The results of pitfall trapping are often interpreted as abundance in a particular habitat. At the same time, there are numerous cases of almost unrealistically high catches of ground beetles in seemingly unsuitable sites. The correlation of catches by pitfall trapping with the true distribution and abundance of Carabidae needs corroboration. During a full year survey in 2006/07 in the Lake Elton region (Volgograd Area, Russia), 175 species of ground beetles were trapped. Considering the differences in demographic structure of the local populations, and not their abundances, three groups of species were recognized: residents, migrants and sporadic. In residents, the demographic structure of local populations is complete, and their habitats can be considered “residential”. In migrants and sporadic species, the demographic structure of the local populations is incomplete, and their habitats can be considered “transit”. Residents interact both with their prey and with each other in a particular habitat. Sporadic species are hardly important to a carabid community because of their low abundances. The contribution of migrants to the structure of carabid communities is not apparent and requires additional research. Migrants and sporadic species represent a “labile” component in ground beetles communities, as opposed to a “stable” component, represented by residents. The variability of the labile component substantially limits our interpretation of species diversity in carabid communities. Thus, the criteria for determining the most abundant, or dominant species inevitably vary because the abundance of migrants in some cases can be one order of magnitude higher than that of residents. The results of pitfall trapping adequately reflect the state of carabid communities only in zonal habitats, while azonal and disturbed habitats are merely transit ones for many species of ground beetles. A study of the demographic structure of local populations and assessment of the migratory/residential status of particular carabid species are potential ways of increasing the reliability of pitfall trap information.

No abstract

Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïîâåðõíîñòíûå (òèïà Drypta) Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïîâåðõíîñòíî-ïîäñòèëî÷íûå (òèïà Nebria) Ïîäãðóïïà Êîëëåìáîëîôàãè Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïîâåðõíîñòíî-ïî÷âåííûå (òèïà Cychrus) 3. Ïîäêëàññ Ñòðàòîáèîíòû A. Ñåðèÿ Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïîâåðõíîñòíî-ïîäñòèëî÷íûå (òèïà Chlaenius) Ïîäãðóïïà Ìàëàêîôàãè Ïîäãðóïïà Àìôèáèîôàãè Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïðèáðåaeíûå (òèïà Elaphrus) * Áåç óêàçàíèÿ ðàíãà ïðèâåäåíû ãðóïïû aeèçíåííûõ ôîðì !! AEèçíåííûå ôîðìû è àäàïòèâíàÿ ðàäèàöèÿ ëè÷èíîê aeóaeåëèö Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïîäñòèëî÷íûå (òèïà Platynus) Ïîäãðóïïà Ìàëàêîôàãè Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïîäñòèëî÷íî-ïî÷âåííûå (òèïà Pterostchus) Ïîäãðóïïà Ëþìáðèêîôàãè B. Ñåðèÿ Êðèïòîáèîíòû Êðèïòîáèîíòû ïîäñòèëî÷íûå (òèïà Synuchus) Êðèïòîáèîíòû ïî÷âåííî-òðåùèííûå (òèïà Siagona) Êðèïòîáèîíòû áîòðîáèîíòû (òèïà Taphoxenus) Êðèïòîáèîíòû òðîãëîáèîíòû (òèïà Duvalius) Ïîäãðóïïà Âòîðè÷íûå àôàãè (òèïà Aphaenops) 4. Ïîäêëàññ Ñòðàòîãåîáèîíòû A. Ñåðèÿ Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ñêâàaeíèêè (òèïà Dyschirius) Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå ñ îïîðíûìè óðîãîìôàìè (òèïà Carabus) Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå ñ ÷óâñòâóþùèìè óðîãîìôàìè (òèïà Broscus) Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå ïñàììîôèëû (òèïà Anthia) B. Ñåðèÿ Êðèïòîáèîíòû Êðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå ïðèáðåaeíûå (òèïà Omophron) 5. Ïîäêëàññ Ãåîáèîíòû A. Ñåðèÿ Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ïî÷âåííî-òðåùèííûå (òèïà Parallelomorphus) B. Ñåðèÿ Êðèïòîáèîíòû Êðèïòîáèîíòû ñêâàaeíèêè (òèïà Trechus) Êðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå ñ óïëîùåííûìè óðîãîìôàìè (òèïà Clivina) Êðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå ïñàììîôèëû (òèïà Scallophorites) 6. Ïîäêëàññ Êñèëîáèîíòû À. Ñåðèÿ Êðèïòîáèîíòû Êðèïòîáèîíòû ðîþùèå (òèïà Morion) 7. Ïîäêëàññ Íîðíèêè-çàñàäíèêè A. Ñåðèÿ Ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû Íîðíèêè ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû äåíäðîáèîíòû (òèïà Collyris) Íîðíèêè ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû ãåîáèîíòû (òèïà Cicindela) Íîðíèêè ãåìèêðèïòîáèîíòû èíêâèëèíû (òèïà Graphipterus) B. Ñåðèÿ Êðèïòîáèîíòû-èíêâèëèíû Íîðíèêè êðèïòîáèíòû èíêâèëèíû-òåðìèòîôàãè (òèïà Orthogonius) Íîðíèêè êðèïòîáèíòû èíêâèëèíû-ìèðìåêîôàãè (òèïà Pseudomorpha) Êðèïòîáèîíòû ïàðàçèòîèäû êóêîëîê ïî÷âåííûõ íàñåêîìûõ (òèïà Brachinus) Êðèïòîáèîíòû ïàðàçèòîèäû-îîôàãè (òèïà Loxandrus)

The complete development cycle of Galerita (Galerita) ruficollis Dejean, 1825 was studied for the first time. In laboratory, at a temperature of 22 °C and long-day conditions, the development from egg to adult lasted 58–60 days. The development of the third instar larva lasted particularly long (on average, 19 days), and the most intense increase in biomass (from 20 to 100 mg) was observed at that phase as well. The extended embryonic development (11–20 days) and the relatively short development time of the third instar larva were found to be characteristic of G. ruficollis. The bifurcated protrusion of the anterior edge of the head was proven to represent an outgrowth of the frontal sclerite (frontale), but not of the nasale, as believed previously. The chaetotaxy of Galerita larvae is described in detail for the first time. Based on larval features, the monophyly of the Galeritini + Dryptini group is confirmed. Based on the morphology of the larvae and pupae, this group can be suggested as occupying a separate position within the Truncatipennia, possibly being related to the assemblage that includes Pterostichini, Harpalini, Licinini, Chlaenini, and Platynini. The monophyly of Zuphiitae (sensu Erwin and Sims 1984; Erwin 1985) and the Zuphiitae clade (sensu Ober and Maddison 2008) is confirmed.

No abstract