Ankara İli ve Çevresi Bombus (S.Lato) Latreılle (Hymenoptera: Apıdae) Türleri Üzerinde Bütünleşik Taksonomik Araştırmaları
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.MetaDataShow full item record
Genus Bombus (s.l.) Latreille is the insects which are members of Bombinae subfamily. The genus contains over 250 species in the world and approximately 48 of these species are distributed in Turkey. The existence of cryptic species in the genus remains controversial in bombus taxa. Until the last decade, using only traditional classical methods has not been enough to solve the problems. In this respect, different methods and approaches were needed and this thesis was planned considering that it would contribute to the elucidation of bombus taxonomy. Within the scope of the thesis, it is aimed to use integrated taxonomic methods on individuals belonging to the genus Bombus (s.l.). Geometric morphometric analyses were performed on the front wings of female individuals from 125 female and 48 male individuals whose morphological diagnosis was made with the help of diagnostic keys and collection samples under laboratory conditions. Comparative species diagnosis studies were carried out using mitochondrial DNA partial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene site sequences by selecting 12 representative individuals from these estimated species by forming groups based on individuals diagnosed with morphological species. As a result of the study, 6 subgenus and 10 species were described based on morphological characters. These results were compared with geometric morphometry and COI gene region DNA sequence analysis results. With the method of geometric morphometry, 125 individuals were separated only at the subgenus level. A successful result could not be obtained in the delimitation of species boundaries by the method of geometric morphometry. However, it was determined that the COI gene region DNA sequence results were more descriptive in distinguishing the boundaries of species, and that morphological species diagnosis and geometric morphometry approach alone were not sufficient, therefore the three methods needed to be evaluated comparatively.