Ammoplanus Giraud
publication ID |
1464-5262 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/DB7787EA-9450-F557-6A8B-197FFCC288A6 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Ammoplanus Giraud |
status |
|
Genus Ammoplanus Giraud View in CoL
[Unnamed`Gen. Nov.’, Herrich-SchaeOEer, 1840: 53, pl. 5, ®gure 21. Recognized as Ammoplanus by Giraud (1869: 471) and Kohl (1890: 61).]
Ammoplanus Giraud, 1869: 469 View in CoL , pl. 12. Type species Ammoplanu s perrisi Giraud View in CoL ; subsequently designated by Pate (1937a: 101; 1937b: 7).
Hoplocrabron De-Stefani, 1887: 60 View in CoL . Type species Hoplocrabron marathroicus De-Stefani View in CoL ; by monotypy. Synonymized with Ammoplanus View in CoL by Kohl (1897: 270). Junior homonym of Hoplocrabron Thomson, 1874 View in CoL .
[ Hoplocrabro Kohl, 1890: 61 View in CoL ; Dalla Torre, 1897: 363. Incorrect subsequent spelling.]
5 Ammoplanellus Gussakovskij, 1931: 442 View in CoL , as subgenus of Ammoplanus View in CoL . Type species Ammoplanu s chorasmius Gussakovskij View in CoL ; by original designation.
5 Parammoplanus Pate, 1939: 392 View in CoL (as subgenus of Ammoplanus View in CoL ). Type species Ammoplanus apache View in CoL , by original designation. Transferred as a subgenus to Ammoplanellus View in CoL by Krombein (1978: 1611).
5 Ceballosia Giner View in CoL MarõÂ, 1943b: 285, 293 (also misspelt Ceballosis on pp. 291, 292). Type species Ammoplanus rjabovi Gussakovskij View in CoL ; by original designation. Synonymized with subgenus Ammoplanus View in CoL s. str. by Pate (1945: 86). Preoccupied by Ceballosia Mercet, 1921 View in CoL .
Comments on synonymy
Kohl (1890) did not mention why he changed Hoplocrabron to Hoplocrabro but it may have been on grammatical grounds, as can be deduced from Dalla Torre’s explanation of the name (1897: 363). Under the ICZN (32.5) the change to Hoplocrabro would not be valid even if it were an emendation (33.3), as the latter name is preoccupied by Hoplocrabro Thomson, 1874 (also in Sphecidae ).
Ammoplanellus View in CoL was originally described as a subgenus by Gussakovskij (1931) who later (1952: 221) thought that it should be raised to generic rank to include the species chorasmius Guss. View in CoL , simplex Guss. View in CoL and hissaricus Guss. Apparently View in CoL he hesitated to do so and thus Ammoplanellus View in CoL was formally upgraded to genus only by Bohart and Grissell (in Bohart and Menke, 1976: 197, 198), based upon the open marginal cell. Unaware of it, Marshakov, following Gussakovskij who was puzzled by the heterogeneity of species of Ammoplanus View in CoL as then understood, found at the same time (1976: 677) that the main separating features are the shape of the radial cell rather than the completeness of the enclosing vein and the presence or absence of a clear-cut pygidial area in the females. Later Marshakov (1978: 374) summarized the diOEerences between the subgenera Ammoplanus View in CoL and Ammoplanellus View in CoL and placed Parammoplanus View in CoL as a synonym under Ammoplanellus View in CoL .
Ceballosia Giner View in CoL was based on A. rjabovi Gussakovskij. It View in CoL was meant to accommodate species which in males have the hind basitarsus modi®ed. The subgenus was found`insubstantiated ’ by Pate (1945: 87) and subsequently was mentioned only as a subgenus by Leclercq (1959: 24). Bohart and Menke (1976: 42) followed Pate (and Marshakov followed Gussakovskij). It can hardly even be called a species group as its limits cannot be de®ned.
Parammoplanus View in CoL is based on the North American species A. apache Pate (1937) View in CoL which was originally described in the subgenus Ammoplanellus View in CoL . In 1943 Pate upgraded Parammoplanus View in CoL to the genus level but Bohart and Grissell (1976: 199) placed it as a subgenus of Ammoplanellus View in CoL (the latter as genus). In my view the American Parammoplanus View in CoL , with the delimited pygidial area in the females, may be closer to Ammoplanus View in CoL s. str. The complete or incomplete marginal cell appears to be a taxonomically overemphasized character; Marshakov even thought that in A. chorasmius View in CoL it is within its intraspeci®c variation (1978: 372; ®gures 37±40). Certainly A. consobrinus View in CoL (5 angelae View in CoL ; open cell) seems to be nearer to A. simplex View in CoL (closed marginal cell) than to other species of the subgenus.
Intrageneric taxonomy of Ammoplanus (based on the Old World species)
As a result of this study I have accepted Ammoplanellus as a subgenus in the same sense as Marshakov and as also suggested in correspondence by Dr W. Pulawski. The subgenera can be characterized as follows.
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 |
Ammoplanus Giraud
Boucïek, Zdenek 2001 |
Parammoplanus
KROMBEIN, K. V. 1978: 1611 |
Ammoplanellus
GUSSAKOVSKIJ, V. V. 1931: 442 |
Hoplocrabron
KOHL, F. F. 1897: 270 |
Hoplocrabro
DALLA TORRE, K. W. 1897: 363 |
KOHL, F. F. 1890: 61 |
Ammoplanus
PATE, V. S. L. 1937: 101 |
PATE, V. S. L. 1937: 7 |
GIRAUD, J. 1869: 469 |