Forum Entomologi Italiani

Another Dorcadion from Bulgaria:

Bulgaria, Kiten near Primorsko,
20 V 2005, Leg. A. Woźniak
Male: 14 mm, female: 15 mm.

Dorcadion pedestre pedestre (Poda, 1761)

One more reason to accept the subgenus Pedestredorcadion: Dorcadion (Pedestredorcadion) pedestre pedestre (Poda, 1761) sounds better than Dorcadion (Cribridorcadion) pedestre pedestre (Poda, 1761)

_________________
Maurizio Bollino

Thank you very much!


This view is still evolving.
According Danilevsky (2009):
Cribridorcadion PIC, 1901 = Pedestredorcadion BREUNING, 1943 = Autodorcadion PLAVILSTSHIKOV, 1958 = Megalodorcadion PESARINI et SABBADINI, 1999 = Bergerianum PESARINI et SABBADINI, 2004, and now probably even otherwise

I'll wait until someone eventually will develop clear.

it IS clear for us ! The thing is - and nobody explained it to me yet - , how is it with validity-date and that freaking code

Zdeno, you have both the knowledge and the contacts to prepare a paper about this matter. I am sure that if you propose such project to either Pierpaolo or to Andrea, any of them (or both?) will accept to be co-author of the FINAL SOLUTION for such a nomenclatorial nightmare!

_________________
Maurizio Bollino

now I read some papers from Danilevsky....2009 Danilevsky put validity of Cribridorcadion on, 2010 Feb PalCat- Cribridorcadion, then 2010 July Andrea`s & Carlo`work - Pedestredorcadion "in force", then 2012/13 Danilevsky describing new species under Cribridorcadion again, then updated 17.01.2014 A check-list of Longicorn Beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycoidea) of Europe Mikhail L. Danilevsky - Cribridorcadion AGAIN.

Maurizio, I think that this will be " no win " war with him !

If we go by date now, then Cribridorcadion must be valid, if we go by BRAIN, then Pedestredorcs for sure...the question is, what is then valid according to ICZN ? If is Pedestredorcadion accepted, then why is he using Cribrido as a valid status ? Can it be valid ???

Anyway, I will stick with my Pedestredorcadion for something I`m working on, I just `d like to know what is " right " at this moment.

P.S. did you get my thing ?

Another interesting and very important question.
The question that probably unfortunately remain unanswered...

I add to discussion.
Problem is small and another. I see two parallel hipothesis: by Danilevsky (Cribri-) and by Pesarini (Pedestre-). Here isn't better or valid point view. CPC is only "Checklist" with point of view some authors.
Each for us can choice a better dividing for own use, .... or providing personal researches and create a next one new hipothesis for dividing Dorcadions!


PS. Look please in Sama, Dascalu, Pesarini, 2010. D.gashtarovi.