| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Pierre |
Posted - 10/06/2012 : 21:43:20
Fine and very slender specimen; Polyzonus, I think.
Or Anubis?
China, 17 mm. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Andre |
Posted - 22/12/2018 : 14:17:45
For me Polyzonus hartmanni Skale, 2018 |
| Andre |
Posted - 01/06/2014 : 17:11:49
Sorry Pierre, your spec. is not Polyzonus flavocinctus Gahan, 1894.
I have check the HT and I want not more comments over the rev. from Bentanachs 2012. Only so much: The Abb. 90, 93, 95 and 96 is not Polyzonus flavocinctus! The faunistic records are  . |
| Francesco |
Posted - 23/09/2012 : 20:06:20
In the new Bentanach's monograph Polyzonus flavocinctus Gahan, 1895 is restored as valid species belonging to te subgenus Polyzonus (thus far from tetraspilotus).
Your specimen exactly corresponds to this species. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 19:28:40
It is possible. This part of the key of Podany's monograph is based on the pronotal sculpture, but I could not appreciate slight differences from a picture.
Moreover, Podany's description quoted for laurae head and pronotum blue to violet and elytra black, so I was a bit doubtful.
The problem is also that Podany's monograph is based on specimens of the Senkenberg (Frankfurt) Museum, which are not the types... |
| Pierre |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 19:10:59
Compared with the tetraspilotus I have in collection, this beetle is much smaller and much finer in its general habitus.
As a fact, couldn't it be Polyzonus laurae Fairmaire, 1887?
Following Rondon & Gressitt's Cerambycidae of Laos, I reach this species (which is mentioned in the key - Yunnan).
It also figures in Gressitt's Longicorn Beetles of China: the keys here are often are very short and let lots of doubts, but in this case it could fit. Both references base the species on it's pronotal structure (rugosity + plicae near the apex) and mention "elytra with anterior band divided along the suture and rounded posteriorly".
What would you say, Francesco? |
| Francesco |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 16:02:04
It is surely a Polyzonus.
It is fairly small but it seems to me a Polyzonus tetraspilotus var. flavocinctus Gahan, 1895. |
