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

 All Forums
 Generalities
 Scientific questions
 Lamiini - Monochamini
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2015 :  08:35:41  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Having in mind to publish a revision of a genus belonging to this tribe, does anybody know on what publication this new split is based?

I thought on Sama (2008), but this author synonymised Lamiini with Phrissomini (in my opinion, partially correctly) and with Dorcadiini (in my opinion, incorrectly). "Monochamini" were not mentioned either.

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1702 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2015 :  14:59:55  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Linsley and Chemsak used Monochamini in their Lamiinae revision, part 1. They didn't explain much except that they preferred to wait until a thourough worldwide study was made. Thus they followed the work of LeConte.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2015 :  16:55:02  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Thank you very much Dan.
This revision dates back 1997... but a worldwide study still existed! It has already been published by Breuning in 1943-44.

Monochamini was also used by Dillon & Dillon.
In the library, their first paper dates back 1959, but it is still the fifth part and it does not contain explications. However, we are not far from 1944.
Go to Top of Page

dryobius
Member Rosenbergia

USA
1702 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2015 :  17:49:45  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Linsley and Chemsak mentioned that they were aware of Breuning's work, but I think they must have considered it to be inadequate in terms of generic analysis.

Nobody is questioning the closeness of Lamia and Monochamus. It's much the same as with Anaglyptus and Clytus.
Is it one tribe, a tribe with two sub-tribes, or two tribes? Higher classification can be very arbitrary.
I don't have a preference, I just don't like the classification changing every few years.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 22/03/2015 :  18:27:30  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The difference Anaglyptini / Clytini is a bit different: the shape of the metepimera is a real character.... which can be considerer more or less important (this is the question).

But, what character differentiates Lamiini from Monochamini?
Go to Top of Page

Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator

France
1702 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2015 :  11:32:25  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Perhaps, the answer could comes from the etymologia of "Mono"(only one) and chame or chamus (I don't find any latin definition for this).
This is probably the main caracteristic which separate this tribe from Lamiini .. (Monochamini features a "bump" on median legs).

Claude
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2015 :  13:37:28  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The original name was Mono-hammus, where "mono" is, rightly, "one" and "hammos" means "node" in Old Greek.

Nonetheless, this explication is no good.
If you compare the mesoibia of Lamia textor and Monochamus sutor (both species-types of the genus) you cannot observe differences:


Lamia and Monochamus, mesotibia
Go to Top of Page

Pierre
Member Rosenbergia

Switzerland
1460 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2015 :  13:38:59  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Interesting, Claude. Etymology does not interest many people but can explain lots of things...!
Sigmund Schenklin: Erklärung der wissenschaftlichen Käfernamen aus Reitters Fauna Germanica (Lutz Verlag, Stuttgart, 1917):
Monochamus : gr. monos = singular, unique; gr. chamos = (fish-)hook
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2015 :  13:42:56  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
This explication has no sense either since both genera have two hooks (= claws?).
Go to Top of Page

Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator

France
1702 Posts

Posted - 31/03/2015 :  15:14:39  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I'm Ok Francesco, Arctolamia (and several other species) features the same dent on mesotibia.
Nevertheless, I'm still convinced that the original tribe separation is based on such physical criteria even if the descriptor couldn't had enough lamiinae material to compare and determinate a rule.
At the end, your first question is still open...

Claude
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2015 :  18:15:49  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Capitaine

Nevertheless, I'm still convinced that the original tribe separation is based on such physical criteria even if the descriptor couldn't had enough lamiinae material to compare and determinate a rule.

Maybe, but it is inadmissible using Monochamini now.
Go to Top of Page

Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator

France
1702 Posts

Posted - 24/04/2015 :  11:08:29  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Bonjour Francesco,
Pour abonder dans ce sens, j'ai examiné plus d'une cinquantaine de specimens à la loupe binoculaire en commençant par des specimens du genre type de la pseudotribu des Monochamini "Monochamus" et des Lamiini comme Lamia et Lamiomimus; puis des specimens divers comme Morimus, Epepeotes, Cereopsius, Aristobia, etc..
Après examen minutieux des bourelets cicatriciels des scapes, de l'angle des crochets des tarses, des cavités cotyloides médianes (avec quelques variation sur le degré d'ouverture) et autres caractères secondaires, je n'ai pas pu mettre en évidence une quelconque logique de différenciation.
Pour moi, je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ce "déclassement" de Lamiini.

Claude
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 26/04/2015 :  15:16:57  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Tout à fait.
In my opinion, Lamiini are a large tribe, such as Trachyderini, which should also include some tribes, such as Batocerini and Gnomini, which show neither consistent not constant differences with other genera.

In this tribe, some groups can be recognised: Gnomini (for their elongated prothorax, but not all, e.g. Imantocera), Batocerini for their open procoxae (but this character is also present in other Lamiini, such as Eutaenia, Polytretus), Phrissomini for their wingless condition (but closely related to Lamia), Agniini for their trapezoidal head (evident synonym of Acridocephalini), etc.

Monochamini and Lamiini are so closely related that considering them as two tribes is surreptitious. See for example Epicedia and Leprodera (evidently related to Lamia) and Paraleprodera (more related to Monochamus).
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
8991 Posts

Posted - 30/01/2020 :  10:26:23  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
According to a modern molecular phylogenetic assessment of the Lamiinae (Souza, Marinoni, Monné & Gómez-Turita, 2020, available here), it resulted that Monochamini and Lamiini belong to the same tribe, which includes Gnomini and Rhodopinini, as we supposed for a long time (see above).

I hope that this last paper closes this too long and senseless diatribe and that authors uses finally the correct taxonomy.
Go to Top of Page

Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator

France
1702 Posts

Posted - 30/01/2020 :  17:13:39  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Très bien, observation et logique restent forces de loi (scientifique bien sur !).

Claude
Go to Top of Page

Jacek Kurzawa
Member Nathrius

Poland
33 Posts

Posted - 04/02/2020 :  18:08:22  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Jacek Kurzawa's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Francesco

Thank you very much Dan.
This revision dates back 1997... but a worldwide study still existed! It has already been published by Breuning in 1943-44.

Monochamini was also used by Dillon & Dillon.
In the library, their first paper dates back 1959, but it is still the fifth part and it does not contain explications. However, we are not far from 1944.


Monochamini was mentioned in many articles before 1944 (in reverse chronology):
Gressitt 1940. The Longicorn Beetles Of Hainan Island.
Matsushita 1933. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Cerambyciden des Japanischen Reichs.
Plavilstshikov 24 1925. Russkije widy Monochamus. „Monochamini sensu Lacordaire 1869
Lacordaire 1869b. Histoire…: p.240 mentioned „Longicornia Malayana” Pascoe

Pascoe 1864-69. Longicornia Malayana p.8:
"Monochaminae. Caput exsertum. Pectus antice plus minusve elongatum. Antennae approximatae. Scapus elongatus, cylindricus,apice cicatricosus. Prothorax lateraliter inermis. Pedes elongati, femoribus simplicibus. Mesosternum declivum."

Oldest article should be Gistel (1848) but I havn't it.

"Monochamini" species was difficult to determination to tribus level if Monochamini exist. I am glad from good news about very interesting article Souza et al. 2020.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 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