Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4555.4.3 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:66CC470E-13C7-40B2-B140-C8E0E2A5748B |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5942933 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D787FC-0349-FFB3-5FA8-FE426F77FB2D |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960 |
status |
|
Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960 View in CoL
Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960: 205 View in CoL ; Monné, 1995: 36 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 1998: 53 (syn.); Monné, 2005: 496 (cat.); Monné, 2012: 105 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 2014a: 207 (key); Monné, 2017: 436 (cat.). Tacocha Lane, 1970: 399 ; Monné, 1995: 37 (cat.); Martins & Galileo, 1993: 111; Galileo & Martins, 1996: 233 (rev.).
According to Martins & Galileo (1996), Aerenicini View in CoL differs from Hemilophini View in CoL by the eyes coarsely faceted (finely in Hemilophini View in CoL ), and lower eye lobes much longer than gena (at most, slightly longer than gena in Hemilophini View in CoL ). Also according to them, Lacordaire separated these tribes based on head: retractile in Hemilophini View in CoL , not retractile in Aerenicini View in CoL . We agree that these separation proposed by Lacordaire is not good and, not rare, entirely false. Galileo & Martins (1996) reported that Tacocha Lane, 1970 (described in Hemilophini View in CoL ) (= Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960 View in CoL , described in Hemilophini View in CoL ) differs from the other genera of Hemilophini View in CoL without humeral carina by the lower eye lobes larger than gena and distance between upper eye lobes equal to width a upper lobe [this is not true, since the distance between upper eye lobes in Phoebemima View in CoL can be notably wider than a lobe as, for example, in P. ensifera Tippmann, 1960 View in CoL – type species of the genus]. Also according to them, by this set of features, Tacocha resembles Melzaerenica Lane, 1976 (Aerenicini) . However, the authors did not report why Tacocha was Hemilophini View in CoL and not Aerenicini View in CoL . Comparing the shape of lower eye lobes and also the shape of the ommatidia, it is not possible to understand the placement of Phoebemima View in CoL in Hemilophini View in CoL , since the eyes are not finely faceted and the lower eye lobes are much longer than gena. According to Martins & Galileo (2014a), when defining Hemilophini View in CoL (translated): “The eyes are finely faceted in nearly all species. In some species (for example, Phoebe View in CoL ) the ommatidia are coarser.” All these problems make the differentiation between Aerenicini View in CoL and Hemilophini View in CoL practically impossible, which suggests that they are a single tribe. However, for the time being, it is much more coherent to transfer Phoebemima View in CoL to Aerenicini View in CoL than maintain it in Hemilophini View in CoL , following the concept of Martins & Galileo (1996).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Phoebemima Tippmann, 1960
Tavakilian, Gérard L. & Santos-Silva, Antonio 2019 |
Phoebemima
Monne, M. A. 2017: 436 |
Martins, U. R. & Galileo, M. H. M. 2014: 207 |
Monne, M. A. 2012: 105 |
Monne, M. A. 2005: 496 |
Martins, U. R. & Galileo, M. H. M. 1998: 53 |
Monne, M. A. 1995: 36 |
Monne, M. A. 1995: 37 |
Martins, U. R. & Galileo, M. H. M. 1993: 111 |
Lane, F. 1970: 399 |
Tippmann, F. F. 1960: 205 |