| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2015 : 08:35:41
|
Having in mind to publish a revision of a genus belonging to this tribe, does anybody know on what publication this new split is based?
I thought on Sama (2008), but this author synonymised Lamiini with Phrissomini (in my opinion, partially correctly) and with Dorcadiini (in my opinion, incorrectly). "Monochamini" were not mentioned either. |
|
|
dryobius
Member Rosenbergia
USA
1887 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2015 : 14:59:55
|
| Linsley and Chemsak used Monochamini in their Lamiinae revision, part 1. They didn't explain much except that they preferred to wait until a thourough worldwide study was made. Thus they followed the work of LeConte. |
 |
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2015 : 16:55:02
|
Thank you very much Dan.
This revision dates back 1997... but a worldwide study still existed! It has already been published by Breuning in 1943-44.
Monochamini was also used by Dillon & Dillon.
In the library, their first paper dates back 1959, but it is still the fifth part and it does not contain explications. However, we are not far from 1944. |
|
|
|
dryobius
Member Rosenbergia
USA
1887 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2015 : 17:49:45
|
Linsley and Chemsak mentioned that they were aware of Breuning's work, but I think they must have considered it to be inadequate in terms of generic analysis.
Nobody is questioning the closeness of Lamia and Monochamus. It's much the same as with Anaglyptus and Clytus.
Is it one tribe, a tribe with two sub-tribes, or two tribes? Higher classification can be very arbitrary.
I don't have a preference, I just don't like the classification changing every few years. |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 22/03/2015 : 18:27:30
|
The difference Anaglyptini / Clytini is a bit different: the shape of the metepimera is a real character.... which can be considerer more or less important (this is the question).
But, what character differentiates Lamiini from Monochamini? |
|
|
|
Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator
France
1840 Posts |
Posted - 31/03/2015 : 11:32:25
|
Perhaps, the answer could comes from the etymologia of "Mono"(only one) and chame or chamus (I don't find any latin definition for this).
This is probably the main caracteristic which separate this tribe from Lamiini .. (Monochamini features a "bump" on median legs). |
Claude |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 31/03/2015 : 13:37:28
|
The original name was Mono-hammus, where "mono" is, rightly, "one" and "hammos" means "node" in Old Greek.
Nonetheless, this explication is no good.
If you compare the mesoibia of Lamia textor and Monochamus sutor (both species-types of the genus) you cannot observe differences:
 
Lamia and Monochamus, mesotibia |
|
|
|
Pierre
Member Rosenbergia
Switzerland
1755 Posts |
Posted - 31/03/2015 : 13:38:59
|
Interesting, Claude. Etymology does not interest many people but can explain lots of things...!
Sigmund Schenklin: Erklärung der wissenschaftlichen Käfernamen aus Reitters Fauna Germanica (Lutz Verlag, Stuttgart, 1917):
Monochamus : gr. monos = singular, unique; gr. chamos = (fish-)hook |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 31/03/2015 : 13:42:56
|
| This explication has no sense either since both genera have two hooks (= claws?). |
|
|
|
Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator
France
1840 Posts |
Posted - 31/03/2015 : 15:14:39
|
I'm Ok Francesco, Arctolamia (and several other species) features the same dent on mesotibia.
Nevertheless, I'm still convinced that the original tribe separation is based on such physical criteria even if the descriptor couldn't had enough lamiinae material to compare and determinate a rule.
At the end, your first question is still open... |
Claude |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2015 : 18:15:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Capitaine
Nevertheless, I'm still convinced that the original tribe separation is based on such physical criteria even if the descriptor couldn't had enough lamiinae material to compare and determinate a rule.
Maybe, but it is inadmissible using Monochamini now. |
|
|
|
Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator
France
1840 Posts |
Posted - 24/04/2015 : 11:08:29
|
Bonjour Francesco,
Pour abonder dans ce sens, j'ai examiné plus d'une cinquantaine de specimens à la loupe binoculaire en commençant par des specimens du genre type de la pseudotribu des Monochamini "Monochamus" et des Lamiini comme Lamia et Lamiomimus; puis des specimens divers comme Morimus, Epepeotes, Cereopsius, Aristobia, etc..
Après examen minutieux des bourelets cicatriciels des scapes, de l'angle des crochets des tarses, des cavités cotyloides médianes (avec quelques variation sur le degré d'ouverture) et autres caractères secondaires, je n'ai pas pu mettre en évidence une quelconque logique de différenciation.
Pour moi, je ne vois pas l'intérêt de ce "déclassement" de Lamiini. |
Claude |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 26/04/2015 : 15:16:57
|
Tout à fait.
In my opinion, Lamiini are a large tribe, such as Trachyderini, which should also include some tribes, such as Batocerini and Gnomini, which show neither consistent not constant differences with other genera.
In this tribe, some groups can be recognised: Gnomini (for their elongated prothorax, but not all, e.g. Imantocera), Batocerini for their open procoxae (but this character is also present in other Lamiini, such as Eutaenia, Polytretus), Phrissomini for their wingless condition (but closely related to Lamia), Agniini for their trapezoidal head (evident synonym of Acridocephalini), etc.
Monochamini and Lamiini are so closely related that considering them as two tribes is surreptitious. See for example Epicedia and Leprodera (evidently related to Lamia) and Paraleprodera (more related to Monochamus). |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 30/01/2020 : 10:26:23
|
According to a modern molecular phylogenetic assessment of the Lamiinae (Souza, Marinoni, Monné & Gómez-Turita, 2020, available here), it resulted that Monochamini and Lamiini belong to the same tribe, which includes Gnomini and Rhodopinini, as we supposed for a long time (see above).
I hope that this last paper closes this too long and senseless diatribe and that authors uses finally the correct taxonomy. |
|
|
|
Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator
France
1840 Posts |
Posted - 30/01/2020 : 17:13:39
|
| Très bien, observation et logique restent forces de loi (scientifique bien sur !). |
Claude |
|
|
|
Jacek Kurzawa
Member Nathrius
Poland
35 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2020 : 18:08:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Francesco
Thank you very much Dan.
This revision dates back 1997... but a worldwide study still existed! It has already been published by Breuning in 1943-44.
Monochamini was also used by Dillon & Dillon.
In the library, their first paper dates back 1959, but it is still the fifth part and it does not contain explications. However, we are not far from 1944.
Monochamini was mentioned in many articles before 1944 (in reverse chronology):
Gressitt 1940. The Longicorn Beetles Of Hainan Island.
Matsushita 1933. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Cerambyciden des Japanischen Reichs.
Plavilstshikov 24 1925. Russkije widy Monochamus. „Monochamini sensu Lacordaire 1869”
Lacordaire 1869b. Histoire…: p.240 mentioned „Longicornia Malayana” Pascoe
Pascoe 1864-69. Longicornia Malayana p.8:
"Monochaminae. Caput exsertum. Pectus antice plus minusve elongatum. Antennae approximatae. Scapus elongatus, cylindricus,apice cicatricosus. Prothorax lateraliter inermis. Pedes elongati, femoribus simplicibus. Mesosternum declivum."
Oldest article should be Gistel (1848) but I havn't it.
"Monochamini" species was difficult to determination to tribus level if Monochamini exist. I am glad from good news about very interesting article Souza et al. 2020. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Lamiini - Monochamini
