Genus Cychrus F., 1794

Community and Forum → Insects images → Genus Cychrus F., 1794

Aleksandr Safronov, 02.05.2007 21:01

Cychrus aeneus ssp. starcki Rtt., 1888
NW Caucasus, Adygea, Lagonaki plateau.
19.07.2006
According to the updated list of Russian Carabidae, sp. aeneus was until recently an independent species of sp. starcki. Meadow-forest mesophile. In the Caucasus, the main biotopes are mixed and coniferous mountain forests, as well as subalpine meadows.

Pictures:
picture: Cychrus_aeneus_starcki_P.jpg
Cychrus_aeneus_starcki_P.jpg — (128.09к)

Comments

Pages: 1 2

Likes: 9

Likes: 8

Likes: 2

03.06.2010 16:07, Бомка

he is.

Hello, Dima!
What's up? Don't you miss Irkutsku? ;-))

IMHO, Cychrus aeneus and Cychrus starcki did not sit next to each other...
They were driven into subspecies by those who were "lazy"to turn out endophallus.
According to my data, Cychrus aeneus lives only in Georgia,
and in Karachay-Cherkessia there are 4 species of
Cychrus(starcki, belousovi, inessae and another "nadiae sp. n.",
which I have not yet reached).

Cychrus starcki (see photos of endophallus on the ZIN website)
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/cychr_5.htm
picture: Cychrus_starcki.jpg

Cychrus belousovi (type locality - Sanchari pass)
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/cychr_4.htm
picture: Cychrus_belousovi.jpg

Cychrus inessae (type locality - Klukhor pass)
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/cychr_2.htm
picture: Cychrus_inessae.jpg

This post was edited by Bomka - 03.06.2010 16: 42

Likes: 7

Likes: 1

06.06.2010 4:59, Бомка

According to Kirill Makarov's data (based on the latest research on the genitals of Cichruses from the North Caucasus), only one species lives there. Accordingly, there are no Ts.Makarovi in nature.

Well, Makarov - Makarovo, and their own brains should also be...
Here are a couple of endophallus Cychrus -
picture: cychr_3e.jpg

(one of the Sev.South Ossetia, another from Karachay-Cherkessia), in your opinion, all this is one species?!

I do not know what proofs of my point of view
are given by my esteemed K. Makarov, since his article
" Makarov K. V., 2007:
Composition and distribution of ground beetles of the genus Cychrus in the fauna of the Caucasus.
Proceedings of the XIII Congress of the Russian Entomological Society. -
Krasnodar, September 9-15, 2007 " I, unfortunately, did not read it.
If you have a scan or photo of this article,
I would be grateful for the opportunity to read it (you can read it here or send me an e-mail).

Likes: 1

06.06.2010 11:36, Бомка

I have no reason to distrust the work done by K. Makarov. I know for a fact that he studied a large series of beetles (including those from our collection with Archipus). Yes, he inflated the bags. And I don't remember anyone clearly refuting his work.

I also wonder where in the Caucasus "almost every mountain" has its own kind of Karabus:). Of course, if we proceed from the logic of reasonable people, like Tarpaulins, and not those who even refer to color forms as subspecies:)

1. And where is it written that I don't trust Makarov's work? I didn't even see her.
But, I can see at least 10 differences in the genitals in the above pictures.
And not only in the form of the endophallus, but also in the details of the structure of the aedeagus.
Will you notice them yourself or show them with red arrows?
First prove to me that these are genitals of the same species, and then we will discuss.

2. If no one has refuted the works of Kirill Makarov, this does not mean
that they are "the ultimate truth". M / b just "lazily" refute? Besides, if Cyril doesn't see the differences, is it possible that
he just "doesn't want" to see them? Otherwise, you'll have to agree with me.
And he was against my taxa immediately after describing them, without even seeing the types.

3. Please read more carefully - I wrote about the species, not the genera of Carabus... And "almost on every mountain" does not need to be taken literally.
If you follow your logic, then all European Morphocarabus, for example, should be considered as one species? Really, Frantik, don't make my slippers laugh! ;-)))

Likes: 1

06.06.2010 16:27, Бомка

Sergey, thank you, but I don't need his e-mail address.
Kirill wrote to me in a letter back in 1997 that
he could not help "even with such a small thing as sending his articles."..

But if you will give him my request, I will be very grateful.
M / b he will find time to write here a link to the site where I can read his work (this will be enough),
or let him explain why the Caucasian Cychrus has such variable endophallus.
I have many Turkish and Chinese species (recognized by "respected experts"),
but there is no such variability among them.

For Scarit , where is spam?
The first commandment of the taxonomist is not to blindly trust everything
that recognized authorities and other luminaries say. Anyone can make a mistake.

Likes: 3

07.06.2010 2:18, Бомка

Is such a sample sufficient?

IMHO, that's enough.
Especially in such large beetles as Caucasian Cychrus.
A properly made preparation of a maximally inflated endophallus
conveys well the species-specific form, the" variability " of which is usually very small.
I have had the experience of turning out endophallus of various beetles since 1983.
For the first time in the USSR, I began to study the MOST BLOATED endophallus -
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/endopha2.htm
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/endopha1.htm
The above pictures of Cychrus endophallus do not show variation variants, but endophallus of two different species.
In many other "recognized by experts" species of Cychrus (as well as Carabus), interspecific differences in endophallus are significantly less.
I can't imagine how the endophallus in the left
picture can be transformed into the endophallus in the right picture by "clinal" changes.
They even have a different gonopore arrangement...

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 7

08.06.2010 8:57, amara

From Makarov's article:"At the same time, each population is characterized by a more or less uniform structure of genitals." By the way, how does the Turkish Cychrus anatolicus differ from aeneus, except for endophallus?

Since I didn't catch the logic of the above passage, I'm sorry, I'll give you the whole phrase that makes sense to me:

"At the same time, each population is characterized by a more or less uniform structure of genitals, while inter-population differences, especially in geographically remote forms, can be very large and are not only quantitative, but also qualitative. However, the continuous nature of changes in the chain of populations forces us to consider them as belonging to one polytypical species-Cychrus aeneus."

But I didn't find an article by Martin (?) Hackel on the Web. It would also be interesting to take a look.

08.06.2010 11:20, Guest

But I didn't find an article by Martin (?) Hackel on the Web. It would also be interesting to take a look.

By Berlov on the ZIN website http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleoptera/rus/cychrus.htm
*************************
In the recently published book "Catalog of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Vol. 1", the Russian species of the genus Cychrus were unfortunately treated very carelessly by Martin Häckel (2003):
- Cychrus caraboides is listed only for the European part of Russia, but not for Asia, while this species is also found in Western Siberia (Novosibirsk region).
— All Caucasian species of the genus Cychrus en masse, and without studying the type material, are reduced to synonyms to the Georgian Cychrus aeneus, despite the obvious external differences and different structure of the penis lamellae and maximally swollen endophallus.
— Cychrus koltzei is listed as a subspecies of Cychrus morawitzi.

Likes: 2

Pages: 1 2