| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
nicky
Member Purpuricenus
Singapore
206 Posts |
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12205 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2015 : 09:56:34
|
It is a Monochamini, Cerosterna sp. It's close to Cerosterna luteopubens (Pic, 1925), but my specimens from Laos are yellow, not orange like yours.
With similar color, but not with black legs (note your specimen is damaged), see also Celosterna pollinosa Buquet, 1859 var. sulphurea Heller like here known from Indonesia...
I see in Titan database that genus Celosterna becomes Cerosterna |
Edited by - Xavier on 04/01/2015 10:23:53 |
 |
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2015 : 11:26:01
|
By considering Breuning's keys (1944), it might be identified as Cerosterna luteopubens (Pic, 1925) (ventral site with whitish pubescence, elytral granules larger and glabrous) of the tribe Lamiini.
However, the elytral yellow is rather darker than in Indochinese specimens, as Xavier correctly noticed...
The genus is not recorded from Singapore yet and a subspecies or another (new) species might be supposed.
Despite Titan's opinion, the correct name is Cerosterna Blanchard (not Celosterna Dejean), as I have already explained here.
Unfortunately, the Titan base is very receptive to accept any taxonomic news, without checking whether they are correct or not.
Monochamini or the wrong taxonomic changes introduced by Slipinsky are further examples of this. |
|
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12205 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2015 : 13:11:32
|
| euh, Titan mentionne Cerosterna Dejean,1835 et Celosterna Blanchard,1845 . Tu as mélangé noms et auteurs je crois. |
|
|
|
nicky
Member Purpuricenus
Singapore
206 Posts |
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2015 : 17:49:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier
euh, Titan mentionne Cerosterna Dejean,1835 et Celosterna Blanchard,1845 . Tu as mélangé noms et auteurs je crois.
Tu as raison Xavier, mais Titan aussi a mélangé tout.
En effet la situation est la suivante:
Cerosterna Dejean, 1835 n. n.
Celosterna Blanchard, 1845
Cet article propose
Celosterna Dejean, 1835, qui n'a pas évidemment de sens.
Si on accepte le nom de Dejean, on doit citer Cerosterna, mais ce n'est pas (justement) l'avis de ces auteurs, car Cerosterna n'est pas prévalente.
En effet, la plupart des combinaisons de Cerosterna mentionnées par Titan n'ont jamais été publiées. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Singapore, Celosterna: luteopubens
