Genus Philonthus - another typo?

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 ...

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

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.

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."

This post was edited by amara - 20.01.2013 17: 25

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

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

"1+4 "or" 5 points"

"1+0" or what is called "no rows of large dots"in green


This post was edited by Fornax13-20.01.2013 22: 57

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

"1+4 "or" 5 points"

"1+0" or what is called "no rows of large dots"in green

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

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

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

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