Subgenus Archiplectes (Carabus)

Unfortunately-it's all lennoni

Igor, thank you for the information and photos!
I will not discuss these taxa. There is not much material, and your opinion is certainly authoritative for me. But, I would like to hear your thoughts about the photos of endophallus below, namely, the structure of aggonoporia sclerite and other small details, including the edeagus lamella. One taxon is from the Kelasuri River (pictured above), and the other is from the southern part of Amtkel Lake. If all this is the lennoni morphotype, how can such a difference in the structure of scleritis be explained?

This post was edited by Entalex - 11.01.2013 08: 19

Pictures:

endoph_1.jpg — (74.39к)


end_2.jpg — (70.22к)

My kolzei lamella is wide, as it should be. C Kelasuri, as with Amtkela-thin and more elongated.
Question : did you put these materials on cotton wool or catch them yourself, or did you get them from Dima - could the labels have accidentally got mixed up there?
these are very muddy beetles, as well as taxa
, and in post 118 in picture 8 and 9 I don't see a fundamental difference - this is all within the limits of variability in one population.

This post was edited by I. solod - 11.01.2013 02: 20

No, the labels could not be confused

 
Question : did you put these materials on cotton wool or catch them yourself, or did you get them from Dima - could the labels have accidentally got mixed up there?
muddy is strongly beetles, as well as taxa

Oops, I just noticed that in the photo of endophallus, the bottom row of the image is mixed up in places for data. Corrected it.
Thank you, Igor. Material - Dimes. I have Retezar's book and, if I understand correctly, the shape of the lamella edeagus for the taxon koltzei in his photo corresponds to the real state of affairs?

Carabus (Archiplectes) protensus protensoides Novotný & Voříšek, 1988
(altitudinal forme) I. Solodovnikov det.
Georgia, Samegrelo, Egrisi region, h=1500 m.
21-25. V. 2013
Body length 33-36 mm.

This post was edited by Entalex - 21.10.2013 08: 20

Pictures:

C_protensus_protensus_f.jpg — (98.23к)


C_protensus_protensus_m.jpg — (69.85к)

Carabus (Archiplectes) protensus protensoides Novotný & Voříšek, 1988
Georgia, Samegrelo, Egrisi range, between the Khobi and Tehuri rivers.
18-26. V. 2013
Body length 36-39 mm.

Pictures:

C_protensus_protensoides_m.jpg — (70.56к)


C_protensus_protensoides_f.jpg — (93.19к)

Carabus (Archiplectes) daphnis askhicus Belousov, 1992 I. Solodovnikov det.
Georgia, Samegrelo, hr. Ofitsari, h=1900 m
. 22-25. V. 2013
Body length 28-30 mm.

This post was edited by Entalex - 24.10.2013 08: 18

Pictures:

C_daphnis_daphnis.jpg — (136.16к)

What is your opinion on this species (subspecies)?

Carabus (Neoplectes) starckianus kaljuzhnyii ZAMOTAILOV 1988 или Carabus (Archiplectes) kaljuzhnyii ZAMOTAILOV 1988 ?

Pictures:

D.jpg — (161.23к)


Carabus__Archiplectes__kaljuzhnyii_ZAMOTAILOV_1988.JPG — (161.41к)

I think it is more correct to use Carabus starckianus kaljuzhnyii. At least, it was first described as a subspecies of starckianus, and later it was considered as a separate species. Apparently, this form is close to C. obtusus ganglbaueri and some C. starckianus, most likely C. starckianus babukensis.

At the expense of the subgenus, I adhere to the classification adopted by Gottwald-Archiplectes.

I think it is more correct to use Carabus starckianus kaljuzhnyii. At least, it was first described as a subspecies of starckianus, and later it was considered as a separate species. Apparently, this form is close to C. obtusus ganglbaueri and some C. starckianus, most likely C. starckianus babukensis.

Pictures:

Thank_you_very_much.jpg — (17.51к)

Carabus ( Archiplectes ) compressus rebellis REITTER, 1884

besleticus dsychvensis Gottwald, 1985 Abkhasia: Dsykhva Mt., (h=2300)

This post was edited by I. solod - 27.09.2015 00: 58

Pictures:

satyrus_dsykhvensis_02.jpg — (181.28к)


satyrus_dsykhvensis_edeagus.jpg — (53.42к)

besleticus besleticus Kurnakov, 1972

This post was edited by I. solod - 27.09.2015 00: 58

Pictures:

satyrus_besleticus_01_green.jpg — (225.67к)


satyrus_besleticus_01_red.jpg — (231.67к)

besleticus mtsaranus Kurnakov, 1972 Bzybsky Mt.R.: Mtzara

This post was edited by I. solod - 27.09.2015 00: 59

Pictures:

satyrus_mzaranus_02_blue_violet.jpg — (209.52к)

besleticus napraensis Belousov & Zamot., 1993 (PARATYPUS)

This post was edited by I. solod - 27.09.2015 00: 59

Pictures:

satyrus_napraensis.jpg — (257.85к)

Carabus (Archiplectes) reitteri arabikensis Gottwald, 1985

Here, as a synonym

http://carabidae.org/carabidae/taxa/reitte...rinsky-mtr.html

Pictures:

Carabus__Archiplectes__reitteri_arabikensis_Gottwald__1985.JPG — (156.61к)

Carabus (Archiplectes) reitteri achunensis Gottwald, 1985

Here, as a synonym

http://carabidae.org/carabidae/taxa/reitte...owski-1885.html

Pictures:

Carabus__Archiplectes__reitteri_achunensis_Gottwald__1985.JPG — (352.09к)

ssp.achunensis Gottw. In the Palearctic Catalog, it is reduced to a synonym of the nominative reitteri, and arabikensis is a synonym of reitteri gagrinus Stark

original description of Gottwald, 1985

Pictures:

Carabus__Archiplectes__reitteri_achunensis_Gottwald___1985.jpg — (293.14к)


Carabus__Archiplectes__reitteri_arabikensis_Gottwald___1985.jpg — (289.4к)

IMHO, these are all ecological forms. C. reitteri achunensis is nominative, C. reitteri arabikensis is C. reitteri gagrinus. That's why they were synonymized. To separate each slightly separate form into a separate subspecies is the lot of merchants, from a scientific point of view, it is not justified. I might as well describe a dozen subspecies of C. prometheus and C. starkianus.

Moreover, Mamdzyshkh is home to typical C. reitteri gagrinus.

What would be so to say - you need to collect them there yourself from all heights and biotopes - do you have them, Sasha?
At the bottom and on the southern macroslope - they (gagrensis) run, but at the junction of Mamdzyshka (northern slopes) and the Arabica massif-very small and graceful-sharply different from the large and well - fed gagrensis-I recognize them as a nation.it is probably possible to consider this ecological form - but it is also possible to consider it a nation - a debatable issue

But I don't know about C. reitteri achunensis, which is an ecological form. Sasha, what kind of biotope and distribution heights do you think the nominative reitteri reitteri has, what would it be considered an ecological form?

I don't have them in my collection, but I've seen them in other people's ones. I will not argue that it runs between Mamdzyshkha and Arabica. And as for "form", "nation" - by and large, there is not much difference. The question was whether C. reitteri arabikensis was a subspecies or a synonym. Moreover, according to the code of zoological nomenclature, neither nations nor forms as such are valid. Or I have a completely outdated version of the code.

On C. reitteri achunensis and its nominative subspecies. The nominative one is characterized by very different heights, as well as biotopes. This is just an indicator of the ecological plasticity of a species. Moreover, as in many archiplects, the pronotum shape, size, etc. "float" in a large sample. And colored individuals are found in almost all points from where I have material. Unless the tendency to increase the frequency of occurrence of colored individuals is directed from north to south (conditionally). And larger sizes are quite normal for low-mountain forms.
At least the few copies that I have with G. Akhun do not have any fundamental differences from the nominative one, except for the size.

And in general, each slightly isolated population often has minor differences from the rest. But this is not a reason to separate it into a separate subspecies, is it?

This post was edited by AlexandrB - 11/30/2013 16: 17

And I consider them nations for now, the form (like color, or morphological, which is less common) is all that makes up a nation. Sometimes the combined characteristics of a nation by loci are much more different than a number of generally recognized subspecies and vice versa. And they were described as subspecies, which does not contradict the code and will not be in the future.
The variability of reitteri in the entire range (and I have it from Tuapse, to the hr. Pshekish (sources of the Kish river) to the left - bank. Bzybi river inclusive-from more than 50 localities) is very large and it is a pity that it is difficult to make a molecular estimate. It is necessary not to trap beetles. And much greater variability than in the accepted subspecies of the Juntneri-faunus-ringei-protensus groups. They need to be reviewed, with the accumulation of material from all intermediate localities.

And I only know 2 low-mountain populations (that are below 500 m) - this is a nominative subspecies in the district of the 3rd company (but it is not on the town of Flagoh) and by dol. rivers Matsesta and Agura to their sources. But also on Mount Akhun-it is extremely large and does not get smaller as individuals from Solokh-Aul and up to Solokh-Aulsky Lane, although there it is lower in places about 550-700 m.
What other low-mountain populations do you know?
And so it is, in general, a medium-mountain-high-mountain view, sometimes entering the alpika.
And only in Abkhazia there are a number of low-mountain colored populations.

As an example from Mamdzyshkha mountain – upper – 1300 m.
And the lower one at the junction with the Arabica massif is 1500 m in total and such a difference is stable at 200 meters of total height. The photo was taken quickly, you need to redo it in daylight.

This post was edited by I. solod - 01.12.2013 03: 06

Pictures:

reitteri_gagrinus_arabikensis.jpg — (283.79к)

Yes, many good nations look cooler than bad subspecies.
And some nations now seem to be pulling.
But it is better to designate a local geographical or ecological nation on the label n.

I.Retezar: The Carabus of Abkhazia, Caucasus

Pictures:

The_Carabus_of_Abkhazia__Caucasus_109.jpg — (304.24к)


The_Carabus_of_Abkhazia__Caucasus_052.jpg — (291.86к)

the map is already very outdated and there are only about 10% of the actual points found

the map is already very outdated and there are only about 10% of real points of discovery

Interestingly, Retezar bags of jelly blew

"besleticus_mzaranus_viridis_female.jpg - (284.66 k)" - the rear corners of the prsp are noticeably different. or is it within the "statistical margin of error" ?

some photos of besleticus reshaviensis PARATYPUS

besleticus reshaviensis PARATYPUS......... new ssp or natio ? When and where published?

Subspecies satyrus besleticus Kurnakov, 1972
Synonyms: gaskoi Kenyery, 1975

Subspecies satyrus duripshensis Kurnakov, 1972

Subspecies satyrus mtsaranus Kurnakov, 1972

Subspecies satyrus napraensis Belousov & Zamotajlov, 1993

Subspecies satyrus pseudopshuensis Zamotajlov, 1991

Subspecies satyrus satyrus Kurnakov, 1962

reitteri gagrinus

Abkhasia, Mamdsyshkha Mt., 1300m

Pictures:

reiiteri_gagrinus_Mamdsyshkha_1300_green_male_01.jpg — (327.8к)

Archiplectes - PARATYPUS

Pictures:

Carabus__Archiplectes_.JPG — (292.08к)

Carabus (Archiplectes) besleticus resheviensis Solodovnikov, Zamotajlov & Fominykh, 2014
Holotypus + Paratypus

Abkhazia, N Slopes of Bzybian Mt. Range, right bank of River Reshevie (= Reshava) (left tributary of River Bzyb), 700-1000 m, 13.V-02.VII.2010, leg. D. Fominykh, I. Solodovnikov

This post was edited by I. solod - 13.12.2014 02: 24

Pictures:

total_b.reshaviensis_66_73.jpg — (287.7к)

Carabus (Archiplectes) besleticus resheviensis Solodovnikov, Zamotajlov & Fominykh, 2014
Holotypus + Paratypus

Abkhazia, N Slopes of Bzybian Mt. Range, right bank of River Reshevie (= Reshava) (left tributary of River Bzyb), 700-1000 m, 13.V-02.VII.2010, leg. D. Fominykh, I. Solodovnikov

Archiplectes or Neoplectes?
(Carabidae of the World: Neoplectes)

I think of them as Archiplects - and like others, that's their own business. They have strong differences from neoplects.

Carabus (Archiplectes) lailensis Belousov, 1992
Georgia, Svaneti, northern skl. Svaneti region, Laila-Laheli,
2700-3000m, 27-30. VI. 2014 d. Fominykh & A. Zubov leg.
male - 27 mm.

Pictures:

__lailensis_m_27_mm.jpg — (119.52к)

  Carabus (Archiplectes) lailensis Belousov, 1992
Georgia, Svaneti, northern skl. Svaneti region, Laila-Laheli,
2700-3000m, 27-30. VI. 2014 d. Fominykh & A. Zubov leg.
male - 27 mm.

Very similar to daphnis askhicus Belousov, 1992

Very similar to daphnis askhicus Belousov, 1992

Yes, it is similar - this is one complex of complex types. It is well distinguished by another form of the edeagus lamella. The body is shorter, wider, and stockier. The pre-apical notch of the elytra is clearly visible even in the male. By the way, the elytra have a mother-of-pearl sheen, the photo is not visible, the quality is not so hot. In the series of C. daphnis, I did not see such a reflection.

Yes, it is similar - this is one complex of complex types. It is well distinguished by another form of the edeagus lamella. The body is shorter, wider, and stockier. The pre-apical notch of the elytra is clearly visible even in the male. By the way, the elytra have a mother-of-pearl sheen, the photo is not visible, the quality is not so hot. In the series of C. daphnis, I did not see such a reflection.

Lamella edeagus - a weak sign as a species. Appearance is secondary. Maximum as for me, pulls only on the subspecies.