| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jplami |
Posted - 06/09/2020 : 21:31:55
22.59 KB
Specimen from Phrae province is a 14.5 mm male.
I determinated it : Zotale subunicolor (Breuning, 1968) -TO CONFIRM- |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 09/09/2020 : 07:15:51
Ok, holotype of Mycerinopsis (Zotale) parunicolor Breuning, 1965 seems to be a male too. |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 09/09/2020 : 00:35:48
difficult to say if there is a sexual feature, f.e. in M. (Zotale) lineatus (Gahan, 1894) the male has no tibial spine, and maybe in Z. unicolor Pascoe, 1866 too (type species of Zotale), the picture is'nt useful to see that spine, but the type should be a male !
216.65 KB |
| Xavier |
Posted - 08/09/2020 : 06:58:22
quote:
Originally posted by jplami
Types of the taxa parunicolor and subunicolor are accessible.
Mycerinopsis parunicolor does not present such spur on tibias.
I have a female (here) , from the same locality, without spur on tibias : I think it is not a specific feature, but a sexual dimorphism ! |
| Xavier |
Posted - 07/09/2020 : 21:00:12
quote:
Originally posted by jplami
In titan, I see Zotale !?
Yes, and as I said, it will be corrected in next version of Titan database. |
| jplami |
Posted - 07/09/2020 : 19:57:37
In titan, I see Zotale !?
But I don't find any act to revalidate Zotale : I'm ok with Mycerinopsis (Zotale).
Types of the taxa parunicolor and subunicolor are accessible.
Mycerinopsis parunicolor does not present such spur on tibias.
So I keep: Mycerinopsis (Zotale) subunicolor Breuning, 1968.
|
| Xavier |
Posted - 07/09/2020 : 12:39:26
Tavakilian will correct the valid genus in Titan database : Mycerinopsis (Zotale). |
| Xavier |
Posted - 07/09/2020 : 07:42:23
I called my specimen from the same place Mycerinopsis (Zotale) parunicolor Breuning, 1964.
I have to check that... |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 07/09/2020 : 01:02:39
a good decision  but there is still no taxonomic act to revalidate Zotale as a separate genus, or I don't know ? |
