Difficult Agrilus

Actually, in my opinion, Agrilus ribesi should be "bred" with Agrilus viridis Very similar...
Here, follow this link: http://www.cnshb.ru/AKDiL/0038/base/k052.shtm you can "click" on each specific name, opening up the defining features as a result...

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 17.11.2011 23: 19

No, viridis is immediately different, it is larger, green and with pointed tips of elytra. But about cuprescens / ribesi is not clear. I probably have both types, since I didn't know about the existence of ribesi until yesterday.

Do you know about Agrilus populneus Schaefer, 1946?

Do you know about Agrilus populneus Schaefer, 1946?

No, I'm hearing it for the first time, can I tell you more? I just caught my viridis on poplar

About populneus (aka suvorovi) I found enough detailed information.
That's who needs it:
http://www.entomologiitaliani.net/public/f...php?f=73&t=5107

But my question remains open, how to distinguish cuprescens from ribesi? (except for the nonsense that is written in opr. dv)

ribesi is healthy (with viridis, on average) and on currants, while cuprescens is fairly smaller and ... not on currants and rosehips, for example. Endek knows the rest. If he hasn't already done anything with this ribesi. I haven't got the books yet, alas.

They write that they differ (if at all) poorly at the morphological level, easier on plants, or at the molecular level

http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1040/eje_102...9_Bernhardt.pdf

So.

1. Agrilus viridis (L., 1758), Saratov region, Saratovsky district, Burkin station, on the trunk of a fallen poplar (or aspen).


2. Agrilus ?cuprescens (Ménétriés, 1832), Saratov region, Engelsky district, pos. Lesnoy, on ?raspberries


3. Agrilus ?cuprescens (Ménétriés, 1832), Saratov region, Saratovsky district, village. Doktorovka, on ?rosehip


4. Agrilus ?cuprescens (Ménétriés, 1832), Tambov region, Tambov district, Gorelsky forestry, mowing on shrubs


As you can easily see, viridis differs well from cuprescens not only in appearance - the color and shape of the elytra tips, but also in the structure of the aedeagus, especially its dotted line.
But among the 3 "cuprescens" presented, there are also noticeable differences, hence the assumption that at least one of them is not "cuprescens". Taki dela.

They write that they differ (if at all) poorly at the morphological level, easier on plants, or at the molecular level

http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1040/eje_102...9_Bernhardt.pdf

By the way, if species do not differ morphologically at all, but only at the molecular level, then these are not species, but one species.

By the way, if species do not differ morphologically at all, but only at the molecular level, then these are not species, but one species.

I clicked on thank you by mistake (this is how I often get lost here).

I don't agree with this.

First, "nothing morphologically" means that to date, the examination has not revealed any differences. Tomorrow, if you dig deeper, for example, at the level of the structure of the digestive system, (this is already the anatomy on living specimens, but these species are close in origin and the food base of their larvae has separated them into non-overlapping populations), they will be found.

Dry instance on a pin, this is not a top for diagnostics!

There are signs that are clearly visible on a scanning electron microscope, and which are used in modern taxonomy, to separate genera and even families of some beetles, but for an amateur with a small budget, this approach to diagnostics is not attractive, to put it mildly.

Similarly, diagnostics at the molecular level.

For a species, it is important that it distinguishes its own from others, sometimes, for example, only by a sound signal, and it, this biological species, does not care whether a person distinguishes these species from collection samples using the budget available to him.

amara
If you think I'm going to argue with you, you're very much mistaken. The topic is not about molecular biology, but about goldfish of the genus Agrilus and in particular from the viridis group. So let's get back to it?

This post was edited by Mantispid - 19.11.2011 14: 12

No, viridis is immediately different, it is larger, green and with pointed tips of elytra.

viridis, by the way, is very diverse in size and color:


All these specimens were collected on the same shrubby willow tree 05. VI. 2011 in the vicinity of Yaroslavl, and different colored specimens were mated.

But about cuprescens / ribesi is not clear. I probably have both types, since I didn't know about the existence of ribesi until yesterday.

ribesi is healthy (with viridis, on average) and on currants, while cuprescens is fairly smaller and ... not on currants and rosehips, for example. Endek knows the rest. If he hasn't already done anything with this ribesi. I haven't got the books yet, alas.

As smax rightly pointed out, cuprescens is much smaller than both viridis and ribesi. I have Agrilus (s) collected on currants from the Yaroslavl region, Kostroma and Moscow. Tomorrow I will try to remove and put in comparison with viridis.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 19.11.2011 16: 29

Here, by the way, is an image of ribesi:

Photo from Forum Entomologi Italiani website http://www.entomologiitaliani.net/public/f...pBB3/search.php

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 19.11.2011 16: 41

Dmitrich, do you happen to have ribesi genitals prepared ?

  Dmitrich, do you happen to have ribesi genitals prepared ?

No.

I couldn't shoot it well . But the "general view" is visible.

Nos. 1-3 are collected on currant (Moscow region, Istra district, Dedovsk, 25.VI.2011), Nos. 4-6-on shrub willow (05.VI.2011 in the vicinity of Yaroslavl).



the two on the left are ?ribesi, and the two on the right are exactly viridis.


In general, the differences are visible on the series. First of all: viridis has elytra with narrowly drawn, angularly rounded apices, often bearing small teeth along the edge, and the forehead is strongly expanded in the posterior part; ribesi has elytra with slightly drawn, mostly smoothly rounded apices, and the forehead between the eyes with almost parallel sides. Well, of course, when collecting, I still focus on the forage plant: ribesi-only on currants and sometimes on gooseberries comes across.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 20.11.2011 18: 32

The topic is the most relevant!
And I have a question in the topic:
Actually, no one knows this blue animal?
Quite small (the size of the ecz in the photo is approx. 5,5 mm.).
A small series was collected on a fallen oak tree in a thicket of raspberries (there were also raspberries on raspberries as well as on oak trees, so I'm even confused about what exactly to tie).
Collected: 01.07.2000. Here: M. O., Lyuberetsky district, okr., D. Torbeevo.
P. S. There are certainly vague suspicions about Agrilus (Dentagrilus) cyanescens Ratzeburg, 1837 (= coeruleus Rossi, 1795 nec Thunberg, 1789), but I am an oak-oak in them

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 23.11.2011 16: 56

Pictures:

PB233318.JPG — (40.5к)

The topic is the most relevant!
And I have a question in the topic:
Actually, no one knows this blue animal?
Quite small (the size of the ecz in the photo is approx. 5,5 mm.).
A small series was collected on a fallen oak tree in a thicket of raspberries (there were also raspberries on raspberries as well as on oak trees, so I'm even confused about what exactly to tie).
Collected: 01.07.2000. Here: M. O., Lyuberetsky district, okr., D. Torbeevo.
P. S. There are certainly vague suspicions about Agrilus (Dentagrilus) cyanescens Ratzeburg, 1837 (= coeruleus Rossi, 1795 nec Thunberg, 1789), but I am an oak-oak in them

Fuck knows! These Agrilus(s) and under the binocular - tube! Looks like. Only Agrilus cyanescens develops on honeysuckle, like... I have one well-defined specimen in my collection. Collected not on the honeysuckle, but directly near it...

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 23.11.2011 21: 13

Fuck knows! These Agrilus(s) and under the binocular - tube! Looks like. Only Agrilus cyanescens develops on honeysuckle, sort of...

So there is no honeysuckle there (at least I haven't seen it, but I'm always running around)
UPD It seems to have dawned on Agrilus sulcicollis Lacordaire, 1835 this is most likely (there seems to be no one else).
Synonyms (and A. viridis called it):
Buprestis cyaneus Rossi, 1790
Buprestis elongatus Herbst, 1780
Agrilus elongatus Saunders, 1871
Agrilus maksimirus Stiller, 1918
Agrilus sahlbergi Mannerheim, 1837
Agrilus tenuis Ratzeburg, 1839
Agrilus viridis Gory & Laporte, 1837
And at Plavilshchikov it is given for oak:

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 23.11.2011 22: 01

Pictures:

plav.jpg — (98.22к)

Yes, and with these zlatkami, even Anthaxia is a cool genus there, especially given the absolute unsuitability of the fauna of the USSR (Richter) because it has a lot of mistakes.

It is necessary to pull the aedeagus, maybe there are some differences there?

So.

1. Agrilus viridis (L., 1758), Saratov region, Saratovsky district, Burkin station, on the trunk of a fallen poplar (or aspen).

Alas, this is (100%) suvurovi!

This post was edited by Liparus - 26.11.2011 00: 36

Yes, with these zlatkami,
---

Yeah, this is if you collect 1-2 pieces I don't know what they were collected on. And if you collect them in series or at least know what they are collected on, then it's easier to work with them.
This year, I collected syrgescens ssp. cuprescens on raspberries in a pine forest, scored a series of 30 copies and therefore easily figured out xy from females, xy from males.

This post was edited by Liparus - 26.11.2011 00: 45

Alas, this is (100%) suvurovi!

Why did you decide that? The legs are simply inverted, so they seem to be extended. Although I caught them, it seems, on a fallen poplar tree...

Yes, and with these zlatkami, even Anthaxia is a cool genus there, especially given the absolute unsuitability of the fauna of the USSR (Richter) because it has a lot of mistakes.

It is necessary to pull the aedeagus, maybe there are some differences there?

Uh-huh And Anthaxia sp. I have dofiga: Crimean and Armenian 1950s collection........
Don't know what to do: pipe

Why did you decide that?

Wrote in PM.

This post was edited by Liparus - 27.11.2011 15: 29

Here is such a rather large (L 12mm.) beast shibanul yesterday (07.06.2012) in the summer in the city center only once, under poplars . There are no considerations??introduced Agrilus (Uragrilus) planipennis Fairmaire, 1888?;? A. viridis?............

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 08.06.2012 09: 15

Pictures:

agrilus.JPG — (110.5к)

Here is such a rather large (L 12mm.) beast shibanul yesterday (07.06.2012) in the summer in the city center only once, under poplars . There are no considerations??introduced Agrilus (Uragrilus) planipennis Fairmaire, 1888?;? A. viridis?............

It looks like planipennis is valid.

So there is no honeysuckle there (at least I haven't seen it, but I'm always running around)
UPD It seems to have dawned on Agrilus sulcicollis Lacordaire, 1835 this is most likely (there seems to be no one else).
Synonyms (and A. viridis called it):
Buprestis cyaneus Rossi, 1790
Buprestis elongatus Herbst, 1780
Agrilus elongatus Saunders, 1871
Agrilus maksimirus Stiller, 1918
Agrilus sahlbergi Mannerheim, 1837
Agrilus tenuis Ratzeburg, 1839
Agrilus viridis Gory & Laporte, 1837
And at Plavilshchikov it is given for oak:

The subgenus IMHO is indeed the one-oak Quercuagrilus. But for sulcicollis they are too small. I think it's either A. (Q.) angustulus like this (which is more likely) or A. (Q.) obscuricollis. There shouldn't be any other such companies in the Ministry of Defense.

Here is another rather strange Agrilus ?viridis

Higher resolution photos - http://coleop123.narod.ru/collection/Agrilus_sp.htm

Label:
Russia, Saratov region, Tatishchevsky district, Yagodnaya Polyana village, on Corylus avellana, 22. VI. 2013

The fact that he was on hazel is 100%

Pictures:

Agrilus_sp_big.jpg — (476.2к)


Agrilus_sp_bok.jpg — (231.01к)


Agrilus_sp_e.jpg — (168.3 k)

I take it the genitals work? Is it just worth soaking and tugging your own?

I take it the genitals work? Is it just worth soaking and tugging your own?

they don't work on mine, I just pull them in a row, and suddenly ...

Has anyone sent material to Volkovich? I would add my own part from the Krasnoyarsk Territory. :-)

p. 115 especially zlatka from 27.02.2009 according to the signs, I generally come out on a species that is not characteristic of the fauna of Siberia-Agrilus laticornis (=asperrinus)?? and then a couple more views

page 277 of 11.09.2011 shows a view from wormwood, which I couldn't fully determine

Here is another rather strange Agrilus ?viridis

Higher resolution photos - http://coleop123.narod.ru/collection/Agrilus_sp.htm

Label:
Russia, Saratov region, Tatishchevsky district, Yagodnaya Polyana village, on Corylus avellana, 22. VI. 2013

The fact that he was on hazel is 100%

Well, with hazel (hazel) it seems like only Agrilus kaluganus is known to me from the literature. But neither in kind, nor a photo of this beetle has not seen-I know that the description is black and bronze, rather small-a little more than 5 mm. The marginal and subcranial keels of the pronotum in the posterior third should merge into one...

Well, with hazel (hazel) it seems like only Agrilus kaluganus is known to me from the literature. But neither in kind, nor a photo of this beetle has not seen-I know that the description is black and bronze, rather small-a little more than 5 mm. The marginal and subcranial keels of the pronotum in the posterior third should merge into one...

I think Ilya took it into account when determining it... Yes, and the photo seems to show that the indentation on the PRSP. interrupted + keels do not merge. Once a male, and even the only one, then on the hazel tree could quite accidentally be (or you need to look for others in the trail. year). In my opinion - viridis suvorovi-at the current level of our knowledge about this group.
I've only found angustulus and viridis a couple of times in my hazel grove - all by accident, obviously . Although the angustulus of your own does not hurt to take another look at your leisure...

Yeah, this is if you collect 1-2 pieces I don't know what they were collected on. And if you collect them in series or at least know what they are collected on, then it's easier to work with them.
This year, I collected syrgescens ssp. cuprescens on raspberries in a pine forest, scored a series of 30 copies and therefore easily figured out xy from females, xy from males.

Here! One of the most sensible thoughts in this topic. Collect more and purposefully. And enlightenment will come . Down with random mowing, you know!

Good evening. Here I have a few questions.
1.narrow-bodied zlatka. I go out on Agrilus laticornis (=asperrinus) or A. angustulus
6.5 mm. The keels merge along the edge of the pronotum. The last segment of the abdomen with a longitudinal notch. There are no white spots on the elytra.

This smacks a bit of masochism, but I'll try to help and play the fun "Guess the agrilus from Krasnoyarsk from the photo". Please do not read for the faint of heart .

If we assume that the European Querquagrilus does not reach Krasnoyarsk (since they are not in the Official DV, but in fact this is not a fact and I did not raise the literature on this genus in your area), then we determine the theses from 1 to 10 by DV (indentation in the middle of the prsp. it's solid, isn't it?).
It seems to me (I have already crossed myself) or do the whitish shiny hairs really cover the entire body, incl. ndkr., evenly? If you are sure that this is a male, take a look at the first sternum of the belly: are there bumps at the very back edge (what are they in this case) or not? Aedeagus wouldn't hurt either.
I have analyzed the theses fluently. pekinensis? ussurricolapseudoussuricola? . Volkovich needs some luck, though.
That's all, there's no time to watch others yet... Everyone is still asleep, and I have to go to work .

This smacks a bit of masochism, but I'll try to help and play the fun "Guess the agrilus from Krasnoyarsk from the photo". Please do not read for the faint of heart .

If we assume that the European Querquagrilus does not reach Krasnoyarsk (since they are not in the Official DV, but in fact this is not a fact and I did not raise the literature on this genus in your area), then we determine the theses from 1 to 10 by DV (indentation in the middle of the prsp. it's solid, isn't it?).
It seems to me (I have already crossed myself) or do the whitish shiny hairs really cover the entire body, incl. ndkr., evenly? If you are sure that this is a male, take a look at the first sternum of the belly: are there bumps at the very back edge (what are they in this case) or not? Aedeagus wouldn't hurt either.
I have analyzed the theses fluently. pekinensis? ussurricolapseudoussuricola? . Volkovich needs some luck, though.
That's all, there's no time to watch others yet... Everyone is still asleep, and I have to go to work .

well, since the activity in this field has increased, then I will take them on when I get home. Let's try to figure it out. I will try to answer all your questions. Yes, this copy broke my head myself.
I just looked at how famously in the topic "definition of beetles" people famously determine the view from one blurred photo without visible signs. And sometimes I don't get one gram closer to the truth with photographing signs. Perhaps the geographical location of the gathering place plays a role here, but Siberia is not Europe.