Forum Entomologi Italiani

Helo!

Cribridorcadion... ?
(male: 17 mm, and female: 20 mm.)

GRECEE, Thesalia, near Kalithea, Mt. Olympos
26 V 2008, leg. A. Woźniak

Dear Adam,
It is Dorcadion (Pedestredorcadion) bravardi.
Please use Pedestredorcadion for the Subgenus. Cribridorcadion is only for mniszechi and related species.
Ciao
Pierpaolo

Quest'altra discussione è intitolata Dorcadion (Pedestredorcadion) etruscum bravardi Pic, 1916. Quale va rinominata?

_________________
Maurizio Gigli
http://utenti.romascuola.net/bups
http://bup.xoom.it/

Anche nel catalogo di Lobl & Smetana è riportato bravardi come specie distinta.
Pierpaolo

Just strange lighting, Maurizio...

Ok, rinomino entrambe le discussioni così (volevi scrivere bravardi, immagino).

_________________
Maurizio Gigli
http://utenti.romascuola.net/bups
http://bup.xoom.it/

Danilevsky

Maurizio, if you want to follow Pal Cat here or Danilevsky, then you should change it to Cribridorcadion as well as many other nonsenses of his ...

Bravardi is not a good specie...

Zdeno, I would be tempted to agree totally with you (I don't like the "taxonomical oligarchy" pretended by Danilevsky), but the generic attribution, and the specific status of the taxon are two different problems.
By one side most researchers agree that Pedestredorcadion is the valid genus to which the taxon bravardi has to be referred, while, on the other side, its subspecific status was stated by Pesarini and Sabbadini, and subsequently denied by Danilevsky, who elevated it to the specific status again. So, taxonomically speaking, bravardi is a valid species by its own till somebody will deny the opinion of the ....... russian oligarch

_________________
Maurizio Bollino

There has been published a few papers about bravardi-etruscum.
Dorcadion etruscum bravardi (Pic, 1916) or Dorcadion bravardi Pic, 1916, Type locality of bravardi was Saloniki, what already Breuning stated, that Pic` s type locality is wrong ( like it was happening many times with Pic ), so according to the code, that specie should not be valid, or yes ? Now dates of description. What or how Danilevsky decided, that it is a valid specie ? I don't have his papers from 2007 + ...

Andrea`s & Carlo`s explanation from 2007 should be clear enough to say, what should be right or not. Then 2012 Rapuzzi & Sama

Pedestre & Crib - I m sure you have read Gianfranco`s opinion...

But according to Lobl & Smetana, Crib is valid subgenus according the code, so why are we calling it Pedestre if nobody has denied it ? Or they did, but it was not accepted by Danilevsky and used again in 2010 Pal Cat ?

I don't really understand, why we should use specific status of this specie and not "valid " subgenus - Cribridorcadion if nobody has denied it ? Should not be it then Dorcadion ( Cribridorcadion Pic 1901) bravardi Pic 1916 ? If we agree with it or not ?

Dear Zdeno,
Pesarini and Sabbadini in 2010 (later than the Catalogue) made their contribution on Greek Dorcadion (number 4) and they restore Pedestredorcadion for all the species. Cribidorcadion remains only for mniszechi group. I agree with this opinion.
Ciao
Pierpaolo

PS the status of bravardi is unclear. In my opinion according its characters it is a valid species. Pesarini & Sabbadini in 2010 stated it as subspecies of etruscum.

I know this, Pierpaolo. That's right that they " restored " Pedestredorc, but the thing is, that Danilevsky did not accept it and used name Cribridorcadion again from 2010. So if we go by the Code and newish date, then Cribridorcadion should be in use until someone else deny the opinion, like Maurizio said, is that right ? But nobody else has done it since Pal Cat was published...

The same situation is with subspecific or specific rank of bravardi. Andrea & Carlo published work in 2007, since then nobody else as far as I know has published anything about this group, except Pal Cat ( what I think has no scientific value ) , where I can`t find any information why it was done so by Danilevsky. So that means, that " the checklist " from 2010 ( Pal Cat ) has more importance, because was published at last, even no data or explanation offered, than a proper scientific work dealing with exact studied group ?

The question is, why don`t we accept genus Cribridorcadion and we do accept specie name bravardi ? Leave our opinions...just explain please, why don't we accept Cribrid, if it was published at last and we do accept Pedestredorcadion which was denied a few times after 2010 by Danilevsky/Ozdikmen. I m lost in this. I know about type specimens of mniszechi and Lamia pedestre from Poda, I m just lost how it works with dates and what has more importance than other.

P.S email

I forgot to say, that I would rather except it as ssp of etruscum. I had a few males on the table and except the size and " reddish legs, what does not happen all the time and other small things, there is no other significant different character between bravardi and etruscum or significant character to accept it as a specie...even aedeagus shows very minimalistic differences.

Thanks for your help.

It's a very interesting discussion.
I am also a little lost in this topic, but I like the idea of Zdeno.

I would like to know the answer to this question: