Genus Scarabaeus

One of the most famous beetles is the Sacred Scarab. Well studied. Many legends are dedicated to scarabs. Even the ancient Egyptians worshipped this beetle.
Scarabs are most widely distributed in tropical and subtropical areas. In temperate latitudes, they are much less common. It is widely distributed in southern Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The beetle size is 2.5-4cm. Beetles roll balls of manure that serve as their food. For laying eggs, the female makes special pear-shaped balls. One egg is laid in each ball. The larva develops inside the balloon. After eating the contents of the balloon, it pupates, and after 27-35 days it turns into a beetle.
Author: VO

Scarbaeus sacer

Are you sure this is sacer? And where do you get the information that it even exists in Central Asia, especially widely distributed? Kabakov writes that he did not see the material from there.
P. S. Kabakov's monograph on Scarabaeinae is available on the Zinovsky website.

Most likely, the photo taken by Mr. VO from Astrakhan shows S. (s. str.) typhon(F.-W.).

Yes, it seems to have been preserved in the Caucasus, a specialist saw the material, but I didn't ask how fresh it was. However, it is not clear what is the basis for Zhabakov's references to Askania Nova (Kherson region) - all the Ascanian material in the reserve's collection and in ZINA belongs to typhon. In general, this topic is muddy Scarabaeus.

If sacer is preserved on the territory of the "former", then only as a relic.

S. sacer (100% non-typhon) definitely exists in the Belgorod region, and it is quite common there. This is a little-known fact, but it is true. No more than two weeks ago, I talked about this issue with A.V. Prisny from Belgorod University.

This post was edited by Necrocephalus - 03/10/2007 23: 10

Excuse me, Mr. Necrocephalus, but have these data been published? If so, where? And more. If you have personally caught this species, would you be able to provide pictures for everyone to see, and even better, pictures of the male's genitals, if any? Indeed, the photos of scarabs can not be determined exactly, since all of them (from the" former", of course) are basically similar to each other, but you can tell exactly who is in front of us by the parameters.
Sincerely,......

This post was edited by Nimrod - 12.03.2007 00: 33

Dear Mr. Nimrod, I based my post on the oral report of A.V. Prisny. If I'm not mistaken, the information that S. sacer lives on the territory of the Belgorod region, even in the CC of the Belgorod region. I think that this can already be considered a publication, and I also think that this is not the only publication. If you are interested, I can try to find out more specifically.
Unfortunately, I don't have any such dung beetles - I didn't catch them. I'm going to fill in that gap in the summer, and if I can do that, I'd like to share some material with you.
Sincerely.

2 species from the Scarabaeus river (as they say, find 10 differences):
Distribution and biology data are based on the latest monograph by O. N. Kabakov .
1. Scarabaeus (s. str.) typhon Fischer-Waldheim, 1823
Astrakhan Region, May 1999
The northernmost species of the genus, in Russia reaches the south of the Kursk, Voronezh and Samara regions. It is confined to sandy soils, active at night, years from mid-May to late September, the most widespread years until mid-summer.


2. Scarabaeus (s. str.) babori Balthasar, 1934 (actually it is also S. (s. str.) typhon - see below)
Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek region, near the Manas railway station, 30.07.2000 (copy - "disabled Stakhanovite", 2 middle teeth on the platelet were broken off, apparently, during life)
It is distributed throughout Central Asia, in Southern Kazakhstan, and in the north it reaches the Caspian lowland, the Aral Sea, and the Ili River. Mass species, years from March to October, from late March to mid-April-active during the day, and then switches to a nocturnal lifestyle, flying to the light. It occurs in all types of landscapes.


This post was edited by Bad Den - 07.04.2018 19: 44

By the way, Red Books are often a murky business.... For example, the red Book of the Chelyabinsk Region includes the barbel Purpuricenus kaehleri, although in fact the habitat of this species is not confirmed there and all indications refer in reality to Purpuricenus globulicollis ...

Bad Den, your photos?

This post was edited by rpanin - 13.03.2007 12: 15

2Necrocephalus
By the way, I also talked with A.V. Prisny on the topic of scarabs, and as far as I understood, the exact specimen (according to which it was entered in the CC) was in the collection without an exact geographical label. We also found the remains of beetles, if you manage to catch scarabs in the Belg region. it will be a great success!!!

I don't particularly understand the differences between Scarabaeus (s. str.) typhon and Scarabaeus sacer and Scarabaeus (s. str.) babori . on what basis are they separated?

Thank you for your feedback, Mr. Necrocephalus. Please do not take my previous post as something negative or even showing distrust of you - but you will agree that the information provided, if it turns out to be positive in the future, will undoubtedly be very valuable. And not to me, in the first place, but I am sure that to all our colleagues. After all, if you, for example, can find S. sacer this season.'a on the territory of the Belgorod region, and these finds will not be isolated-then it will be possible to say that this is a miraculously preserved micropopulation of this species in the region, obviously still endemic for it. This raises a lot of questions, such as:
1. Approximate number of individuals per unit area....
2. Habitat (whether or not it is confined to any biotopes, soils, depth and shape of burrows....)
3. What kind of cattle manure they feed on and feed the larvae. Subject to a choice, of course.
This is an approximate list, and certainly not displayed in the Red Book....
As for its possible location outside the specified area, it is most likely, as indicated by Mr.stierlyz, this species can be found in the Caucasus, and also in small quantities, distributed in some small areas.
As for the differences, as Mr. Bad Den correctly noted, and I also pointed out this earlier-it is almost impossible to distinguish them from the photo. Except, perhaps, for such species as S. transcaspicus and S. pius.

rpanin, that's right! First experiments, so to speak

Chromocenter, according to the photo - nothing, the species are very similar, differ in small details of the structure and genitals, of course.

[quote=Bad Den,13.03.2007 15:25]

 
I hope Mr. Bolivar doesn't take this suggestion as an attempt to tell him what to do and how to do it... [/color]

I don't appreciate the suggestion.

2 Nimrod: I understand your skepticism towards my post - a completely normal reaction, so insults are out of place here.I really hope that I will be able to please everyone interested with a new portion of information about Belgorod S. sacer after the season has already begun, in principle.
By the way, here is the literature that published information on S. sacer from the Belgorod region :
Red Data Book of the Belgorod region. Rare and endangered plants, fungi, lichens, and animals. Official publication / General. scientific ed. by A. V. Prisny (Collective monograph). Belgorod, 2005, 532 p. (in Russian)
Prisny A.V. Extrazonal groupings in the fauna of terrestrial insects of the south of the Central Russian upland. Belgorod: BelSU Publishing House, 2003, 296 p.

2 Elizar: unfortunately, these details are unknown to me. In their light, it is worth recognizing that my statement that S. sacer occurs" quite often " incorrectly-the reservation was probably caused by the impression of the very fact of finding S. sacer in the Belgorod region (I always believed that only S. typhon lives there).

Something I did not understand the "joke" with pictures of scarabs.. I didn't see through the chips. I didn't stick it in the post. I didn't know what the problem was. Well, in general, etc.

In my opinion, they are very well distinguishable: the 2nd small bump on the forehead (one just has bumps, the other seems to start growing from the edge of the boshki like keels, growing into bumps.) in typhon, the bumps are located at a distance, in babori they are close. In babori, the pronotum is rather strongly dotted, in typhon it is almost completely smooth. a smooth stripe on the pronotum - in babori along the entire length of the pronotum, in typhon it is short, only occupying the middle of the pronotum. In typhon, the elytra are almost smooth - the grooves are very weak, in babori they are quite clear + dots are visible. Typhon is kind of matte, babori is shiny. Well, the protrusions on the architrave - Typhon's extreme, not broken off protrusions are wider, differ in shape, Babori's are more protruding and even, it seems even a little longer. As Nimrod pointed out, the pubescence of the hind legs distinguishes the species very well. In Typhon, the shield is like an unfolded angle, and in Babori, it is sharp. The posterior edge of the pronotum of babori has dots along its entire length, and typhon has a flat surface without dots in the middle of the posterior edge. The posterior corners of the typhon's fart are more rounded, we can see the angle in Babori, and the shape of the fart when approaching the posterior corners is also noticeably different. Babori also has a small bump in the middle of the farthest edge of the pronotum, which is absent in typhon. Pay attention to the middle shins - typhon has 1 spike, babori has 3. The angle between the bumps on the platypus and the head (other bumps along the edge of the head) - babori has a narrow gap, and typhon has a kind of rounding inside (notch).. in general, I don't know what words to choose more precisely, but you can see everything quite well in the photos, you will understand for yourself
Thus, 15 differences, maybe not very obvious, but even in the field, in my opinion, clearly distinguishable

Andrey, and where is the guarantee that all these differences are specific, and not individual, because people can also have bigger ears or smaller ones.
Bad Den-so they differ in the details of the structure of the genitals. Are they divided on this basis?

RippeR, however...
Yes, genitals are the most reliable sign, in my opinion.

Not everyone knows how to work with the genitals.
About specific features.. Why then should genitals determine the species, since humans also have large and small ones
You can also check the genetic code and approve another species or subspecies on this basis, and this, apparently, will be the most correct definition..

I will allow myself to quote an essay on S. sacer from the CC of the Belgorod region
."..The presence of S. sacer in the Belgorod region was noted in the 60s-70s of the 20th century. Later, these finds were assigned to another species of the genus S. typhon F-W., which is widespread in the middle and northern steppe. However, this species is characterized by slightly pronounced angular tubercles on the inner edge of the front legs and, less clearly, a uniform dotted pronotum..."
Distribution and occurrence:"...There are indications that it is found in the Pooskolye River and in the middle reaches of the Seversky Donets River in the adjacent regions of Ukraine. It is recorded in the Volokonovsky and Valuysky districts. The last find of a live beetle - 1974, fragments of the deceased...- 1996... "
The reference for Ukraine is probably based on the work of V. V. Martynov, Ecological and faunal review of lamelliferous beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae)of South-Eastern Ukraine. Kharkiv. ent. about-va. 1997, vol. 5, issue 1. pp. 22-73.

2RippeR
Genitals in insects differ not only (and not so much) in size, but in shape. Similar species, but different genitals can not normally copulate, and therefore give full-fledged offspring. Although there are exceptions - then there are hybrids...

Nimrod-thank you for the detailed story about local Scarabs. Spring is just beginning (well, this is local time ), but there are still khamsinovs, it's good that there are none... Are they a hindrance to the Scarabs? After all, as if they should be used to dryness?
By the way, the fees you mentioned most likely relate to one very narrow place: the valley of the "Pine River" (Nahal Oren) - the "Canyon of Evolution", which the mentioned Pavlichek is engaged in.
Fishing may be possible - it's interesting to look at such close views in general, of course, but I'm not sure yet.

2RippeR
Genitals in insects differ not only (and not so much) in size, but in shape. Similar species, but different genitals can not normally copulate, and therefore give full-fledged offspring. Although there are exceptions - then there are hybrids...

Then... what types are they? (I'm at it again ... ) Just on the basis that their genitals differ to the same extent as the species close to them? And the description always checks who can copulate with whom?

A geneticist friend of mine explained it this way: there can be no mistakes in genetic testing. Just as there can't be 2 species with the same DNA, there can't be 1 species with different DNA.

Maybe. It all depends on the size of this "difference".

A geneticist friend of mine explained it this way: there can be no mistakes in genetic testing. Just as there can't be 2 species with the same DNA, there can't be 1 species with different DNA.

So it is clear that the DNA sequences from two fairly variable parts (not something like encoding tRNA or RNA receptors, proteins can already be because the code is degenerate) will differ not only in different species, but also in any two individuals, if they are not clones (in the latter case, they can be of course mutations during cloning, but there is a rather small chance). Well, we took two samples, isolated DNA from them and saw that the sequences in all, say, five sites that we checked, differ by some nucleotides. Even if one of the species is known and we have several more individuals of it, and we isolate DNA from each one, make up a consensus, then how do we say that the one we caught does not have DNA within the range of variability of the available one? Well, if there are very serious differences, then it's still possible. But it can also be a subspecies that is quite isolated? How do you know all this from the DNA alone?
Ouch... off turned out. And Bad Den posted something similar, which for some reason I didn't notice at first ... Well, do not wash the same in fact?!

Hi!

 
Scarabs are also "flowers". There are others. R. Lethrus, for example. To determine them, you need to have: a bunch of determinants, a carload of time and superhuman perseverance, as well as a sledgehammer - the more, the better. You can spend the whole day sitting over them (especially females) and determine, like, but the next day, looking again at the beetle (just in case), you understand your, say, mistake. And here you get a sledgehammer-all questions are immediately removed, and it becomes easy and good for you....
Of course, this is a joke, but I assure you, sometimes you just want to do it. But with scarabs, I personally seem to have already figured out. I spent a week looking through a lot of fees.....

That's for sure!
And sometimes I see a sledgehammer as the only acceptable option...

What's the point of looking for differences in the photos, if Zina has completely laid out the fauna of Kabakov? And its revision was published in 1980. I defined the Central Asian material - everything is b. m. it turns out, well, there are underdeveloped freaks. But this does not prevent the inclusion of S. sacer in the "Red Book of Ukraine", to bring for the island of Dzharylgach, for the Chernihiv region, etc., etc. Well, just a phantom beetle-no one really saw it, but everyone "watches" it.

Martynov worked for eight years in the reserve, and was unable to take Aphodius spalacophilus, A. citellorum and several other plate species. But the scarabs probably aren't there anymore.

in general, in that message I answered the question, as if showing that they do not differ in size.
This is a different matter, but it's kind of weird.. Why so..
A geneticist friend of mine explained it this way: there can be no mistakes in genetic testing. Just as there can't be 2 species with the same DNA, there can't be 1 species with different DNA.

Very likely! All taconomists need to remember that a species is not individual specimens that are similar to each other, but a POPULATION - a POOL of GENOTYPES (each individual) that together make up the general genotype of the species. That is, not every specimen will have a "universal" DNA characteristic of the species, but a set of specific genes responsible for the production of proteins that allow you to "be your own among your own".

Apparently I still have a long time to understand this topic..

In beetles, it would not be bad, but to have the material..