| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sergi
Member Rosenbergia
Spain
1744 Posts |
 Posted - 05/01/2014 : 15:49:46
|
477.22 KB
From China, Guangxi.
Size: 16 mm |
Edited by - Xavier on 05/01/2014 17:25:29 |
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12215 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2014 : 17:22:58
|
A Rhaphuma sp. , from a hard group...
Here a species close to yours : Rhaphuma indifferens Holzschuh, 1992...try to find a german reader for translation ; I can't understand
  |
Edited by - Xavier on 05/01/2014 17:24:33 |
 |
|
|
Sergi
Member Rosenbergia
Spain
1744 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2014 : 17:30:37
|
Thank you Xavier, this group is very difficult!!! |
|
|
|
Andre
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1695 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2014 : 08:36:19
|
| He compares R. indifferens with R. quercus. The best way is the genital morphologie. Have you Male or Female? The Aedeagus from R. indifferens is much more smaller a by R. quercus. (Abb. 78) |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2014 : 10:40:11
|
I also doubt that this is Rhaphuma indifferens. Holzschuh emphasizes that Rh. indifferens has 2 dark spots in pronotum and confronts it to Rh. quercus which mostly has 4 spots (as the Sergi’s beetle). The pronotum shape seems also different as well as the shape of the first band in elytra.
Does anyone have a photo of Rh. quercus? |
|
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12215 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2014 : 11:38:16
|
| Here a picture of Rhaphuma quercus Gardner, 1940 |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2014 : 13:03:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier
Here a picture of Rhaphuma quercus Gardner, 1940
Well, this photo does not make life easier.
Regarding this photo it looks strange that someone would call Rh. indifferens and Rh. quercus close species.
|
|
|
|
Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1924 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2014 : 00:52:54
|
331.14 KB
I have checked my spms of R. quercus (left both) and R. indifferens (the right one should be this sps), the genitals are really different in both sps, the differentiation only by the tomentation is strange, Holzschuh himself mentioned already "I couldn't distinguish the female in this time".
The elytral markings are variable somewhat in the diameters and widths but the pattern of each sps is very constant.
I think Sergi's sps could be still another sps, but is a female. |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2014 : 10:58:46
|
Hi Xaurus. I suspect you are wrong. At least the genital drawing, both aedeagus and parameres, given by Holzschuh (1992) for Rhaphuma indifferens (Fig. 76, I copied it below) correspond well to your LEFT beetle. Right one is completely different.
The pronotums seem to have 2 dark spots in the left beetle, 4 in the middle and 0 in the right beetle. Is this correct?
41.43 KB |
|
|
|
Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1924 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2014 : 23:38:15
|
Hi Vitali, I think both left ones are R. quercus (nearly sure), but not indifferens, look at the sides of tergite 8, are in indifferens straight, and the paramere is also wider in indifferens, and I see also the longer parameres in indifferens compared to quercus (but not by the drawing).
To differentiate the aedeagus acc the picture is strange (bad drawing by Holzschuh), my right sps in fact is R. luteopubens Pic, 1937 not indifferens.
Today I have slaughtered a male of the really indifferens, I can give you a picture still next week. |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2014 : 11:50:17
|
| Yes, I paid attention that 8th tergite was different, and that was why I wrote that "at least aedeagus and parameres" were more similar to R. indifferens, than to your right beetle. If you decide not to place the photo of R. indifferens genitalia here, please send it to my personal address. |
|
|
|
Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1924 Posts |
Posted - 16/01/2014 : 16:00:10
|
Now I show my idea about the 3 very similar sps: R. quercus - R. indifferens and R. luteopubens.
I hope anybody can provide the other congeners: R. improba Holzschuh, 1992 and puncticollis Holschuh, 1992 for comparison.
348.04 KB
Sergi now I think the genitals of indifferens are more in accordance with Holzschuh's drawing ! |
|
|
|
Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1924 Posts |
Posted - 16/01/2014 : 17:12:31
|
| sorry I mean Vitali - but Sergi's first sps should belongs to R. indifferens, do you have a male too ? |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
994 Posts |
Posted - 17/01/2014 : 14:57:36
|
Yes, Andreas, I agree.
The parameres look more similar to R. indifferens. The 8th tergite is still a problem, and the aedeagus looks broader.
What makes me doubt even more, is the section of the description of R. indifferens, which is copied below.
I don't know in fact how important is the number of spots in pronotum.
119.07 KB
Concerning other similar species. I have placed here one which I suspect to be R. improba, but I am not ready yet to "slaughter" it as you call this |
|
|
|
Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1924 Posts |
Posted - 18/01/2014 : 00:21:15
|
Dear Vitali,
finally I'm still not quite clear with this species complex, because I don't know R. incarinata for example and also other nearby species; however with the number of spot on the pronotum I have no problem, i.e. in R. quercus there are spms without spot, 2 or 4 sport why not in others sps too.
I hope to clarify anything in March I'll visit Carolus in Villach.
|
|
|
|
Sergi
Member Rosenbergia
Spain
1744 Posts |
Posted - 18/01/2014 : 17:57:00
|
| Thanks at all for the help!!! Are quite complicated these Clytini.... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
China: Rhaphuma indifferens ?
