Subgenus Archiplectes (Carabus)

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

This is better for the author, the description is available. Personally, I have no doubts about the Belousov taxa. And genitals, as practice shows, do not always work. I come to the conclusion that the very concept of "subspecies" is rather arbitrary.

paratypes
Carabus (Archiplectes) khipstaensis Solodovnikov, 2015 (sources of the Hipsta River).

This post was edited by I. solod - 11.07.2015 15: 01

Pictures:

khipstaensis.jpg — (290.51к)

paratypes
Carabus (Archiplectes) rousianus svetlanae Solodovnikov, 2015 (уроч. Avjular).

Solodovnikov, I. A. On the knowledge of ground beetles of the complex Carabus (Archiplectes) polychrous Rost, 1892 (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Carabini) from Abkhazia // Eversmannia. Entomological research in Russia and neighboring regions. 2015, Issue 42. 25. VI. 2015: 3-12.

This post was edited by I. solod - 11.07.2015 15: 30

Pictures:

rousianus_svetlanae.jpg — (290.44 k)

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

The compressus group of species is the oldest of the Archipelagos and is almost indistinguishable in genitalia. If we compare lailensis, it is more likely with compressus rebellis, in extreme cases with komarovi, but not with daphnis askhicus, especially since the latter is described from the lower part and is quite different from daphnis with Askhi, which sometimes resembles lailensis in color type, but looks quite different from the latter. This is immediately visible when the material is in front of your eyes. But the main problem is that there is no direct transition from lailensis to compressus, and from the latter to daphnis, and these populations are very different from each other. Therefore, the state of all these taxa still needs to be rethought.

Some low-quality photos from me %)
1. Carabus (Archiplectes) compressus ssp. rebelis Reitter, 1884
Georgia, Kvemo Svaneti, Lechkhumsky district, per. Jvari, 2400m, VI. 2015 (length 23-25mm)


2. Carabus (Archiplectes) lailensis Belousov, 1992
Georgia, Kvemo Svaneti, Svaneti region, Laila, 3000m, VII. 2014 (25-30mm)


This post was edited by RippeR-12.08.2015 13: 38

I apologize for asking an amateur in this matter, but are there sane tables for determining the appearance of carabus subgenera archiplectes and tribax? It's just that these subgenera are not only externally similar, but also the species inside and subspecies have 90% similar appearance and wild variability! Only by endophallus? Strange then, as nature played a joke-the appearance is the same, but inside they are slightly different... As I understand it, until we came to the topic of determining the genitals, in the Caucasus, in general, all this was taken for several species, and not for dozens? Some nonsense turns out. Such small differences can be mistaken for such decisive ones. And who else is an expert: does anyone know if they can also form hybrids? Or is it just the difference in the shape of the genitals that keeps them from mixing?

by the way, they are very different in appearance at the level of many species, as in all other large subgenera - the same picture, a lot of similar species, a reliable definition to the subspecies-only with the use of a study of the genital preparation and with an accurate label. With the exception of the steveni species, which has the Shamil subspecies, it has transitional features in its external structure to the Archiplects. Tribaxes, archiplects, and neoplects clearly differ in appearance. True, in the West, the question of the convergence of neoplects and archplects is debated, but there are very different types of Aedeagus.
Morphocarabus, Ohomopterus, Cyclocarabus, Apotomopterus, and dozens of other subgenera are also difficult to identify by their appearance. Tables can be created, but without practice and knowledge of objects - they will be useless for beginners, especially for females, without applying the above provisions.
Hybrids give , but they are extremely rare, the percentage is the same as in other places.

"....Such small differences can be taken as so decisive....." I advise you just to get acquainted with all other types of bonuses at least 50%, so that you don't judge so categorically.

Chrysocarabus and Morphocarabus are even cooler in appearance, with their ability to hybridize with each other and a bunch of forms that are repeated in almost every species and subspecies.

This post was edited by I. solod - 30.09.2015 10: 50

I advise you just to get acquainted with all other types of bonuses at least 50%, that would be so categorically not to judge.

Chrysocarabus and Morphocarabus are even cooler in appearance, with their ability to hybridize with each other and a bunch of forms that are repeated in almost every species and subspecies.

As I wrote above, I am an amateur, in terms of the fact that I do not have a special biological education. However, I've been studying coleoptera since I was 95, and I still know something about them. As for the fact that endophallus differ in almost complete external similarity, but, as you said, there is a possibility of crossing species, these differences, in my opinion, make species, and even more so, subspecies, even more insignificant. As for tribaxes and archiplectus, yes, they are very similar in appearance (even subgenera!), although indeed, for specialists in them, the differences may be obvious. Just in the same genus Carabus, there are many subgenera that have a completely characteristic appearance and differ much more strongly from each other. As for the Caucasian species, in my opinion, this is the evolution of several main species into dozens of new forms (at different levels of classification) under the influence of both the relative geographical isolation of the terrain (population) and the natural radiation level of the region (as one of the main factors of mutations). That's all. Apparently, such genetic mutations "hit" in these ground beetles, primarily on the reproductive system, limited in appearance only to small variations in dotted lines and high color variability.
P.S. Maybe these differences do not seem so significant to me, because I do not have experience in determining by genitals, but by other external signs I am able to determine almost any species in the presence of signs and the appropriate determinant and equipment.

With some experience, almost any Caucasian karabus can be distinguished even without genitals, up to a subspecies with a certain steppe, from standard collection sites, but in other habitats and localities it is necessary to study the complex of all signs. I am not saying that the work on them is complete - it is only in full swing, and the more you see the material and collect it yourself, the more ambiguities come up. But over time, this will be allowed and the number of species will decrease slightly. Such a large number of forms and subspecies are features of any mountain system.
I am not going to discuss further, as I did not understand your main question, if you can - then formulate it or problems.
- there are no qualifiers
- it is difficult to determine, due to lack of experience
- or the philosophy of faunogenesis

Trechus-s are generally the same in this context of understanding - and there are hundreds of species and they live very well. out of our opinion about and species affiliation. The species (of a beetle) is our empirical inference (about the totality of certain populations - and a specific specialist), and it will be different for everyone.

 
I am not going to discuss further, as I did not understand your main question, if you can - then formulate it or problems.
- there are no qualifiers
- it is difficult to determine, due to lack of experience
- or the philosophy of faunogenesis

Trechus-s are generally the same in this context of understanding - and there are hundreds of species and they live very well. out of our opinion about and species affiliation. The species (of a beetle) is our empirical inference (about the totality of certain populations - and a specific specialist), and it will be different for everyone.

Exactly. Often everything is subjective. Regarding the questions: 3-we discussed them. 1. - yes, there is no normal determinant for coleoptera of the Caucasus, and even more so for ground beetles (current and modern in particular). 2. Of course, there is some experience in defining these subgenera, but there is no specific experience with these subgenera.
My collection contains several types of data from two subgenera that were not defined by me. I can repeat the main question without any jokes, which was asked at the beginning: are there sane definition tables for these subgenera? If this information is not available, at least describe some of the main features that belong to these subgenera of Carabus: ttribax and archiplectes. How do they differ in the first place? Personally, I noticed that the tribaxes are more elongated, more slender in shape and have long legs, some have an interesting radial dotted line along the edge of the elytra.

working versions of the features from the unreleased disc on the Eastern European campuses.

there may also be mistakes - I still haven't verified them on all taxa. THIS IS THE WORKING VERSION

Subgenus Archiplectes Gottwald, 1982

Typical view.
Carabus komarowi Reitter

Synonyms.
-

Diagnosis.
This subgenus includes species of medium and large and very large sizes, flattened or rolled in shape with elongated-oval slightly convex nadkr., in males and flat often noticeably concave in the middle part in females. The jaws are rather long, narrow, not evenly curved from the inside to the top, which is slightly curved inwards.
The head is long and powerful, smooth or wrinkled with one or two supraorbital bristle-bearing pores.
The chin prong is strongly rounded or triangular in shape with a rounded apex with a clearly defined longitudinal groove, or smooth. They have throat setae, the upper lip is two-lobed. Penultimate segment of labial palps with two setae. Pronotum is large and broad in relation to the body, strongly or weakly heart-shaped, slightly transverse.or crosswise. Yandex. Disk for prsp. it is dotted and wrinkled or smooth to varying degrees.
Along the lateral edge of the pronotum there are 3-7 setae (usually 3-4), and the posterior corners have 1, very rarely 2 setal pores.
The antennae and legs are moderately long .
In males, the antennae are simple, the first four segments of the forelegs are expanded, the fourth is sometimes naked from below, and the others have a felt cushion.
Elytra with a distinct heterodynamic triploid sculpture. Primary and secondary keels are well developed, and tertiary keels are often flattened; in a number of species, they can merge into a single keel or are divided into fossilized links of various lengths. Sometimes a sculpture with a blurry and confused pattern.
The elytra at the apex are rounded together, with a pre-apical notch, which is most pronounced in females. Sexual dimorphism in appearance is well expressed in a number of species.
The species are wingless.
The bottom of the body is wrinkled, slightly dotted on the sides.
Aedeagus is large, rather massive
Top color is very variable from bright green and bronze to blue, purple and rarely black, the side border is ndkr. usually a brighter color. Legs and antennae are black, rarely the thighs and bases of the antennae are red in some forms from the southern macroslope of the Caucasus.

Remarks.
It is an endemic subgenus of the Western and Central Caucasus Mountains. Its taxonomy is very complex due to the similar morphology of many species and the high polymorphism of features, so the number of species in different lists and catalogs differs significantly. The species differ reliably only in the structure of the aedeagus and the sac forms of the endophallus and aggonoporius, and their ranges are quite clearly defined by mountain systems for alpine species and large rivers for lowland species.
Some authors (Deuve, 2004) include it in the subgenus Tribax; in our view, these are 22 species from its list No. 534-555, and in the catalog of world fauna B. Brezina, 2008, 18 species are noted (with a polymorphic understanding of some species). 15 species were identified in the territory under review. In the Systematic List of Ground beetles (Carabidae) 17 species are listed in Russia from.......... our work does not include the apollo species (Zolot., 1913), since there are no reliable data on their transshipment of agricultural products from Abkhazia

Authorship.
I. A. Solodovnikov


Subgenus Tribax Fischer, 1817

Typical view.
Carabus puschkini Adams as directed (Breuning, 1934).

Synonyms.
Platychrus Kolenati, 1845; type species Carabus pushkini Adams as indicated by Breuning, 1934; the validity of this designation was discussed in Bousquet (2002).

Diagnosis.
This subgenus includes species of medium and large size, sometimes flattened to a very high degree, which is associated with a petrophilic lifestyle. The jaws are very long, narrow, evenly curved from the inside to the top, the top is not bent inwards. The head is long. They have throat setae, the upper lip is two-lobed. Penultimate segment of labial palps with two setae. Pronotum is small in relation to the body, strongly or weakly heart-shaped, slightly transverse. There are 2-3 setae along the lateral edge of the pronotum. The antennae and legs are long. In males, the antennae are simple, the first three or four segments of the forelegs are expanded, the fourth is sometimes naked from below, and the others have a felt cushion. The elytra are evenly covered with thin ribs, the primary and secondary ribs are interrupted by numerous small or large pits, less often only the primary ones. The elytra at the apex are rounded together, without a pre-apical notch. Sexual dimorphism in appearance is weakly expressed. The species are wingless. Color of the top is monochrome, black, black-blue, blue, rarely blue-green, green, side border of the ndkr. usually a brighter color. The legs and antennae are black, less often the thighs and bases of the antennae are red in some subspecies from the southern and extremely rare from the northern macroslope of the Caucasus.


Remarks.
It is an endemic subgenus of the Caucasus Mountains, Transcaucasia, and the mountains of northern Turkey. Its taxonomy is very complex due to the similar morphology of many species, so the number of species in different lists and catalogs differs significantly. The species differ reliably only in the structure of the aedeagus and the sac shapes of the endophallus and aggonoporius. Some authors (Deuve, 2004) include the following subgenera in its composition: Archiplectes, Microtribax, Neoplectes, In our view, these are 17 species from its list No. 517-533, and in the catalog of the world fauna B. Brezina, 2008 - 17 species are also noted. 12 species were identified in the territory under review.

Authorship.
I. A. Solodovnikov

This post was edited by I. solod - 30.09.2015 16: 01

working versions of the features from the unreleased disc on the Eastern European campuses.
Authorship.
I. A. Solodovnikov

Well, now everything is more clear, thank you.

If you have any more questions or need any help, please write
to iasolodov@mail.ru