| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
dryobius
Member Rosenbergia
USA
1887 Posts |
 Posted - 30/07/2016 : 13:24:39
|
Has anybody seen this book yet?
I am curious whether the authors have again tried to justify a large number of taxonomic changes. |
|
|
cerambyphil
Member Rosalia
France
675 Posts |
Posted - 25/09/2016 : 09:36:39
|
Hello Dan,
I bought this book upon its publication and there are effectively a lot of taxonomic changes : 13 new genera are proposed, 18 genera are newly synonymised. That's why 66 new generic combinations are given.
Photos are magnificent, the descriptions are complete but in the subject which concerns me, I am not satisfied by the explanations concerning the integration of the genus Aprosictus into the genus Piesarthrius ! This new combination does appear as a taxonomic simplification, but in reality, thinks are not also simple! My work on the revision of the genus Aprosictus (to be published in 2017) will show that this synonymy is erroneous. |
Edited by - cerambyphil on 25/09/2016 09:38:20 |
 |
|
|
dryobius
Member Rosenbergia
USA
1887 Posts |
Posted - 25/09/2016 : 13:57:43
|
The library at a nearby university has ordered this book and I will be able to borrow it soon. I don't have a big collection of Australian specimens but I do have a few which are unidentified.
The book on Lamiinae was not very helpful. |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2016 : 19:36:51
|
I had the opportunity to check some free pages here.
Apart some genera (e.g. Bimia/Arkyptera), whose synonymy seems to me reasonable, this book confirms the impression received from the first volume.
Though I do not consider myself as a "splitter", it seems to me that the authors exaggerated in synonymising between them genera having very poor affinities.
As in the case of the absurd synonymy of nearly all Pteropliini with Rhytiphora or of Apomecynini with Mycerinopsis (imprudently accepted by Tavakilian & Co.), the result is a step backward.
What will be the next work of the Magic Duo?
The synonymising of all Cerambycids to the genus Cerambyx???
|
|
|
|
Hermes
Member Nathrius
Djibouti
1 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2017 : 11:34:35
|
Francesco,
You shouldn't underestimate other people contributions based on very superficial speculations. From your papers I can see that you are not better than anyone. We have molecular (unpublished) and morphological data that support our treatment of the Australian Lamiinae and Cerambycinae. Our work is not perfect, but it may have improved the knowledge of the Australian Cerambycidae.
You sound like a frustrate scientist, please measure your words and tone before writte anything.
Hermes E. Escalona |
|
|
|
Xavier
Scientific Collaborator
France
12203 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2017 : 12:24:32
|
Welcome on our forum Hermes. 
I think you shouldn't underestimate Francesco, who publishes about Cerambycidae since 25 years  .
I notice that you are also specialist of Dynastinae, Alticinae, Pyrochroidae, Salpingidae, Meloidae, Coccinellidae, Rhipiceridae and Boganiidae, (...), which is great.
On this forum, we only work on Cerambycidae, but you should find here good interlocutors. |
Edited by - Xavier on 04/03/2017 12:24:52 |
|
|
|
Xaurus
Member Rosenbergia
Germany
1923 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2017 : 01:53:23
|
I can support the opinion of Francesco and Xavier; in any case, your discussion Hermes shows you are not really experienced in Cerambycidae and trust a taxonomic software only probably without a suitable and sufficient data set.
We have still lot of problems in many or almost all tribes of Cerambycidae (the Australian fauna isn't isolate as to that), and recently the confusions will be increased through diverse activities.
The taxonomic disaster produced in your volume (I know only Lamiinae) is really self-defeating.
Such a complex taxonomic and systematic restructuring should based on the final morphological and molecular analysis, and furthermore, the molecular data are not exactly the ideal solution and give us only an additional tool. |
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2017 : 21:17:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hermes
Francesco,
You shouldn't underestimate other people contributions based on very superficial speculations. From your papers I can see that you are not better than anyone. We have molecular (unpublished) and morphological data that support our treatment of the Australian Lamiinae and Cerambycinae. Our work is not perfect, but it may have improved the knowledge of the Australian Cerambycidae.
You sound like a frustrate scientist, please measure your words and tone before writte anything.
Hermes E. Escalona
Welcome to our Forum, Hermes!
I hope that your great competence can contribute to identify at least the Australian species present in this Forum.
Concerning your observations, I note that these books are your first and unique contributions to the study of Cerambycids.
The same can be said for your co-author.
It is really weird to write so important and big revisions, moreover involving the rich Papuan Fauna, without a shred of experience in the field.
Sure, it is frustrating to observe the meticulous work that many competent entomologists (Pascoe, Thomson, Lacordaire, Breuning, Skale, Weigel, etc.) made for more than 150 years destroyed by two self-referenced newcomers in only one book.
I overlook your fanciful personal attacks, which confirm your complete incompetence on Cerambycids. |
|
|
|
dryobius
Member Rosenbergia
USA
1887 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2017 : 03:04:10
|
Some interesting comments regarding the results of using molecur studies to establish phylogeny are given by a worldwide clerid taxonomist, Weston Opitz:
OPITZ, W. 2014 Classification, natural history, and evolution of the Epiphloeinae (Coleoptera: Cleridae) Part XI. Generic taxonomy, intergeneric phylogeny, and catalogue of the subfamily. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae biologicae (Brno). 99(2): 5-94
Opitz disputes the relevance and accuracy of some molecular comparisons in his family of study, the Cleridae.
Likewise, with Cerambycidae there will those who rely heavily on molecular studies and those who do not.
|
|
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9454 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2020 : 18:46:07
|
Coming back to this topic, I'd like to add the taxonomic changes claimed by Slipinki & Escalona and refused by subsequent authors.
Wrong synonyms in Slipinski & Escalona (2013)
- Sybra Pascoe, 1865 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Hestima Pascoe, 1867 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Mimosybra Breuning 1939 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Neosybra Breuning, 1939 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Orinoeme Pascoe, 1867 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Lamprosybra Aurivillius, 1928 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Sybroides Dillon et Dillon, 1952 > Mycerinus Thomson, 1865 (revalidated by Weigel & Skale 2014)
- Periaptodes Pascoe, 1866 > Potemenmus Thomson, 1864 (revalidated Wallin & Kwamme 2015)
Wrong synonym in Slipinski & Escalona (2016)
- Aprosictus Pascoe, 1866 > Piesarthrius Hope, 1834 (revalidated by Jacquot 2017)
Other revalidations are coming soon... |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Australian Cerambycidae Volume 2
