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

 All Forums
 Cerambycidae Lamiinae
 Pachystolini
 D. R. Congo: Pachystola mamillata
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Author  Topic Next Topic  

BillTyson
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1345 Posts

Posted - 18/02/2017 :  23:21:06  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote

49.25 KB

N-Kivu, June, 29 mm

Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosalia

France
995 Posts

Posted - 19/02/2017 :  09:00:59  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Bonjour

M'a tout l'air d'être Pachystola mamillata (Dalman)
Go to Top of Page

BillTyson
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1345 Posts

Posted - 19/02/2017 :  16:46:02  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Many thanks. Has it been changed to Neopachystola?
Go to Top of Page

Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosalia

France
995 Posts

Posted - 19/02/2017 :  17:59:48  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Normally yes but the genus Pachystola was originally attributed to Lamia textor Linnaea later changed into Lamia Fabricius. The name Pachystola has been if my memories are good (?) Been established for the mamillata and other species which originally was described as Lamia mamillata Dalman 1817. Later, 1858, Chevrolat transferred it to the genus Pachystola the latter Proposed by Reiche in 1850 of memory. Subsequently Marinoni 1977 decided to transfer the species belonging to the genus Pachystola (mamillata etc ...) and transferred them to the genus Neopachystola that he proposed simultaneously (but there is no description! Would have had to make one because there were 2 or even other tribes of Laminae who possessed as genus name: Pachystola for example 1 Tragocephala I believe, Tragon, Homelix, Cyclotaenia and others ....) In place of his namesake, Pachystola, for the Lamia textor. Although the idea of Marinoni is praiseworthy, I personally do not see the utility of validating Neopachystola for Pachystola which is now widely used, as for the name Lamia textor widely used also since now at least 150 or 170 years ago, There is not too much risk of reappearing Pachystola instead of Lamia although Dejean used it first for the L textor .... (Pachystola textor 1835 in his catalog). I hope to have been relatively clear however it would be necessary to look back on the name of this genus which is not valid in the eyes of the rules of the CINZ

Edited by - Jérôme Sudre on 05/04/2017 09:33:52
Go to Top of Page
   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