Monograph |
Corresponding author: Maria Salnitska ( m.salnitska@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Jan Klimaszewski
© 2019 Maria Salnitska, Alexey Solodovnikov.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Salnitska M, Solodovnikov A (2019) Rove beetles of the genus Quedius (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) of Russia: a key to species and annotated catalogue. ZooKeys 847: 1-100. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.847.34049
|
This paper is the first inventory of the fauna of the rove beetle genus Quedius in the Russian Federation. It provides an annotated catalogue of 88 species of Quedius currently recorded from Russia, based on several collections and a critical evaluation of all earlier published records. All species are listed with a summary of their overall distribution and bionomics. Species distributions within Russia are given as lists of regions where they occur with references to the respective source collections or publications which any record is based on. For that, the territory of Russia is divided into 40 regions that mostly follow the administrative division of the country. The annotated catalogue is supplemented by a well-illustrated identification key to all species and a concise checklist in form of an easily visualized table. Quedius fusus Cai & Zhou, 2015, Quedius humosus Solodovnikov, 2005, and Quedius lundbergi Palm, 1973 are recorded from the territory of Russia for the first time. Based on an analysis of literature and available material, records of Quedius cincticollis Kraatz, 1857, Quedius humeralis Stephens, 1832, Quedius maurorufus (Gravenhorst 1806), Quedius nemoralis Baudi de Selve, 1848, Quedius nigrocaeruleus Fauvel, 1876, and Quedius picipes (Mannerheim, 1830) from Russia are considered doubtful. The distribution of Quedius brachypterus Coiffait, 1967, described from the ‘Caucasus’, remains ambiguous and its presence in Russia is unlikely. The identity of Quedius fulvipennis Hochhuth, 1851 from ‘Dahuria’ remains unknown, pending examination of the type material. For Quedius citelli Kirschenblatt, 1933 a lectotype is designated. For that species and Q. sofiri Khachikov, 2015 illustrations of the aedeagi are provided for the first time. The paper stresses the currently poor state of knowledge of the Quedius diversity in Russia and provides a platform for its improvement, which should begin with a large-scale sampling program, especially in Siberia and Far East.
Palearctic, faunistics, systematics, Microsaurus, Raphirus, Distichalius, Velleius
With more than 700 species (
Almost the entire diversity of Quedius is confined to the Palearctic region (
Russia is a country stretching through a large and extremely diverse geographic area (Fig.
With respect to Quedius, very little is known about the Russian fauna. It is very difficult to initiate and advance studies in this direction because even the existing scarce taxonomic and faunistic literature relevant to Quedius in Russia is very fragmented, incomplete and, at most, applicable only to smaller regions of the country. So far, reliable work can be done only by somebody with many years of experience. There is not a single publication which could serve as an easy ‘kick start’ for taxonomic or faunistic work on Quedius in Russia by the broader community of entomologists. All existing catalogues that cover Russia provide little detail specifically for its territory. For example, the catalogue of rove beetles of the former USSR and adjacent regions in
Our publication is based on literature data and examination of specimens from several collections abbreviated as follows:
ZMMU Zoological Museum of Moscow University, Moscow, Russia (AA Gusakov)
cAle Private collection of S Alekseev, Kaluga, Russia
cGon Private collection of A Gontarenko, Odessa, Ukraine
cKur Private collection of S Kurbatov, Moscow, Russia
cRyv Private collection of A Ryvkin, Moscow, Russia
cSha Private collection of A Shavrin, Daugavpils, Latvia
cSme Private collection of A Smetana, Ottawa, Canada
To gather original distributional and reference data for this publication we used a custom made database implemented in Microsoft Access 2010. Our publication consists of three interconnected parts: 1) identification key to all Quedius species that occur in Russia; 2) annotated species list arranged by subgenera and alphabetically within each subgenus; and 3) a brief summary of distribution, abundance and source of data for each species in Russia in tabular format, with species arranged alphabetically across the entire genus.
The Russian Federation (Fig.
Finding a system of subdivision for such a large and diverse area as Russia that is suitable for cataloguing purposes is complicated. Normally it is better to visualize species ranges via some biogeographic division reflecting natural geographic units or landscapes (
To overcome these problems, we here divide Russia as in the Catalogue of Lepidoptera of Russia (
As a result, the Russian Federation here is divided into 40 regions abbreviated and listed alphabetically as follows. Numbers correspond to the respective position of the regions in Table
ALTAI REP (24) Altai Republic
AMUR PROV (36) Amur Province
BURYAT REP (27) Buryatia Republic
CHUKOTKA (32) Chukotka: Chukotka Autonomus District, Koryak district, Wrangel Island
CN RU (8) Central Northern European Russia: Tver, Smolensk, Yaroslavl, Moscow, Kaluga, Bryansk, Tula, Ryazan, Vladimir, and Ivanovo provinces
CRIM REP (13) Crimea Republic
CS RU (9) Central Southern European Russia: Kursk, Lipetsk, Tambov, Orel, Belgorod and Voronezh provinces
E CAUC (15) Eastern Caucasus: Chechnya and Dagestan republics
EUR S-TAIGA RU (7) European Southern taiga Russia: Vologda, Kostroma, and Kirov provinces, Udmurt Republic
IRKUTSK PROV (26) Irkutsk Province
KALIN PROV (1) Kaliningrad Province
KAMCHATKA (34) Kamchatka: the Kamchatka Peninsula (part of Kamchatka Territory), Commander Islands (belong to Kamchatka Territory) and northern Kuril Islands south to Urup strait (belong to Sakhalin Province)
KAREL REP (3) Karelia Republic
KRSNYRSK (22) Krasnoyarsk: south of Krasnoyarsk Territory, Khakassia Republic
KUZN ALTAI (23) Kuznetsk-Altai: Kemerovo Province, Altai Territory (without Kulunda Steppe)
LWR AMUR (37) Lower Amur: southern part of Khabarovsk Territory, Jewish Autonomous Province
LWR OB (18) Lower Ob: Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District
LWR VOLGA (12) Lower Volga: Astrakhan Province, Kalmykia Republic
MAGADAN PROV (33) Magadan Province
MDL OB (19) Middle Ob: Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District, Tomsk Province
MDL URAL (16) Middle Ural: Perm Territory, Sverdlovsk Province and western part of Tyumen Province
MDL VOLGA (10) Middle-Volga Nizhny Novgorod, Penza, Ulyanovsk and Samara provinces, Tatarstan, Mari-El, Chuvashia and Mordovia republics
MURM PROV (2) Murmansk Province
N CAUC (14) Northern Caucasus: Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia–Alania and Ingushetia republics
N KHABAROVSK (35) Northern Khabarovsk (northern part of Khabarovsk Territory to the Uda River in the south)
N YENISS (21) Northern Yenisei: Taymyr and Evenk Autonomous Districts, northern part of Krasnoyarsk Territory
NE RU (6) North-Eastern European Russia: Arkhangelsk Province (without Nenets Autonomous District and Novaya Zemlya archipelago), Komi Republic
NE YAKUT (30) North-Eastern Yakutia (Sakha) Republic
NEN–NVZEM (5) Nenets–Novaya Zemlya: Nenets Autonomous District, Novaya Zemlya archipelago
NW RU (4) North-Western European Russia: Leningrad, Novgorod and Pskov provinces
NW YAKUT (29) North-Western Yakutia (Sakha) (in the east up to Verkhoyanskiy range watershed)
PRIM TERR (40) Primorsky Territory
S KURIL (39) Southern Kuril: southern Kuril islands (Kunashir, Iturup, Urup, Shikotan, and other islands of Lesser Kuril Chain, all belong to Sakhalin Province)
S URAL (17) Southern Ural: Bashkortostan Republic, Orenburg, Chelyabinsk, and Kurgan provinces
S YAKUT (31) Southern Yakutia: Yakutia (Sakha Republic) south of Vilyuy and Aldan rivers
SAKHALIN (38) Sakhalin Island (belongs to Sakhalin Province)
SW SIBER (20) South-Western Siberian: Tyumen Province (eastern part), Omsk and Novosibirsk provinces, Altai Territory (eastern part: Kulunda Steppe)
TUVA REP (25) Tuva Republic
VOLGO-DON (11) Volgo-Don: Saratov, Volgograd, and Rostov provinces
ZABAIK TERR (28) Zabaikalsky Territory
The first mentions of species of the genus Quedius from an area that included the territory of modern Russia belong to
Throughout the rest of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, the amount of taxonomic publications that touched upon Quedius of Russia significantly grew and included many species described from the Russian parts of the Caucasus (
Overall, the current knowledge about Quedius of Russia is very fragmented, both taxonomically and geographically and often it is hidden in the publications of a more inclusive scope, covering all Staphylinidae or even Coleoptera. Finally, for some regions of Russia, publications, or even collected material are limited to non-existent (Figs
The subdivision of the genus Quedius into subgenera is used here according to
At the species level, there are a number of taxonomic problems pending more detailed studies as well. For example, Quedius umbrinus displays very strong morphological variation suggesting a complex of more than one species. On the other hand, species limits are not clear among some described species, to mention Q. sublimbatus and Q. arcticus pair, or the Q. boops-group as examples. In case of Q. sublimbatus and Q. arcticus, we follow their conventional synonymy. Our accepted concept of Quedius boops, Q. boopoides, and Q. paraboops also needs further study. These three species are indistinguishable from each other by characters of external morphology. Genitalic differences are subtle, subject to variation and, together with geographic distribution, are interpreted here as follows. Two species, Q. boops and Q. boopoides, occur sympatrically from Europe to Siberia, but Q. boopoides gradually becomes rare from the west to the east of its range, which does not reach the Far East. Meanwhile, Q. boops is present in the Far East, with its easternmost record known from the Lower Amur region. At the same time, Q. paraboops is known only from Siberia and Far East, but its western form that occurs in Krasnoyarsk and Tuva regions appears as a gradual transition between this species and Q. boops. Future examination of a larger amount of material using rigorous methods of molecular and morphometric species delimitation should bring more clarity about species limits in the Q. boops-group. Other species of the Russian fauna also pose various taxonomic problems, perhaps of a lower severity. In those cases some assumptions or preliminary conclusions are discussed in the respective ‘Notes’ section. In general, we deliberately avoided any taxonomic changes and nomenclatural acts here, pending their proper justification and implementation in the separate publications.
These are traditional dichotomous keys that also include a succinct summary of the most important diagnostic and biological features for each species. Often distributions or bionomics may be as helpful as morphology, especially for identification of closely related species. The overall structure of the key and some aedeagus illustrations are adopted from Solodovnikov (2012). Species whose presence in the Russian fauna is strongly ambiguous are placed in square brackets.
1 | Elytra densely covered by setiferous punctures, interspaces between punctures smaller or slightly larger than diameter of punctures | 2 |
– | Elytra with sparse setiferous punctures, interspaces distinctly larger than diameter of punctures. (Fig. |
Subgenus Distichalius Casey, 1915 |
2 | Anterior margin of labrum with deep emargination or distinct notch in the middle so that labrum appears bilobed. Body size variable | 4 |
– | Anterior margin of labrum entire so that labrum never bilobed or emarginated in the middle. Habitus as in Fig. |
3 |
3 | Large species with body length not smaller than 9 mm | Subgenus Quedius Stephens, 1829 |
– | Smaller species, body not longer than 7 mm |
Quedius (Rahirus) jenisseensis |
4 | Eyes in most cases small or moderate in size, slightly longer to distinctly shorter than temples (Figs |
5 |
– | Eyes large and convex, always longer than temples. Vertex (one side) with one basal puncture postero-medially from posterior frontal puncture. Postero-lateral areas of pronotum not explanate. Habitus as in Figs |
Subgenus Raphirus Stephens, 1829 |
5 | Smaller species 4.5–14.0 mm. Antennae not serrate. Pronotum mostly not transverse and laterally only slightly explanate, with marginal setae situated at or very close to pronotal margins | Subgenus Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 |
– | Large and robust species 15.0–24.0 mm. Antennae strongly serrate. Pronotum distinctly transverse, laterally strongly explanate, with marginal setae situated at notable distance from pronotal margins | Subgenus Velleius Leach, 1819 |
1 | Elytra entirely reddish, sometimes darkened at suture. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. japonicus Sharp, 1874 |
– | Elytra black or brownish-black, sometimes lighter at suture (exceptionally, elytra can be pale in some specimens of Q. cinctus). Aedeagus: median lobe never bilobed at apex | 2 |
2 | Larger species: body length 7.5–8.5 mm. Lateral outline of head gradually converging towards neck behind eyes | 3 |
– | Smaller species: body length 5.5–7.5 mm. Lateral outline of head parallel-sided immediately behind eyes and then broadly rounded and converging towards neck | 4 |
3 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fusus Cai & Zhou, 2015 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. cinctus (Paykull, 1790) |
4 | Larger species 6.0–7.5 mm (Fig. |
Q. minor Hochhuth, 1849 |
– | Smaller species 5.5–6.0 mm. Aedeagus (Fig. |
D. kamchaticus Smetana, 1976 |
1 | Scutellum impunctate, glabrous | 2 |
– | Scutellum punctate, setose | 3 |
2 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fuliginosus (Gravenhorst, 1802) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. curtipennis Bernhauer, 1908 |
3 | Frons with additional setiferous punctures between anterior frontal punctures. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. levicollis Brullé, 1832 |
– | Frons without additional setiferous punctures between anterior frontal punctures. Aedeagus: median lobe (in dorsal view) apically without two well developed lateral teeth, with a pair of medial teeth, without apical medial carina (e.g., Fig. |
4 |
4 | Elytra shortened, distinctly shorter than pronotum, obviously brachypterous species without whitish apical seam on abdominal tergite VII. Habitus as in Fig. |
Q. sundukovi Smetana, 2003 |
– | Elytra normal, not shortened, about as long as pronotum. Species with whitish apical seam on abdominal tergite VII. Larger: body length 8.6–12.5 mm | 5 |
5 | Body brown, with reddish elytra. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. vicinus Ménétriés, 1832 |
– | Body black, or at most brownish (Fig. |
6 |
6 | Antennae light or at least first two to three antennomeres distinctly paler than remaining antennomeres | 7 |
– | Antennae dark including first two to three antennomeres | 8 |
7 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. molochinus (Gravenhorst, 1806) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. meridiocarpathicus Smetana, 1958 |
8 | Elytra most often brownish. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. balticus Korge, 1960 |
– | Elytra most often black or dark brown. Aedeagus: (in ventral or dorsal view) median lobe with attenuate part of its apex (Fig. |
9 |
9 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. subunicolor Korge, 1961 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. altaicus Korge, 1962 |
1 | Scutellum punctate, setose, even if sometimes with very few punctures | 2 |
– | Scutellum completely impunctate, glabrous (sometimes with irregular surface sculpture, but never with setiferous punctures) | 7 |
2 | Distinctly larger species, body length 11.0–14.0 mm. Head, pronotum and elytra dark brown to blackish, abdomen more or less reddish-brown. Antennomeres not serrate, of moniliform shape. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. truncicola Fairmaire & Laboulbène, 1856 |
– | Small species, body length 4.5–6.8 mm. Aedeagus and habitus different | 3 |
3 | Body variously yellowish-brown to brown. Elytra (measured at sides, from shoulder) distinctly longer than wide, usually with distinctly or vaguely paler margins | 4 |
– | Body piceous black to brown. Elytra (measured at sides, from shoulder) as long as wide or slightly shorter than wide, usually uniformly colored | 6 |
4 | Eyes small and flat, distinctly shorter than temples. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. microps Gravenhorst, 1847 |
– | Eyes rather large and slightly protruding beyond head contour, as long as, or slightly longer than temples. Aedeagus different | 5 |
5 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. infuscatus Erichson, 1840 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. lundbergi Palm, 1972 |
6 | Larger species, body length 6.8 mm. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. amurensis Smetana, 2018 |
– | Smaller species, body length 5.9 mm. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. sofiri Khachikov, 2005 |
7 | Microsculpture of head and pronotum consisting of isodiametrical meshea, never of waves and micropunctation. Head and pronotum dull, not glossy. Head dark brown, pronotum reddish-brown to brown with paler sides; elytra, appendages and apical parts of abdominal tergites reddish to pale brown. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. longicornis Kraatz, 1857 8 |
– | Microsculpture of head and pronotum consisting of transverse waves and often with micropunctation, never isodiametric. Head and pronotum more or less glossy. Habitus and aedeagus different | 8 |
8 | Elytra brownish, of the same or very similar coloration as rest of the body. Eyes very small, temples 1.9–2.5 times as long as eyes. Elytra slightly or distinctly shorter than pronotum. Distinctly brachypterous species without whitish apical seam on abdominal tergite VII | 9 |
– | Elytra dark brown or even blackish as rest of body, or contrasting with darker body. (If elytra black as rest of body, see Q. nigrocaeruleus). Eyes larger, temples ca. 0.5–1 times as long as eyes. Elytra longer than, or as long as pronotum. Apical seam on abdominal tergite VII always present | 10 |
9 | Head narrow, pronotum with distinctly pronounced posterior angles and lateral contours strongly narrowing anteriad. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. roma Solodovnikov & Hansen, 2016 |
– | Head wider, pronotum with less pronounced posterior angles and lateral contours less narrowed anteriad. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. repentinus Salnitska & Solodovnikov, 2018 |
10 | Pronotum with four setiferous punctures in dorsal row (check both dorsal rows because occasionally the basalmost puncture may be reduced or lost in one row). Body testaceous brown to blackish, pronotum and especially elytra and apical margins of abdominal tergites often paler than rest of the body (Fig. |
Q. tenellus (Gravenhorst, 1806) |
– | Pronotum with two or three setiferous punctures in dorsal row (check both dorsal rows because occasionally the basalmost puncture may be reduced or lost in one row; also count the foremost puncture which can be very close to anterior margin of pronotum and slightly laterad from other punctures of dorsal row). Aedeagus different | 11 |
11 | Pronotum with two setiferous punctures in dorsal row (Fig. |
12 |
– | Pronotum with three setiferous punctures in dorsal row (Fig. |
17 |
12 | Elytra and rest of body black, apical margins of abdominal tergites and appendages vaguely paler. Sublateral rows of punctures on pronotum absent. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. conviva Smetana, 2018 |
– | Elytra reddish, yellowish, or brown, body black or brown, sometimes pale. Sublateral rows of punctures on pronotum consisting of 1–3 punctures. Aedeagus different | 13 |
13 | Smaller species, body length 6.0–8.0 mm. Eyes small and flat, distinctly shorter than temples | 14 |
– | Larger species, body length 7.0–12.5 mm. Eyes rather long and convex, as long as or slightly longer than temples | 15 |
14 | Body brown, often with paler elytra and apical margins of abdominal tergites (Fig. |
Q. brevis Erichson, 1840 |
– | Body black to dark brown, with reddish elytra. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. citelli Kirschenblat, 1933 |
15 | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere apically of rhomboid shape, strongly narrowed towards pointed apex, underside sensory peg setae arranged in separate groups situated only along parameral margins (Figs |
16 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. abdominalis Eppelsheim, 1878 |
16 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fasciculatus Eppelsheim, 1886 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. koltzei Eppelsheim, 1887 |
17 | Infraorbital ridges (head in latero-ventral view) well developed at base only, not reaching base of mandibles. Aedeagus distinctly asymmetrical (Fig. |
Q. scitus (Gravenhorst, 1806) |
– | Infraorbital ridges (head in latero-ventral view) well developed throughout their entire length, from neck to base of mandibles. Aedeagus rather symmetrical | 18 |
18 | Smaller species, body length 6.5–8 mm. Head and pronotum darker, elytra reddish to brownish. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. edmundi Coiffait, 1969 |
– | Larger species, body length 7.5–12 mm. Aedeagus and habitus different | 19 |
19 | Pronotum, at both sides, with all setiferous punctures of sublateral group situated before (anterior to), or at most at the same level as, large lateral puncture. Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere usually of rhomboid shape with moderately sharp apex (e.g., Fig. |
20 |
– | On at least one side of pronotum, basalmost setiferous puncture of sublateral group situated distinctly behind (posterior to) the level of large lateral puncture. Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere usually of trapezoidal shape with broad apex (e.g., Fig. |
25 |
20 | Legs entirely or at least partly dark brown to black. Aedeagus distinctly symmetrical | 21 |
– | Legs uniformly pale, yellowish to brown, without darkened, dark brown to black, parts. Either aedeagus asymmetrical or, if aedeagus symmetrical, elytra brownish to red, contrasting in coloration with dark brown head and pronotum | 24 |
21 | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere with broad and strongly bilobed apex (Fig. |
Q. brevicornis (Thomson, 1860) |
– | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere with broad, but disrtinctly pointed and entire apex. Posterior frontal puncture usually situated closer to posterior margin of eye than to neck constriction. Elytra of the same or very similar color as head and pronotum, brown to dark brown, only exceptionally paler or reddish | 22 |
22 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. mesomelinus (Marsham, 1802) |
– | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) apex of median lobe narrow and moderately sharp, without abrupt notch at base of apical portion (Fig. |
23 |
23 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. maurus (C. Sahlberg, 1830) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. tetrapunctatus Coiffait, 1977 |
24 | Temples distinctly longer than length of eye, more or less parallel-sided immediately behind eyes, then forming broadly rounded posterior angles of head. Elytra pale brown to red, distinctly different in coloration from dark brown head and pronotum. Aedeagus symmetrical as in Fig. |
Q. vexans Eppelsheim, 1881 |
– | Temples not longer than length of eye, gradually converging to neck, posterior angles of head indistinct. Elytra of about same coloration as head and pronotum, entire body except appendages brownish. Aedeagus asymmetrical, with elongate and strongly asymmetrical apical portion of median lobe (Fig. |
Q. xanthopus Erichson, 1839 |
25 | Aedeagus apically on parameral side with two more or less dentate longitudinal carinae (best seen when paramere removed from median lobe) | 26 |
– | Aedeagus apically on parameral side with only one median longitudinal carina, forming a small tooth at its base (best seen when paramere removed from median lobe) | 29 |
26 | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) apical portion of paramere narrow, underneath with sensory peg setae arranged in irregular, variable, but always distinctly longitudinal groups (Fig. |
27 |
– | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) apical portion of paramere truncate and broad, underneath with sensory peg setae arranged in irregular, variable, but always distinctly transverse groups (Fig. |
28 |
27 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. cruentus (Olivier, 1795) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. ochripennis (Ménétriés, 1832) |
28 | Elytra yellowish red to red, without metallic luster, contrasting with dark brown to black coloration of rest of body. Elytra black in very rare cases. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fulgidus (Fabricius, 1793) |
– | Elytra black as in rest of body, often with bluish metallic lustre. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. nigrocaeruleus Fauvel, 1876 |
29 | Antennal segments less elongate, fourth segment transverse. Male abdominal sternite VIII entirely or at least in anterior three-fourths black, its posterior margin broadly concave, with extremely long black setae (the longest of them longer than antennomere I). Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. invreae Gridelli, 1924 |
– | Antennal segments more elongate, fourth segment not transverse. Male abdominal sternite VIII with at least the anterior and posterior portions pale (brownish) and only median portion usually blackish-brown, its posterior margin shallowly concave only in the middle, with shorter brown setae (barely half as long as antennomere I). Apical margin of female sternite VIII with brown setae. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. puncticollis (Thomson, 1867) |
1 | Scutellum punctate, setose, even if sometimes with few setae only | 2 |
– | Scutellum impunctate, glabrous | 15 |
2 | Abdomen: first three visible tergites near base at sides with shallow depressions and patches of denser, variegated setation, where setae are variously directed but not uniformly posteriad. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. semiaeneus (Stephens 1832) |
– | Abdomen: first three visible tergites smooth near base, without shallow depressions and with regular, even setation, all setae directed posteriad. Aedeagus different | 3 |
3 | At least metafemora on inner face more or less darkened. Smaller species with body length 4.3–6.5 mm. Third segment of antennae shorter or as long as second segment. Species of this complex can be reliably identified only by the study of male genitalia | 4 |
– | All legs entirely pale, metafemora not darkened on inner face. Larger species with body length 7.0–10.5 mm. Third segment of antennae distinctly longer than second segment | 12 |
4 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fulvicollis (Stephens, 1832) |
– | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere at least along most of its length narrower than median lobe; lateral outline of median lobe well visible for most of its length (e.g., Fig. |
5 |
5 | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) subapical tooth distinct as such, median lobe apicad of this tooth not resembling an axe blade (e.g., Fig. |
6 |
– | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) subapical tooth not distinct as such because it forms carina extended to the apex of median lobe which, therefore, resembles an axe blade (Fig. |
10 |
6 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. persimilis Mulsant & Rey, 1876 |
– | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) sides of paramere gradually converging apicad, almost not narrowing in the middle portion (e.g., Fig. |
7 |
7 | Body smaller and more gracile, length 4.0–5.5 mm; elytra shorter, some of the species wingless. Aedeagus: (in lateral view) paramere far from reaching apex of median lobe; median lobe wider, subapical tooth situated far from its apex (Fig. |
8 |
– | Body larger and more robust, length 5.0–6.2 mm; elytra longer, usually winged species. Aedeagus: (in lateral view) paramere almost reaching apex of median lobe; median lobe narrower, subapical tooth situated closer to its apex (Fig. |
9 |
8 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. centrasiaticus Coiffait, 1969 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. omissus Coiffait, 1977 |
9 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. nitipennis (Stephens, 1833) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fellmani (Zetterstedt, 1838) |
10 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. paraboops Coiffait, 1975 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
11 |
11 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. boops (Gravenhorst, 1802) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. boopoides Munster, 1923 |
12 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. semiobscurus (Marsham, 1802) |
– | Aedeagus (in lateral view): median lobe without subapical tooth, (in dorsal view) with narrow apical portion (Fig. |
13 |
13 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. korgeanus Fagel, 1968 |
– | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) paramere relatively longer, its apex reaching closer to apex of median lobe; narrow apical portion of median lobe short and (in lateral view) slightly acute | 14 |
14 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. ryvkini Smetana, 2018 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. aedilis Smetana, 2018 |
15 | Frons with pair of setiferous punctures between anterior frontal punctures | 16 |
– | Frons without setiferous punctures between anterior frontal punctures | 17 |
16 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. lucidulus Erichson, 1839 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. scintillans (Gravenhorst, 1806) |
17 | Head (in dorsal or lateral view): eyes about 3–4 times as long as temples, so large that they occupy almost entire lateral side of head before neck constriction, leaving only very short temples. Body and appendages pale: head and elytra testaceous brown; pronotum testaceous brown with paler, yellowish margins. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
[Q. cincticollis Kraatz, 1857] |
– | Head (in dorsal or lateral view): eyes about 1.5–2.5 times as long as temples, never as large as to occupy almost entire lateral side of head before neck constriction. Habitus and aedeagus not as in Q. cincticollis below | 18 |
18 | Head with two basal punctures on each side forming oblique row with posterior frontal puncture. Neck relatively narrow; pronotum widest shortly before its middle; elytra relatively long; abdominal tergites at sides with flecks of denser and longer variegated golden setae. Coloration of the whole body piceous black (Fig. |
Q. riparius F. Kellner, 1843 |
– | Head with one basal puncture on each side; (if temples densely punctuate, basal punctures are recognized as significantly larger and located medialmost), with two basal punctures only exceptionally (possibly on one side only), but never forming oblique row with posterior frontal puncture. Habitus and aedeagus not as in Q. riparius | 19 |
19 | Surface of elytra between setiferous punctures (interspaces) very glossy, without distinct, more or less reticulate microsulpture, at most with some very faint irregularities (viewed at high magnification) | 20 |
– | Surface of elytra between setiferous punctures (interspaces) rather dull, with distinct, more or less reticulate microsculpture (viewed at high magnification) | 35 |
20 | Posterior frontal punctures, each, with one to three or even four smaller additional punctures nearby. Relatively large, dark brown to black species with reddish elytra and pale, yellowish-brown legs. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
[Q. picipes (Mannerheim, 1830)] |
– | Posterior frontal punctures, each, without one or more smaller additional punctures nearby. Habitus and structure of aedeagus different | 21 |
21 | Labrum entire (at most with slight apical notch medially); abdomen parallel-sided along most of its length, not distinctly tapering apicad. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. jenisseensis Sahlberg, 1880 |
– | Labrum bilobed; abdomen distinctly tapering apicad. Aedeagus: internal sac without large, conspicuous sclerites, median lobe (in lateral view) without curved, hook-like apex (e.g., Fig. |
22 |
22 | Elytra longer than, or as long as pronotum, longer than wide (Fig. |
23 |
– | Elytra shorter than pronotum; wider than long, never bicolored (Figs |
32 |
23 | Pronotum pale brown or reddish, contrasting with dark brown to black head. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. nigriceps Kraatz, 1857 |
– | Coloration of body and/or structure of aedeagus different | 24 |
24 | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) median lobe straight, never curved (for example as in Fig. |
25 |
– | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) median lobe slightly or distinctly curved (e.g., Fig. |
29 |
25 | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) median lobe with sharp apex (e.g., Fig. |
26 |
– | Aedeagus: (in lateral view) median lobe with broad apex (for example as in Fig. |
27 |
26 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. limbatus (Heer, 1839) |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. suturalis Kiesenwetter, 1845 |
27 | Elytra distinctly longer than wide and distinctly longer than pronotum. Aedeagus (Fig. |
[Q. humeralis Stephens, 1832] |
– | Elytra as long as and slightly longer than pronotum (Fig. |
28 |
28 | Elytral width greater or subequal to length; posterior margin of tergite VII sometimes with palisade fringe (Fig. |
Q. sublimbatus Mäklin, 1853 |
– | Elytral width distinctly greater than length, posterior margin of tergite VII without palisade fringe. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. gemellus Eppelsheim, 1889 |
29 | Elytra unicolored, never with paler apical margins. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. umbrinus Erichson, 1839 [poorly known Q. angaricus may fit here too, see the Annotated catalogue section for details] |
– | Elytra not unicolored, with slightly or distinctly paler apical margins (Fig. |
30 |
30 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
[Q. maurorufus (Gravenhorst, 1806)] |
– | Aedeagus: (in parameral view) apex of paramere evenly converging anteriad, with ca. 15 peg setae in each of two rows, extending far basad of lateral setae; (in lateral view) ventral tooth situated nearly at the apex of median lobe | 31 |
31 | Smaller species, body length 6.0–7.5 mm. Aedeagus (Fig. 17BB–DD): (in lateral view) median lobe with more rounded apex (Fig. 17CC); (in parameral view) paramere underneath with two rows of peg setae very close to parameral lateral margins, divergent (Fig. 17DD). Widespread in Europe and known from Asia Minor. In Russia known from several literature records in its European part | [Q. nemoralis Baudi de Selve, 1848] |
– | Larger species (Fig. |
Q. vulneratus Gemminger and Harold, 1868 |
32 | Body blackish, appendages and posterior margins of abdominal tergites brownish. Aedeagus: (in lateral view) median lobe with thin and curved apical portion (Fig. |
33 |
– | Body from dark reddish brown to yellowish brown, appendages and posterior margins of abdominal tergites usually lighter (Figs |
34 |
33 | Pronotum gradually narrowing anteriad; elytra moderately short (Fig. |
Q. lgockii Roubal, 1911 |
– | Pronotum more strongly narrowing anteriad; elytra very short. Aedeagus (Fig. |
[Q. brachypterus Coiffait, 1967] |
34 | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. obliqueseriatus Eppelsheim, 1889 |
– | Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. humosus Solodovnikov, 2005 |
35 | Smaller species with body length 7.0–9.0 mm. Body brown, elytra with only slightly lighter margins. Aedeagus (Fig. |
Q. fumatus (Stephens, 1833) |
– | Larger species with body length 8.0–11.0 mm. Body brown to blackish; elytra from completely dark to completely pale but most commonly pale with more or less darkened margins (Fig. |
Q. suramensis Eppelsheim, 1880 |
1 | Large and robust beetles, 15.0–24.0 mm. Entire body black, sometimes elytra dark brown. Pronotum distinctly transverse, laterally explanate, distinctly wider than head. Aedeagus as in Fig. |
Q. dilatatus Fabricius, 1787 |
This annotated catalogue provides details about identity, general distribution, and bionomics of every species. Complete synonymies for each species can be found in the catalogue of
Species distributions within Russia are given in the form of abbreviated regions from which a given species was recorded with reference to the respective literature or collection source. For easier navigation, abbreviations of the regions are listed alphabetically for each species. In cases where it was necessary but impossible to establish exact localities for species records based on old references, we simply cited these papers, with the original data given verbatim, where available. One catalogue to which we also refer here (
Species whose presence in the Russian fauna is strongly ambiguous are given in square brackets, i.e., in the same way as in the keys above. Species whose taxonomic identity is ambiguous and need a revision are marked with an asterisk *.
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, E, H, K, N, Q, T), lateral view (B, F, I, L, O, R), underside of paramere (C, G, J, M, P, S, V), median lobe in ventral view (D). Q. japonicus (modified from
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, E, I, M, Q, U), lateral view (B, F, J, N, R, V), underside of paramere (C, G, K, O, S, W), median lobe in ventral view (D, H, L, P, T, X). Q. levicollis (A–D); Q. sundukovi (E–H); Q. vicinus (I–L); Q. molochinus (M–P); Q. meridiocarpathicus (Q–T); Q. balticus (U–X). Scale bars: 1 mm (A, B, E, F, I, J, M, N, Q, R, U, V), 0.8 mm (C, D, G, H, K, L, O, P, S, T, W, X).
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, E, I, L, O, R, U, W), lateral view (B, F, J, M, P, S, X), underside of paramere (C, G, K, N, Q, T, V, Y), median lobe in ventral view (D, H). Q. subunicolor (A–D); Q. altaicus (E–H); Q. truncicola (I–K); Q. microps (L–N); Q. infuscatus (O–Q); Q. lundbergi (R–T); Q. amurensis (modified from
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, D, G, J, M, O, R, U, X), lateral view (B, E, H, K, P, S, V, Y), underside of paramere (C, F, I, L, N, Q, T, W, Z). Q. longicornis (A–C); Q. roma (D–F); Q. repentinus (G–I); Q. tenellus (J–L); Q. conviva (modified from
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, D, G, J, M, P, S, V, Y), lateral view (B, E, H, K, N, Q, T, W, Z), underside of paramere (C, F, I, L, O, R, U, X, AA). Q. koltzei (modified from
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, D, G, J, M, Q, T), lateral view (B, E, H, K, N, R, U), underside of paramere (C, F, I, L, O, P, S, V). Q. cruentus (A–C); Q. ochripennis (D–F); Q. fulgidus (G–I); Q. nigrocaeruleus (J–L); Q. invreae (M–O); Q. puncticollis (P); Q. semiaeneus (Q–S); Q. fulvicollis (T–V). Scale bars 0.5 mm (A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U), 0.25 mm (C, F, I, L, O, S, V).
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral (A, D, G, J, M, P, S, V, Y), lateral view (B, E, H, K, N, Q, T, W, Z), underside of paramere (C, F, I, L, O, R, U, X, AA). Q. persimilis (A–C); Q. centrasiaticus (D–F); Q. omissus (modified from
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral view (A, D, G, I, K, N. Q, T, W), lateral view (B, E, L, O, R, U, X), underside of paramere (C, F, H, J, M, P, S, V, Y). Q. semiobscurus (A–C); Q. korgeanus (D–F); Q. ryvkini (modified from
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral (A, D, G, J, M, P, S, V, Y), lateral view (B, E, H, K, N, Q, T, W, Z), underside of paramere (C, F, I, L, O, R, U, X, AA). Q. jenisseensis (A–C); Q. nigriceps (D–F); Q. limbatus (G–I); Q. suturalis (J–L); Q. humeralis (M–O); Q. sublimbatus (P–R); Q. gemellus (S–U); Q. umbrinus (V–X); Q. maurorufus (Y–AA); Q. nemoralis (BB–DD). Scale bars: 0.5 mm (A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, N, P, Q, S, T, V, W, V, Y, Z, BB, DD), 0.25 mm (C, F, I, L, O, R, U, X, AA, CC).
Aedeagi of Quedius recorded from Russia: parameral (A, D, G, J, M, P, S, V), lateral view (B, E, H, K, N, Q, T, W), underside of paramere (C, F, I, L, O, R, U, X). Q. vulneratus (A–C); Q. lgockii (D–F); Q. brachypterus (G–I); Q. obliqueseriatus (J–L); Q. humosus (M–O); Q. fumatus (P–R); Q. suramensis (S–U); Q. lateralis (V–X). Scale bars 0.5 mm (A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, N, P, Q, S, T, V, W, V), 0.25 mm (C, F, I, L, O, R, U, X).
Fig.
Philonthus littorinus Gistel, 1857: 75
Very common polytopic species widespread in the West Palearctic (
Russia: EUR S–TAIGA (Dedykhin et al. 2005); CN EUR RU (
Fig.
This species was recently described from Dongling Mt. in Mentougou district, Beijing City, in north-eastern China, where it was collected at elevations between 1200 and 1800 m (
Russia: AMUR PROV (cRyv).
Fig.
This species is widely distributed in Japan (
Russia: unspecified locality in the Far East (
Fig.
According to published records, this species is restricted to the Kamchatka peninsula. Its bionomics is currently unknown.
Russia: KAMCHATKA (
Figs
This is a montane species widespread in the Caucasus (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
The distribution of this species stretches across the central and south-western Altai through the border between Russia and Kazakhstan (
Russia: KUZN ALTAI (
Figs
This species is distributed in the northern and central regions of Europe where it occurs in various wet ground-based debris, along sea and lake shores. It is considered halophilous or at least tolerant to habitats with high salinity (
Russia: CRIM REP (
Fig.
Quedius curtipennis is considered to be a rather common, polytopic and widely distributed species that is collected from various ground based microhabitats across the entire West Palearctic (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
This is one of the most common species of Quedius distributed throughout the entire West Palearctic east to Middle Asia (
Russia: ALTAI REP (
Figs
Quedius levicollis is widespread in the West Palearctic, from Europe to the Middle East (
Russia: MDL–VOLGA (
Fig.
The species is mostly known from south-eastern Europe (
Russia: CRIM REP (
Figs
This is one of the most common Quedius s. str. species broadly distributed in the West Palearctic and introduced to North America (
Russia: BURYAT (
Fig.
The species was hitherto known from Northern Europe (
Russia: NE EUR RU (
Figs
Quedius sundukovi is a clearly brachypterous species with a surprisingly wide distribution. In Russia, it is known from an extensive area from the Far East to south-eastern Siberia. A single record exists from the Altai Mountains in Kazakhstan (
Russia: AMUR PROV (cRyv;
Fig.
This species is confined to the southern regions of the West Palearctic from the Middle East (
Russia: E CAUC (Khachikov 2002).
Fig.
This species is known only from the burrows of Prometheomys schaposchnikovi Satunin, 1901, an endemic rodent of the Caucasus (
Russia: N CAUC (
This species has not been studied since its original description, which was based on the single female from Crimea “der Umgebung von Sebastopol” (
Fig.
Quedius amurensis was recently described from Amur Province (
Russia: AMUR PROV (
Fig.
Quedius brevicornis is distributed through the whole territory of Central and Northern Europe where it is especially abundant in the north (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Figs
The species is widely distributed in the Palearctic from Europe (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
The species was hitherto known only from the type locality Adun–Tshelon Mountain Ridge in Zabaikalsky Territory (
Lectotype designation: to avoid confusion and fix the identity of Q. citelli, here we designate one male syntype as a lectotype rendering two mentioned female paralectotypes.
Russia: ZABAIK TERR (Kirschenblat 1933).
Fig.
The species is currently known from the type locality in East Siberia: Irkutsk Area, Angarsk. The type specimens were collected from the burrows of Urocitellus undulatus (Pallas 1778) at the edge of a Pinus sylvestris forest, with grasses (Calamagrostis spp.) on sandy soil with alluvium (
Russia: IRKUTSK PROV (
Fig.
Philonthus putridarius Gistel, 1857: 19;
Quedius cruentus is a common and widely distributed West Palearctic species (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
Quedius edmundi is endemic to the North-Western Caucasus and was described (
Russia: N CAUC (
Figs
The species is currently known from Russia only, from the Far East and East Siberia. Based on the material examined here, it can be found in various decaying wood. Also it was recorded from a nest of the Siberian chipmunk Eutamias sibiricus asiaticus (Gmelin 1788) (
Russia: AMUR PROV (cKur;
Fig.
Quedius fulgidus is widely distributed in the West Palearctic and it is one of several cosmopolitan Quedius introduced to North and South America, Oriental region, Australia and New Zealand (
Russia: CN EUR RU (Semionenkov et al. 2005;
Fig.
Quedius infuscatus is widely distributed throughout Europe (
Russia: CRIM REP (
Notes: Quedius kvashei described by
Figs
Based on
Russia: MDL VOLGA (
Fig.
This species was described from Khabarovsk in the Russian Far East (
Russia: LWR AMUR (
Quedius kvashei was described based on a single male specimen from Rostov Province (
Russia: VOLGO–DON (
Fig.
The species is widely distributed in Europe, but not common (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
The species was hitherto known from the original description based on material from Sweden (
Russia: TUVA REP (
Fig.
The species is known mostly from central and northern Europe, and from the mountain areas of southern Europe; it is absent in the Mediterranean region, but recorded from Turkey (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Figs
Quedius mesomelinus is a widely distributed transpalearctic species, which has been introduced to Greenland, North and South America and to the Australian region. It is considered boreo-montane and is confined to the northern part of the Palearctic and to the mountains in the south (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
The species is widely distributed in West Palaearctic. In Europe, it occurs everywhere except the Iberian Peninsula; it is absent in North Africa. In Russia, Q. microps is known from a few regions in the European part and from South-West Siberia region. It is usually found in mammal nests (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Notes:
Fig.
This nidicolous species, confined to mole nests, is distributed in Europe, except its northern part, and in North Africa. It is more common in the western part of its range (
Russia: ‘European Russia’ (Potockaja 1976).
Fig.
The species is widely distributed in the West Palearctic, including the Mediterranean and North Africa (
Russia: CRIM REP (
Fig.
Quedius rubripennis Bernhauer, 1901: 652;
Based on
Russia: CN EUR RU (cRyv); EUR S–TAIGA RU (Dedykhin et al. 2005); KUZN ALTAI (
Fig.
This hypogean species is known only from the type locality in Altai Republic: Turochansky Distr., Mountain Evrechala (south-eastern Altai). The type specimens were collected at elevations of 1850–2050 m in an old talus formation covered by fine detrital rock with lichens (
Russia: ALTAI REP (
Fig.
Quedius roma is a recently described hypogean species from Mt. Ko in Central Sikhote-Alin and hitherto known only from the original description. The type material was collected from humus between small rocks of the upper levels of the talus at lower elevations ca. 750 m (
Russia: LWR AMUR (
Fig.
Bolitobius punctulatus Heer, 1839: 298;
The species is distributed throughout Europe but is quite rare; it is not recorded from North Africa (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
Russia: VOLGO–DON (
Figs
This is a widespread and rather common transpalearctic species (
Russia: ALTAI REP (
Fig.
This species was described and hitherto known from Armenia (Jablokov-Khnzoria 1961;
Russia: VOLGO–DON (
Fig.
This species is widely distributed in Europe, especially Central Europe, but not common and the records are very scattered (
Russia: MDL VOLGA (
Fig.
The species is quite rare and occurs mainly in Central Europe. In Russia, it is also known mainly from its European part, but also recorded from Krasnoyarsk region in Khakassia Republic (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
The species is widespread in the Palearctic, but in East Siberia and Russian Far East it is known only from old literature records, which need verification. Quedius xanthopus usually can be found in decaying wood or under bark (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
This species was recently described from Sikhote–Alin Nature Reserve (
Russia: PRIM TERR: (
Russia: IRKUTSK PROV (
Fig.
This species is considered as wide-spread in Europe, but its real distribution is unclear due to confusion with Q. boops (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
Philonthus boops tauricus Nordmann, 1837: 78;
Quedius crius Tottenham, 1948: 258;
Quedius boops islandicus Fagel, 1960: 113;
Quedius boops is a transpalearctic species distributed from Europe to the Russian Far East (
Russia: BURYAT REP (cRyv); CN EUR RU (
Notes: Quedius acuminatus was described from the unspecified locality ‘Kaukasus’ (
Fig.
This brachypterous species is currently known only from the holotype from the Caucasus (
Unspecified locality: ‘Kaukas’ (
Fig.
This species is known only from the type locality in Altai at Teletskoe Lake (
Russia: ALTAI REP (
Fig.
This montane species is known from the European mountains such as eastern Alps, Carpathians, and north-western Balkans (
Russia: KUZN ALTAI (
Figs
Quedius fellmani is a widely distributed species confined to the arctoboreal circle of the Holarctic region: Noth America, Europe, and Asia (
Russia: ALTAI REP (cRyv); CHUKOTKA (
Fig.
This is a widely distributed arctoboreal Holarctic species that occurs in many countries of Europe, in Russia, Canada, and USA (
Russia: BURYAT REP (cSha); CHUKOTKA (
Fig.
The species is distributed in Europe and North Africa, and is most common in the western part of its distribution (
Russia: KALIN PROV (
Fig.
Quedius ghilarovi Coiffait, 1967: 405;
Quedius paramerus Coiffait, 1967: 411;
The species is endemic to the north-western Caucasus (south-western Russia and western Georgia) (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius humeralis is a widespread West Palearctic species known from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (
Russia (doubtful records): BURYAT REP (
Fig.
The species was described from Abkhazia (Solodovnikov 2005). Here we record it for the first time from adjacent Krasnodar Territory in Russia. Specimens from the original description were collected by pitfall traps at low elevations in the mountains (Solodovnikov 2005).
Russia: N CAUC (Solodovnikov 2005;
Figs
Quedius jenisseensis is an arctoboreal Eurasian species that is widely distributed in several northern-European regions of Russia through Sakha Republic and Zabaikalsky territory, to Primorsky Territory in the Far East. The species can be found in forest leaf litter, moss, and different types of ground debris, but usually it prefers moist habitats around rivers and streams (
Russia: ALTAI REP (
Figs
Quedius svanetianus Coiffait, 1969: 53;
Quedius orophilus Drugmand, 1988: 202;
Quedius korgeanus is a widely distributed species in the mountains of northern Turkey and Transcaucasia (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius lateralis is widely distributed in Europe and Asia Minor (
Russia (doubtful records): N CAUC (
Figs
Quedius lgockii is a rare montane species endemic to the north-western Caucasus and hitherto known from south-western Russia and western Georgia only (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius limbatus ponticus Korge, 1964: 121;
Quedius limbatus erdciyasicus Korge, 1971: 55;
Quedius potockajae Coiffait, 1967: 414;
Quedius ledouxi Coiffait, 1977: 138;
Quedius scheerpeltzianus Fagel, 1968: 195;
This is one of the most common species within the subgenus Raphirus in the West Palearctic, where it is distributed from Europe to Middle Asia (
Russia: ALTAI REP (cRyv); BURYAT REP (
Figs
The species is widespread and common in Europe and also recorded from Asia Minor (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
Quedius richteri Korge, 1966: 60;
The species is common in Europe, where it is more abundant in the central and southern regions (
Russia: IRKUTSK PROV (
Fig. 17BB–DD
Quedius safaensis Fagel, 1968: 8;
Quedius safaensis ormanus Fagel, 1971: 129;
Quedius nemoralis erinci Korge, 1971: 55;
This is a widespread species in Europe and in Asia Minor (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
The species is known from Europe where it is more abundant in the west; it is not recorded from North Africa (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Fig.
Quediuss acuminatus khnzoriani Coiffait, 1967: 423;
Quedius nitipennis is a West Palearctic species, known from Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Figs
This is endemic species to the north-western Caucasus and usually can be found in forest leaf litter from the foothills up to 1950 m (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
This montane species is known only from the north-western Caucasus of Russia and from the north-eastern Turkey (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius paraboops is widely distributed in Siberia from Middle Ob region in the west to Magadan province in the east. We were able to study a female specimen from the Q. boops-group collected on Sakhalin Island and, since the very similar species Q. boops and Q. boopoides do not occur in this region, presumably this specimen belongs to Q. paraboops. The species can be found in wet ground based debris in forests and open landscapes, and also in moss and under stones (
Russia: AMUR PROV (
Fig.
Quedius corion Tottenham, 1948: 258;
Quedius mallius Tottenham, 1948: 256; Duff et al. 2012: 54 (synonymy).
The species is widely distributed throughout Europe and is most common in central Europe (
Russia: MURM PROV (
Fig.
The species is widely distributed throughout the West Palearctic where it was recorded from Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor (
Russia: SW SIBER (
Figs
Quedius riparius is a ripicolous species that usually occurs at medium elevations in the mountains of Central and Southern Europe, Caucasus, Asia Minor, and Near East (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius ryvkini is a newly described species from Sikhote-Alin Mountains in Primorsky Territory of Russia that so far is known only from the original description (
Russia: PRIM TERR (
Fig.
Quedius scintillans is a common West Palearctic species distributed from Europe and North Africa to Middle Asia (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
The species is widely distributed in the West Palearctic: Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor (
Russia: NE EUR RU (
Fig.
Quedius acuminatus khnzoriani Coiffait, 1967: 423;
Quedius semiobscurus is a common West Palearctic species that occurs in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (
Russia: E CAUC (
Figs
Quedius sublimbatus, described from North America, is a Holarctic species that is more common in the northern parts of its distribution, while in the southern areas it occurs in the mountains. Apparently, it has an arctoboreoalpine type of distribution (
Russia: BURYAT REP (
Notes: There is some controversy whether Quedius arcticus Munster, 1921 is a synonym of Q. sublimbatus, or a valid species. Quedius arcticus was described from Norway (Munster 1921) and recorded mainly from northern Europe (Munster 1923;
We suspect that with a closer study including molecular analysis of the broad material and study of types, a wide-spread and wing polymorphic Holarctic Q. sublimbatus may not be the case, whereas species borders may not necessarily coincide with the border between North America and Eurasia as hypothesized by
Fig.
Quedius grouziacus Coiffait, 1969: 45;
The species is distributed in Western Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and northern Turkey (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius obscuriceps Coiffait, 1967: 404;
Quedius merlini Drugmand & Bruge, 1991: 192; Solodovnikov 2012: 39 (synonymy).
Quedius troglophilus Coiffait, 1969: 46.Quedius humeralis anatolicus Korge, 1964: 119;
Quedius suturalis is a widely distributed West Palearctic species but it is not recorded from North Africa (
Russia: N CAUC (
Fig.
Quedius umbripennis Gridelli, 1924: 113;
Quedius cyanescens Mulsant & Rey, 1876: 727;
Quedius bulgaricus Scheerpeltz, 1937: 219;
Quedius cyprusensis Last, 1955: 251;
Quedius freyi Scheerpeltz, 1956: 1102;
Quedius maronitus Coiffait, 1963: 410;
Quedius gueorguievi Coiffait, 1967: 399;
Quedius kuboni Štourač, 1998: 15;
Quedius umbrinus is a widely distributed West Palearctic species known from Europe, Middle East, and Middle Asia, but not recorded from North Africa (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Figs
Quedius abkasicus Coiffait, 1963: 410;
The species is widely distributed in the Caucasus from its north-western part to eastern Transcaucasia, and also occurs in northern Turkey (
Russia: E CAUC (
Fig.
The species is distributed throughout the Palearctic, from Europe to the Far East including Japan, eastern China, southern Korea, and Russia (
Russia: CN EUR RU (
Notes: Overall, the subgenus Velleius comprises nine species distributed in China and Japan (
Russia: unspecified locality: “Dahuria” [historical region comprising modern Buryatia Republic, Zabaikalsky territory and Amur province] (
The summary Table
Table abbreviation: Number of published records 1 (light grey), 2–10 (grey), 11+ (dark grey); T.L. – type locality; ? – doubtful records; number of specimens examined here 1 (🞅), 2–10 (🞇), 11+ (⚫).
Summary list for Quedius species recorded from Russia. Species whose presence in the Russian fauna is strongly ambiguous are taken in square brackets.
KALIN PROV (1) | AMURM PROV (2) | KAREL REP (3) | NW EUR RU (4) | NEN– NVZEM (5) | NE EUR RU (6) | EUR S-TAIGA RU (7) | CN EUR RU (8) | CS EUR RU (9) | MDL VOLGA (10) | VOLGO- DON (11) | LWR VOLGA (12) | CRIM REP (13) | N CAUC (14) | E CAUC (15) | MDL URAL (16) | S URAL (17) | LWR OB (18) | MDL OB (19) | SW SIBER (20) | N YENISS (21) | KRSNYRSK (22) | KUZN ALTAI (23) | ALTAI REP (24) | TUVA REP (25) | IRKUTSK PROV (26) | BURYAT REP (27) | ZABAIK TERR (28) | NW YAKUT (29) | NE YAKUT (30) | S YAKUT (31) | CHU KOTKA (32) | MAGADAN PROV (33) | KAM CHATKA (34) | KHABA ROVSK (35) | AMUR PROV (36) | LWR AMUR (37) | SAKHA LIN (38) | S KURIL (39) | PRIM TERR (40) | |
Q. abdominalis Eppelsheim, 1888 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. aedilis Smetana, 2018 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. altaicus Korge, 1962 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Q. amplissimus Bernhauer, 1912 | T.L.? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. amurensis Smetana, 2018 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Q. angaricus Coiffait, 1975 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. balticus Korge, 1960 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. boopoides Munster, 1923 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. boops (Gravenhorst, 1802) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. brachypterus Coiffait, 1967] | T.L.? | T.L.? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. brevicornis (Thomson, 1860) | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. brevis Erichson, 1840 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. centrasiaticus Coiffait, 1969 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. cincticollis Kraatz, 1857] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. cinctus (Paykull, 1790) | 🞅 | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. citelli Kirschenblatt, 1933 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. conviva Smetana, 2018 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. cruentus (Olivier, 1795) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. curtipennis Bernhauer, 1908 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. dilatatus Leach, 1819 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | ⚫ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. edmundi Coiffait, 1969 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fasciculatus Eppelsheim, 1886 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fellmani (Zetterstedt, 1838) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ⚫ | ⚫ | 🞅 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fulgidus (Fabricius, 1793) | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fuliginosus (Gravenhorst, 1802) | 🞇 | ⚫ | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fulvicollis (Stephens, 1832) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | ⚫ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Q. fulvipennis Hochhuth, 1852 | T.L.? | T.L.? | T.L.? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fumatus (Stephens, 1833) | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. fusus Cai & Zhou, 2015 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. gemellus Eppelsheim, 1889 | ⚫ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. humeralis Stephens, 1832] | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. humosus Solodovnikov, 2005 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. infuscatus Erichson, 1840 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. invreae Gridelli, 1924 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. japonicus Sharp, 1874 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. jenisseensis Sahlberg, 1880 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. kamchaticus Smetana, 1976 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Q. koltzei Eppelsheim, 1887 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. korgeanus Fagel, 1968 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Q. kvashei Khachikov, 2005 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. lateralis (Gravenhorst, 1802)] | ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. levicollis Brulle, 1832 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. lgockii Roubal, 1911 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. limbatus (Heer, 1839) | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞅 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | ⚫ | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. longicornis Kraatz, 1857 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞅 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. lucidulus Erichson, 1839 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. lundbergi Palm, 1973 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. maurorufus (Gravenhorst, 1806)] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. maurus (Sahlberg, 1830) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. meridiocarpathicus Smetana, 1958 | ⚫ | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. mesomelinus (Marsham, 1802) | 🞅 | ⚫ | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞅 | 🞅 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. microps Gravenhorst, 1847 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. minor Hochhuth, 1849 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. molochinus (Gravenhorst, 1806) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. nemoralis Baudi de Selve, 1848] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. nigriceps Kraatz, 1857 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. nigrocaeruleus Fauvel, 1876] | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |||||||||||||||||||||
Q. nitipennis (Stepehns, 1833) | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. obliqueseriatus Eppelsheim, 1889 | ⚫ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. ochripennis (Ménétriés, 1832) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. ochropterus Erichson, 1840 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. omissus Coiffait, 1977 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. paraboops Coiffait, 1975 | ⚫ | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | ⚫ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. persimilis Mulsant & Rey, 1876 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Q. picipes (Mannerheim, 1830)] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. puncticollis (Thomson, 1867) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. repentinus Salnitska&Solodovnikov, 2018 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. riparius Kellner, 1843 | ⚫ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. roma Solodovnikov & Hansen, 2016 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. ryvkini Smetana, 2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. scintillans (Gravenhorst, 1806) | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. scitus (Gravenhorst, 1806) | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. semiaeneus (Stephens 1832) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. semiobscurus (Marsham, 1802) | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. sofiri Khachikov, 2005 | T.L. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. sublimbatus Mäklin, 1853 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞅 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. subunicolor Korge, 1961 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. sundukovi Smetana, 2003 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. suramensis Eppelsheim, 1880 | ⚫ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. suturalis Kiesenwetter, 1845 | ⚫ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. tenellus (Gravenhorst, 1806) | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | 🞇 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Q. tetrapunctatus Coiffait, 1977 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. truncicola Fairmaire & Laboulbène, 1856 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. umbrinus Erichson, 1839 | 🞅 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞇 | 🞇 | 🞅 | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. vexans Eppelsheim, 1881 | 🞅 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. vicinus Ménétriés, 1832 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. vulneratus Gemminger & Harold, 1868 | ⚫ | 🞇 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q. xanthopus Erichson, 1839 | 🞅 | 🞇 | ⚫ | 🞅 | 🞅 |
Based on the examination of ca. 3000 specimens of Quedius from Russia in the collections and 165 publications with their records, our review revealed 88 species of Quedius for the fauna of Russia, of which Q. fusus, Q. humosus and Q. lundbergi are recorded from the territory of Russia for the first time. On the contrary, analysis of literature and available material suggested that Q. cincticollis, Q. humeralis, Q. lateralis, Q. maurorufus, Q. nemoralis, Q. nigrocaeruleus, Q. picipes, and possibly a few other species in fact do not occur in Russia. Their records here are dubious and likely are based on misidentifications, something to check in the future through more thorough sampling. Some species earlier reported for Russia, like for example narrowly distributed Alpine species Quedius haberfelneri recorded from the European part of Russia by
Naturally, the European part of Russia was better sampled and studied, while only a few regions in eastern Russia received comparable attention, such as Kamchatka or Primorsky Territory. However, even in western Russia there are poorly known areas such as Kaliningrad Province. One can clearly see in Fig.
We are very grateful to all curators and colleagues indicated in the “Materials and methods” section for the loan of material under their care. In particular we would like to thank Alexander Ryvkin and Elena Veselova for their kind hospitality during our numerous visits to study and sort their rich collection. Alexander Ryvkin, is additionally acknowledged for critical comments on the earlier version of the manuscript, even though we disagree with some. We appreciate useful advice and recommendations by Fedor Konstantinov during the preparation of the article. Elena Kushnevskaya kindly designed the Microsoft Access database specifically for this catalogue, while Aleš Smetana, Adam Brunke, and Alexey Kovalev provided important comments on the identity, distribution, and other aspects of some species. Also, Sergey Sinev shared his experience on the logistics of the organization the catalogue, while Boris Korotyaev edited the names of the Russian regions. Volker Assing kindly provided one of his papers relevant for this work while it was still in press. Aslak Kappel Hansen and Igor Orlov proof checked our manuscript and provided further comments; in particular Aslak’s suggestions for the species of Quedius s. str. were important. Finally, Adam Brunke and Harald Schillhammer provided useful comments as reviewers. Valuable input from all these colleagues is greatly acknowledged. This study was conducted using equipment of the Center for Molecular and Cell Technologies and the Resource Center ‘Chromas’ of the Research Park at St. Petersburg State University.