Forum Entomologi Italiani

Of course, I must agree.



I found this work: http://www.cerambycoidea.com/titles/pes ... i2007a.pdf. There are nice pictures of distinguishing characteristics. Maybe "not strong but distinct"

Thank you for your response Pierpaolo!
Do you have any graphics or pictures showing the differences between A. schaefferi schaefferi and A. schaefferi ariannae?
And what about the genitals? Do they differ in these subspecies?
And what about their deployment? If we talk about the subspecies, it must be a clear demarcation of their ranges!

Thank you for this link, Martin.

However, this work shows that A. schaefferi schaefferi and A. schaefferi ariannae are clearly separated from each other geographically. And in general there is no recognition of the location of these "subspecies". And if there are no limits ranges, we can not speak of the subspecies.

Dear Adam,
I don't agree with you. I think that Akimerus schaefferi ariannae is a good subspecies. It is possible that it is a distinct species but it will be necessary to study more specimens from whole Balcan peninsula. Pesarini described it as subspecies for the small differences against the middle european specimens. I think if you want to understand well this situation you must check many specimens from Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina. I have several specimens in my collection from South Russia that are very different from the Czech or Hungarian ones. So far the situation must be stay as now.
Ciao
Pierpaolo

That's just it dear Pierpaolo that up to this point have not been tested specimens of A. schaefferi from all over the range of the species, so to speak of the subspecies A. schefferi ariannae is premature. I think it is a mistake the more that we do not know the area of ​​occurrence of the "subspecies" and its occurrence acreage is in no way isolated. So with what taxon will have to deal at the junction of the occurrence of the two "subspecies"?

Of course, you need to investigate the matter further. At the moment I think it is far too little data to recognize, A. schaefferi ariannae.

Adam, sorry, I can't agree with You. You don't understand the basic principles.
I think that two subspecies can be distributed in the same area. Taxon can have variable distributional range in time.
At description of taxon should be considered others markers as biology, behaviour and others barriers. Range of distribution of species will shouldn't treated as diagnostic, key of feature, source of division. Some authors (in Cerambycidae) belive in incorrect assumptions and many times applied the incorrect criteria of division on the base their belief (conviction) that separation of area population is a good, sufficient reason of division.

Not the point, dear Jacek!
The subject is difficult, and here we have a language barrier.
As I understand the work of A. schaefferi ariannae is written that others markers as: biology, behavior and others barriers are the same as in the nominative subspecies. If so, and if there is no clear geographical separation, whether it is a good subspecies?

Nobody besides you is not disputed that the subspecies is correct. Your arguments are invalid. I do not want here to prove the correctness of description, because it's not my job. I agree with the authors of A.schaefferi arianne.

The unclearness of geographical distribution of a specie/subspecie is a problem concerning lot of cerambycidae at now, also in our "little" Europa!!!
I'm thinking, for example, to Stenurella Sennii, that was described by ONE specimen kept in France and then was taken in Italian apennines...
Or what about misterious Aegomorphus francottei? It's possible it's spreaded in whole european area, but at the moment his distribution is higly uncertain...
And i could go on with many others...

_________________
Marci
"S'i fosse fuoco, arderei 'l mondo,
S'i fosse vento, lo tempesterei,
S'i fosse acqua, i' l'annegherei
s'i fosse dio, mandereil' en profondo" ( Cecco Angiolieri).

Dear Jacek! Mikołaj Copernicus also preached his thesis, in which the others do not believe.
You did not fill any arguments here. You write only that you agree with the authors work, but do not know why?

Hi Marci!
I think also that many now described "species" and "subspecies" for some time will not be valid and will be synonymous.

Once again - all arguments for "ariannae as subsepcies of schaefferi" are described in the paper of Sabaddini & Pessarini and I accept all. But You have "new thesis", You don't agree with them. You wrote:



then (!!!!) :

Did not know that in the work are drawings of genitalia and tibia and You placed a bold thesis


Yours opinion is new therefore it requires a broader Your comment not my.

You asked me "Why I agree with description". Simply - it seems good

Dear Jacek! In my opinion the publication of A. schaefferi ariannae is unconvincing. But our conversation is a dialogue practice with the theoretician. A hard for me to talk to someone who has never met a live A. schafferi. Your knowledge of biology, ethology, and the habitat of this species is derived only from the literature. We'll talk when this will change.

Great!