| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Capitaine |
Posted - 04/04/2018 : 14:39:31
254.84 KB
I would't mind this one in the genus Paraleprodera but I don't find the species...
China / Yunnan / 24 mm |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nasa |
Posted - 16/10/2021 : 14:53:29
quote:
Originally posted by Francesco
Nobody. 
The name is still valid on BioLib (here) since Mitra & al. (2017) used it as valid... though as Epicedia officinator.
Maybe Titanbase refers to a wrong identification by Lacordaire (1869), considered as erroneous already by Gemminger & Harold (1873)...
Dear Francesco, thank you very much for your information. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 16/10/2021 : 11:26:08
Nobody.
The name is still valid on BioLib (here) since Mitra & al. (2017) used it as valid... though as Epicedia officinator.
Maybe Titanbase refers to a wrong identification by Lacordaire (1869), considered as erroneous already by Gemminger & Harold (1873)... |
| nasa |
Posted - 16/10/2021 : 05:51:50
Dear all, do you know who treated Paraleprodera officinator as junior synonym of P. stephanus?
Thanks! |
| Capitaine |
Posted - 10/04/2018 : 17:53:25
  |
| MONO |
Posted - 10/04/2018 : 16:59:39
I don't think it is Paraleprodera itzingeri; the difference is still obvious#65289; |
| Xavier |
Posted - 07/04/2018 : 20:54:06
From Breuning (1943)
|
| Capitaine |
Posted - 07/04/2018 : 18:52:13
Oui cela correspond, merci Francesco.
Je vois d'ailleurs sur Biolib que le rapprochement "Monohammus Stephanus et M. officinator" (dans Titan) repose en fait sur une misidentification et un misspelling... dans le genre Leprodera ! |
| Francesco |
Posted - 07/04/2018 : 15:00:43
A mon avis, l’espèce plus proche est Paraleprodera itzingeri Breuning, 1935 (ici).
Paraleprodera officinator has nothing to do with P. stephanus.
(which should be "stephanus" and not "stephana" as TitanBase refers... this name has no feminine variant!  ).
These two species are well distinct and both perfectly valid: see Breuning, 1943: 268-269.
Please follow BioLib for Taxonomy! |
| Capitaine |
Posted - 07/04/2018 : 14:47:11
Dear Andreas, I just note that the Breuning's drawing doesn't fit with my specimen, and that if the species P. officinator is cited as synonym of P. stephanus, it is not the name of another taxon. |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 07/04/2018 : 01:30:25
I don't understand, please in English ! |
| Capitaine |
Posted - 06/04/2018 : 14:22:19
Oups! c'est raté pour les deux !?
Apparemment P. officinator existe en temps que synonyme mais pas en temps qu'espèce (Titan base) dans ce genre... |
| Xavier |
Posted - 06/04/2018 : 08:02:20
58.72 KB
Drawings by Breuning (1943), if it can help... |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 06/04/2018 : 01:50:46
I think Paraleprodera stephanus fasciata Breuning 1943 is quite different vs. P. officinator, but I haven't seen any type of P. stephanus stephanus |
| Capitaine |
Posted - 05/04/2018 : 10:27:42
Thank you both, this species was first described by White in 1858 under the name Monohammus stephanus and just after Monohammus officinator (for specimens coming from the same area).
So I think that this synonymy should be valid. |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 05/04/2018 : 01:08:23
maybe Paraleprodera officinator (White, 1858) like here
Synonymy with P. stephana should be very questionable |
