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

 All Forums
 Cerambycidae Prioninae
 Remphanini
 Mexique: Neoma corrosa ♀
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Gerard
Scientific Collaborator

France
4859 Posts

Posted - 27/03/2011 :  13:37:47  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote


MEXIQUE, Huauchinango, Puebla,
taille 43 mm

Comme ont est dans les Mallodontini, je pense a Mallodon hermaphroditum.

Edited by - Capitaine on 30/01/2016 11:29:49

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
9044 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2011 :  21:41:14  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
mmhm... la ponctuation élytrale est trop forte et dense: il me semble la femelle de Mallodonopsis corrosus Bates 1879.
Go to Top of Page

Gerard
Scientific Collaborator

France
4859 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2011 :  23:26:07  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Merci ce n'est pas évident ces petites bêtes
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
9044 Posts

Posted - 15/10/2018 :  22:31:01  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Neoma corrosa (Bates, 1879) d'apres la revision de Santos-Silva, Thomas & Wappes (2011)... et il fait partie des Remphanini.
Go to Top of Page

Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator

France
1710 Posts

Posted - 17/10/2018 :  16:03:18  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Dans le travail de Santos-Silva,Thomas & Wappes les genres Mallodonopsis et Neoma doivent rester dans les Macrotomini, voir page 3 je cite les auteurs "In our opinion, Mallodonopsis and Neoma belong to Macrotomini and not to Rhaphipodini (without entering in the merit of the validity or not of Rhaphipodini)", cela me semble clair (bien que toujours discutable sur un plan purement morphologique). De plus, en abstract, il propose un nouveau genre "a new genus of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae: Macrotomini)".
Donc si ces genres sont transférés dans la tribu des Remphanini, merci de m'indiquer l'ouvrage référent.

Claude
Go to Top of Page

Norbert
Member Purpuricenus

France
283 Posts

Posted - 18/10/2018 :  08:24:55  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Norbert's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Allez, pour encore compliquer les choses je les ai classées dans la sous tribu des Macrotomini (Basitoxina)Lameere, 1912 avec les genres Archodontes, Basitoxus, Ialyssus, Mallodonhoplus, Mallodonopsis, Mecosarthron et Neoma.

D'après BOUCHARD et al, 2011 - Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)- ZooKeys 88 : 1-972.

Norbert

www.prioninae.org
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1704 Posts

Posted - 18/10/2018 :  14:55:47  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
The purpose of the work by Bouchard et al, 2011 was not so much an attempt to declare the taxonomical status of various tribes and genera, but to define the nomenclatural legitimacy of family-group names. There’s a big difference!

On the topic of Macrotomini vs. Mallodontini, American taxonomists don’t dispute that Remphanini, Mallodontini, etc. may all be good tribes, but the problem is that the tribal characters defined by Lameere are inconsistently applied since he obviously did not have access to all the species that we know today. (This is a quote from an anonymous friend, not my observation, so please don’t ask me to explain it all).
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
9044 Posts

Posted - 18/10/2018 :  16:34:09  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Voilà a complicated multi-reply.
quote:
Originally posted by Capitaine

Dans le travail de Santos-Silva,Thomas & Wappes les genres Mallodonopsis et Neoma doivent rester dans les Macrotomini, voir page 3 je cite les auteurs "In our opinion, Mallodonopsis and Neoma belong to Macrotomini and not to Rhaphipodini (without entering in the merit of the validity or not of Rhaphipodini)", cela me semble clair (bien que toujours discutable sur un plan purement morphologique). De plus, en abstract, il propose un nouveau genre "a new genus of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae: Macrotomini)".
Donc si ces genres sont transférés dans la tribu des Remphanini, merci de m'indiquer l'ouvrage référent.

Certains auteurs (américains sensu latu surtout) ont l'habitude de refuser les travaux des autres "sans entrer dans le mérite".
Ça vaux même pour Linsley et les Dillon qui ont refusé les travaux de Breuning.
Cela est extrêmement incorrecte et absolument pas professionnel, digne de refus de publication de la partie d'une revue sérieuse ou, au moins, qui a la prétention de s'appeler "scientifique"... mais ces auteurs publient toujours pour leur compte et sans référées.

Ces genres ont été transférés dans la tribu des Remphanini dans la révision du genre Olethrius, qui a été écrite avant leur article.
En plus la tribu des Remphanini est bien acceptée chez le Catalogue de Löbl & Smetana, qui a été publié après leur article.

Si ces auteurs ne sont pas d'accord, ils sont obligés d'expliquer leur raisons.
Autrement leur proposition est une simple opinion et leur "changement taxonomique" est nul et non avenu.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
9044 Posts

Posted - 18/10/2018 :  17:00:28  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius

The purpose of the work by Bouchard et al, 2011 was not so much an attempt to declare the taxonomical status of various tribes and genera, but to define the nomenclatural legitimacy of family-group names. There’s a big difference!

On the topic of Macrotomini vs. Mallodontini, American taxonomists don’t dispute that Remphanini, Mallodontini, etc. may all be good tribes, but the problem is that the tribal characters defined by Lameere are inconsistently applied since he obviously did not have access to all the species that we know today. (This is a quote from an anonymous friend, not my observation, so please don’t ask me to explain it all).

I perfectly agree with you concerning the first part of your answer.

Concerning the second topic, Lameere knew all current genera, most of the current species and all "critical taxa".
It is not the confusion introduced by Santos-Silva on the status of American Mallodon and the useless multiplication of the genera Parandra that imply to state that "the tribal characters defined by Lameere are inconsistently applied".

The antennal proportion (and other characters) of Macrotoma, Mallodon and Rhaphipodus define these groups without problems... much more consistently than some fantastic tribes created in South America.
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1704 Posts

Posted - 18/10/2018 :  17:29:38  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I don't understand your comment about "useless multiplication of the genera Parandra" and what it has to do with Prioninae? I am more appalled by the never-ending descriptions of Dorcadionini which seems to imply that every hill in Asia has its own unique species or subspecies.
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