| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| dryobius |
Posted - 19/01/2016 : 17:23:53
It seems that there is a perpetual disagreement on whether Glaphyra is a valid genus or whether it is a synonym of Molorchus.
Which option is best now? |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| horshehden |
Posted - 19/01/2016 : 20:59:49
Well, it is not so easy since at some time Danilevsky started to regard "Molorchus" to be based on a type species of "Necydalis umbellatarum", ie a clear "Glaphyra" in a modern sense, and "Caenoptera" to have "Necydalis minor" as a type species, ie. a modern "Molorchus. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 19/01/2016 : 19:04:54
In my opinion a correct answer could be: do both taxa have a similar evolution level or one is evidently derived from the other one?
In other words: can I find specialised and primitive characters in both genera so that I cannot say which is derived from the other one?
If one is clearly derived from the other one, the two taxa should be united as subgenera in only one genus.
Otherwise, if they show a similar evolution level, they should be considered as two genera.
Current positions concerning the topic Molorchus /Glaphyra disregarded this crucial point. |
| horshehden |
Posted - 19/01/2016 : 17:41:03
The one you prefer:-) |
