How to identify insects

I don't know, but it seems to me that in order to learn how to define a certain group well, you should try to understand this group by defining as many genera/species as possible. "If you want to learn how to ride a bike , you need to ride a bike"

if the collection contains only 1 ex from an unknown group of an unknown kind, etc., then it is better not to bother and make a lot of mistakes from scratch. and show the ECZ to a specialist so that he can determine it. Only in this case the definition will be correct (although nothing is excluded).

And in order to study the group:
1) material (it is advisable to collect a series of at least 1 species yourself to get at least some information about the genus of this species.)
2) find the full list of types of the region. If there is none, then you should skip this point and not "seriously" engage in the group at all until you have a good pile of knowledge about it.
3) Give the available material to a specialist for determination. Even if there is a fairly good determinant (because perfect determinants simply cannot exist) a person may not get an exact definition. You can ask them to identify the species, but hide the names of the species from you for a while.
4) after that, you can seriously deal with the definition of species. With large series and definitions, you can work on the definition for a long time, then compare it with the definition of specialists.
5) between points 3 and 4, I would add 1 more-literature. To study a group, identify it well and know where to look at it in general, and predict the mistakes of the determinant, you need to have a fairly detailed literature that describes the signs of a particular type. Moreover, the description of the characteristics of species should consist of holotypes. Otherwise, it will be complete bullshit and lead to terrible ignorant mistakes.

Moreover, very many qualifiers do not have a complete list of types, not very good theses (and in general, by and large, qualifiers are children's games. Real specialists studying the group do their work on holotypes. In the absence of the latter, few revisions can be considered good.. And determinants are needed more in order to have at least some initial idea of certain types). True, for beginners who have just started collecting beetles, it is best to start working with the determinant and not try to simplify the task in order to achieve some knowledge.

* my opus is not complete and requires additional reading )) *

It seems to me that the main thing is to get more material for the group, and not just one species/genus, but more opportunities.This will make it possible to compare and understand the features mentioned in the theses. Even without optics, the identification of small species is more like guessing on coffee grounds - there may be individual hits, but in general the result is clear. When starting to watch a new group, you need to be prepared that you will have to spend time until you "understand" the signs - they are different for different groups. Well, it seems to me that it makes sense to give it to a specialist either to check the definition, or if it is not possible to enter the group at all, or if there are no adequate determinants. Although of course everyone is free to decide for themselves...

It was me.

It seems to me that the main thing is to get more material for the group, and not just one species/genus, but more opportunities.This will make it possible to compare and understand the features mentioned in the theses. Even without optics, the identification of small species is more like guessing on coffee grounds - there may be individual hits, but in general the result is clear.

I agree one hundred percent! If you are interested in a particular genus , you should have as many species of this genus as possible. How many times in the bees encountered. There is one type - you sit and think, the puktirovka of the mid-spine is thick or less thick (as it is written in the guide). But I caught the second view and you can immediately see that the compiler of the determinant was right. Practically without optics, almost in a 4-fold magnifying glass you can see that the dotted line of one type is much thicker than the other. Yes, and other signs in comparison are immediately clearly visible.

In this case, if the dotted line is not thick or less thick. Very often you come across such things (when you think this is what they mean or not). It is not always easy to have something to test your guesses on, since a representative of the genus may be absent. But when there are two representatives, then you can clearly see what a thick dotted line is and what is not. And no matter how much material there is, the sooner you start, the sooner you will understand. And then I got about 200 weevils, about 150 beetles and other groups (this is a bit understandable, but it's nice when everything is defined and in order). So it's time to determine.

And then I got about 200 weevils, about 150 beetles and other groups (this is a bit understandable, but it's nice when everything is defined and in order). So it's time to determine.

So it's great! On a cold winter evening, make yourself comfortable, equip your workplace and slowly determine.... Get high!
And when everything coincided and you understand that you have determined correctly....

This post was edited by alex 2611-15.09.2008 12: 04

Uuu when everything matches. It's just happiness.

I would say that the determinant is already more for those who have figured out the group (think.. so. and what is the sign there, I looked, and yes, I definitely wrote the name ))) ) And a beginner in this business in general is only to have fun and do nonsense - without the help of a specialist, little good will come of it..

If I had not met Danilevsky, I would have wandered for a long time in some beetles, which I even knew quite well and knew the signs... And now I understand why that person is the one, and not the other, and the other turned out to be completely different. But until the muzzle is poked and the exact characteristics of the species and distinctive features are told, you can wander and wander.. After all, everyone has their own understanding, and you can understand someone else's understanding in even more ways..

with zhuzhl and elephants, you can first try to orpedeleit and then put it on recheck for molbiol and check the results for fun .and then double-check again, and then again and again... ))))

But I think that you should first determine it yourself, otherwise you won't be able to enter the group. You don't need to sit down seriously and for a long time, until you get the signs, it can take a decent amount of time. In this way, most of the more or less common species can be identified. And in order to understand someone else's understanding better, there are drawings in the determinants, and the presence of a large amount of material for the group helps - there is something to compare it with. Of course, there are still "difficult" types with which you will have to go to a specialist, and drag him all your undifferentiated fees - do not respect his time. And the fact that ground beetles and elephants can all be identified on molbiol I leave no comments, you can just try to put someone from the genus Amara or Harpalus on the definition and you will understand everything yourself...

If a person decided to seriously engage in a group, then he will have to drag all the savings to a specialist, otherwise there is no way, Although I didn't have to drag anything except 2 beetles ))
And it is sometimes very unproductive to sit for a long time and dig into the signs. It is necessary to look at both photos and other people's sobrs with definitions, etc. and then you can start to understand at least what to look at.
After looking at the student definitions, I begin to understand that it is better to know at least approximately where to look first, and then look for it. Because students, out of ignorance, do not correctly determine even the family of large beetles (and they try after all!)
And to determine the amar even by the determinant is useless For many groups of good determinants and does not exist. And no one knows the Lamostenuses at all.. Even for the most part, there is no point in contacting specialists. Here you need to start with a clean slate - first a lot of fees, then a lot of research on museum materials, then carrying genitals, looking at holotypes, describing species .. ) Because if something is known by Lamostenus (Well, tafoxenus, pseudotafoxenus) - this is the Crimea, and then everything goes like in the twilight - something is visible, but for the most part no longer))

Apparently, if you start dealing with leaf beetles, you will need to take a series of Colorado potato beetles to a specialist for determination? There are some types that are defined simply and unambiguously, and I don't see any point in taking a specialist's time to view them.
And trying to understand the signs yourself is often very productive, especially if you use not one, but several determinants, they often perfectly complement each other.
And I know very well about the quality of student definitions, the point here is complete ignorance of the insect's body parts, and often unwillingness to know. Most of the students try to identify the pictures at all, despite the teacher's instructions not to use them.

don't overdo it

But I think that you should first determine it yourself, otherwise you won't be able to enter the group. You don't need to sit down seriously and for a long time, until you get the signs, it can take a decent amount of time. In this way, most of the more or less common species can be identified. And in order to understand someone else's understanding better, there are drawings in the determinants, and the presence of a large amount of material for the group helps - there is something to compare it with. Of course, there are still "difficult" types with which you will have to go to a specialist, and drag him all your undifferentiated fees - do not respect his time. And the fact that ground beetles and elephants can all be identified on molbiol I leave no comments, you can just try to put someone from the genus Amara or Harpalus on the definition and you will understand everything yourself...

100 percent must first be determined by yourself. It's also very interesting.

And I know very well about the quality of student definitions, the point here is complete ignorance of the insect's body parts, and often unwillingness to know. Most of the students generally try to identify the pictures, despite the teacher's instructions not to use them .

And they also try to compare the appearance of the insect and the name-without looking at the definition, of course. As I remember now, one girl persistently called the babblers "flower flies". So I got a real flower girl (fam. Anthomyiidae) for the test, which I couldn't identify.

The most funny thing is that the role of a "mentor" and a specialist by definition is played here by Ripper, who, as I remember, did not even have a binocular (M. B. bought it?)....

The most funny thing is that the role of a "mentor" and a specialist by definition is played here by Ripper, who, as I remember, did not even have a binocular (M. B. bought it?)....

Just a person is trying to make sense of his communication with specialists, which he suddenly had. He already has a pair of binoculars. "Do not judge, but you will not be judged" His thoughts do not claim to be the highest authority at all, but go in the "what I think, I write" mode.

If this is in the "what I think is what I write" mode, why try to convince a beginner in working with the determinant that nothing worthwhile will come out of it anyway without the participation of cool specialists, you should not even try. By the way, a significant part of the participants of our forum determine the fees themselves and enjoy it. And if something doesn't work out, you can also ask for help.

I hope my work has convinced someone that using the determinant is not as scary as it seems at first glance (this is what it was aimed at). The idea was that when you get to the theses or antitheses (without having visual material), you can look at a more detailed description of the genus in the definition of species (sometimes this helps). One hundred percent agree that in the definition of combined work with several determinants on a positive thought often pushes.

I also think that you should first work with the tables yourself, most beetles, especially with the acquisition of the skill, will be determined. For a smaller part, it is necessary to accumulate material (a sample of this species and other species of this genus, or genera from this family if we are talking about determining the genus). Independent work with the material is not only necessary, but, as we wrote here, it is also the most interesting activity. And already when the experience on these specific beetles is accumulated and there are still questions, then you should go to a specialist with your problems.

I'm as misunderstood as ever

Many thanks to Omar for the binocular!!!
Actually, even before that, I had already used it for a long time, only very often, since I didn't have a home.

Bmnocular and determinant are very important components of an entomologist's life. But if you are seriously engaged in any group, then the determinant cannot serve as a guide, and you should not just limit yourself to it.

But I have already encountered a hundred times when I myself and various specialists came to false conclusions (for example, when an elephant specialist determines a barbel, etc.). All because you can't limit yourself to just one determinant. There are simple groups that are like tails on the orpedelator, and there are complex ones that are difficult to split even with a good hammer.
That's why I gave sei opuses, thinking about how best to study the group if you take it seriously

For the life of you, some beetles are not so easy to understand just by having binoculars and a detector. And with many the situation is not clear to this day (take only the groups Agapantia, Amulet, Tetrols, Vadonia, Molorhus, etc. You can suffer for many weeks over the definition, and in the definition of some you can be absolutely sure, and then some good article comes out, or a revision, or just talk with a specialist and get a complete answer). ablom)
Therefore, in order to know different signs, learn to understand and identify insects, you need to work with the determinant. But if you go deeper into the group, you will have to push harder.

So that later there were no such words "I determined it by the determinant, I checked it a thousand times, and you say that the beetle is not the same at all"

Duc before you seriously engage in any group, you must first work hard, defining simpler types. And when preferences are outlined, you need to study the articles, revisions, and determinants as fully as possible. At this stage, of course, the help of a specialist will be quite useful. But it seemed to me that Trofim did not write about this at all, but about the identification of a large number of species of different groups by a novice in this business.
And you don't have to pray for specialists like you do for an icon. They sometimes use qualifiers, and sometimes make mistakes. In addition, they are clearly not made in secret laboratories, but have achieved their mastery through long painstaking work. And they probably also started working with imperfect determinants. So, there is something to strive for if you want to do entomology seriously.

Opredeliteshl on tog and determinant to clearly delve into the signs, and not come up with methods how to outsmart the determinant, which itself can very well outsmart

I can't disagree with that. Fitting can sometimes work, and sometimes leave the fitter in the fools In general, it is better to determine honestly. If the antennae are not visible , you need to rewire them and next time think that you will most likely need to look at them well. Guessing in this case is unacceptable. In some groups, it is necessary to see the bottom of the body-they must be glued on the side or removed for identification from the dies. This has already been written here, but I will repeat it again - it is very interesting to determine for yourself. When everything fits together, you feel proud of yourself as a genius

I can't disagree with that. Fitting ...

Maybe I didn't express my negative and ironic assessment of this "method" enough in the previous answer, so I correct it.
Of course, this is a simplified (but, as you correctly noted, punishable) approach, especially attractive for such inveterate lazy people as I am. Honestly, I used the "fit".

I also used it sometimes.... But more often then it turned out that in reality everything was completely different... Sometimes, however, it is useful to cut off part of the table on a geographical basis, but you can fly in on this - in this age of redrawing nature, anything can happen...

The idea is understood. Fit

At least now I'll straighten the antennae of water beetles. And then before the jaw palps just pulled out and rejoiced in the symmetry. And now I already know what the signs should be in plain sight.

And I think that you Trofim opened an interesting topic. After all, no matter how good it is to have a full photo, this is an auxiliary thing, and you can't get far without working with definitional tables in taxonomy.

This post was edited by amara - 09/20/2008 17: 59

Well what. If we sum up the first results, we can conclude that for the correct definition it is necessary:
1. More collectible material from the group you decided to define
2. A good knowledge of what features are important in determining this group and the ability to straighten the material so that these features are visible.
3. The presence of several qualifiers and just literature for the group.
4. Patience and hard work. Until you go through the definition tables several hundred times, you won't get a high - quality definition.

And you will be happy...

I will contribute my five kopecks to the discussion. In some determinants, the authors are quite free with plesiomorphic and apomorphic features. Probably, when compiling them, they didn't even bother with their status and eligibility for use. As a result, there are often parallel branches in the definition tables, in which the same signs are repeated, and often not only the same, but also fuzzy, highly overlapping, depending on the lighting, the subject's vision, his ideas about the tenderness of shape and color, and ratings(very/not very) . For example, the other day I tried in vain to identify the Ground Beetles of Tatarstan, Agonus species, by the determinant. I came to the conclusion that without a sufficiently complete collection of series(10-30) of all known species of the genus, it is impossible to learn how to identify them from one instance. Except for trivial ones that have clear, obvious external signs. And not the fact that all the types in the determinant are real, everything is very amorphous and not clear.

This post was edited by Seneka - 19.02.2011 18: 15