Cerambycoidea Forum
Cerambycoidea Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Cerambycidae Lamiinae
 D. R. Congo: Pachystola mamillata

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List

* Forum Code is ON
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

   Insert an Image File


T O P I C    R E V I E W
BillTyson Posted - 18/02/2017 : 23:21:06

49.25 KB

N-Kivu, June, 29 mm
3   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Jérôme Sudre Posted - 19/02/2017 : 17:59:48
Normally yes, but the genus Pachystola was originally attributed to Lamia textor Linnaeus later changed into Lamia Fabricius.
The name Pachystola has been, if my memories are good (?), established for 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 which 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 catalogue).
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
BillTyson Posted - 19/02/2017 : 16:46:02
Many thanks. Has it been changed to Neopachystola?
Jérôme Sudre Posted - 19/02/2017 : 09:00:59

M'a tout l'air d'être Pachystola mamillata (Dalman)

Cerambycoidea Forum © 2000-08 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07