Cerambycoidea Forum
Cerambycoidea Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Cerambycidae Cerambycinae
 Clytini
 Kazakhstan, Xylotrechus: arnoldii
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Author  Topic Next Topic  

Orish
Member Nathrius

Poland
6 Posts

Posted - 27/08/2017 :  12:41:57  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote



E Kazakhstan, Taskesken env., 15.06.2017, 627 m.a.s.l.

Hello,

this is my first post at this Forum. I have problem with determination of this specimen collected this year in east Kazakhstan. I am not sure if it is X. arnoldii arnoldii, X. medvedevi (it would be a new record for Kazakhstan) or some new. sp.
Looking on external habitus it seems to be more X. arnoldii but following the key (Shapovalov 2014) it is more X. mediedievi (eyes) in my opinion.

I would say it is X. arnoldii but most of the material it this subgenus is very poor, so I do not want to exlude new.sp.

Max
Member Purpuricenus

Russia
487 Posts

Posted - 28/08/2017 :  00:52:55  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
It is male or female? I would agree with X. arnoldii.
Third protarsomere of HT X. medvedevi looks as one with more rounded lobes, but I have some doubts about importance of this feature.


80.58†KB

Edited by - Max on 28/08/2017 00:54:35
Go to Top of Page

Orish
Member Nathrius

Poland
6 Posts

Posted - 29/08/2017 :  13:18:03  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I am not sure about the gender. It is not so easy in this genus. If we will not be able to determine this specimen for certain I am going to take out aedeagus/ovipositor to make sure (in case of male). I also set similar topic here.

Unfortunately, "tarsus feature" of X. arnoldii is not illustrated in the paper.

Edited by - Orish on 29/08/2017 13:26:58
Go to Top of Page

Max
Member Purpuricenus

Russia
487 Posts

Posted - 29/08/2017 :  14:25:14  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
The gender should be determinated directly after maceration for any exemplare. It` very useful action
In this case not so matter.. You right, very poor material.

quote:
Originally posted by Orish

Unfortunately, "tarsus feature" of X. arnoldii is not illustrated in the paper.

Here. (Bad resolution but another one is absent)


160.98†KB
Go to Top of Page

Orish
Member Nathrius

Poland
6 Posts

Posted - 29/08/2017 :  21:50:00  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
The gender should be determinated directly after maceration for any exemplare

I wrote imprecisely. I know that I will get know the gender after maceration in any case I wanted to say that in case of male I should be able to determine the species since parameres of all representatives of subgen. Kostiniclytus have been ilustrated in the paper. But in case of female this procedure would be usless.

Regarding protarsomers. I assume that your first photo shows front leg of X. medvedevi and the second photo X. arnoldii?
If so, I think my specimen is quite diffrent.

X. medvedevi
- rounded 3rd protarsomer lobe and 5th, "the longest one" (because 4th is hidden in Cerambycidae I guess) is longer or as long as 3rd and 2nd combined.

X. arnoldii
- short, small and sharper 3rd protarsomer lobe and 5th shorter than 3rd and 2nd combined.

My specimen - 3rd sharp but long and 5th as long as 3rd and 2nd combined (second character like in case of X. medvedevi).

This is my assumption. Would you agree with it?

Edited by - Orish on 30/08/2017 00:58:57
Go to Top of Page

Orish
Member Nathrius

Poland
6 Posts

Posted - 29/08/2017 :  22:05:16  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
X. arnoldii

45.86†KB

X. medvedevi

29.42†KB

My specimen Xylotrechus sp. (horizontal flip)

34.67†KB

Edited by - Orish on 30/08/2017 00:58:22
Go to Top of Page

Max
Member Purpuricenus

Russia
487 Posts

Posted - 30/08/2017 :  00:19:48  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
"your first photo shows front leg of X. mediedievi and the second photo X. arnoldii?" -
Yes it is.

I agree, your beetle have a acute lobes of 3-protarsomere (like X. katerinae and X.volkovitchi males). I don`t know about a variability and value of this feature. Honestly, I don`t sure about X. medvedevi as good species. I can be wrong here but if the material limited to Types only - cannot say much for variability. Very good beetle, it is pity that so few of them.
Go to Top of Page

Jacek Kurzawa
Member Nathrius

Poland
20 Posts

Posted - 10/10/2017 :  12:24:01  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Jacek Kurzawa's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Hi,

quote:
Originally posted by Max

It is male or female?

quote:
Originally posted by Orish

I am not sure about the gender. It is not so easy in this genus.

This is easy. Male and female are good recognizable on the base look on pronotum and head. Dimorphismus in sgen. Kostiniclytus are clearly. Specimen showed on the photos (to determination) is male.

quote:
Originally posted by Max

The gender should be determinated directly after maceration for any exemplare.


It is obvious that in abdomen will be gender organs but for sex determination maceration isnít necessary in this case.
Construction of last sternites male and female is different. In this case first looks on habitus (pronotum and head) give quick answer. Second look from lateral side for tergites VI and VII will confirmed it.
Go to Top of Page
   Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Jump To:
Cerambycoidea Forum © 2000-08 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07