Forum Entomologi Italiani

Single specimen coll. on Crataegus.

Vista la lunghezza del primo articolo delle antenne mi sembra chiara la sua identità; vediamo cosa dicono i giovani; Plagionotus, hai finito con la versione di greco ?

_________________
Gianfranco Sama

"Benedetto colui che ti aiuta a correggere i tuoi errori invece di scagliarteli contro"
___________________________________
Gershom Sholem

OK, nobody is here today.
In my opinion probably Glaphyra umbellatarum (Schreber, 1759), but look at the attached key)

_________________
Gianfranco Sama

"Benedetto colui che ti aiuta a correggere i tuoi errori invece di scagliarteli contro"
___________________________________
Gershom Sholem

Oggi era di latino . Grazie mille di avermi aspettato, mi offri una possibilità di allenarmi notevole . Seguendo le chiavi del tuo catalogo io direi Glaphyra (Glaphyra) umbellatarum (Schreber, 1759)

_________________
Riccardo Poloni
La dignità degli elementi
la libertà della poesia,
al di là dei tradimenti degli uomini
è magia, è magia, è magia...
Negrita, Rotolando verso sud

Nel frattempo Isotomus si è rotto di aspettare, ma vedo che è daccordo, percui

_________________
Riccardo Poloni
La dignità degli elementi
la libertà della poesia,
al di là dei tradimenti degli uomini
è magia, è magia, è magia...
Negrita, Rotolando verso sud

A quanto pare ci siamo sovrapposti; mi dispiace non ho aspettato abbastanza

_________________
Gianfranco Sama

"Benedetto colui che ti aiuta a correggere i tuoi errori invece di scagliarteli contro"
___________________________________
Gershom Sholem

Non ti preoccupare Gianfranco, l'importante è che sia arrivato alla giusta conclusione

_________________
Riccardo Poloni
La dignità degli elementi
la libertà della poesia,
al di là dei tradimenti degli uomini
è magia, è magia, è magia...
Negrita, Rotolando verso sud

Sure it is female Molorchus (Molorchus) umbellatarum (Schreber, 1759). (not Glaphyra).

Tommorow I've analyzed a long series kiesenwetteri and schmidti - it is difficult group "kiesenwetteri". M.umbellatarum have a good marks and is simplest to determination. I separate kiesenwetteri-schmidti complex from the umbellatarum by:

- keys of Gianfranco Sama
- two coloured legs and elytra - umbellatarum, (kiesenwetteri have differrent two-coloured elytra, schmidti have one-coloured yellowed, pinked or light brown elytra)
- pronotum oval, regular convex by female! kiesenwetteri x schmidti
- punctation of pronotum regulary and sparcely by kiesenwetteri x schmidti (female!)

1st antennal segment much longer than 3rd or 4th is by umbellatarum, kiesenwetteri and schmidti . Difference between umbellatarum and kiesenwetteri x schmidti is according key in pronotum:

2 Pronotum more densely punctate, punctures round and umbilicate 3 (umbellatarum, malmusi, plagiata, schmidti basetti)
– Pronotum sparsely and more or less deeply punctate, punctures not umbilicate 9 (kiesenwetteri and kiesenwetteri hircus)

I enclose a sample of antennae of three species - female.

I have one question to key: what mean "bilobed" [1*]? I can't find translating this words.

Species from kiesenwetteri group are difficult and from this reason very interesting and requires further analysis.

Regards!
Jacek

Dear Jacek, this I do not understand; why Molorchus

_________________
Gianfranco Sama

"Benedetto colui che ti aiuta a correggere i tuoi errori invece di scagliarteli contro"
___________________________________
Gershom Sholem

I quickly accepted the point of view from site http://www.cerambycidae.net/catalog.html M.L.Danilevsky.

The type species of genus Molorchus Fabricius, 1792 is Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759 (Bousquet, 2008), but not Necydalis minor Linnaeus, 1758

pp. 188, 190, 191:

must be:
genus Molorchus Fabricius, 1792b: 356 type species Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759
subgenus Caenoptera C. G. Thomson, 1859: 150 type species Necydalis minor Linnaeus, 1758
and
subgenus Molorchus Fabricius, 1792b: 356 type species Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759
and
subgenus Nathrioglaphyra Sama, 1995a: 383 type species Molorchus heptapotamicus Plavilstshikov, 1940

After correction will:

genus Molorchus Fabricius, 1792b: 356 type species Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759 (not type species Necydalis minor Linnaeus, 1758!!!)
Glaphyra Newman, 1840b: 19 type species Glaphyra semiusta Newman, 1840
Conchopterus Fairmaire, 1864A: 153 type species Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759
Laphyra Newman, 1842f: 418 [RN] type species Glaphyra semiusta Newman, 1840
Linomius Mulsant, 1862: 226 type species Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759
Sinolus Mulsant, 1862: 228 type species Molorchus kiesenwetteri Mulsant & Rey, 1861

(posted by me http://www.entomo.pl/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 19#p122419 ).

I thought, you know this remarks. I am wait for yours opinion,

sincerely,
Jacek

Yes Jacek, I think you have too quickly accepted the point of view of that web site. I did not know your remark on Polish Forum, but I know what is written in the personal web site of the “Emperor” (as well as many other “strange” and changing opinions about genera, subgenera, nomenclatural stability and so on). I am sorry, but I find it absolutely incorrect. All his opinions are correct, other opinions are wrong until prove of the contrary: ("Brachypteronini - until [my] better study Molorchini = Brachypteromini sic !) Cerambycidae.it
There is no need to change everything each time following the bookworms. You know that Bousquet made a lot of mistakes on this topic. The aim of the ICZN is to preserve nomenclature stability and give us the way to do it.
Anyway; first - what is written in the web sites is not acceptable since not published. Danilevsky uses to write today an opinion, tomorrow another one, totally different (remember what he wrote about Dorcasominae and Necydalinae as well as Apatophysinae and Apatophyseinae);
Second, look what is published in the Catalogue.
"Molorchus Fabricius, 1792: Type species Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759, designated by Curtis (1824: pl. 11), and not Necydalis minor Linnaeus, 1758, as stated by Sama (2002). According to Bousquet (2008), the first type species designation for Molorchus is that of Curtis (1824: pl. 11) who selected Necydalis umbellatarum Schreber, 1759. This species is currently included in the genus Glaphyra Newman 1840. Acceptance of this designation would imply nomenclatural changes and not promote stability. The Commission should be asked to remove Curtis’designation and in the meantime Latreille’s designation (1829) of N. minor should be maintained".
Third – Molorchus, Glaphyra and Nathrioglaphyra are three different genera with important distinguishing characters: mandibles with (Molorchus) or without (Glaphyra) a fringe of hairs; front coxal cavities closed (Glaphyra) or open (Molorchus) posteriorly; antennae 11-segmented in both sexes, but 12 segmented, in male, in Molorchus, and so on. Evidently Danilevsky regard these morphological characters and the elytral coloration of the same value, which an evident mistake.
Regarding G. schmidti and G. kiesenwetteri, I do not see any problem; pronotal punctuation is totaly different and easy to distinguish. Bilobed is "cleft" (like the difference between Arhopalus ferus and syriacus)
If you want we can continue this discussion privately.
Bye

_________________
Gianfranco Sama

"Benedetto colui che ti aiuta a correggere i tuoi errori invece di scagliarteli contro"
___________________________________
Gershom Sholem

Thank you very much for yours opinion.

I don’t want accepting or not the position in this question. I don’t know wheter Commision has already been asked to remove Curtis'designation or not. Really better is wait for consolidate the others views. That’s right - this remarks is not published but it will soon.

The existence of morphological features is very convincing (Molorchus, Nathrioglaphyra and Glaphyra) but it is a separate issue.

I am glad that we agree in this that kiesenwetteri differs to schmidti (with umbellatarum and others species) by punctation of pronotum (not first antennal segment). In others questions I will write in priva, I have some problem with schmidti that need consultation with You.

With Best Regards
Jacek

It is not important that the opinion of Danilevsky will be published or not; it is simply unacceptable, since, until the Commission will be asked to rule "in the meantime Latreille’s designation (1829) of N. minor should be maintained".
A similar not understandable and unacceptable position was published for Leptura (now in Vadonia) bisignata (Brullé, 1832 a very old and used name which, according to Danilevsky, being (in his opinion) a primary junior homonym of Leptura bisignata Ménétriés, 1832 (now in Stictoleptura), never used as a valid name after 1999, must be replaced with Vadonia grandicollis Mulsant & Rey, 1863. I think that you agree that this proposal is demential.

_________________
Gianfranco Sama

"Benedetto colui che ti aiuta a correggere i tuoi errori invece di scagliarteli contro"
___________________________________
Gershom Sholem

Dear Gianfranco,

Your opinion is very important, all is very interesting. You are right that the matter should be resolved in a group of authors and then publish it. However, Mr.Danilevsky writes in the acknowledgments that consulted with many co-authors of CPC. I think, that differences of opinion between the authors should be resolved in private correspondence but it did not happen....

I hope that the minor differences of opinion will be helpful to further your research.

I'm sorry, but I do not know what is true and I do not understand yet well ICZN yet.

I remain in deep respect for you and M. Danilevsky work.

Sincerely Yours
Jacek