| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosenbergia
Estonia
1001 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2013 : 14:20:56
|
124.11 KB
China, Sichuan
This is a source of confusion to me.
I received this beetle as Chlorophorus notabilis cuneatus. If fact "notabilis cuneatus" should belong to Demonax. This beetle is obviously Chlorophorus, but there are too many species with a similar colour pattern.
Can anyone help with it? |
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12338 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2013 : 15:03:16
|
Species also unclear for me, and I don't know what thinking!
Have a look to this topic. |
 |
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12338 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2013 : 15:16:40
|
Gressitt & Rondon, 1970 fig. 39j, p. 260
Here the picture of Demonax pseudonotabilis |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosenbergia
Estonia
1001 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2013 : 15:45:18
|
| Thank you, Xavier. I'll work on it. |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9511 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2013 : 09:23:12
|
Clytus notabilis Pascoe, 1862 really belongs to Demonax, not to Chlorophorus! In the linked topic, the spines on the antennae are well visible.
Has this specimen got no spines? |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosenbergia
Estonia
1001 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2013 : 11:00:37
|
Well, it appears I had too little experience with Demonax. I did not expect these "spines" that small. If fact these were just small teeth visible under a microscope. Demonax then... |
|
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12338 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2013 : 13:04:09
|
| I create a new topic to compare specimens from Laos and Japon. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
China, Demonax notabilis
