend the view in a common heap. This applies not only to the genus Carabus. No one, even a major expert, will swear on the Bible that he gives a 100% guarantee in determining the species (subspecies) from the photo.

This post was edited by Entalex - 10/20/2007 09: 12

I'm confused by the shape of the base of the aedeagus - it doesn't look like it at all even once. Neither one nor the other. And other males, as luck would have it, are no more-all females.

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about the foundation. I've never heard that there were any significant signs. Blow the bags and show them to the ground beetles.

No one, even a major expert, will swear on the Bible that he gives a 100% guarantee in determining the species (subspecies) from the photo.

Alas, even holding a beetle in your hands-they will not always say. And if you poll 2-3... The results can be very surprising.
it is not uncommon to look at a bug from a" well-known "group, from a generally simple place, and really want to yell into its dead eyes:" Who are you BASTARD! "

1. The "Base of the Aedeagus" is, as I understand it, a prepuntional field.

No, this is the basal part, which includes the ejaculatory canal:

Is there not, quite by chance, a picture of the inverted sac of these two taxa (and at the same time the nominative C. sibiricus sibiricus)?

This post was edited by Bad Den-08.04.2018 18: 09

Maybe you should still ask the living? Personally, I very rarely shove a beetle directly into the stain, I always try to take it alive. At home, I'm already deciding what to do with him. I very rarely set traps and collect 98% of the material by hand. I take a little, just as much as I can handle myself+a small amount as a gift or exchange. I keep more than half of the beetles alive for a long time, feed them, and try to create natural conditions to the best of my modest abilities. Species that resemble one species, I plant 3-4 pieces together. As a rule, if you do not shake the container and feed the captives well, beetles of the same species do not maim each other. Moreover, my charges often mate, but only in the course of seeing photos about butterflies, I began to think that different species can also copulate with each other in beetles. Or is it not so?

Moreover, my charges often mate, but only in the course of seeing photos about butterflies, I began to think that different species can also copulate with each other in beetles. Or is it not so?

It is believed that there are hybrids between some species of carabus...

I'm sorry, are hybrids full-fledged in the sense of reproduction? But that wasn't even what I was thinking. Gentlemen, we are primarily studying LIVING objects!

And as for the base of the aedeagus-it is poorly visible in the photo. Can it be damaged during dissection? I don't have any inflated endophallus of both taxa. But, I hope, I will make it in the near future. Then I will definitely put up photos.
I don't know where else to view them.

When cooking there, only the paramers fell off, it seems that there was nothing else strongly chitinized in the test tube.
I will look forward to the photo bags, thank you!

..and I really want to yell into his dead eyes: "Who are you BASTARD!"

Wow! This is a masterpiece!

This beetle turned out to be in my possession with a label - Morphocarabus hummeli nevelskii. Is this a bug, or is it really such an unusual subspecies of hummeli?
Caught on Sakhalin, 22 mm.

Pictures:

DSCN4963_1.JPG — (130.34к)

So, here's all I can tell you so far about the C. errans and C. haeres taxa.
(for those provided by C. errans - big thanks to KDG)
In the photo, the left position is C. errans, and the right position is C. haeres, respectively.
Unfortunately, there is no endophallus of C. errans, since all specimens are females.
What can I say? I repeat-errans are larger, the sculpture of elytra is more ordered, more opaque. Explicit lines are formed from points. Primary pits are smaller and more often located. The width of the elytra is less than that of haeres.
For Bad Den - a special post a large photo of C. errans.

Pictures:

errans_haeres.jpg — (86.9к)


errans_haeres_1.jpg — (145.51к)


endophallus_haeres.jpg — (153.89к)


errans.jpg — (133.37к)

Experts of the arhiplektes! This beetle has already flickered in the Coleoptera varia theme, where E. cumanus and A. edithae managed to visit. Maybe someone will clarify, if possible, what kind of view
May 2007, Krasnodar Region, okr-ti Kr.Glades, length 25 mm

Pictures:

Archiplectes_m_dors.JPG — (115.5к)

And again I'm talking about my "errans-haeres". Inflated the bag. Unfortunately, I was inflated mainly not due to the paste, but due to the air, so some areas have fallen off at the moment (everything is inflated in the photo). Here's what happened (photos from different angles):

Congratulations, Bad Den! If this is your first experiment , you've done great! The fact is that the endophallus exposed by me was blown out badly, because it burst. As far as I could correct the situation , I did. Unfortunately, I no longer had a male. In your photos, the endophallus looks well bloated. As for the taxon, the shape of the bag is quite consistent with what I blew (taking into account natural defects).
Of course, it would be nice to look at the bag of C. errans, but if necessary, you can return to this question. I am still sure that your beetles are C. haeres (I looked at the photos of the beetles again).

Well, haeres so haeres - so write down Thank you very much!
The experience is not the first - I had previously ruined absolutely all C. granulatus from mattresses (even from formalin collections) as a workout, but I never filled my hand...

Sorry for the dilettante question, in the picture with Sarabus cancellatus? What is the difference from granulatus other than the color of the bases of the antennae and paws?

pronotum cancellatus

Well, this is the granulatus?
The first segment of the antennae is black

Well, this is the granulatus?
The first segment of the antennae is black

So exactly, it is

Dear colleagues: I have finally scanned Oleg Kryzhanovsky's monograph on the karabuses of Central Asia. Despite its long-standing publication, it continues to be an important work on the Central Asian region. I hope that it will be useful for many people, because it has already become a rarity. You can download it here: http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/kolovbib.htm

Sorry for the dilettante question, in the picture with Sarabus cancellatus? What is the difference from granulatus other than the color of the bases of the antennae and paws?

In your photos, you can clearly see that the first elytra has the widest elytra in the middle, and the second one has this point shifted to the posterior third. This is in addition to the shape of the episternum posterior thorax, cat. your photos are not visible (for the first one. they are longer than their width, and for the second one they are equal or wider than their length). Well, the size of the second type is on average smaller.

This post was edited by amara - 27.11.2007 14: 07

Experts of the arhiplektes! This beetle has already flickered in the Coleoptera varia theme, where E. cumanus and A. edithae managed to visit. Maybe someone will clarify, if possible, what kind of view
May 2007, Krasnodar Region, okr-ti Kr.Glades, length 25 mm

An interesting point indeed. Most of all, it really looks like
A. edithae. But, according to D. Obydov, this species does not exist in Krasnaya Polyana and its surroundings. Is there a chance to clarify the surrounding area more precisely? And is there any confusion with labels again?

An interesting point indeed. Most of all, it really looks like
A. edithae. But, according to D. Obydov, this species does not exist in Krasnaya Polyana and its surroundings. Is there a chance to clarify the surrounding area more precisely? And is there any confusion with labels again?

By label-pos. Chvizhepse. It's near Krasnaya Polyana. Well, the accuracy of the indication is all on the collector's conscience .

By label-pos. Chvizhepse. It's near Krasnaya Polyana. Well, the accuracy of the indication is all on the collector's conscience .

C. kratkyi felicitanus Reitter, 1893

Please help me identify the ground beetle. Caught: Krasnodar territory, Tuapse district, Dzhubga settlement, in the streambed.

carabus cumanus

Please help me, if possible, to identify the ground beetle. Place of capture: Putorana Plateau, Kotui River area.

A beetle from the subgenus Morphocarabus. Habitually similar to C. (Morphocarabus) henningi Fisch. But I can hardly tell you more from this picture.

The beetle size is 18 mm. I don't know exactly what kind of biotope I was fishing for, but the mountain tundra is the fastest. A colored caima on the margin of the elytra is present in one specimen, while the other is absent. I post another photo, where the structure of the elytra seems to be better visible. I apologize for the quality of the photo, it didn't work out better.


This post was edited by Anthrenus - 28.01.2008 12: 17