Definition of ground beetles of the genus Carabus

I tried to determine this ground beetle by the DV determinant, it does not work on odoratus, there are 2 setae on each side in the anterior part of the pronotum. And for central Siberia, I have no qualifiers, unfortunately .

I tried to determine this ground beetle by the DV determinant, it does not work on odoratus, there are 2 setae on each side in the anterior part of the pronotum. Unfortunately, I don't have any qualifiers for central Siberia .

Something you confused me with 2 bristles in the front of the prsp. Look - the penultimate segment of the maxillary palps is not shorter than the last? It would be nice to re-shoot (if possible) with normal lighting of the object. Look in the section "Insect images"for the topic "Morphocarabus: scheidleri, excellens, zawadzkii, etc." There are pictures of C. odoratus and C. henningi. You can visually compare them.

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

Just in case-the outer edge of the front shins is not pulled into the spike? Unlikely, but what if it's Hemicarabus?

Now there are no beetles in front of my eyes, in the evening I will look at the necessary signs at home and try to take a normal photo.

Yesterday I took a good look at both of my available specimens and I can tell you: first, the front tibia is not elongated into a spike; second, the penultimate segment of the maxillary palps is equal to or slightly longer than the last one; third, after comparing the beetles with photos (thanks for the tip, I didn't have enough sense to look in the images of insects). to the conclusion that I have the fastest 2 different species: henningi with 2 setae in the per. part of the pronotum ( if you believe Isaev, then it should be so) and odoratus with one setae (this is me lohanulsya, not properly considered both copies) I post photos of both copies. and their pronotum

Anthrenus - thank you for the pictures. If I'm not mistaken, the one with a border (judging by the shape of the prsp) is C. odoratus, and the completely dark one is C. henningi. It all seems to fit. It looks like C. henningi is a melanistic form. I didn't see any completely black ones in Altai.

Pictures:

carabus1.jpg — (140.41к)


carabus2.jpg — (144.67к)

carabus1.jpg -Carabus granulatus
carabus2.jpg — Cychrus, MOST LIKELY, caraboides

The second - Cychrus caraboides
The first-rather Carabus granulatus red-legged form, but you need to look at the color of the first segment of the antennae, if red, then C. cancellatus.

In the photo IMHO C. granulatus. Bad - no capture labels are specified. In general, C. granulatus differs from C. cancellatus simply. The main differences - the shape of the episternes of the posterior thorax and the shape of the elytra-are all mentioned by amara on the previous page. In addition, the elytra of C. cancellatus are convex, while the elytra of C. granulatus are flattened. Biotopes are also different. C. granulatus is a hygrophil, tends to places with moist and swampy soil. C. cancellatus is a mesophil, mostly in forests and agrocenoses.

C. cancellatus still tends to open stations. In the forests it is not enough

C. cancellatus still tends to open stations. There's not much of it in the woods

That's right, omar, from my side it was necessary to clarify - along the edges of light forests.

Poiman sample in the forest and caught a soil trap with beer. how often is Cychrus caraboides found??

Depends on where... I don't know about Lithuania... In the Yaroslavl region, it is not uncommon in coniferous forests, traps can be collected in places and quite good series.

In central Russia, it is quite common. Likes moist forests, shellfish eater.

C. cancellatus still tends to open stations. There's not much of it in the woods

Well, it depends where. In the forest-steppe zone (Lipetsk region, Galichya Gora), for example, C. cancellatus willingly goes to the forest (it is still wetter there). Here it lives in a rather dense secondary linden forest on the slope of the 1st above-floodplain terrace of the Don.

Well, it depends where. In the forest-steppe zone (Lipetsk region, Galichya Gora), for example, C. cancellatus willingly goes to the forest (it is still wetter there). Here it lives in a rather dense secondary linden forest on the slope of the 1st above-floodplain terrace of the Don.

Archypus is also right. The fact is that C. cancellatus is really not a purely forest species. But, for example, in the Tula region, it is in the forest-steppe zone that it is more often found just in the border area of forests and plantings. Moreover, if the forest is not dark , it goes quite far into the interior. In the Volgograd region, it fell into traps not on open stations, but on the border of a mixed (oak-dominated) floodplain forest.

can it beat the Carabus (Carabus) granulatus duarius Fischer von Waldheim, 1844 ?????

Pictures:

carabus1.jpg — (140.41к)

And where is it assembled??? If in Lithuania, then no.

In Lithuania

In Lithuania

You have a nominative subspecies. Carabus (s.str.) granulatus duarius is a subspecies listed for the territory of Altai, Sayan, Eastern Siberia, Kazakhstan, Kirgistan, and northern Mongolia.

This post was edited by Entalex - 02/11/2008 08: 59

On the Zinovsky site, I discovered that Carabus arcensis Herbst, 1784 is somehow included in the atlas of the genus Carabus in the subgenus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 - http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/Coleoptera/rus/carab00.htm
and in the subgenus Eucarabus Gehin, 1885 http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/Coleoptera/rus/carab41.htm


This post was edited by Dmitrich - 02/11/2008 18: 40

On the Zinovsky site, I discovered that for some reason, Carabus arcensis Herbst, 1784 is also included in the genus Carabus in the subgenus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 - http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/Coleoptera/rus/carab00.htm
and in the subgenus Eucarabus Gehin, 1885 http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/Coleoptera/rus/carab41.htm

By the way ,Carabus (Eucarabus) stscheglowi is also in both subgenera.
Carabus is probably an archaism.

This post was edited by rpanin - 11.02.2008 17: 03

On the Zinovsky site, I discovered that for some reason, Carabus arcensis Herbst, 1784 is also included in the genus Carabus in the subgenus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 - http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/Coleoptera/rus/carab00.htm
and in the subgenus Eucarabus Gehin, 1885 http://www.zin.ru/ANIMALIA/Coleoptera/rus/carab41.htm

This "song" is already simply touching (sorry, Dmitrich, this is not for your table). Now I speak as an amateur, because I am completely devoid of corporate ethics (scientific schools) and the commercial component. How much, in the end, can you trash the double names of species (subgenera)? Arcensis or arvensis? Carabus or Eucarabus? If there is no main component in the primary descriptions, standard copies, it is impossible to figure out who is the priority in choosing a name - there is an ICZN, according to which this problem can always be solved in favor of restoring order. This genus is interesting to me, and I try to understand the principle of its taxonomy as much as possible. As a result, I understand that the further you delve, the clearer the feeling of a mess like this becomes. Clearly, it is easier to try to make your own conclusions based on the material than to wait for the issue to be resolved by science. I apologize for the emotional utterance!

This post was edited by Entalex - 02/11/2008 22: 28

Well, if archaism, then at least correct the confusion...

Since we are talking about the ZIN website, I also have a question. In the C. careniger specimen posted on the site, the pronotum is clearly narrowed to the base, and in the DV insect identifier for this species (there it is a subspecies of canaliculatus), the hypothesis is given that the pronotum is almost parallelilateral or slightly narrowed or slightly expanded to the base, but if the pronotum is clearly narrowed to the base, C. canaliculatus praedo (I don't know its modern name status). Which of these two opposite options is correct?

This post was edited by Anthrenus - 12.02.2008 14: 14

Can't there be anything in Lithuania other than the caraboidesa of Cychrus? painfully at this ekz strange pronotum, and the shape of the elytra....??? Or is it normal for caraboides?

In my opinion, quite ordinary caraboides, we have exactly the same. Yes, it seems that there should be nothing else in Lithuania.

Just in case, I looked in Telnov's checklist for Latvia, there are only caraboides.

I didn't catch craboides myself, I only saw it in other people's collections, for some reason I only came across semigranosuses in my life....

I didn't catch craboides myself, I only saw it in other people's collections, for some reason I only came across semigranosuses in my life....

... missed, clicked on the flower.

and I only have caraboides.

return cvitocheg

  In this topic, we post photos of ground beetles of R. Carabus (and only them) for identification.

Colleagues, please help us identify (at least up to the subgenus) the karabus. Caught in the Caucasus.

in the photo, C. (Sphodristocarabus) variants can be a subspecies of janthinus, unfortunately without a label and the quality of the photo is not to say probably

Please help me identify the karabus. It was caught in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug of the Tyumen Region, in the northern taiga (larch).[attachmentid()=7809]

C. (Hemicarabus) macleayi green form http://www.carabidae.ru/Carabidae/hemicara...gehin_1885.html

Maybe someone knows what this Tribax is?
I didn't catch the male in any way
Georgia

Pictures:

tribax.JPG — (108.85к)

And more specifically?

And more specifically?

Georgia, ~10 km northwest of Pasanauri, broad-leaved forest, ~1500 m
Together with this species, there is only one Tribax – Carabus osseticus.

It seems to me that this is planipennis. I will also specify the ranges, and then I will tell you exactly.