| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sergi |
Posted - 16/09/2016 : 17:23:39
415.42 KB
North Vietnam, Vinh Phuc Prov.
Size: 29 mm |
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 24/08/2020 : 17:01:31
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius
This was partially discussed previously.
R. rufifrons (Aurivillius, 1927) is a good species described from Borneo (Brunei).
R. rufescens Breuning, 1939 is another species described from China.
Breuning treated them as separate species of Rufohammus in his Revision of Agniini back in 1943-1944-1945 (see page 326). Breuning moved rufifrons from the genus Mimohammus to Rufohammus. He specified R. rufescens as the type species.
Breuning mistakenly omitted rufifrons in his World Lamiinae Catalog in 1961 ( page 344 ), but and incorrectly listed R. rufescens as occurring in China and Borneo.
R. rufifrons has a black head with a red frons. It also has black on the apex of the elytra, all of the legs and all of the antennae. It is a smaller species than R. rufescens.
R. rufescens is completey red, except for legs and antennae.
I don't know why TITAN database has shown R. rufescens to be a synonym of R. rufifrons. The TITAN database does not include Breuning's 1944 reference of R. rufifrons. I don't think there was a Chinese paper regarding the taxonomic standing of these species. I think all of the blame belongs to Breuning in his catalog of 1961 where he simply forgot to include the name "rufifrons" underneath Rufohammus. His catalog has other mistakes similar to this.
If there has not been a formal synonymization, then both species are still valid. ( just as is shown in www.lamiinae.org )
We just have to ignore the TITAN database, which is not the keeper of official taxonomic nomenclature, but is merely a great reference tool for all of us.
Fixed in the last version of the Titan database. |
| Xavier |
Posted - 16/09/2016 : 21:36:06
Rufohammus rufescens Breuning, 1939.
To complete, this species is also black on each side of the pronotum, below the spines. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 16/09/2016 : 20:51:27
This was partially discussed previously.
R. rufifrons (Aurivillius, 1927) is a good species described from Borneo (Brunei).
R. rufescens Breuning, 1939 is another species described from China.
Breuning treated them as separate species of Rufohammus in his Revision of Agniini back in 1943-1944-1945 (see page 326). Breuning moved rufifrons from the genus Mimohammus to Rufohammus. He specified R. rufescens as the type species.
Breuning mistakenly omitted rufifrons in his World Lamiinae Catalog in 1961 ( page 344 ), but and incorrectly listed R. rufescens as occurring in China and Borneo.
R. rufifrons has a black head with a red frons. It also has black on the apex of the elytra, all of the legs and all of the antennae. It is a smaller species than R. rufescens.
R. rufescens is completey red, except for legs and antennae.
I don't know why TITAN database has shown R. rufescens to be a synonym of R. rufifrons. The TITAN database does not include Breuning's 1944 reference of R. rufifrons. I don't think there was a Chinese paper regarding the taxonomic standing of these species. I think all of the blame belongs to Breuning in his catalog of 1961 where he simply forgot to include the name "rufifrons" underneath Rufohammus. His catalog has other mistakes similar to this.
If there has not been a formal synonymization, then both species are still valid. ( just as is shown in www.lamiinae.org )
We just have to ignore the TITAN database, which is not the keeper of official taxonomic nomenclature, but is merely a great reference tool for all of us. |
| Sergi |
Posted - 16/09/2016 : 19:03:18
Thanks Claude!! I thought in the genus Eupromus..... |
| Capitaine |
Posted - 16/09/2016 : 18:51:13
For me: Rufohammus rufifrons (Aurivillius, 1927) |
|
|
