Taxonomy of Hymenoptera

This is a modern classification of the squad, there are various small variations, but in general it is stable.

Suborder-Apocrita
Infrasorder-Aculeata
Infrasorder-Terebrantes
Subsorder -Symphyta

Suborder -Apocrita

Infraorder -Aculeata

Superfamily -Apoidea
Family -Ampulicidae
Family -Andrenidae
Family -Angarosphecidae
Family -Apidae
Family -Colletidae
Family -Crabronidae
Family -Halictidae
Family -Heterogynaidae
Family -Megachilidae
Family -Melittidae
Family -Paleomelittidae
Family -Sphecidae
Family -Stenotritidae
Superfamily -Bethylonymoidea
Family -Bethylonymidae
Superfamily -Chrysidoidea
Family -Bethylidae
Family -Chrysididae
Family -Dryinidae
Family -Embolemidae
Family -Plumariidae
Family -Sclerogibbidae
Family -Scolebythidae
Superfamily -Vespoidea
Family -Bradynobaenidae
Family -Falsiformicidae
Family -Formicidae
Family -Mutillidae
Family -Pompilidae
Family -Rhopalosomatidae
Family -Sapygidae
Family -Scoliidae
Family -Sierolomorphidae
Family -Tiphiidae
Family -Vespidae

Infraorder -Terebrantes

Superfamily -Ceraphronoidea
Family -Ceraphronidae
Family -Maimetshidae
Family -Megaspilidae
Family -Stigmaphronidae
Superfamily -Chalcidoidea
Family -Agaonidae
Family -Aphelinidae
Family -Chalcididae
Family -Encyrtidae
Family -Eucharitidae
Family -Eulophidae
Family -Eupelmidae
Family -Eurytomidae
Family -Leucospidae
Family -Mymaridae
Family -Ormyridae
Family -Perilampidae
Family -Pteromalidae
Family -Rotoitidae
Family -Signiphoridae
Family -Tanaostigmatidae
Family -Tetracampidae
Family -Torymidae
Family -Trichogrammatidae
Superfamily -Cynipoidea
Family -Archaeocynipidae
Family -Austrocynipidae
Family -Cynipidae
Family -Figitidae
Family -Ibaliidae
Family -Liopteridae
Family -Rasnicynipidae
Superfamily -Evanioidea
Family -Aulacidae
Family -Evaniidae
Family -Gasteruptiidae
Family -Praeaulacidae
Superfamily -Ichneumonoidea
Family -Braconidae
Family -Eoichneumonidae
Family -Ichneumonidae
Family -Praeichneumonidae
Superfamily -Megalyroidea
Family -Megalyridae
Superfamily -Mymarommatoidea
Family -Mymarommatidae
Superfamily -Platygastroidea
Family -Platygastridae
Family -Scelionidae
Superfamily -Proctotrupoidea
Family -Austroniidae
Family -Diapriidae
Family -Heloridae
Family -Jurapriidae
Family -Maamingidae
Family -Mesoserphidae
Family -Monomachidae
Family -Pelecinidae
Family -Peradeniidae
Family -Proctorenyxidae
Family -Proctotrupidae
Family -Roproniidae
Family -Vanhorniidae
Superfamily -Serphitoidea
Family -Serphitidae
Superfamily -Stephanoidea
Family -Stephanidae
Superfamily -Trigonaloidea
Family -Trigonalidae

Suborder -Symphyta

Superfamily -Cephoidea
Family -Cephidae
Superfamily -Orussoidea
Family -Orussidae
Superfamily -Pamphilioidea
Family -Megalodontesidae
Family -Pamphiliidae
Superfamily -Siricoidea
Family -Anaxyelidae
Family -Siricidae
Superfamily -Tenthredinoidea
Family -Argidae
Family -Blasticotomidae
Family -Cimbicidae
Family -Diprionidae
Family -Pergidae
Family -Tenthredinidae
Superfamily -Xiphydrioidea
Family -Xiphydriidae
Superfamily -Xyeloidea
Family -Xyelidae

This post was edited by Proctos - 04/16/2011 12: 44

Thank You

Interesting discovery: http://sbio.info/page.php?id=14612. It's time to look for new views on Red Square.

Interesting discovery: http://sbio.info/page.php?id=14612. It's time to look for new views on Red Square.

Especially deliver "bugs" from London

So all bees are in the same family - Apidae...
And this one is from the subfamily Halictinae

Thank you. - Wikipedia says that the subfamily Halictinae belongs to the family Halictidae.

This post was edited by Andreas - 22.01.2013 19: 55

Here is a list of genera in this subfamily: - It is unclear which genera belong to the Halictini tribe... The genera Sphecodes and Chlerogella are not suitable.

Agapostemon
Andinaugochlora
Ariphanarthra
Augochlora
Augochlorella
Augochloropsis
Chlerogella
Dialictus
†Eickwortapis
Evylaeus
Halictus
Lasioglossum
Mexalictus
Sphecodes
Temnosoma

I found another very serious publication, from which it follows that
the Halictini Tribe. Distributed worldwide. It includes about 2170 species. In contrast to Michener's classification (2000), Agapostemonoides, Archihalictus, Ctenonomia, Evylaeus, Lucasiellus, Nesohalictus, Pachyhalictus, Seladonia (including Vestitohalictus and Paraseladonia), and Zonalictus are also accepted as independent genera. Thus, the subfamily includes 32 genera. The tribe is divided into 5 subtribes (according to Pesenko, 2004): Halictina, Sphecodina, Thrinchostomina, Caenohalictina, and Gastrohalictina.

The rest is there-the keys and what I can't find in the photo will not help me at all.

I found out about a cool Russian special-Yuri Andreevich Pesenko. I will search for his coordinates to send him this photo to determine.

 

I found out about a cool Russian special-Yuri Andreevich Pesenko. I will search for his coordinates to send him this photo to determine.

On September 23, Yuri Andreevich Pesenko died at the age of 63

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=188011

I'm sorry , I didn't know... I'm very annoyed. And I feel sorry for him - he wasn't even an old peasant, and he was a kind man, as they say.
The case when the saying "There are no irreplaceable" doesn't work.

About the departed, either good or nothing...

I'm sorry , I didn't know... I'm very annoyed. And I feel sorry for him - he wasn't even an old peasant, and he was a kind man, as they say.
The case when the saying "There are no irreplaceable" doesn't work.

Good afternoon, speak up... Well, well.

Thank you. - Wikipedia says that the subfamily Halictinae belongs to the family Halictidae.

Gee-gee... Are you aware of how exactly Wikipedia "articles" are formed? This is in many ways a collection of fairy tales and jokes.
You can read it, but to refer to this resource is, sorry, bad manners.

So all bees are in the same family - Apidae...
And this one is from the subfamily Halictinae

As a non-specialist, it is very difficult for me to judge the feasibility of combining 20 thousand bee species into one family, but many of the apidological specialists in the works dated 2009-2012 still subdivide bees into the superfamily Apoidea and still divide them into the families Halictinae, Andrehidae, etc
. they adhere to your point of view. And accordingly, the belonging of all bees to the Apidae family is far from indisputable.

As a non-specialist, it is very difficult for me to judge the feasibility of combining 20 thousand bee species into one family, but many of the apidological specialists in the works dated 2009-2012 still subdivide bees into the superfamily Apoidea and still divide them into the families Halictinae, Andrehidae, etc
. they adhere to your point of view. And accordingly, the belonging of all bees to the Apidae family is far from indisputable.

Well, yes, of course...

But this is NOT MY point of view, namely, specialists in apidology. However, not those who stubbornly cling to "their" families, but those who consider the real picture of the relationship between bees and wasps on the basis of cladistic, genetic and serological analysis.

Specialists-sphecidologists turned out to be much more plastic, and neither the "new" scheme of their families, nor even the clumsy name "apoid wasps" caused such stubborn opposition as apidologists have.

Well, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not into bees.
I just want to say that, by and large, bees (all!!!) "they're just crabronid wasps that switched to a vegetarian diet in the larval stage. And they do not have any radical differences from crabronids. This can be confirmed by any cladist or paleontologist.

PS By the way, approximately the same picture can be observed in the case of ants.
According to modern concepts, ants (all in the rank of family) belong to the superfamily Vespoidea. But many formicologists continue to distinguish them in a separate superfamily Formicoidea, ignoring reality. So, apparently, it looks cooler.

Well, it's like bark beetles-weevils, specialists in weevils do not deal with bark beetles and continue to consider bark beetles as a separate family. It's more convenient this way)

As a non-specialist, it is very difficult for me to judge the feasibility of combining 20 thousand bee species into one family ...

And what do you think about the" expediency " of considering more than 17,000 species in one (!) family of Braconidae and almost 100,000 species in one (!) family of Ichneumonidae?
As far as I know, such numbers do not particularly bother any of the specialists involved in these groups.

Well, it's like bark beetles-weevils, specialists in weevils do not deal with bark beetles and continue to consider bark beetles as a separate family. It's more convenient this way)

Yes, it's probably more convenient for them...
But there is also an undeniable reality.

  
I just want to say that, by and large, bees (all!!!) "they're just crabronid wasps that switched to a vegetarian diet in the larval stage. And they do not have any radical differences from crabronids. This can be confirmed by any cladist or paleontologist.

No questions asked. Burrowing wasps are very close to bees. This does not prevent the division of burrowing oss into three families.
Well, it's still different Andrena from anthophora. and the anthophora is from sphecodes. They are still separated from each other. And to call these groups families or subfamilies is an indisputable question.

And what do you think about the" expediency " of considering more than 17,000 species in one (!) family of Braconidae and almost 100,000 species in one (!) family of Ichneumonidae?
As far as I know, such numbers do not particularly bother any of the specialists involved in these groups.

Don't they bother anyone? There were no attempts to divide the braconidae and ichneumonidae into different families?

No questions asked. Burrowing wasps are very close to bees. This does not prevent the division of burrowing oss into three families.
Well, it's still different Andrena from anthophora. and the anthophora is from sphecodes. They are still separated from each other. And to call these groups families or subfamilies is an indisputable question.

Ha, in the old days, burrowing wasps were divided into as many as 11 families!
But the point is not to divide something, but to combine something. It's about the level of differences.
So, in a simple way, all (!) bees differ from crabronid as much as from sphecid or ampulicide. This is the whole point of parsley. That is, the level of differences between all Apoidea families is the same.
Andrenes, halicts, or megachiles, etc. differ not at the level of crabronid or sphecid, but at the level of, for example, crabronin, pemphredonin, or philanthin... Simply put, at the level of subfamilies, not families.
Many apidologists do not want to admit this and hide behind the back of their patriarch, Charles Michener.
For the time being, I guess.

Thank you all for the clarification. Personally, as a non-specialist, I certainly like a more "crowded", simplified taxonomy. However, it is one thing when you get used to one thing and it is unpleasant to rebuild; it is another thing when the only reason for this division/grouping should be the presence of differences that come out of the disciplines that the AVA indicated.

In general, I personally hate this inflating of the number of taxon stages.

Well, it's like bark beetles-weevils, specialists in weevils do not deal with bark beetles and continue to consider bark beetles as a separate family. It's more convenient this way)

- Do not consider it a flood, - but to me, as a layman, it is bark beetles that seem most different in appearance from "weevils". And it also looks wild that the CURCULIONOIDEA superfamily is now divided into 14 families (Russian), of which there are as many as 8 "similar-nosed" ones!

I believe that along with the scientific reliability of systematic division, it is necessary for everyone to adhere to the same order so that there is no confusion.
Tell us that new research should make adjustments? - yes. "But who listens to it - part of it?" - And this is not a disagreement on the topic of morality, but TAXONOMY!

... Personally, as a layman, I certainly like a more "crowded", simplified taxonomy. However, it is one thing when you get used to one thing and it is unpleasant to rebuild; it is another thing when the only reason for this division/grouping should be the presence of differences that come out of the disciplines that the AVA indicated.

In general, I personally hate this inflating of the number of taxon stages.

To be consistent, the most" convenient " way would be to use the Linnean system of 1758, when all wasps had the generic name Vespa, and bees-Apis.
How do you personally like this approach? Can you imagine the keys to identify the species in these "genera"?

- Do not consider it a flood, - but to me, as a layman, it is bark beetles that seem most different in appearance from "weevils". And it also looks wild that the CURCULIONOIDEA superfamily is now divided into 14 families (Russian), of which there are as many as 8 "similar-nosed" ones!

And you can compare:
This is the kossonin weevil - http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/files/15/CRW_01081.jpg

and this is the bark beetle Tomicus piniperda -
http://macroid.ru/_data/55/CRW_4341.jpg

as for the "14 families", you probably looked at ZINA, there is an old fractional system, now there are much fewer of them (due to the unification of Apionidae, Brentidae and Nanophyidae)

- Do not consider it a flood, - but to me, as a layman, it is bark beetles that seem most different in appearance from "weevils". And it also looks wild that the CURCULIONOIDEA superfamily is now divided into 14 families (Russian), of which there are as many as 8 "similar-nosed" ones!

I believe that along with the scientific reliability of systematic division, it is necessary for everyone to adhere to the same order so that there is no confusion.
Tell us that new research should make adjustments? - yes. "But who listens to it - part of it?" - And this is not a disagreement on the topic of morality, but TAXONOMY!

Recently, I also searched for info on this issue, who writes Scolytidae who reduces both to the subfamily Scolytinae (family Curculionidae)...

And you can compare:
This is the kossonin weevil - http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/files/15/CRW_01081.jpg

and this is the bark beetle Tomicus piniperda -
http://macroid.ru/_data/55/CRW_4341.jpg

as for the "14 families", you probably looked at ZINA, there is an old fractional system, now there are much fewer of them (due to the unification of Apionidae, Brentidae and Nanophyidae)

they are similar in habit!!!

  
Andrenes, halicts, or megachiles, etc. differ not at the level of crabronid or sphecid, but at the level of, for example, crabronin, pemphredonin, or philanthin... Simply put, at the level of subfamilies, not families.
Many apidologists do not want to admit this and hide behind the back of their patriarch, Charles Michener.
For the time being, I guess.

If many professionals do not recognize this, then maybe the fact is that not everything is as simple and unambiguous as you say? Maybe in the end, it is the point of view that you broadcast that is wrong and the stagnant apidologists are right? Can you allow this to happen, or do you completely rule out such a possibility?
Maybe it makes sense not to rush and wait until the majority of experts come to a certain consensus before radically changing the bee system? Moreover, doubts are expressed by those who actually deal with these bees?

as for the "14 families", you probably looked at ZINA, there is an old fractional system, now there are much fewer of them (due to the unification of Apionidae, Brentidae and Nanophyidae)

A clear illustration of my main message - do not rush and immediately change the system of a certain group, even if some specialist comes up with a brilliant idea.
Just now, filled with pride, some comrades with a touch of slight contempt for neophytes said: "well, you write such a thing, well, what is the subfamily Nanophyinae, when every cultured person knows that this is a separate family Nanophyidae".
And before the people had time to remember this important fact, we were again told: "what kind of family is Nanophyidae? ta there is no such family at all, it has already been combined with apionins for six months"
However, until people get into it and start writing Nanophyinae "correctly", everything will change again and Nanophyidae will again acquire the status of a family...

I didn't mean to offend anyone..

..many professionals don't recognize this...

So I read this wonderful phrase and was moved to tears.
Tell me honestly, hand on heart, how many"professionals" -apidologists can you personally name from working in our country? But not those who publish works on formal or private issues, namely taxonomists. For example, half the fingers of one hand will be enough for me. The second half will be used for calculations in the United States, and the same amount will be used in Europe. Moreover, those who remain hold fast to their "roots" and are unwilling or unable to look deeper. Unfortunately...
And I'm not going to agitate anyone, let alone rush them. I have enough problems of my own.

The discrepancy between the ranks of taxa in different groups of animals is quite a natural phenomenon. Of course, bees differ less from each other than other Apoidea families. Well, whales, for example, differ from each other no more than bees of the same genus Andrena, and whales have several families, not even genera.
Personally, I like the Engel system, where there are 6 review families, although from the point of view of phyletic systematics, of course, it is more correct to combine bees into one family. And cladists will say-we will also combine it with crabronids, like all vascular plants in one department. Time will pass, most will switch to a new system, or come up with something else, but so far not all of the "professional" apidologists in the world use the same family, so we have to write in the old way to make it clearer what we are talking about (the stability of the nomenclature should also be within reasonable limits, naturally).

... a natural phenomenon...

What a wonderful idea!
So, the whole point of parsley is that the goal of taxonomy is not at all to provide practitioners with a convenient classification and defining tables. These are tasks for classifiers...

Taxonomy is concerned with the development of concepts and approaches designed to create a so-called "natural system" of living organisms, i.e. one that corresponds as closely as possible to the actual course of evolution of organisms. And this evolution turns out to be much more complex than any invented diagrams and tables. And this evolution and, accordingly, the goals of taxonomy stand above our immediate needs.

I do not in any way argue with the fact that this is one family, I myself did not study either the taxonomy or phylogeny of bees. If this approach is correct, most specialists will eventually switch to it. I just want to express some thoughts on this matter.
1) The remaining taxa of the family group will be demoted in rank, and what will happen to the smallest (subtribes)? Either they will disappear from the directories or remain subtribes, but then the tribes will be merged or something higher. In both cases, this is not a good thing.
2) There is still no consensus in bee taxonomy. Not everyone adheres to the Michener system, especially the Germans. They often combine genera that are considered independent all over the world (for example, Hoplitis and Osmia, or all the European genera Anthidiini (in the narrow sense, without Dioxyini) into one genus Anthidium). So the recognition of the "correct" system by everyone is still very far away. By that time, new data may appear, which will again cause a revision of the classification.
3) The "natural system" in my opinion should reflect both the cladogenetic and semogenetic components of evolution, and different approaches give each of them a different meaning, not to mention discrepancies in the reconstructions of cladogenesis obtained by different methods, or a dispute about which features have more weight when comparing who has moved away from whom longer in the course of semogenesis. In general, subjectivism is still inevitable as a result, and everyone will build the system in their own way.
Therefore, there is no point in arguing, people just need to know that there are several points of view: one family or 6 review points (7 with stenotritids) + one fossil.

Yes, more recently, Dasypodaidae and Meganomiidae are distinguished - http://www.pnas.org/content/103/41/15118.abstract

What a wonderful idea!
So, the whole point of parsley is that the goal of taxonomy is not at all to provide practitioners with a convenient classification and defining tables. These are tasks for classifiers...

Taxonomy is concerned with the development of concepts and approaches designed to create a so-called "natural system" of living organisms, i.e. one that corresponds as closely as possible to the actual course of evolution of organisms. And this evolution turns out to be much more complex than any invented diagrams and tables. And this evolution and, accordingly, the goals of taxonomy stand above our immediate needs.

I apologize, but who are the "classifiers"?

They, these taxonomists, are in some way "practical workers" themselves, and no taxonomist knows his group at such a level that he can completely do without a determinant, especially when there are 100,000 species in a group.
They either can't, don't want to, or can't and don't want to, and there are no other options. You know yourself that there are no technical problems for creating "correct" qualifiers, there are only psychological and economic ones.

This post was edited by Seneka - 01.03.2013 14: 50