Cerambycoidea Forum
Cerambycoidea Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Generalities
 News
 Australian Volume 2 - Cerambycinae
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1266 Posts

Posted - 30/07/2016 :  13:24:39  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Has anybody seen this book yet?
I am curious whether the authors have again tried to justify a large number of taxonomic changes.

cerambyphil
Member Purpuricenus

France
413 Posts

Posted - 25/09/2016 :  09:36:39  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hello Dan,
I bought this book upon its publication and there are effectively a lot of taxonomic changes : 13 new genera are proposed, 18 genera are newly synonymised. That's why 66 new generic combinations are given.
Photos are magnificent, the descriptions are complete but in the subject which concerns me, I am not satisfied by the explanations concerning the integration of the genus Aprosictus into the genus Piesarthrius ! This new combination does appear as a taxonomic simplification, but in reality, thinks are not also simple! My work on the revision of the genus Aprosictus (to be published in 2017) will show that this synonymy is erroneous.

Edited by - cerambyphil on 25/09/2016 09:38:20
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1266 Posts

Posted - 25/09/2016 :  13:57:43  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
The library at a nearby university has ordered this book and I will be able to borrow it soon. I don't have a big collection of Australian specimens but I do have a few which are unidentified.
The book on Lamiinae was not very helpful.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
7765 Posts

Posted - 06/10/2016 :  19:36:51  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I had the opportunity to check some free pages here.

Apart some genera (e.g. Bimia/Arkyptera), whose synonymy seems to me reasonable, this book confirms the impression received from the first volume.
Though I do not consider myself as a "splitter", it seems to me that the authors exaggerated in synonymising between them genera having very poor affinities.

As in the case of the absurd synonymy of nearly all Pteropliini with Rhytiphora or of Apomecynini with Mycerinopsis (imprudently accepted by Tavakilian & Co.), the result is a step backward.
What will be the next work of the Magic Duo?
The synonymising of all Cerambycids to the genus Cerambyx???
Go to Top of Page

Hermes
Member Nathrius

Djibouti
1 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2017 :  11:34:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Francesco,

You shouldn't underestimate other people contributions based on very superficial speculations. From your papers I can see that you are not better than anyone. We have molecular (unpublished) and morphological data that support our treatment of the Australian Lamiinae and Cerambycinae. Our work is not perfect, but it may have improved the knowledge of the Australian Cerambycidae.
You sound like a frustrate scientist, please measure your words and tone before writte anything.

Hermes E. Escalona
Go to Top of Page

Xavier
Scientific Collaborator

France
8104 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2017 :  12:24:32  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Welcome on our forum Hermes.

I think you shouldn't underestimate Francesco, who publishes about Cerambycidae since 25 years .

I notice that you are also specialist of Dynastinae, Alticinae, Pyrochroidae, Salpingidae, Meloidae, Coccinellidae, Rhipiceridae and Boganiidae, (...), which is great.

On this forum, we only work on Cerambycidae, but you should find here good interlocutors.

Edited by - Xavier on 04/03/2017 12:24:52
Go to Top of Page

Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia

Germany
1043 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2017 :  01:53:23  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I can support the opinion of Francesco and Xavier; in any case, your discussion Hermes shows you are not really experienced in cerambycidae and trust a taxonomic software only probably without a suitable and sufficient data set.

We have still lot of problems in many or almost all tribes of Cerambycidae (the Australian fauna isn't isolate as to that), and recently the confusions will be increased through diverse activities.
The taxonomic disaster produced in your volume (I know only Lamiinae) is really self-defeating.

Such a complex taxonomic and systematic restructuring should based on the final morphological and molecular analysis, and furthermore, the molecular data are not exactly the ideal solution and give us only an additional tool.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
7765 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2017 :  21:17:44  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hermes

Francesco,
You shouldn't underestimate other people contributions based on very superficial speculations. From your papers I can see that you are not better than anyone. We have molecular (unpublished) and morphological data that support our treatment of the Australian Lamiinae and Cerambycinae. Our work is not perfect, but it may have improved the knowledge of the Australian Cerambycidae.
You sound like a frustrate scientist, please measure your words and tone before writte anything.

Hermes E. Escalona

Welcome to our Forum, Hermes!
I hope that your great competence can contribute to identify at least the Australian species present in this Forum.

Concerning your observations, I note that these books are your first and unique contributions to the study of Cerambycids.
The same can be said for your co-author.

It is really weird to write so important and big revisions, moreover involving the rich Papuan Fauna, without a shred of experience in the field.
Sure, it is frustrating to observe the meticulous work that many competent entomologists (Pascoe, Thomson, Lacordaire, Breuning, Skale, Weigel, etc.) made for more than 150 years destroyed by two self-referenced newcomers in only one book.

I overlook your fanciful personal attacks.
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1266 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2017 :  03:04:10  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Some interesting comments regarding the results of using molecur studies to establish phylogeny are given by a worldwide clerid taxonomist, Weston Opitz:

OPITZ, W. 2014 Classification, natural history, and evolution of the Epiphloeinae (Coleoptera: Cleridae) Part XI. Generic taxonomy, intergeneric phylogeny, and catalogue of the subfamily. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae biologicae (Brno). 99(2): 5-94

Opitz disputes the relevance and accuracy of some molecular comparisons in his family of study, the Cleridae.
Likewise, with Cerambycidae there will those who rely heavily on molecular studies and those who do not.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Jump To:
Cerambycoidea Forum © 2000-08 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07