Yes, there are more ID-errors around with these. Most of the time it is easy enough, but when the black on the pronotum becomes extended in tredec. and notata the confusion kicks in ;o) I think the exact location of the spots behind the scutelar spot (and the way these merge) is also helpful.

Would be good if the notata could be renamed somehow.

Cheers, Arp

Hi All,

> This ladybug is not present collection, I will remove this image.

I think that would be a shame - this one very nicely shows the variability, especially when you have it next to your other more "standard" Hip.tre.. To me the ID from just photo is clear enough and Vitis seems to agree, so I think it's quite okay to rename it accordingly ;o)

Of course, I don't know who is who in Russian entomologist, but if Vitis is an expert (s)he may want to have a look at the "septemmaculata" (linked above) that I would assume to be notata.

Cheers, Arp

I would assume that both can be more or less reliably ID'ed from photo, but that somehow the photos got an incorrect name attached. If a Russian/regional expert takes a good (second?) look at both photos and agrees with me, I think you can assume the ID to be correct. If he/she disagrees, it would be good to see the actual specimen. For now I'm assuming the ID is wrong and that an expert could confirm that based on just the photos, same as I did.

Hi Boris, maybe ask the expert to have a second look - I really think it's Hip.tre. (we all make mistakes - I certainly do ;o)

Also, if you ask him anyway, maybe ask him to look at this image from this page. Obviously the specimen has been collected so it should be checked (but maybe it's a female?), but the pattern on the pronotum really looks like Hip. notata a lot more than Hip.sep. (hind corners of pronotum all black). The page is an excelent reference for images of Coccinellidae and being based on the collection of the Institute of Taxonomical Biology, Daugavpils it certainly has "authority", so it would be very bad if I'm correct and the beetle is a notata because many people will refer to this page for reliable comparisson.

Sorry to bother you with this, but as they are Russian pages you may know much better who to contact about such issues :o)

Thanks & Cheers, Arp

Hi Boris,

Are you really sure this is H.sept. ? I stumbled on the photo on this page: http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/loboda8.htm and came here looking for it. IMHO it looks much more like Hippodamia tredecimpunctata !?!

The two can be very close - especially when the black pigment on pronotum and elytra is extended, but the shape of the black pattern on the pronotum and the way that the scutellar spot is _not_ extended backward and connected to basal spots in an inverted T shape (as would be usual on a darkish septemmaculata) to me indicates that this would be 13-punct.

Cheers, Arp

Hi Boris,

First of all - HAPPY BIRTHDAY :o))) - I'll have nice drink on your health later tonight :-p

This specimen (as well as some of the others) really looks like Oxythyrea cinctella (or maybe noemi???) - did the card with the specimen say where it was from?

Cheers, Arp

Hi Barry, I don't think the nymph is a Holcostethus - my choice would be Neottiglossa sp. but you don't have the "sp." option in your species list yet ;o)
Cheers, Arp

Hi Boris,

If it is not possible to bind an image to genus only, I think that it would be a perfect idea/workaround to add Genus sp. to all genera. For some that will be overkill (if there is only one species in the genus), but in general it will be a good way to enable ID to genus level.

For this ID: I really think the currently valid name is Apterygida media (Hagenbach 1822), which also makes sense seeing the publication dates.

That said, I cannot be 100% certain of the ID here as I don't know all Ukrain/Russian species, and certainly not their nymphs, but the habitus, hairs (also on the forceps), development level of wingstubs etc are all typical for A. media.

Hi Boris,

Looks very much like Apterygida media (nymph)

I tried adding an ID to genus for some pictures, but after specifying family and genus and pressing [Add] the new ID comes back at family level, not at genus level ... is this by design?

Adult female Labia minor (Linnaeus 1758), Spongiphoridae

For reference with ID: German info
Additionally you also have Pedilus but those look quite different: image

Don't worry, it's not a big deal to me(!) But yes, coordinates printed with the location would be a helpful workaround :o)

Howdy,

Okay, all one location ... (the maps don't work on my Linux-box ;o)

If you find more Woodlice and would like me to try and get proper names I would love to see specimen from your region(s) - can't always guarantee that I will find a name quickly as I would probably have to visit at library at 200+km to find docs, but I would certainly try!
Don't feel obliged or anything, but I just had to ask ;o)
Cheers, Arp

Not too sure this would be P. scaber - it may well be another Trachelipus, but hard to tell from this single image.

Cheers, Arp

Hi, this is a Porcellionides. It doesn't quite look like the P. pruinosus that I know from various parts of Europe and on Crimea there may be some other species that I have never seen. Certainly Porcellionides rectifrons is present, but I think it would be prudent to also take P. approximatus and maybe P. pica or even P. sexfasciatius(?) into account.
At the moment I can't do better than Porcellionides sp. - will have a look what I can find about the other species, but it may take a while.

Cheers, Arp

Hi,

Seems this is a set of three different individuals. All from one location?
None of these are Armadillidium. Left and right are Trachelipus, images in center probably also, but less sure. I don't know the species from Ukraine, so I can't go to species from photo. If you wish for a better ID I would love to look at some specimen (if at all possible, even alife).

Cheers, Arp