Thank you, Barış.
So,
Psallus ocularis (Mulsant & Rey 1852) [ =
Asthenarius ocularis Tamanini 1981A] is still treated as one of the only 2 spp of
Psallus s.l. grouped in the subgenus
Sthenarus...
R.T. Schuh & K.L. Menard 2013, pp. 40-41 ha scritto:
Most classifications of Psallus have included a number of subgenera. There is little reason to believe that these species groupings are tied together by characters other than the form of the vestiture. Until a more detailed analysis of Psallus s.l. is published we refrain from introducing additional taxonomic decisions, but assert that we have little confidence in the monophyly of a broadly conceived Psallus, especially if that concept fails to consider the validity of Sthenarus.
R.T. Schuh & K.L. Menard 2013, p. 42 ha scritto:
We associate this nominal genus [Sthenarus] with Psallus because of the great structural similarity of the endosoma with that of Psallus s.s. spp. We note that two of the species currently residing in Sthenarus are placed there simply because the classical taxon [Psallus s.l.] served as a dumping ground and are in need of reexamination to determine their genus of proper placement.
PS: Systematics of Miridae is a mess...
REFERENCESR.T. Schuh & K.L. Menard 2013: A revised classification of Phylinae, pp. 40-41, 42.R.T. Schuh 2002-2013: Systematic catalog of Miridae.L. Tamanini 1981A: Gli Eterotteri della Basilicata e della Calabria, p. 68.