Subgenus Tachypus (Carabus)

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus celticus= carinatus Charpentier, 1825 24mm.
France, Riveres Charente, leg.Laforgue 1996г.

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_celticus__carinatus_Charpentier__1825._24mm..jpg — (202.94к)

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus durus carpathicus Kolbe, 1913
Female body length, 26 mm
.-Frankovsk region, Yaremchansky district. Carpathian Mountains, Small Gorgan h =1590m. 22. VI-3. VIII. 08
is characterized by a large size and slightly darker color.

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus___cancellatus__durus_carpathicus_Kolbe__1913_26_mm..jpg — (215.21к)

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus scythicus Schaum, 1857
SV Carpathians, (Romania, Ukraine)
hr. Chernogora, subalpicai alpica.
A weak subspecies that does not differ much from cancellatus durus carpathicus . Is that the black color in 30-40 % of the population. It may be combined into synonyms in the future.

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_scythicus_Schaum__1857_24_mm._28.VI.08.jpg — (94.56к)


Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_scythicus_Schaum__1857_27_mm.jpg — (86.41к)

[b]

Ruslan and what subspecies of Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus is found in the Crimea?

Judging by Balthazar, the nominative. Although maybe not, I would like to see an ex..

Judging by Balthazar, the nominative. Although maybe not, I would like to see an ex..

It's all about who is considered a nominee
There is an opinion that from the Polish borders to the Urals - all different forms, and the nations of the subspecies tuberculatus Dejean, 1826.
If you look at Brzezina, then the nominative.

This post was edited by rpanin - 07.11.2009 03: 44

Well, since there's still a lot of confusion right now, you can be considered anyone. An authoritative opinion - Balthazar, brought it. And so, navpriemer, Moldavian, wildly differ from the Central Russian-the second krpny, black-legged, and generally dark, look completely different from ours.. And the subspecies is just the same)

Well, since there's still a lot of confusion right now, you can be considered anyone. An authoritative opinion - Balthazar, brought it. And so, navpriemer, Moldavian, wildly differ from the Central Russian-the second krpny, black-legged, and generally dark, look completely different from ours.. And the subspecies is just the same )

Well, the Crimean one is yellowish and the peregrine breast is brown,and the Kharkiv ones are completely brown...Back in the Crimea I saw one dead man of the same more yellowish color

Well, the Crimean one is yellowish and the peregrine breast is brown,and the Kharkiv ones are completely brown...Even in the Crimea I saw one dead man of the same more yellowish color

Color, hue - this is not an indicator for selection in subspecies.

but, on the other hand, this is one of the reasons to doubt the beetle's belonging to a certain species/subspecies. And even more so for the territory of the Crimea..

but, on the other hand, this is one of the reasons to doubt the beetle's belonging to a certain species/subspecies. And even more so for the territory of the Crimea..

Smart guy!
We must not forget that the Sarabusovs also have such a concept as a nation. That is, when the local population has a weak distinguishing feature, but this is not enough to make it a subspecies. (only the French and merchants are guilty of this )
There is also such a differentiation concept-form: A very vague feature: color or some other weak feature inherent in the local population or intra-population.
I'll post a photo with visual examples later.

This post was edited by rpanin - 07.11.2009 20: 19

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus cancellatus n. charcoviensis Bernau, 1915
27 mm
SV Ukraine, Kharkiv region, Zmiyivsky district, 1-7. VI. 2007 leg. D. Kovalchuk

This post was edited by rpanin - 08.11.2009 01: 09

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_cancellatus_n._charcoviensis_Bernau__1915.27mm.jpg — (106.09к)

It is not the Karabus of the European Union who have such a concept as a nation. and the French
I'm saying that some external differences that are visible in a beetle are a reason to check if this beetle has more serious differences - and the point here is not in the shapes of nations and aberrations, but in the fact that small signs can serve as a sign for larger signs, but to find out , you need to check the material.
It's like Agapanthia violacea and intermedia, where there are no external differences for the eyes at all, and the difference is not only in the subspecies, but in the whole species!

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus durus n.ungensis Csiki, 1905
Transcarpathian region roc. Vinogradova, Chernaya Gora, 7-18. VII. 08
One of the largest subspecies. up to 33 mm
In the photo the female is 32 mm.

And from the same place aberrants.
So, with some entomological ingenuity, new subspecies are born

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_durus_ungensis_Csiki__1905__32_mm._.jpg — (203.25к)


Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus__durus.jpg — (178.49к)

It is not the Karabus of the European Union who have such a concept as a nation. and the French
I'm saying that some external differences that are visible in a beetle are a reason to check if this beetle has more serious differences - and the point here is not in the shapes of nations and aberrations, but in the fact that small signs can serve as a sign for larger signs, but to find out , you need to check the material.
It's like Agapanthia violacea and intermedia, where there are no external differences for the eyes at all, and the difference is not only in the subspecies, but in the whole species!

Andrey, but there are still some nations, and quite a few with strong differences. Unfortunately, non-indigenous people raise them in taxonomic rank to the level of a subspecies or even more-a species, thereby introducing confusion in taxonomy, in brains and wallets.

I have a cancellatus from Crimea.It does not differ in any particular way from the Middle Ukrainian, just like granulatus crimeensis Breuning, 1933, which also does not differ from the nominative.

This post was edited by rpanin - 07.11.2009 22: 21

nations and aberrations and forms-everything exists, but the meaning is too insignificant, not even worth noting..
Here, for example, at Nebria brevikollis from Arkhyz-all were pink, only in one circus there were a couple of greenish ones.. But what is there to do - to celebrate it, to describe the forms of the nation? What for? A waste of time if it doesn't do anything)

nations and aberrations and forms-everything exists, but the meaning is too insignificant, not even worth noting.....

And what is a morph(do racehorses have such a thing)

nations and aberrations and forms-everything exists, but the meaning is too insignificant, not even worth noting..
Here, for example, at Nebria brevikollis from Arkhyz-all were pink, only in one circus there were a couple of greenish ones.. But what is there to do - to celebrate it, to describe the forms of the nation? What for? A waste of time if it doesn't do anything )

First, it is now forbidden to describe forms.
And it is not always necessary to treat all taxa so categorically. For example, pseudopreyssleri.It seems to be regarded as a nation from helleri.In fact, it's not entirely clear yet, but it may turn out to be a good subspecies ,or even a species. Example two:Carabus (Megodontus) violaceus andrzejuscii n. carbonatus Schaufuss, 1882.
It differs very well from the typical andrzejuscii. Sometimes considered a subspecies or even a species.

Conversely, for example, Carabus (Trachycarabus) sibiricus haeres n. fossulatus Dejean, 1826. fossulatus is considered as a separate subspecies from sibiricus.I see it as a nation.

Many descriptions were once described as species.Now they have been reduced to synonyms or dropped to the status of a subspecies.Which is not always true.
So many nations still need serious revision.

This post was edited by rpanin-08.11.2009 01: 32

Population with good stable distinctive features-subspecies? Then what is a nation-a population with unstable weak traits? And the key word is sustainable.
In this vein, are nations needed? It's not even about that - it's just information that confuses the system..

Population with good stable distinctive features-subspecies? Then what is a nation-a population with unstable weak traits? And the key word is sustainable.
In this vein, are nations needed? It's not even about that - it's just information that confuses the system..

Oh, if I could definitely answer your questions-it would be easier to live....
A nation is a local population with insufficiently strong distinguishing characteristics to be classified as a subspecies.At the same time, the l criteria for the "subspecies" status should be quite strict. For example, if the size is not 10% larger-less than the typical material, but 30% more.
The bottom line is that some nations deserve subspecies status more than some subspecies deserve nation status .That is, there are some subspecies that do not even reach the status of a nation.
I am not a proponent of raising the status of a nation, but rather the opposite, so that many weak subspecies can be reduced to synonyms or nations and forms.That's why you need to pay special attention to these differences. I won't give specific examples yet, but there are a lot of them.
Forms are a different matter.
Here there are such concepts as color and "freaks".With the color as if everything is clear, freaks are also easily calculated from a series of beetles.
There are also forms that are quite different from the typical material.These are high-altitude forms: low-mountain or alpine. Further, individual populations of the same species acquire a similar habit due to the similarity of the biotope .True, such forms introduce casuistry into taxonomy. In the place of the original description, this form is considered as a subspecies, in another territory - as a form.
I'll give you some examples later.

This post was edited by rpanin-08.11.2009 15: 40

the fact that there are nations as subspecies, and subspecies as nations, only says that this only confuses and leads to the interpretation of the former as the latter and vice versa.
It is clear that some populations are quite different, but if they do not have clear features that form or will form a subspecies in the future, then they are not worth paying attention to. In prmier I will give such nonsense as-if I go to the north and live there for a couple of years, my complexion will most likely not change much, my skin color will become very light, and vice versa, if I go to the south, my skin color will become a little darker, and again my complexion will most likely change a little (but the example is stupid, since it is not very suitable in this case, but a hint, I think ash).

About the forms and so everything is clear.

I also wanted to add one example: Plavilshchikov liked to describe aberations - for me this is similar to nations, but on a much broader level-i.e. these are all sorts of variations of beetles, most often tied simply in a drawing. Sometimes in many places such comparisons are made as in the case of a nation - for example, in the Northern part **** lives only or more often ab. * * * * than... etc. Well, the fact that he conducted such an analysis may be valuable for someone, but in fact he lost a large amount of time and effort on unnecessary work, which is unlikely to help in finding out the direction of development of genera and species, but may only be of interest to some narrow faunists who will find out why in the future. in their pit, the beetle is slightly darker than in the neighboring one, which, again, is not a high level for the faunist (more precisely, in most cases, these aberations are mixed and very common, as for example in brachita variabilis, which can hardly serve as any worthy material for faunists)..

the fact that there are nations as subspecies, and subspecies as nations, only says that this only confuses and leads to the interpretation of the former as the latter and vice versa.
It is clear that some populations are quite different, but if they do not have clear features that form or will form a subspecies in the future, then they are not worth paying attention to.

Pay attention to just worth it.Barbels are not the best example in this case. The populations of carabus owls are still more closed.
Take the example of the well-known Moldovan excellens(on your own - worth .Strangers - "not worth paying attention to") and from other territories : Podolsk, Kiev-Poltava, and Southern Ukraine.
If you look at them serially, they are all very different from each other, especially the extreme individual forms. And at the same time, all the signs are floating.In each population, you can find similar traits from the neighboring region.But in general, they are distinguishable. These are the nations that have their own separate areas and weak signs.

It's a different matter when nations give suckers or bourgeoisie as full-fledged subspecies or even species.Just look at any price list, domestic or foreign. These circumstances greatly hinder at least some clarification in taxonomy.

This post was edited by rpanin - 08.11.2009 16: 52

On some of them. of course, it's worth looking at, some of them are not at all. That's not the point. You yourself say that this is used by merchants, but there are no stable signs - so while they pay attention to such concepts as research, it turns out such nonsense. You just need to know that there are all sorts of nations, but do not deal with their description, increase their significance, etc.

On some of them. of course, it's worth looking at, some of them are not at all. That's not the point. You yourself say that this is used by merchants, but there are no stable signs - so while they pay attention to such concepts as research, it turns out such nonsense. You just need to say that there are all sorts of nations, but do not deal with their description, increase their significance, etc.

In general, everything is correct

Carabus (Tachypus) auratus lasserrei Doué, 1855 f. rabili Raynaud, 1971
SC- FRANCE, Midi-Pyrénées reg. Tarn, Saint Paul cap de Joux, 24.V.2003, A. Laforgue leg.

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__auratus_lasserrei_Doue__1855_f._rabili_Raynaud__1971.jpg — (94.98к)

And what is a morph(do racehorses have such a thing)

A morph is a distinct group of phenotypes within a species or population.
Phenotype - the totality of all internal and external characteristics and properties of an individual, formed on the basis of the genotype in the course of its individual development (ontogenesis).

Carabus (Tachypus) auratus auratus Linné, 1761 f. brunieri Barthe, 1921
SC - FRANCE, Aude, Rennes les Bains, Sunard A. leg. 6. VII. 1989
Body length, 26 mm

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__auratus_auratus_Linne__1761__f._brunieri_Barthe__1921__26mm.jpg — (97.37к)

There are few Crimean trellis ground beetles
that have been previously assigned to the ssp taxon. sulinensis Born, 1902; ?non priority
Crimea, Chatyrdagh Mt.

Pictures:

C_cancellatus_silunensis_female.jpg — (107.87к)

In Belarus, there are interesting black-and-blue forms, and they occur quite locally and dominate in these places.
ssp. tuberculatus f. conspersus Lapouge, 1902 described from Byelorussia: Baranovichi
Material comes from the Vitebsk region and Mogilev region

Pictures:

C_cancellatus_tuberculatus_blue_form_male_01.jpg — (85.83к)


Carabus_cancellatus_tuberculatus_female_Belarus.jpg — (61.11к)

so, after all, the Crimean ones are subspecies7?

At the moment, I consider them to be a subspecies, since they differ significantly from the mainland in large series and are quite well isolated from neighboring mainland populations by steppe and semi - desert areas. In the Crimea, there are both red-browed forms, and with completely black legs-probably this trait is not important in distinguishing subspecies, but its role also cannot be belittled.

Below I give an excerpt on this species from the upcoming catalog of beetles of the Belorussky Poozerye.

C. (Tachypus) cancellatus Illigier, 1798. [Arnold, 1902; Yakobson, 1905; Radkevich, 1936, 1970; Alexandrovich et al., 1996; Solodovnikov and Sushko, 1997; Solodovnikov, 1997b, 1999a, b, 2001, 2004, 2008a (mapping); Kuzmich and Solodovnikov, 2003; Red Kniga, 2004; Sushko, 2001, 2003b, 2004a, 2005a, 2006, Bogutsky, Lukashuk, Medvedev, 2008]. Br., Pos., Doc., Shar., Mi., Ch., Ver., Ros., Pol., Ush., Lep., Shum., Besh., Sen., Chash., Gor., Vit., Li., Orsh., Oak., Tol. On our territory it is represented by the subspecies tuberculatus Dejean, 1826. Recently, the status of this subspecies has become controversial and it is accepted as a designation of the local red-headed form from the nominative subspecies. However, due to the combination of external features and the fact that this form dominates in the east of the range, the author is of the opinion about the subspecies status of this form. Along with the typical form of the subspecies tuberculatus f. typ. with light and dark bronze moderately broad elytra and pronotum of the same color, the following aberrations and shapes are noted: f. conspersus Lapouge, 1902-blue-black, green-black, or black upper part; m. gracilis Kolbe, 1913-characterized by small size of 19.5-21 mm; n. rapax Bernau, 1913-characterized by a broad body in contrast to the typical form (described from Moravia). Ubiquitous and common. The species is included in the third edition of the Red Book of the Republic of Belarus (2004) in category IV (NT). In the second edition (1993), it was included in 2 categories of protection. The number of eurytopic mesophilic species Carabus cancellatus has not decreased recently. In agrocenoses and urban communities, its catchability is higher than in natural biocenoses (Solodovnikov, 2001, 2004, 2008a, Solodovnikov and Filimonov, 2000). In the Yelnya Swamp hydrological reserve of national significance and on the territory of the Osveisky lake and swamp complex, its abundance is stable and it dominates other species of this genus (Solodovnikov and Sushko, 1997; Sushko, 2001, 2006). Recently, it has become common and numerous in fields, meadows, wastelands, and urban communities. It is not included in the red books of neighboring territories and states. Therefore, C. cancellatus can be excluded from the" Red Book of the Republic of Belarus " (2004), as a species that is not threatened with extinction, which was suggested earlier (Solodovnikov, 1999b). The adult overwinters. 12.04 – 30.10.

This post was edited by I. solod - 10.11.2009 02: 39

so, after all, the Crimean ones are subspecies7?

As for my critical opinion, it doesn't look like more than a nation.

A small note
It is clear that everyone wants to find a new subspecies in their garden. But this requires strong arguments.
I would like to hear not questions about which subspecies, but to hear opinions and see photos from all regions.
There is no exact answer to these questions yet. I don't think anyone has them.
This topic is not considered as an axiom at this stage, but only as a large hypothesis.

If we adhere to the opinion given above, then all the Carpathian, Hungarian and Romanian populations will also have to be considered not as a separate nation. But in large series they clearly differ, but at least many European and Balkan subspecies actually differ slightly and have a number of transitional features. There are about 25-30 taxa now before my eyes for this species - I look at them and reflect.

If we adhere to the opinion given above, then all the Carpathian, Hungarian and Romanian populations will also have to be considered not as a separate nation. But in large series they clearly differ, but at least many European and Balkan subspecies actually differ slightly and have a number of transitional features. There are about 25-30 taxa now before my eyes for this species - I look at them and reflect.

I agree!
That's just what subspecies, is not yet clear.
For now, we will adhere to the official opinion.

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus cancellatus n.sulinensis Born, 1902
The body length is 26mm.
Crimea, Old Crimea, 17. V. 2002
! In 2009, it was reduced to synonyms.

This post was edited by rpanin - 15.01.2010 16: 32

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_sulinensis_Born__1902.26mm.S_UKRAINE__Krym_Peninsula__Staryi_Krym__17.V.2002.jpg — (190.04к)

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus tibiscinus Csiki, 1905
female, 28 mm
SE Hungary, Csongrád, Makó env., 1-8. VIII. 2004, Krause R., Slovakia, Pittner leg.

Pictures:

Carabus__Tachypus__cancellatus_tibiscinus_Csiki__1905.jpg — (201.3к)

Carabus (Tachypus) cristoforii Spence, 1823 f. .nicolasi Reitter, 1888
S-France Hautes-Pyrénées, Pic de Néré h=2200m,15.VII.1999, Bamps leg.
Previously it was in the Tmesicarabus subgenus, now this breed is combined with Tachypus.

This post was edited by rpanin - 12.02.2011 17: 41

Pictures:

Carabus__Tmesicarabus__cristoforii_Spence__1823_f.nicolasi_Reitter__1888.jpg — (99.16к)

Carabus (Tachypus) cancellatus cancellatus n.sulinensis Born, 1902
No. 1
S Ukraine.,
Crimea peninsula,
Bahchisaray district,
1 km SSW from Bogatoe ushel'e vill.,
h = 460 m.
44°33 '2.48" S, 33°51 '19.95" B
(The first female was found in a rotten Beech trunk, the second-in the soil, at a depth of 10 m see under the moss layer)
Leg. Shehovcov A.
05.II.2011

No. 2
S Ukraine.,
Crimea peninsula,
Bahchisaray district,
1.5 km WSW from Bogatoe ushel'e vill,
near waterfall Suatkan,
h = 480 m.
44°33 '2.48" S, 33°51 '19.95" B
(In a rotten Beech trunk)
Leg. Shehovcov A. & B. Loboda B.
04.II.2011

This post was edited by Liparus - 12.02.2011 20: 41