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

 All Forums
 Cerambycidae Lamiinae
 Batocerini
 Australia, Batocera laena sapho
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Gontran
Member Rosalia

Canada
990 Posts

Posted - 21/11/2019 :  20:38:35  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote

457.68 KB

A nice couple Batocera laena sapho Thomson (sappho?) from Cape york Pen. N. Queensland.
The male almost 60 mm.

Gontran

Edited by - Gontran on 21/11/2019 21:21:58

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8825 Posts

Posted - 23/11/2019 :  07:52:12  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Indeed.
The correct name is Batocera laena sapho Thomson, 1878; sappho is only a misspelling introduced in the revision by Gilmour & Dibb in 1948.

Without any reason, Titan base considers all subspecies as synonyms.
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1661 Posts

Posted - 23/11/2019 :  15:02:40  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Rigout's revision in 1981 lists all of the "forms" of B. laena as varieties, not subspecies. I believe that is Titan's basis.
Likewise, Slipinski and Escalona (2013) list B. laena from Australia without subspecies.
Go to Top of Page

Gontran
Member Rosalia

Canada
990 Posts

Posted - 23/11/2019 :  16:00:04  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Thanks to both of you.
Is there any B. laena without white spots outside Australia?
Well, my female was tempted to show small ones.

Gontran
Go to Top of Page

Gontran
Member Rosalia

Canada
990 Posts

Posted - 23/11/2019 :  16:28:40  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote

483.49 KB

Another male Batocera laena sapho Thomson, 1878.
Same data. Cape York, 9-VI-1973.

Gontran
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8825 Posts

Posted - 24/11/2019 :  07:28:21  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius

Rigout's revision in 1981 lists all of the "forms" of B. laena as varieties, not subspecies. I believe that is Titan's basis.


Rigout, 1988 - Batocerini 1: 38

That is Roigout's revision (1988).

Tavakailian should begin updating his basis...
recently, he proposed me a synonymy inside Acalolepta that was considered as outdated still in 1943.. Hypoeschrus simplex G & R was trasferred to Japonopsimus since 2014, but this update was overlooked... etc.

Here, you can remark that the specimens without marks are only in Queensland and the Key, while those with spots are in New Guinea and the Bismark.
The situation in the Key is variable, but it is necessary to notice that Key are an archipelago, not en island...
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1661 Posts

Posted - 24/11/2019 :  13:07:43  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
But...

"V." stands for varieties, and sapho is listed in the variety section. So, I interpret Rigout's work to mean that he considers sapho not as a subspecies. And as I said also, Slipinski did not list sapho as a valid subspecies.

I find it amusing that we taxonomists from the other side of the planet will always try to determine the correct names for beetles that we only rarely see. I have many examples (other genera) in my collection where I see subspecies that are not good, subspecies that I think are actually species, and species that should be subspecies, and intermediate forms of species and subspecies. Evolution is ongoing so sometimes you can not be precise with a name, because we all see things a little differently.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8825 Posts

Posted - 24/11/2019 :  16:13:11  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius

But...

"V." stands for varieties, and sapho is listed in the variety section. So, I interpret Rigout's work to mean that he considers sapho not as a subspecies. And as I said also, Slipinski did not list sapho as a valid subspecies.
Yes, it is true... but ssp. sapho means subspecies...

I completely agree with other part of your topic...
Go to Top of Page

Gontran
Member Rosalia

Canada
990 Posts

Posted - 24/11/2019 :  19:31:13  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Especially among that group of beetles, the interpretations seem to vary a lot.

Gontran
Go to Top of Page

Gontran
Member Rosalia

Canada
990 Posts

Posted - 24/11/2019 :  19:41:15  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Gontran

Especially among that group of beetles, the interpretations seem to vary a lot.
I keep my labels Batocera laena sapho Thomson, 1878. Thank you for your interesting comments

Gontran
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