|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 30/09/2015 : 12:54:10
Not sure on this either.
Data: 11-1994 - Mt Fansipan - Lao Cai Prov - Vietnam - 16mm
|11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 03/02/2020 : 20:53:14
Thank you for the update.
||Posted - 03/02/2020 : 09:04:05
After the last revision, Aegomorphus circumflexus (Jacquelin du Val, 1857).
Psapharochrus was considered as a synonym of Aegomorphus.
Pardalisia remains as subgenus of Acanthoderes.
Scythropopsis and Symperasmus were considered as separated genera.
See BioLib here for the updated species list.
Keep attention that some combinations introduced by TitanBase were totally invented since never published.
||Posted - 05/10/2015 : 12:57:13
Originally posted by jplami
Monné,2012:79 in Zootaxa 3213 cited (accepted) as valid genus of Acanthoderini
- Anybody could explain me the generic differences between Psapharochrus, Pardalisia, Scythropopsis, Symperasmus Aegomorphus and most Acanthoderes?
- Anybody could explain me why - for example - A. giesberti (here) belongs to Acanthoderes and not to Psapharochrus or Aegomorphus?
But I could select dozens of other Acanthoderes (A. affinis, A. albifrons, A. alpina, A. amplitoris, A. ariasi, A. barrerai, A. bicolor, etc., etc.).
- Anybody could explain me the strange distribution of these genera?
The simple reason is because Monné accepted a taxonomic (non systematic!) point of view that has no connection with the reality.
||Posted - 05/10/2015 : 08:15:35
Thank you very much, a label was missing!
||Posted - 02/10/2015 : 22:54:23
Monné,2012:79 in Zootaxa 3213 cited (accepted) as valid genus of Acanthoderini :
Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864: 18
Type-species: Acanthoderes cylindrica Bates, 1861 (by original designation).
in his "Catalogue of the type-species of the genera of the Cerambycidae, Disteniidae, Oxypeltidae and Vesperidae (Coleoptera) of the Neotropical Region".
Authors follow him for all works on Neotropical longicorns.
||Posted - 02/10/2015 : 20:13:39
I have this paper, but subsequent authors (e.g. Chemsak & Hovore) kept describing numerous species as Acanthoderes.
Thus, the combinations with Psapharochrus have been never published.
Actually, the validity of that nomenclaturial act is doubtful.
The author compared only both "assumed" type species, but other authors disagree on this identification.
Moreover, he completely ignored the variability inside the genus. In fact, the present species looks more similar to Acanthoders daviesi than to Psapharochrus cylindricus regarding the elytral shape.
Finally, Aegomorphus seems to be a synonym of Psapharochrus.
Notably, the elytral apex of this genus is rounded in nearly all American species but obliquely truncated in the European ones (analogously to Psapharochrus).
In conclusion, a taxonomic paper that introduced more confusion than clarity.
||Posted - 02/10/2015 : 19:36:26
About genus Psapharochus, see explication and restoration (implicit act) given pages 328 and 329 in G. Sama, Lambillionea, 1994, XCIV, 3: 321-334.
Note sulla nomenclatura dei Cerambycidae della regione mediterranea. II. Revisione di alcuni tipi di Kraatz, v. Heyden e Stierlin.
||Posted - 02/10/2015 : 15:49:55
Well: we all agree.
Concerning Psapharochrus, do you know if (and where) anybody has validly restored this taxon as genus?
I still find several species that nobody combined them as Psapharochrus.
||Posted - 02/10/2015 : 07:14:58
Sure, Francesco. It's Psapharochrus circumflexus (Jacquelin du Val, 1857).
This species is widely present in neotropical region (Mexico to Columbia, Antilles).
It's an introduction or wrong label.
||Posted - 01/10/2015 : 22:41:57
That was my assumption a wrong label, I've never seen an Acanthoderini in Vietnam.
||Posted - 01/10/2015 : 20:44:43
It is a female of Acanthoderes circumflexa Jacquelin du Val, 1857 or a closely related species cf. here.
Confusion of labels?