Polyurena Piza, 1967
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.198409 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6205695 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DF87A7-A82E-CD58-FF27-9539B397FC36 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Polyurena Piza, 1967 |
status |
|
Polyurena Piza, 1967 (status uncertain)
Monotypic type species: Polyurena hexacercata Piza, 1967
Piza compared the new genus Polyurena to Homotoicha , from which his male specimen differs by the longer lateral lobes of the pronotum. It also has a very narrow, elongate and deeply incised subgenital plate, which is typical for the genus Theudoria , and we considered to move P. hexacercata under that genus. However, the three species Brunner von Wattenwyl (1879, 1891) included have much shorter tegmina. In addition P. hexacercata lacks the abnormal coloration of tegmina and hind femora he mentioned in his German comment below the genus diagnos. There are similar species in Euceraia , but the lateral lobes of their pronota are shorter.
The situation appears a little confusing and we did not come to a conclusive decision. We move two additional species of Piza himself, originally described as Theudora and Homotoicha , under his own genus, as a preliminary step to clear things up. Whether Polyurena can be considered a valid genus, depends on further examination and comparison with the following two species: Homotoicha fuscopunctata Caudell, 1906 , and Homotoicha laminata Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1891, which are very similar and possibly conspecific with one or two of the “ Polyurena ” species.
And Ctenophorema balneare Piza, 1967 , another lone representant of a monospecific genus, and in the original description compared to Polyurena , seems to differ only in cercus morphology.
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 |