| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kungmjolon |
Posted - 05/03/2023 : 17:47:14
Hi!
Saw these articles about changes within the Rhagiini and Stenurella/Rutpela based on molecular data.
Zamoroka A.M., Trócoli S., Shparyk V.Y., Semaniuk D.V.:
Polyphyly of the genus Stenurella (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae): Consensus of morphological and molecular data.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362569991_Polyphyly_of_the_genus_Stenurella_Coleoptera_Cerambycidae_Consensus_of_morphological_and_molecular_data
Zamoroka A.M.:
Molecular revision of Rhagiini sensu lato (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae): Paraphyly, intricate evolution and novel taxonomy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365769163_Molecular_revision_of_Rhagiini_sensu_lato_Coleoptera_Cerambycidae_Paraphyly_intricate_evolution_and_novel_taxonomy
Has anyone read these and have an opinion if these might be valid changes?
Regardless, an interesting view. |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 08/03/2023 : 13:16:40
Sorry, because you use a "pseudo", I never know who is who ! Of course, I spoke about Larry's site !... |
| dryobius |
Posted - 08/03/2023 : 12:36:56
hi Xavier,
I don't have a web site 
Are you referring to Larry's ? At first glance, it's great to have so many researchers, but if only a part of a problem is studied, then the results can be a problem.  |
| Kungmjolon |
Posted - 07/03/2023 : 12:08:32
Thanks for your input! I strongly agree with you both, Francesco and Dan. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 06/03/2023 : 21:36:18
Some years ago Miss M. Sýkorová published a Bachelor thesis on the "Molecular phylogeny of subfamilies Spondylidinae and Lepturinae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) using mitochondrial 16S rDNA" (available here) supervised by Dr. Svacha.
The thesis is written in Czech, but the phylogenetic trees are well comprehensible.
There are several oddities, e.g. Moechotypa paired with Leiopus or Centrodera with Tetrops, but some confirmations as well, as Necydalini nested in (i.e., tribe of) Lepturinae.
Interestingly, Miss Sýkorová was wise enough to not propose taxonomic novelties.
I strongly agree with the use of genetic research to corroborate or clarify taxonomic doubts. I myself published a paper about the genus Cereopsius. Drumont, Bouyer (to quote people of our forum) published very interesting taxonomic articles about Prioninae.
In all these cases, morphology and genetics were used "coupled".
Very different is the case of genetic studies used without any consideration of the morphology and sometimes, even of the rules of the zoological nomenclature. |
| coptosia |
Posted - 06/03/2023 : 13:19:20
But there is also the Ozdikmen`s system of Clytini)). With numerous adjectives in generic group taxa names ... |
| Xavier |
Posted - 06/03/2023 : 07:31:22
Ok with you Dan, but I'm having trouble finding my way around the clytini now that you've adopted this author's position on your website. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 06/03/2023 : 04:48:32
just like his paper on Clytini from a couple of years ago, he is proposing changes which can be accepted or NOT accepted. Personally, I would just ignore it for now, until multiple other researchers can verify his work.
I'm sure there are many families and tribes of beetles that have genera which are incorrectly placed, so are we supposed to change names on labels and re-arrange our collection, and change our database every time one researcher does a DNA study?
Clearly, it is not possible to get DNA from every genus which has been described, so there will always be holes in this type of study. There will ALWAYS be disagreements on many things with taxonomy.
|
|
|
