| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 06/01/2015 : 23:37:14
Hi all,
I have seen at the excellent platform Titan Database that all Sybra Pascoe, 1865 species now are led under the genus Mycerinopsis Thomson, 1864. I'm wonder why, or I have missed any recent publication ??.
According the priority rule of IUZN formally Mycerinopsis should be the valid name of course.
But Slipinsky & Escalona (2013) published the synonymy Mycerinopsis syn.n. of Sybra, this nomeclatural act is valid (also without justification).
Otherwise Mycerinopsis has nothing to do with Sybra sensu Sybra stigmatica (Pascoe, 1859), but this is an other problem of this sustainable desaster   . |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 20/11/2017 : 18:51:39
Great new today ! 
In next version of Titan dabase, in December, Sybra genus will refind its place, following the last paper of our friends A. Skale & A. Weigel. ( pers. comm. of G. Tavakilian) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 10/01/2017 : 14:45:59
Wait and see... If I have an answer about Sybra genus, I will try to send him the rest part of desiderata  .
Titan, after all, is his own website, and may be he doesn't care what we think ? |
| Francesco |
Posted - 10/01/2017 : 13:45:42
Well... I'd be very curious to know since he insists to use
tribal names as
- Acangassuini, Compsina, Hexoplonini, Sydacini, Tropidina (nomina nuda cf. Bousquet et al., 2009) and Neoibidinini (unnecessary replacement name cf. Vitali 2016) for Ibidionini;
- Sphallotrichina (nomen nudum cf. Bousquet et al., 2009)
- Monochamini, Phytoecini, Obereini (based on which revision?)
or genera such as Nitakeris (cf. LI, CUCCODORO & CHEN - List of unavailable infrasubspecific names originally published in Oberea Dejean, 1835, with nomenclatural notes on the genus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) - Zootaxa 4034 (3): 577–586)
etc.
But but I will not make heavier your work.  |
| Xavier |
Posted - 10/01/2017 : 13:18:56
The better is ...to ask him 
I send him today references of the problem.
Je ne défends pas les choix taxonomiques de la base Titan ( je ne possède pas ces compétences- là ! ) , mais son corpus bibliographique qui est absolument unique (même si incomplet!) |
| Francesco |
Posted - 10/01/2017 : 13:06:55
Dear Xavier, the revalidation of Sybra has already been published in
Weigel & Skale, 2014 - On the taxonomy, synonymy and faunistics of the Apomecynini of the Asian-Australian Region (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae). Part 5: Nomenclatural corrections - VERNATE 33/2014: 221-223
and used again at least in
Weigel & Skale, 2016 - Revision der Gattung Sybra Pascoe, 1865, Teil 6: Die Gruppe der Sybra alternans (Wiedemann, 1823) - Entomologische Blätter und Coleoptera 112 (1): 443-463.
Now,
or Tavakilian does not know these articles - made by two serious specialists on the group and not by two slovens (= goujats) of the Entomology - and thus, he is not a "fantastic bibliograph",
or Tavakilian does not agree on them since - evidently - he think to be "The Specialist of the Worldwide Fauna"... a frankly ridiculous eventuality.
|
| nasa |
Posted - 08/01/2015 : 18:38:23
yes, there are many similar situations! |
| Xavier |
Posted - 07/01/2015 : 09:38:20
Dear Andreas,
Gerard Tavakilian is NOT a specialist of the worldwide fauna (nobody can be), but a fantastic bibliograph. His base is just a compilation of all papers about Cerambycidae he has found since 1986, nothing else.
For this nomenclatural change, Tavakilian has just read the last paper and introduced it in his database, with consequences you talk about...
I see 2 things to do :
1. Talk with Tavakilian about your serious doubt for this change
2. Write and publish a paper against this change with your justifcations.
Everytime we think that sp.A and sp.B are synonymes, if we want to see it in Titan database, we have to write a synonymic note about it. For nomenclatural changes, it's the same...
|
|
|
