Phylloecus
| Notice: | This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly. This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX: @article{Liston2014ZooKeys398, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Liston2014ZooKeys398">{{Citation See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Ordo: Hymenoptera
Familia: Cephidae
Name
Phylloecus Newman, 1838 – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
- Phylloecus Newman, 1838: 485–486.
- Phylloecus: Rohwer 1911[1]; type species designated as Phylloecus faunus Newman, 1838; placed as synonym of Janus Stephens, 1829.
- Hartigia Schiødte, 1839: 331–332, 347, 370. Boie 1855[2]; type species designated as Astatus satyrus Panzer, 1801 [= Phylloecus niger (Harris, [1779])]. syn. n.
Discussion
Phylloecus faunus was stated by Abe and Smith (1991)[3] to have been designated by monotypy as the type species of Phylloecus Newman, 1838. This is not so, because Newman (1838[4], p. 486) ends his discussion on his new genus with the words “[..] but it seemed to me that the division containing Faunus,&c. is equally distinct, and therefore I would submit the propriety of raising these also, to the rank of a genus, under the name Phylloecus”. His foregoing text makes it clear that at least Cephus satyrus (Panzer, 1801) (a junior synonym of Hartigia nigra (M. Harris, [1779]) was thus considered also to belong to Phylloecus. Rohwer (1911)[1] interpreted this correctly and accordingly designated Phylloecus faunus as type species. However, Rohwer (1911[1], p. 94 [index], under the names cynosbati and faunus) makes it clear that he regarded Phylloecus faunus as conspecific with Janus cynosbati (Linnaeus, 1758) (= Janus femoratus (Curtis, 1830): see Blank et al. (2009)[5] on nomenclature). From Newman’s description and subsequent discussion it is evident that his concept of Phylloecus corresponds closely with that of what in recent years has been called Hartigia, and this correct interpretation was followed by various authors during the 19th Century. The lectotype of Phylloecus faunus belongs to the species recently known as Hartigia helleri (Taschenberg, 1871) (see below, under Phylloecus faunus). Benson (1951)[6] and Pagliano and Scaramozzino (1990)[7] treated Hartigia and Phylloecus as synonymous, but did not use the latter as the valid name. On the other hand, the misinterpretation of Phylloecus as Janus also has a long history, which can be traced back at least to Kirby (1882)[8], and in recent years this wrong synonymy has become universally accepted. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999[9]) unfortunately provides no opportunity of maintaining the name Hartigia in precedence over Phylloecus, because the use of Phylloecus as a valid name after 1899, by for example Marchand (1902)[10] and Richter von Binnenthal (1903)[11], precludes the application of Article 23.9. (reversal of precedence). Neither are the species of Phylloecus of such economic, scientific or cultural importance that an application to the Commission to conserve the name Hartigia seems likely to achieve success, although some species are of rather minor significance to growers of soft fruit and ornamental roses in North America (Smith DR 1986[12]), and Phylloecus faunus has been considered for use in the biological control of Rubus in Australia (e.g. Bruzzese 1982[13]; as Hartigia albomaculatus). As a result of the new synonymy, the following species names are either newly transferred to Phylloecus (comb. n.) or the original name combinations are re-instated as valid (comb. rev.). New combinations are followed in parentheses by the original combination of the species group name. Only the nominal species which were considered to be valid by Taeger et al. (2010)[14] are listed:
Phylloecus agilis (F. Smith, 1874), comb. n. (Cephus agilis)
Phylloecus albotegularis (Wei & Nie, 1996), comb. n. (Hartigia albotegularis)
Phylloecus algiricus André, 1881 comb. rev.
Phylloecus bicinctus Provancher, 1875 comb. rev.
Phylloecus cheni (Wei & Nie, 1999), comb. n. (Hartigia cheni)
Phylloecus coreanus (Takeuchi, 1938), comb. n. (Hartigia coreana)
Phylloecus cowichanus (Ries, 1937), comb. n. (Hartigia cowichana)
Phylloecus elevatus (Maa, 1944), comb. n. (Hartigia elevata)
Phylloecus epigonus (Zhelochovtsev, 1961), comb. n. (Hartigia epigona)
Phylloecus etorofensis (Takeuchi, 1955), comb. n. (Hartigia etorofensis)
Phylloecus fasciatus (Cresson, 1880), comb. n. (Cephus fasciatus)
Phylloecus faunus Newman, 1838, comb. rev.
Phylloecus kamijoi (Shinohara, 1999), comb. n. (Hartigia kamijoi)
Phylloecus linearis (Schrank, 1781), comb. n. (Tenthredo linearis)
Phylloecus mexicanus (Guerin, [1844]), comb. n. (Cephus mexicanus)
Phylloecus minutus (Wei & Nie, 1997), comb. n. (Hartigia minuta)
Phylloecus niger (M. Harris, [1779]), comb. n. (Sirex niger)
Phylloecus nigratus (Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1931), comb. n. (Pachycephus nigratus)
Phylloecus nigritus (Forsius, 1918), comb. n. (Macrocephus nigritus)
Phylloecus nigrotibialis (Wei & Nie, 1977), comb. n. (Hartigia nigrotibialis)
Phylloecus pyrrha (Zhelochovtsev, 1968), comb. n. (Hartigia pyrrha) [Zhelochovtsev gives no etymology for this species name. It is here considered to be a noun, the name of a figure in Greek mythology]
Phylloecus riesi (D. R. Smith, 1986), comb. n. (Hartigia riesi)
Phylloecus sibiricola Jakovlev, 1891 comb. rev.
Phylloecus simulator (Kokujev, 1910), comb. n. (Macrocephus simulator)
Phylloecus stackelbergi (Gussakovskij, 1945), comb. n. (Hissarocephus stackelbergi)
Phylloecus stigmaticalis (Wei & Nie, 1996), comb. n. (Hartigia stigmaticalis)
Phylloecus trimaculatus (Say, 1824), comb. n. (Cephus trimaculatus)
Phylloecus viator (F. Smith, 1874), comb. n. (Cephus viator)
Phylloecus xanthostoma (Eversmann, 1847), comb. n. (Cephus xanthostoma)
Phylloecus zhengi (Wei & Nie, 1996), comb. n. (Hartigia zhengi)
Taxon Treatment
- Liston, A; Prous, M; 2014: Sawfly taxa (Hymenoptera, Symphyta) described by Edward Newman and Charles Healy ZooKeys, 398: 83-98. doi
Other References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Rohwer S (1911) Technical papers on miscellaneous forest insects. II. The genotypes of the sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. Technical series / US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology 20: 69–109.
- ↑ Boie F (1855) Beobachtungen und Bemerkungen. Stettiner entomologische Zeitung 16: 48–51.
- ↑ Abe M, Smith D (1991) The Genus-group Names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and Their Type Species. Esakia 31: 1–115.
- ↑ Newman E (1838) Entomological notes. The Entomological Magazine 5[1837–1838](2, 4, 5): 483–500.
- ↑ Blank S, Taeger A, Liston A, Smith D, Rasnitsyn A, Shinohara A, Heidemaa M, Viitasaari M (2009) Studies toward a World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). Zootaxa 2254: 1–96.
- ↑ Benson R (1951) Hymenoptera, Symphyta. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 6(2a): 1–49.
- ↑ Pagliano G, Scaramozzino P (1990) Elenco dei Generi di Hymenoptera del Mondo. Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 68/Suppl. 122[1989](1): 1–210.
- ↑ Kirby W (1882) List of Hymenoptera with Descriptions and Figures of the Typical Specimens in the British Museum. 1. Tenthredinidae and Siricidae. Printed by order of the trustees, London, 450 pp.
- ↑ ICZN [ (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, 306 pp.
- ↑ Marchand E (1902) Inventaire des Tenthrédonides ou Mouches à scie (Hymenoptera - Chalastogastra) recueillies aux environs de Nantes suivi de notices sur quelques espèces particulièrement nuisibles. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de l’Ouest de la France, 2e sér., 2(3–4): 233–296.
- ↑ Richter von Binnenthal F (1903) Die Rosenschädlinge aus dem Tierreiche, deren wirksame Abwehr und Bekämpfung. Ein Ratgeber für die gärtnerische Praxis. Verlagsbuchhandlung Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, X+392 pp.
- ↑ Smith D (1986) The berry and rose stem-borers of the genus Hartigia in North America (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 112: 129–145.
- ↑ Bruzzese E (1982) The host specificity of Hartigia albomaculatus (Hym., Cephidae) and its potential effectiveness in the biological control of European blackberry. Entomophaga 27(3): 335–342. doi: 10.1007/BF02374817
- ↑ Taeger A, Blank S, Liston A (2010) World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). Zootaxa 2580: 1–1064.
