Elateridae

A rather gloomy group... It looks like Actenicerus sjaelandicus, but it would still be necessary to turn it around...

Hello
Help me determine, please.
Elateridae specimen, caught in the Zhavoronki settlement in the Moscow region, length 14 mm.
Thank you in advance,
Pascal

As far as I can see, this is Mosotalesus impressus (Fabricius, 1792). At least one to one with my copies of M. impressus (F.).
However, Fornax13 is right about one thing: it would be good to turn it over in your hands.

This post was edited by alex 2611-12/10/2007 23: 00

A rather gloomy group...

Come on, what's so dark about it? This family is actually my first love in the insect world. It is quite possible to understand European species (except,perhaps, Ampedus).

Come on, what's so dark about it


Color!

Here is a good page on Palaearctic nutcrackers in Czech and English (optional):
http://www.elateridae.com/result.php?gen=68
There are photos and distribution maps.

This post was edited by amara - 12/10/2007 19: 53

Come on, what's so dark about it? This family is actually my first love in the insect world. It is quite possible to understand European species (except,perhaps, Ampedus).

I may be wrong about sjaelandicus, since I'm not familiar with impressus, unfortunately.
What about Cardiophorinae???
In my opinion, Ampedus is not the most terrible thing that is in the nutcrackers, I even figured out the European ones once
But when there are several Dicronychus in the collection, which are not determined in any way - this is much worse...

This post was edited by Fornax13-12/11/2007 01: 02

I may be wrong about sjaelandicus, since I'm not familiar with impressus, unfortunately.
What about Cardiophorinae???
In my opinion, Ampedus is not the most terrible thing that is in the nutcrackers, I even figured out the European ones once
But when there are several Dicronychus in the collection, which are not determined in any way - this is much worse...

Yes, I would add to the list of "impassable" ones (for a layman anyway):
Melanotus castanipes and villosus (=rufipes in the" green " determinant).

This post was edited by amara - 12/11/2007 09: 34

As far as I can see, this is Mosotalesus impressus (Fabricius, 1792). At least one to one with my copies of M. impressus (F.).
However, Fornax13 is right about one thing: it would be good to turn it over in your hands.

On the specified page, it seems to be called: Paraphotistus impressus (Fabricius1792)
Subfamily: Denticollinae
There is a rather sophisticated and detailed search engine, separately for genera and species, so if you do not know the modern name of the genus (like me), then the synonym is not fast to find.

On the specified page, it seems to be called: Paraphotistus impressus (Fabricius1792)
Subfamily: Denticollinae
There is a rather sophisticated and detailed search engine, separately for genera and species, so if you do not know the modern name of the genus (like me), then the synonym is not fast to find.

I use the titles from the corresponding volume of "Fauna of the USSR". It is possible that there have been major changes in the taxonomy of nutcrackers. Here is would who from professionals prompted as correctly call this species.

Well, yes, I agree with everyone. There are some types of snappers that are difficult to identify. You can also add more controversial issues. And when you encounter the Caucasian (or Central Asian) fauna....
But still beetles from central Russia can be distinguished. Not staphylins (God forgive me) any...

I use the titles from the corresponding volume of "Fauna of the USSR". It is possible that there have been major changes in the taxonomy of nutcrackers. If only one of the professionals could tell us how to properly name this species.

Interestingly, in the latest list of Fennoscandia beetles, it is named:
Selatosomus Stephens, 1830 (syn. Mosotalesus Kishii, 1977) impressus (Fabricius, 1792).
So, there are also options in the modern system.

  
What about Cardiophorinae???

By the way, the corresponding volume of "Fauna of Ukraine" is very helpful in determining our cardiophorins (for nutcrackers, it is also in Russian). We had it in the "public". It's a pity I only scanned the keys for imago and larvae.

Why do you have so many cardiophorins ? I envy you, I managed to collect only a few banal European species....

By the way, Alex, Fornax, and other experts, would like to know your estimate of how many species of nutcrackers you would expect in the Leningrad and Moscow regions?

Interestingly, in the latest list of Fennoscandia beetles, it is named:
Selatosomus Stephens, 1830 (syn. Mosotalesus Kishii, 1977) impressus (Fabricius, 1792).
So, there are also options in the modern system.

Everything goes back to normal...
After all, both in the "green" determinant and in the "Determinant of Insects" (edited by I. N. Filipiev) of 1928, this species is included in the genus Selatosomus

[quote=alex 2611,11. 12. 2007 12:24]

By the way, Alex, Fornax, and other experts, would like to know your estimate of how many species of nutcrackers you would expect in the Leningrad and Moscow regions?

I have a handwritten version (well, there were no photocopies then) of the work "Click Beetles of the Leningrad region" by E. V. Guriev Tr. VEO Vol. 48 1961 There are exact figures: 60 species are found, 4 species are found in neighboring regions and they may be found here.
But. Seven species are known from one copy. For the area studied along and across the Lena River, this most likely means random drifts.
Plus, 6 species of the genus Hypnoidus are reported to be found in the area. Some of these species are not mentioned in modern literature and databases. As I understand it, they are reduced to synonyms.
I caught 32 species of nutcrackers in the Leningrad region. But I'm a lazy person and not very lucky. Plus, I spend 95% of my time north of St. Petersburg, and some species are found in the south of the region.
He caught nutcrackers in the north of the Ryazan region. The experience of fishing there and reading the literature suggests that in the Moscow region there are at least the same 60 species (or even more).

[quote=Dmitrich, 11.12.2007 12:35] Everything is back to normal...
Yeah... It's hard to even keep track! They" fuck over", as Batka Lukashenka won't say, the taxonomy is worth nothing. To be honest, most often it is not clear to me from what considerations, according to what principles this is done.
[/quote]

The same garbage( in the sense of also unclear). Especially annoying is the crushing of labor. They strive to create a separate genus for almost every species. And then you search on elateridae.com photos of the good old Athous niger and you find under such a name that you can not remember.

The same garbage( in the sense of also unclear). Especially annoying is the crushing of labor. They strive to create a separate genus for almost every species. And then you search on elateridae.com photos of the good old Athous niger and you find under such a name that you can not remember.

I am not really afraid to appear incompetent, believing that this fragmentation of traditional genera is often explained only by the pseudoscientific ambitions of so-called "taxonomists" who did not have time to divide the original author's nomenclature pie. After all, you so want to stake out something of your own!

Everything goes back to normal...
After all, both in the "green" determinant and in the "Determinant of Insects" (edited by I. N. Filipiev) of 1928, this species is included in the genus Selatosomus

You have defined the view, and this is the main thing.
And thank you very much for estimating the number of species by region.

Yes, I would add to the list of "impassable" ones (for a layman anyway):
Melanotus castanipes and villosus (=rufipes in the" green " determinant).

And can I find out in what plan"impassable"? Difficult to diagnose? And who is villosus (I couldn't find such a name in the genus Melanotus in "green")?
And one more modest question: do you happen to have the mentioned "Fauna" on clickcrackers in electronic form?

And can I find out in what plan"impassable"? Difficult to diagnose? And who is villosus (I couldn't find such a name in the genus Melanotus in "green")?
And one more modest question: do you happen to have the mentioned "Fauna" on clickcrackers in electronic form?

That is, only a few specialists can limit them if there are rich samples of each type in front of their eyes.
Melanotus villosus (Geoffroy, 1785) (syn. rufipes Herbst,1784 as it was in Green's time), and castanipes (Paykull, 1800) was then synonymous.
And now they are different, only as I do not know myself.
Check out these views on the website above, please.
I don't have this book in any form, unfortunately.

This post was edited by amara - 12/11/2007 18: 04

That is, only a few specialists can limit them if there are rich samples of each type in front of their eyes.
Melanotus villosus (Geoffroy, 1785) (syn. rufipes Herbst,1784 as it was in Green's time), and castanipes (Paykull, 1800) was then synonymous.
Check out these views on the website above, please.
I don't have this book in any form, unfortunately.

Thanks for
the answer. Ie, if I understood correctly, M villosus is the species that was previously called M. rufipes? Is M. castanipes, which was previously considered a synonym for the now illiquid rufipes , an independent species? Horror, well, confusion...
P.S. After viewing the photos on elateridae.com I strongly doubted the correctness of the definition of my "castanipes"...
About" Fauna " - if anyone has it in their assets-please take the time to scan it, make this rare edition available to a wide range of entomologists! And then on the" green " many nutcrackers are determined very sluggishly or not defined at all...

This post was edited by Necrocephalus - 12/11/2007 18: 04

I am not really afraid to appear incompetent, believing that this fragmentation of traditional genera is often explained only by the pseudoscientific ambitions of so-called "taxonomists" who did not have time to divide the original author's nomenclature pie. After all, you so want to stake out something of your own!

Do you seriously believe that in a "traditional" genus, which has, for example, an almost worldwide range, the same type of beetles and its division is artificial? Well, well..

Thanks for
the answer. Ie, if I understood correctly, M villosus is the species that was previously called M. rufipes? Is M. castanipes, which was previously considered a synonym for the now illiquid rufipes , an independent species? Horror, well, confusion...
P.S. After viewing the photos on elateridae.com I strongly doubted the correctness of the definition of my "castanipes"...

That's right, but I don't know how they differ by description.

Do you seriously believe that in a "traditional" genus, which has, for example, an almost worldwide range, the same type of beetles and its division is artificial? Well, well..

I will answer for Dmitrich, because I agree with him on this issue.

If the genus really has some internal well-defined groups, then giving them the status of independent genera is quite reasonable, in my opinion.
But sometimes the signs for identifying new "genera" seem clearly far-fetched, and this is not so rare. In such cases, it seems that this is just an attempt to perpetuate your "I" with the help of a new taxon

Well, KDG, I was a little late for your visit to the forum, and Necrocephalus answered you for me. I totally agree with him. This is exactly what I had in mind: the artificial elevation of not so significant features to the rank of inter-generic differences. Thank you, Necrocephalus !

Regarding the" Fauna " - if anyone has it in the asset-please take the time to scan it, make this rare edition available to a wide range of entomologists! And then on the" green " many nutcrackers are determined very sluggishly or not defined at all...

I have a volume of "Fauna" on the Ctenicerini tribe (volume XII, vol.3) and photocopies of identifying tables from another volume for the genera Ampedus and Agriotes. But there is no scanner and now there is no way to solve this problem. If someone from St. Petersburg has the opportunity to scan the book , I can give it to you for a while. From me the book - from someone the scanner....

Thank you all for the interesting information
Pascal

By the way, the corresponding volume of "Fauna of Ukraine" is very helpful in determining our cardiophorins (for nutcrackers, it is also in Russian). We had it in the "public". It's a pity I only scanned the keys for imago and larvae.

Why do you have so many cardiophorins ? I envy you, I managed to collect only a few banal European species....

No, there aren't very many types either - 12-13, probably. The group is still more southern...

By the way, Alex, Fornax, and other experts, would like to know your estimate of how many species of nutcrackers you would expect in the Leningrad and Moscow regions?

I can only say that 69 species have been recorded in the St. Region. I think that in the MO, basically, the same species (with the exception of absolutely steppe ones) + some non-moral and boreal ones that do not reach us. That is, somewhere in the same way-65-70.

This post was edited by Fornax13-12.12.2007 00: 25

Oh, by the way, because the list from the Lobl & Smetana Catalog is freely available (at least it was). Why not check out the names there?

I have a volume of "Fauna" on the Ctenicerini tribe (volume XII, vol.3) and photocopies of identifying tables from another volume for the genera Ampedus and Agriotes. But there is no scanner and now there is no way to solve this problem. If someone from St. Petersburg has the opportunity to scan the book , I can give it to you for a while. I charge a book , someone else charges a scanner....

Great solution! Unfortunately, I live too far from St. Petersburg...

By the way, the corresponding volume of "Fauna of Ukraine" is very helpful in determining our cardiophorins (for nutcrackers, it is also in Russian). We had it in the "public". It's a pity I only scanned the keys for imago and larvae.

And you couldn't post these keys. And then I was already tearing off half of my dikronikhs genitals out of boredom

And you couldn't post these keys. I've already torn off the genitals of half my dicronics out of boredom

Now there is a lot of work, in late January-early February I will try to get to a friend with a scanner. I'll try very, very hard...

Colleagues! In the topic "Defining beetles", I put up a Turkish nutcracker. Take a look, please, can you identify it?
PS There I still have a barbel (Batocera, like...)

Guys, I just want to clarify. These are: Actenicerus sjaelandicus Muller, 1764?

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 03.10.2009 11: 47

Pictures:

PA031740.jpg — (66.32к)

This post was moved here from "Defining Bugs". Here it is more appropriate.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 20.01.2010 10: 52

Guys, I just want to clarify. These are: Actenicerus sjaelandicus Muller, 1764?

Actenicerus sjaelandicus, I think.

Help identify Tropical material

Pictures:

DSC04928.JPG — (68.47к)


DSC04929.JPG — (62.88к)


DSC04934.JPG — (68.79к)


DSC04937.JPG — (64.18к)


DSC04940.JPG — (61.05к)


DSC04944.JPG — (58.29к)