Coleoptera, Taxa Only, Exact Match: 100 Treatments

[ more ] [ link ]

Atlanticolycus camposgerais   sp. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 244 244
Atlanticolycus japi   sp. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 245-246 245-246
Atlanticolycus itatiaia   sp. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 247 247
Atlanticolycus ilhabela   sp. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 247 247
Atlanticolycus morretes   sp. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 248 248
Atlanticolycus key  gen. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 249 249
Atlanticolycus   gen. nov.  Nascimento, Elynton Alves Do & Bocakova, Milada, 2023, A new genus of Eurrhacini from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Coleoptera: Lycidae: Lycinae) with an updated key to genera, Zootaxa 5383 (2), pp. 242-250 : 243-244 243-244
Graphidessa jinfoensis   sp. nov.  Liu, Chuan, Cheng, Zhentao, Yang, Yongchuan & Huang, Xiaolei, 2023, Graphidessa jinfoensis, a new species of longhorned beetle (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Desmiphorini) from China, ZooKeys 1186, pp. 15-24 : 15 15
Megalopinus curvicornis   sp. nov.  Puthz, V., 2012, Über die neuweltlichen Megalopinus-Arten (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) (24. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Megalopsidiinen), Linzer biologische Beiträge 44 (1), pp. 613-834 : 775 775
Megalopinus vicuna   sp. nov.  Puthz, V., 2012, Über die neuweltlichen Megalopinus-Arten (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) (24. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Megalopsidiinen), Linzer biologische Beiträge 44 (1), pp. 613-834 : 804 804
Megalopinus quadrimaculosus   sp. nov.  Puthz, V., 2012, Über die neuweltlichen Megalopinus-Arten (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) (24. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Megalopsidiinen), Linzer biologische Beiträge 44 (1), pp. 613-834 : 721 721
Megalopinus falini   sp. nov.  Puthz, V., 2012, Über die neuweltlichen Megalopinus-Arten (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) (24. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Megalopsidiinen), Linzer biologische Beiträge 44 (1), pp. 613-834 : 734 734
Agnosthaetus bicolor   sp. nov.  Clarke, Dave J., 2011, A Revision of the New Zealand Endemic Rove Beetle Genus Agnosthaetus Bernhauer (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 10) 2011, pp. 1-118 : 42-43 42-43
Solariola melonii   sp. nov.  Bello’, Cesare, Osella, Giuseppe & Baviera, Cosimo, 2019, A taxonomic monograph of the genus Solariola Flach, 1908 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae), Zootaxa 4676 (1), pp. 1-261 : 203-210 203-210
Lacon punctatus     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 403-406 403-406
Lacon delagrangei     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 406-407 406-407
Lacon ladae     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 407-408 407-408
Lacon gillerforsi     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 408-410 408-410
Lacon modestus     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 410-411 410-411
Lacon candezei     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 412-415 412-415
Lacon ganglbaueri     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 415-417 415-417
Lacon solai     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 418-419 418-419
Lacon drusus     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 424-426 424-426
Lacon zenobiae   sp. nov.  Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 438-441 438-441
Lacon graecus     Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 441-443 441-443
Deretaphrus     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 6-16 6-16
Deretaphrus aequaliceps     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 16-17 16-17
Deretaphrus analis     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 19-20 19-20
Deretaphrus bucculentus   stat. nov.  Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 22-23 22-23
Deretaphrus carinatus   sp. nov.  Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 23-25 23-25
Deretaphrus erichsoni     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 25-27 25-27
Deretaphrus fossus     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 27-29 27-29
Deretaphrus hoplites   sp. nov.  Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 30-32 30-32
Deretaphrus ignarus     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 32-34 32-34
Deretaphrus interruptus     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 36-37 36-37
Deretaphrus lateropunctatus   sp. nov.  Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 38-40 38-40
Deretaphrus ocularis   sp. nov.  Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 40-41 40-41
Deretaphrus oregonensis     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 41-42 41-42
Deretaphrus piceus     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 45-47 45-47
Deretaphrus puncticollis     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 48-49 48-49
Deretaphrus viduatus     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 51-55 51-55
Deretaphrus xanthorrhoeae     Lord, Nathan P. & McHugh, Joseph V., 2013, A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Deretaphrus Newman, 1842 (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Bothrideridae), The Coleopterists Bulletin (mo 12) 67, pp. 1-107 : 55-58 55-58
Oides bezdeki   sp. nov.  Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 17-19 17-19
Oides bowringii     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 23-27 23-27
Oides coccinelloides     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 29-32 29-32
Oides decempunctata     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 33-39 33-39
Oides duodecimpunctata     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 42-45 42-45
Oides epipleuralis     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 48-51 48-51
Oides flava     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 54-57 54-57
Oides innocua     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 65-68 65-68
Oides livida     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 73-79 73-79
Oides maculata     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 79-83 79-83
Oides metallica     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 85-87 85-87
Oides palleata     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 89-94 89-94
Oides takizawai   sp. nov.  Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 102-104 102-104
Oides tibiella     Lee, Chi-Feng & Beenen, Ron, 2017, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the genus Oides Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae), Zootaxa 4346 (1) : 108-110 108-110
Chaetocnema (Chaetocnema) confinis     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 34-38 34-38
Chaetocnema (Chaetocnema) gracilis     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 56-58 56-58
Chaetocnema (Chaetocnema) nigrica     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 80-84 80-84
Chaetocnema (Chaetocnema) resplendens     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 93-95 93-95
Chaetocnema (Chaetocnema) simplicifrons     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 99-100 99-100
Chaetocnema (Chaetocnema) tristis     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 113-115 113-115
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) bella     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 135-138 135-138
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) bretinghami     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 141-143 141-143
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) cognata     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 143-145 143-145
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) concinnipennis     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 146-150 146-150
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) modiglianii     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 175-177 175-177
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) pusaensis     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 184-186 184-186
Chaetocnema (Udorpes) westwoodi     Ruan, Yongying, Yang, Xingke, Konstantinov, Alexander S., Prathapan, Kaniyarikkal D. & Zhang, Mengna, 2019, Revision of the Oriental Chaetocnema species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), Zootaxa 4699 (1), pp. 1-206 : 194-196 194-196
Laemosaccus nephele     Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 907-911 907-911
Laemosaccus obrieni   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 911-915 911-915
Laemosaccus andersoni   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 916-917 916-917
Laemosaccus arizonensis   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 917-918 917-918
Laemosaccus bimaculatus   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 918-920 918-920
Laemosaccus burkei   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 920-923 920-923
Laemosaccus clytrinoides   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 924-927 924-927
Laemosaccus howdenae   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 927-928 927-928
Laemosaccus browerorum   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 928-930 928-930
Laemosaccus rileyi   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 930-931 930-931
Laemosaccus vaurieae   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 931 931
Laemosaccus westcotti   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 932-933 932-933
Laemosaccus peninsularis   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 933-934 933-934
Laemosaccus texanus     Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 934 934
Laemosaccus gossypii   sp. nov.  Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939 : 935-936 935-936
Anthonomus grandis     Gibson, Gary A. P., 2013, Revision of the species of Jaliscoa Bouček within a review of the identity, relationships and membership of Jaliscoa, Catolaccus Thomson, Eurydinoteloides Girault, Lyrcus Walker and Trimeromicrus Gahan (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), Zootaxa 3612 (1), pp. 1-85 : 35-47 35-47
Cionus vicarius     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 19 19
Cionus tristis     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 19-20 19-20
Cionus mimeticus   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 26-28 26-28
Cionus meticulosus     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 34-35 34-35
Cionus angulicollis     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 35-37 35-37
Cionus pardus     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 38-41 38-41
Cionus notatus     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 42-44 42-44
Cionus nubilosus     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 45-48 45-48
Cionus histrio     Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 49-50 49-50
Cionus limosus   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 53 53
Cionus terrosus   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 53-54 53-54
Cionus geometricus   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 65-66 65-66
Cionus zimbabwicus   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 68 68
Cionus oberprieleri   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 72-74 72-74
Cionus verrucosus   sp. nov.  Caldara, Roberto & Košťál, Michael, 2023, A Taxonomic Revision Of The Afrotropical Species Of The Weevil Genus Cionus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Zootaxa 5288 (1), pp. 1-98 : 89-91 89-91

[ more ] [ link ]