E-mail: Password: Create an Account Recover password

About Authors Contacts Get involved Русская версия

show

Genus Philonthus - another typo?

Community and ForumTaxonomy. ClassificationGenus Philonthus - another typo?

Seneka, 20.01.2013 1:09

In the Index of insects of the European part of the USSR T II.
Coleoptera/ Staphylinidae, p. 140, theses 11 (14) and 14 (11), are they not mixed up in places?
How many points in each longitudinal row on the pronotum should there be in such species as
Philonthus temporalis, Ph. carbonarius, Ph. decorus?
It is clear that if the same determinant was determined, then they also received it. Who has seen their types?

This post was edited by Dracus - 28.01.2013 14: 41

Comments

20.01.2013 15:44, Seneka

That's why I'm asking. My beetles, and all the photos on the Internet, have 3 points, and according to the determinant, they should be 4. If you connect your imagination and pull up the remote points to the side, you can find both 4 and 5 ...

20.01.2013 15:59, amara

Yes, these types should have 4, so there is no error in the determinant in this case.

You need a good picture of the pronotum to understand how many fairly large points-pits (not bristle-bearing pores) your beetles have there. They may not be strictly in a straight line.

Here, look, in this picture you can see three dots, and the fourth, which you probably do not take into account, is at the very back edge of the pronotum

http://www.biolib.cz/en/image/id34256/

This post was edited by amara - 20.01.2013 16: 27
Likes: 1

20.01.2013 17:16, Seneka

Yes, these types should have 4, so there is no error in the determinant in this case.

You need a good picture of the pronotum to understand how many fairly large points-pits (not bristle-bearing pores) your beetles have there. They may not be strictly in a straight line.

Here, look, in this picture you can see three dots, and the fourth, which you probably do not take into account, is at the very back edge of the pronotum

http://www.biolib.cz/en/image/id34256/

Thanks! I really do not take this point, because it is special, and there (along the back edge) there are many of them. I expect that in such cases, there should be a clarification - "one of which is separated by a large gap and lies at the back edge". Ahead, slightly to the side, but much closer, there are still points and there are some missing ones in the middle of the row. In general, I figured it out, thanks for the confirmation.

20.01.2013 17:25, amara

Thanks! I really do not take this point, because it is special, and there (along the back edge) there are many of them. I expect that in such cases, there should be a clarification - "one of which is separated by a large gap and lies at the back edge". Ahead, slightly to the side, but much closer, there are still points and there are some missing ones in the middle of the row. In general, I figured it out, thanks for the confirmation.



This is a natural process, and is called "gaining experience in identifying a specific group".

And there is also an expression: "Defining tables are written by those who do not need them and for those who will not be able to use them." smile.gif

This post was edited by amara - 20.01.2013 17: 25

20.01.2013 18:41, Mantispid

In Quaffe, this is called 3+1
, i.e. three points are close to each other and one point is separate from the rest

20.01.2013 22:17, Fornax13

In Quaffe, this is called 3+1
, i.e. three points are close to each other and one point is separate from the others

not necessarily, m. b. and approximately at the same distance. the pore that I marked as " 1 " is always present (even if there are no rows, as in laminatus, for example), and it is most often not visible in photos.

this is how it looks like "1+3" from Quaffe and "4 dots" from green
picture: Philonthus_atratus_ms.jpg
"1+4 "or" 5 points"
picture: Philonthus_rectangulus_ms.jpg
"1+0" or what is called "no rows of large dots"in green
picture: Philonthus_laminatus_ms.jpg

This post was edited by Fornax13-20.01.2013 22: 57
Likes: 2

21.01.2013 0:57, Seneka

not necessarily, m. b. and approximately at the same distance. the pore that I marked as " 1 " is always present (even if there are no rows, as in laminatus, for example), and it is most often not visible in photos.

this is how it looks like "1+3" from Quaffe and "4 dots" from green
picture: Philonthus_atratus_ms.jpg
"1+4 "or" 5 points"
picture: Philonthus_rectangulus_ms.jpg
"1+0" or what is called "no rows of large dots"in green
picture: Philonthus_laminatus_ms.jpg

Thank you, very clearly.
But, this is the second point of view. Amara was talking about the point at the back edge, not at the front...
Together with the back point, if there is one at all, it turns out 1+3+1 and 1+4+1
Still would see 1+2, which would mean 3 dots in Green.

This post was edited by Seneka - 21.01.2013 01: 09

21.01.2013 2:12, Fornax13

Thank you, very clearly.
But, this is the second point of view. Amara was talking about the point at the back edge, not at the front...
Together with the back point, if there is one at all, it turns out 1+3+1 and 1+4+1
Still would see 1+2, which would mean 3 dots in Green.

the back doesn't count. the Poles have a picture of Levikollis with 3 dots in " Klucze...", but if the beetles are from ETR, then you can ignore this group, they are mountain.
In general, philonts are well drawn in this book, which helps a lot. The number and location of pores is a good sign, but in some groups of philonts, the number of pores in a row may differ even on the right and left sides of a single beetle.

This post was edited by Fornax13-21.01.2013 02: 33

21.01.2013 5:56, amara

21.01.2013 9:29, Seneka

the back doesn't count. the Poles have a picture of Levikollis with 3 dots in " Klucze...", but if the beetles are from ETR, then you can ignore this group, they are mountain.
In general, philonts are well drawn in this book, which helps a lot. The number and location of pores is a good sign, but in some groups of philonts, the number of pores in a row may differ even on the right and left sides of a single beetle.

I've seen such asymmetric instances before.

In general, it is strange that the feature is called "two rows of points". In fact, it is one, but it has two-way symmetry. I thought at first that I meant two longitudinally converging rows on each side (3+3). They are there. Moreover, the leading point refers, rather, to the second row, lies on the straight line of the second row. Seen in the first photo.

And you can, if it is not difficult, post scans of these tables in the section "Scans of books with entomological topics". Quaffe has already been posted there.

This post was edited by Seneka - 21.01.2013 10: 05

21.01.2013 12:39, Fornax13

I've seen such asymmetric instances before.

And you can, if it is not difficult, post scans of these tables in the section "Scans of books with entomological topics". Quaffe has already been posted there.

http://156.17.59.206/KLUCZE%20DO%20OZNACZA...111_XIX_24e.pdf
Likes: 1

New comment

Note: you should have a Insecta.pro account to upload new topics and comments. Please, create an account or log in to add comments.

* Our website is multilingual. Some comments have been translated from other languages.

Random species of the website catalog

Insecta.pro: international entomological community. Terms of use and publishing policy.

Project editor in chief and administrator: Peter Khramov.

Curators: Konstantin Efetov, Vasiliy Feoktistov, Svyatoslav Knyazev, Evgeny Komarov, Stan Korb, Alexander Zhakov.

Moderators: Vasiliy Feoktistov, Evgeny Komarov, Dmitriy Pozhogin, Alexandr Zhakov.

Thanks to all authors, who publish materials on the website.

© Insects catalog Insecta.pro, 2007—2024.

Species catalog enables to sort by characteristics such as expansion, flight time, etc..

Photos of representatives Insecta.

Detailed insects classification with references list.

Few themed publications and a living blog.