| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
991 Posts |
 Posted - 17/03/2019 : 22:54:19
|
428.46 KB
I am adding the photos of my specimens with clearer markings.
Still confused whether these are Homelix or Synhomelix, considering the remark by Jérôme here. |
Edited by - Vitali on 17/03/2019 22:56:07 |
|
|
Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosenbergia
France
1770 Posts |
Posted - 21/03/2019 : 17:57:05
|
Bonjour
Are the intermediate tibias intact = Phrynetini or do they have a notch? = Pachystolini |
 |
|
|
Francesco
Forum Admin
Luxembourg
9402 Posts |
Posted - 21/03/2019 : 18:51:48
|
| Thus: Synhomelix annulicornis (Chevrolat, 1855) |
|
|
|
Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosenbergia
France
1770 Posts |
Posted - 21/03/2019 : 19:05:48
|
| Et oui.....Mais l'habitus rappel tellement un Phrynetini qu'on est est quasiment obligé de se tromper....Cela m'était arrivé de chercher durant plusieurs jours un Synhomelix au sein des Homelix et tout d'un coup "Eureka" une encoche aux tibias intermédiaires..... = Synhomelix ! ou autre.... |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
991 Posts |
Posted - 22/03/2019 : 11:34:32
|
Yes, exactly. I also arrived at Synhomelix annulicornis with Breuning's key for Petrognathini, but before placing the opinion here, wanted to be sure about the difference from Phrynetini. I was confused that the mid tibia are curved on outer side in some Phrynetini (e.g., P. coeca), which can look like notched.
Anyway, thank you for your help.
Jérôme, there seem to be mess not only in your collection . I suspect also the second beetle in the page for Homelix annuliger Aurivillius 1914 on Larry's site is in fact Synhomelix annulicornis. The notch is clearly visible in right mid tibia. |
Edited by - Vitali on 22/03/2019 11:54:22 |
|
|
|
Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosenbergia
France
1770 Posts |
Posted - 22/03/2019 : 18:28:06
|
Hello Vitali
My collection is tidied up only that sometimes we want to go fast we are wrong and sometimes it is the case.................. Especially on the pictures or, in any case, I spend much less time than on the real insect and I made mistakes and I'm not about to stop making them..... fortunately on the way! But sometimes I'm not wrong as I probably am here? On the other hand, yes, there are insects that cause me problems and that I don't know where to classify?
In Larry's site yes there are errors in the classification of some species, I have to inform him (Ceroplesini, Phrynetini etc...) But it's not very important! All you have to do is correct them......... Moreover its site which is big because the work is huge and it is so vast that there are necessarily mistakes on my part or others?
And sometimes I work a lot on memory and sometimes I'm wrong..............
About the curvature of the medial tibias of the Phryneta yes indeed all or almost all the Phryneta presents in some way an anterior part of the broad tibia which narrows quite abruptly in its lower part giving the impression of a bump which for me (!) is not one but well I let you judge. This character is not present or at least hardly perceptible on P aurocincta, atricornis, marmorea, immaculata, spinator, conradti etc.... In the group of Phryneta coeca, hecphora, obliquata, semirasa it is present. But this remains very debatable and even subject to the variability that can be found in tribes. Just look at the African Corynofrea which for me are to be reintegrated into the Corynofreini, the Biasmia would be to be put firmly within the Desmiphorini ! Stenobiini is a problem also ...and I go on.......... there are a lot of things to rectify and review but everyone puts their stone to the building and tries to do the best knowing that the appreciation that a person will have will be questionable by another person. Bop !!!
|
Edited by - Jérôme Sudre on 22/03/2019 19:56:48 |
|
|
|
Vitali
Member Rosalia
Estonia
991 Posts |
Posted - 23/03/2019 : 14:51:04
|
| Sorry, Jérôme. I was trying to make a friendly joke and have obviously overdone. By no way I would criticize anyone for a mistake. Besides, you did not do any. Being an irregular amateur, I do a lot of mistakes myself, and I am very grateful to this community for helping me in setting the things correctly. Sometimes there is a lot of confusion for an amateur, like in this case, when the beetle is placed to Phrynetini first, than it appears to belong to Pachystolini, but one has to look to Breuning's Petragnathini for the key. |
|
|
|
Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosenbergia
France
1770 Posts |
Posted - 23/03/2019 : 18:38:36
|
No, no, you didn't do too much! There is no problem Vitali I had taken it as a joke......... But it is the problem of messages without the emotions and attitudes we have! That's all right. It's okay. My collection remains messy but classified with lots of personal or other notes in the boxes so yes it could be considered a bit messy. But don't worry, and I didn't take it very badly.
When we look at the Pachystolini or at least especially the Synhomelix which were once classified among the Phrynetini the only predominant character is the furrow at the tibia, but not much more.
And we all make mistakes, fortunately... otherwise we'd be bored if everything was perfect!
with kids regards
Jérôme |
Edited by - Jérôme Sudre on 23/03/2019 18:41:16 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Togo: Synhomelix annulicornis
