| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Robert |
Posted - 20/10/2013 : 06:43:08
Released September 2013 |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 02/10/2016 : 18:45:44
quote:
Originally posted by Francesco
For whom interested to this book, I have a PDF version available.
No thanks my dear  |
| Francesco |
Posted - 02/10/2016 : 18:22:14
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier
To celebrate, we could create an Exocentrini section ...
For whom interested to this book, I have a PDF version available. |
| Xavier |
Posted - 30/09/2016 : 13:53:42
In Titan database, Exocentrus left Pogonocherini tribe for Exocentrini tribe
To celebrate, we could create an Exocentrini section ... |
| dryobius |
Posted - 11/05/2014 : 14:50:27
 My last sentence has a little mistake... I meant to say that some "specimens are only identified to genus" ... My excuse is that my 2 year old granddaughter was diverting my attention. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 11/05/2014 : 04:46:48
I was able to get this book from a library for a short loan.
Agreeing with Xaurus, I find the synonymization of so many genera (without written explanantion) to be very troubling.
The book has very nice photographs of many holotypes, and a few other species. That alone makes the book worth having, but I am finding that it may be difficult to use in order to identify species.
The holotype photos seem randomly arranged (i.e. not all Rhytiphora are together). The size of photographed specimens is never indicated... anywhere. This is a pervasive shortcoming with so many authors, not just this book. The #1 reason for getting a book like this is to identify specimens. Knowing if a beetle is 15 mm or 30 mm is very useful. label data, size, or institution. There are no maps to indicate the ranges of species, nor are they in writing.
Lastly, a number of species in the photographs are only identified to species. In some cases that seems to imply that the species is undescribed or maybe it indicates that one should not expect to identify specimens from the photographs in this book. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 21/04/2014 : 08:53:04
Dear friends,
it is difficult for me to criticize a new book in a site having such a large public like this.
I only had the opportunity to read several pages available free in the Web (here).
I really appreciated the idea to check and update Breuning's taxonomy through the examination of new specimens and types and to furnish (this I could not verify) pictures of many poorly-known species.
I had started to introduce some changes in BioLib, but many points let me thoughtful and I stopped immediately.
The structure of the tribes is unjustified and erroneous.
For example, the idea to insist on the tribe Monochamini is non-sense.
I remind you that if you accept Sama's taxonomy (Lamia = Lamiini; Monochamus = Monochamini), you should also accept Lamiini = Dorcadiini and Pachystolini.
But nobody stated the differential characters (simply, because they are not existing!  )
Analogously for Obereini, Pogonocherini with Exocentrus, etc.
These taxonomic changes have been made on a very poor number of European genera, moreover published in a no-refereed self-published paper by an amateurish entomologist with no knowledge about the worldwide fauna.
Another example, the book reintroduces Rhodopinini for Desmiphorini, a mistake suggesting that the authors have no idea concerning the aspect of Rhodopina.
I have not deepened the question, but it is enough for sharing your opinion. |
| Andre |
Posted - 18/04/2014 : 12:23:27
83.5 KB
The same genus???
left side: Ichthyodes biguttula N./ right side: Sybra stigmatica P.
both genus types
The underside have much more differences !!! |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 17/04/2014 : 18:38:06
Dear friends,
now I got the Australian book, mentioned by Robert. There was a urgent need of this overview about Australian Lamiinae of course.
The general feeling of this book is good, beautiful pictures, all the type etc. but the content in many points let me thoughtful and I'm worry about this.
For an example, in the genus Sybra, they give 10 new genera synonyms without any justifications and knowledge about these genera.
They use only a matrix with about 50 characteristics and the mentioned taxonomic DELTA software. This software really is very helpful for many taxonomic questions but without any ideas from the objects rather pointless. It's the same like in barcoding without knowledge about the species.
For example, the genera Orinoeme, Hestima, Mimosybra or Neosybra are quite different from Sybra, besides a different habitus they have a different prosternal processus, elytral punctures not in lines (in lines according the genus description), quite different male genitals (no fibula at the end of endophallus) and more and more ...
Additional many errors are in the text part too.
Nobody transferred Ichthyodes (or Ichtyodes ??, apropos the genus type is I. biguttula not bimaculatus) to the Tmesisternini and so on.
For the genus Rhytiphora they give even 28 new genera synonyms -- incredible  .
Species of the genera Ropica even have 4 tarsal limbs only - now still belongs to Cerambycidae ????
Unfortunately, such acts are possible by the rules of nomenclature.
Incomprehensible for me why such things will be published, all of them have a lot of taxonomic consequences that are not necessary.
Now, there are a lot of homonyms so anybody can makes new names etc.
I hope nobody will do this before we make an according paper to correct all.
Anybody share our opinion?
best greetings |
|
|
