Identification of Hemiptera

Community and Forum → Insects identification → Identification of Hemiptera

Pages: 1 ...10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18... 101

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

16.12.2009 9:22, Amplion

1. Stedodema laevigata. Yes, I'm sure it's her now. Example of a similar one:
http://www.koleopterologie.de/heteroptera/...foto-manci.html
2,5,6-yes, that's it! True, I was more confused not by the shield, but by the antennae - yes, in this species they are two-color, but in the third photo there is almost a three-color contrast! This, in principle, is not important, just a good photo!
3. It's a pity, you can't see the macro mustache. With a probability of 85%, I can say that this is Phytocoris longipennis. But for insurance - just Phytocoris.
7. I'm ashamed to say I don't know. If I had the original photo , I would check it out. It is similar to several genera at the same time, especially Megaloceroea, but small signs are not visible.
4.I don't have any ideas either. I'll look and think

Likes: 1

17.12.2009 5:12, Amplion

Still not sure about the third one. For clarity of definition, it is desirable to know, for example, the color of the first tendril - whether longitudinal stripes stretch along it or it is covered with hatching ... However, by indirect signs, it is almost certainly Phytocoris longipennis. Ph. tilliae, an alternative species, less similar.

According to photo # 7, it is now clearly visible that this is Megaloceraea reticornis (as I understand it, this species was previously called M. linearis). Sometimes good photo quality helps a lot!

Stenodema-yes, it's a different view now. It seems to be Stenodema holsatum (or St. holsata, as it is now accepted). The signs are suitable, but there seems to be no alternative

Likes: 1

18.12.2009 6:31, akulich-sibiria

akulich-sibiria, hello! It doesn't look like A. betulae. It seems to be a female, and the birch podkornik has a female's backside stretched out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41032465@N04/3891644093/
I went through the identifier - most likely, this is A. betulinus (yes, this is a different species). However, only if it was caught in Siberia (the further south, the more likely). The length varies from 6.7 to 9 mm. Does it fit?

In general, A. betulinus is suitable. According to Vinokurov, I also considered this species. but I am confused by the ratio of width and length of the shield. It seems to me that his ratio is less than 1.5, and certainly not 2. Although this can only be judged when both options are in hand. I have caught a male A. betulinus, although there are also disputes about it. I'll send you his photo later. In general, the group turned out to be quite heavy. I have about 10 pieces and it looks like the types are also different.
Does the 3rd part of the mustache have to be white? For this instance, it is dark. It was caught in Khakassia, in larch forests, although other coniferous species are likely.

18.12.2009 8:49, Amplion

In general, A. betulinus is suitable. According to Vinokurov, I also considered this species. but I am confused by the ratio of width and length of the shield. It seems to me that his ratio is less than 1.5, and certainly not 2. Although this can only be judged when both options are in hand. I have caught a male A. betulinus, although there are also disputes about it. I'll send you his photo later. In general, the group turned out to be quite heavy. I have about 10 pieces and it looks like the types are also different.
Does the 3rd part of the mustache have to be white? For this instance, it is dark. It was caught in Khakassia, in larch forests, although other coniferous species are likely.

In general, I also defined it by Vinokurov. Your instance in the photo, imho, has just such a ratio of the shield (1.6-2 to the width). In addition, the description of the pronotum and the general course of determination are suitable. It is a pity that the fourth segment of the antennae has not been preserved

.
But I didn't see anything about the color of the third segment of the antennae in Vinokurov

. On the contrary, such a feature would have been clearly noticed in the description of the species, but it is not there.