Genus Cetonia F.

Cetonia (s.str.) aurata aurata L. - окр. Санкт-Петербурга, Ржевский лесопарк, 24.06.2003, длина 20 мм.

Картинки:

cetonia_auruta_a.jpg — (184.01к)   


cetonia_auruta_a_1.jpg — (180.92к)   

Cetonia (s.str.) aurata pallida Drury - Украина, Крым, окр. Ялты, горный лес, 400-500 м, 7.08.2004, длина 18 мм.

Картинки:

cetonia_auruta_p.jpg — (184.06к)   


cetonia_auruta_p_1.jpg — (156.61к)   

А еще попадаются иногда такие вот формы Cetonia aurata:
красная: Молдова. Рэзены. 20.05.06
бордовая: Молдова. Долна. 04.06.06

  Помогите определить.    
http://kharkov.naturalist.su/gallery/show_...12770&catalog=1

На мой взгляд Cetonia auratа,но какая-то форма или гибрид аураты с хунгарикой?

Отросток сргр. смотри

This is not aurata, most likely hungarika

  Отросток сргр. смотри

Вот кстати эти отростки (как-то в опр. жуков выкладывал, да и здесь они не помешают я думаю). Под рукой оказались просто.

Картинки:

Cetonia.jpg — (104.37к)   


Potosia.jpg — (96.31к)   

maybe even metallica, sometimes there are copies. with pronounced pubescence.

Yes, it's very possible that I saw this beast on the net a couple of years ago and decided that metallica.

  может даже металлика, иногда бывают экз. с ярко выраженным опушением.

Пятна ее,но окраска зеленая,а у металики немного другая,может снимок так отредоктирован?

Не C. aurata это по моему никак: у аураты (подмосковной) я никогда не видел пятен на переднеспинке, а у P. metallica они есть практически всегда. Потозия это. А вообще-то испод смотреть надо (чего мы сделать не можем).

Сообщение было отредактировано vasiliy-feoktistov - 05.04.2010 10:01

Cetonia aurata viridiventis, Таш. обл., западный Тянь-Шань, хр. Каржантау, урочище Акташ, h=1500 м над ур. моря, 13.06.09

Картинки:

viridiventris_1200_b.jpg — (109.79к)   


viridiventris_1200_a.jpg — (120.37к)   

вот она

Cetonia (Eucetonia) magnifica Ballion, 1870
(Cetoniini → Cetoniina → Cetonia → Eucetonia)
07. 08. 1992 Россия, Приморский кр., г.о. Уссурийский, окр. с. Горнотаёжное

Cetonia aurata (Linnaeus, 1758)
V-VII.2014, Россия, Московская область, Раменский район






III.2006, France, Bas de Paiolive





VI-VII.2014, Montenegro, Herceg Novi distr., Zvinje v. env.




V.2014, Greece, Drama regional unit, Niktoros vill. env.


Сообщение было отредактировано smb - 19.10.2016 15:36

Cetonia aurata ssp. pallida (Drury, 1773)

15.VII.1994, Russia, E Caucasus, Dagestan, Derbent env.



05.VII.2010, Russia, E Caucasus, Dagestan, Andiysky Mt. rng., Kharami pass., h=2500m



05.VII.2008, Russia, W Caucasus, Sochi dist., Chwizhepse riv.

Cetonia aurata ssp. pisana (Heer, 1841)

VII.2008, Croatia, Istria reg., Bicici env.


Сообщение было отредактировано smb - 12.04.2020 16:55

просто самец

Cetonia aeratula (Reitter, 1891)

30.V.2006, N Iran, Mazandaran prov., Mirzanabad env., h=700m

Cetonia carthami ssp. carthami (Gory & Percheron, 1833)
IV.2006, Italy, Sardegna, Muoro




Cetonia carthami ssp. aurataeformis (Curti, 1913)
01.VI.2008, SE Spain, Huelva, Arroyomolinos de Leon




Cetonia funeraria (Gory & Percheron, 1833)
04.VI.2011, Morocco, Moyen Atlas Mts., 1450m SW Azrou, 6km SW Ain Leuh

Cetonia aurata (Linnaeus, 1761)

26.V.2016, SW Bulgaria, 5km NW Sandanski, h=120m


6.V.2016, SE Bulgaria, 5km W Primorsko


8.V.2016, SE Bulgaria, 6km SSW Tzarevo



18.V.2016, S Bulgaria, 20km NE Harmanli



Cetonia aurata ssp. pisana (Heer, 1841)
23.V.2016, NW Greece, 3km N Anoixi, h=600m


22.V.2016, NW Greece, 3km NNE Kalabaka, h=650m


19.V.2016, NE Greece, 11km NEE Nea Santa, h=650m



Сообщение было отредактировано smb - 31.10.2020 14:41

Extremely peculiar interpretation of the area of Cetonia aurata ssp. pisana (Heer, 1841). Medvedev points to Italy, Spain and Southern Greece. I don't have any sources for Bulgaria. If they did, it would be very nice, especially considering the significant similarity of the presented specimens with this subspecies.

And I don't have any sources on Bulgaria, although Wikipedia lists the Balkans for this subspecies, among other things.
Bulgarian copies are identified as "questionable", so I put next to them, for comparison, copies from Greece.

There are no specific indications of C. aurata pisana in Bulgaria. From the work of Lisa (Lisa R. 1999 Rev. de l'Association Roussillonnaise d'entomologie, Perpignan 8(2):33-42), it follows (judging by the map) that ssp. pisana lives in the western part of Bulgaria, and ssp. pallida lives in the east.

The Bulgarian beetles presented above can be safely attributed to C. aurata pallida.

And better-to S. aurata aurata: http://www.eco.nsc.ru/EEJ_contents/14/201514612.pdf. But collectors, of course, will be hands and feet against it. In general, I noticed a long time ago that the more commercial a view is, the more valid subspecies it has.

This post was edited by ENO-10.07.2017 02: 48

I can't say anything about viridiventris, but the pallida was obviously touched in vain, because it even genitally differs from the nominate (the aedeagus is thinner, and the teeth on the sides are more distinct), although in the part of the range where the pallida should be, forms corresponding phenotypically to the nominate and vice versa are found in polygamy.

You're probably right, I didn't check about Pallida myself. But note that it also follows that Vornezhem is not something that pallids, but some "superpallids" are found. What, I wonder, are the aedeagus even more jagged? About the shape of the genitals of beetles in the photo in this topic can only guess. The question is, at what stage are they recorded in the pallids? On the fact that someone somewhere once wrote that it is found in this region? I don't even see the proverbial white spots on the pronotum. The first two beetles from post #23 - well, what are the usual nominative aurats?

But about viridiventris, the authors of the article are IMHO 100% right. This year I collected individuals with all possible color variations of the bottom from bright red to blue-green, including any intermediate gradations, from one small patch of flowering plantain thickets. Reviewed - released. But I could have spread them out on different mattresses and given them to someone as "subspecies". I wouldn't be surprised if bourgeois beetle collectors do this: they "pour" several "rare endemic subspecies" from one flowering bush. And our collectors line them up in rows in beautifully marked boxes.

Funny article

Based on phenotopic characteristics, give a conclusion on the species structure, completely ignoring geography and morophlogical features. The fact that the author doesn't even know the number of valid subspecies is still half the trouble. He makes conclusions without studying the material, and phenetics are used to draw conclusions about the species composition.

So after all, all these subspecies were described according to phenotypic characteristics, which are still given in the keys. What other morphological features should have been studied? Genitals, right? I suspect that in the descriptions of these subspecies there is not a word about them. Differences in geographical distribution, if any, are good, but where do the dividing lines run and what are the barriers that prevent free crossing? Subspecies of aurata at one time were described to a fig or more, but over time they are becoming less and less, and the day may not come when they will not remain at all. In general, the vast majority of insect orders are represented mainly by monotypic species, and only the two most popular as collectibles for the sake of collecting stand out sharply against this background. Moreover, the more popular a particular group is, the more its representatives have subspecies with unintelligible morphological and geographical distinctions. What can not but be alarming.

Horror story for the night: people are collected by some highly developed aliens. How many subspecies of Homo sapiens will they describe, even among native Europeans, based on such very distinct characteristics as eye color and hair color? And there are typical localities inhabited almost exclusively by light-eyed blondes or dark-eyed brunettes, even in this age of transport development on the European subcontinent. And if you dig into the genitals, you can also find a lot of interesting features.

Funny article

the works of Negrobov Sr. (except for the early ones) and Negrobov Jr. should be treated with sooo great care (including faunistics of the Voronezh Region)

So after all, all these subspecies were described according to phenotypic characteristics, which are still given in the keys. What other morphological features should have been studied? Genitals, right? I suspect that in the descriptions of these subspecies there is not a word about them. Differences in geographical distribution, if any, are good, but where do the dividing lines run and what are the barriers that prevent free crossing? Subspecies of aurata at one time were described to a fig or more, but over time they are becoming less and less, and the day may not come when they will not remain at all. In general, the vast majority of insect orders are represented mainly by monotypic species, and only the two most popular as collectibles for the sake of collecting stand out sharply against this background. Moreover, the more popular a particular group is, the more its representatives have subspecies with unintelligible morphological and geographical distinctions. What can not but be alarming.

Horror story for the night: people are collected by some highly developed aliens. How many subspecies of Homo sapiens will they describe, even among native Europeans, based on such very distinct characteristics as eye color and hair color? And there are typical localities inhabited almost exclusively by light-eyed blondes or dark-eyed brunettes, even in this age of transport development on the European subcontinent. And if you dig into the genitals, you can also find a lot of interesting features.

In fact, heaps of variations and morphs have been described, but not subspecies. Some of them eventually became subspecies and even species, quite justifiably, and most of the names got into synonyms.
The situation is still far from ideal, as many obviously invalid names are still in circulation.
Regarding viridiventris.
It differs very clearly from the nominative aurata both in its range and morphological features, and may well be an independent species, including the Chinese C. a. jingkelii.

the works of Negrobov Sr. (except for the early ones) and Negrobov Jr. should be treated with sooo great care (including faunistics of the Voronezh Region)

This article interested me especially about the pallida, as I am currently working on the taxonomy and zoogeography of Cetonia aurata in Armenia and Transcaucasia in general.

I read some of the author's other works and it became clear that he has a very, very original approach to taxonomy.

This post was edited by gelkush - 11.07.2017 09: 41

Each taxonomist has his own approach to taxonomy, some suffer from chronic descriptionism, others from chronic reductionism. And no strict regulations. Solid subjectivism. The only strange pattern is that in pop groups (daytime butterflies and some beetles) there is a strong bias in the direction of description. Those who do not have enough for a subspecies, hurry to perpetuate their name at least in the name of aberration to the delight of collectors. And why is there no such garbage in any other squad?

But still, as a researcher on this subject, would you be so kind as to answer my question about what natural barrier prevents the free exchange of genetic information between aurata aurata, pallida, and viridiventris? Maybe the mountains are high or the deserts are wide?

This post was edited by ENO - 11.07.2017 12: 03

Each taxonomist has his own approach to taxonomy, some suffer from chronic descriptionism, others from chronic reductionism. And no strict regulations. Solid subjectivism. The only strange pattern is that in pop groups (daytime butterflies and some beetles) there is a strong bias in the direction of description. Those who do not have enough for a subspecies, hurry to perpetuate their name at least in the name of aberration to the delight of collectors. And why is there no such garbage in any other squad?

But still, as a researcher on this subject, would you be so kind as to answer my question about what natural barrier prevents the free exchange of genetic information between aurata aurata, pallida, and viridiventris? Maybe the mountains are high or the deserts are wide?

Dear ENO.

The approach to taxonomy is not strictly regulated, BUT it is based on knowledge of biology and ecology in general (this applies primarily to those who have a professional level in these scientific disciplines). For this reason, taxonomy is now striving to maximize the use of more modern methods, in particular molecular methods, to understand the situation with the position of a taxon.
And "Such garbage" is in relation to the entire animal kingdom, not just for insects.

I will answer your question very briefly:
Yes, between these 3 subspecies there are huge deserts, very high mountains and even seas.

As for gene information exchanges in C. aurata, I recommend reading this article if you are interested.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_A...n-in-Europe.pdf

The sea limits only one subspecies, which is in Sicily. The Caspian Sea is easily bypassed from the North, and it is better not to mention the Aral Sea at all. Where do the deserts cut off the pallida from the nominative? The mountains are not so good there either, and she likes them, according to the essays. Of course, I would like to see a map of the distribution of subspecies, which you think is correct, so that it can be compared with the terrain and the location of deserts, since it doesn't add up in your head itself.

Another copy of the Donetsk "viridiventris", this time without admixture of "pallida", but with a noble blue hue:




He's surrounded by the typical:



Assembled. I'm still waiting for specific recommendations on studying morphology.


PS I apologize for the form of providing photos, but something Molbiol refused to accept them today, I had to contact the Radical.

This post was edited by ENO-21.07.2017 22: 02

What is not a sortie into a gully on the outskirts of Donetsk, then new" subspecies " of Aurat. And people follow them abroad for varying degrees of distance or buy up from the bourgeoisie, and at the same time their collections still do not reach the morphological diversity that we can contemplate right in nature at a single point. If I were a coleopterist, I would probably have already described a bunch of new aberrations, since this is their business...















And this topic clearly demonstrates why sticking beetles (at least some systematic groups) on dies is evil: almost no one bothered to look at what is there on the ventral side of the body, and then show it. And there are a lot of interesting things there.

to ENO
well, the fact that males and females are different from below, this is generally well-known information; -)
and you can certainly search for "different" subspecies in your "grandmother's garden", but they will remain "different" only for the one who collected them, I did not see a single copy of the above photos of ENO. at least somehow pulled on any taxon except for the nominative subspecies (which in general does not mean that they do not exist, I know such instances, for example, the same aberration described by Martynov in Izvestiya KHEO). It reminded me of a story when checking the collection of a fairly well-known specialist in dead eaters, who told me that he had collected 7 species of trox and two glaresis - he found only Trox hispidum niger under this set of names. So, outwardly they differed approximately as the" subspecies " of bronzes in the photos of ENO; -)

Cetonia aurata ssp. aurata
25.VII.2017 Ukraine, KHARKOV REG.,Zmiev distr.,2,5 km SSW from Zadoneckoe vill.outskirts. (On Ulmus) 49°37'8.17"N, 36°20'31.77"E

Pictures:

DSCF5214.JPG — (298.33к)

scar, so I do not accidentally put the word "subspecies" in quotation marks all the time, which emphasizes my disbelief in the taxonomic status of viridiventris and pallids after Negobov. Although, of course, I may well be mistaken and just look at the wrong signs. That's why I immediately asked gelkush about the" secret " morphological features that he considers distinctive for these subspecies, but I didn't get an answer. Those sources that I managed to Google as such are called completely green underparts for viridiventris and white deepened spots on the pronotum for pallida. As we can see from my examples, both criteria are untenable.