Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2020
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2020
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2020
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Dendrocellus Schmidt-Goebel 1846

Authors: Sciaky, Riccardo; Anichtchenko, Alexander;

Dendrocellus Schmidt-Goebel 1846

Abstract

Dendrocellus Schmidt-Goebel, 1846 Type species: Dendrocellus discolor Schmidt-Goebel, 1846 (= Desera nepalensis Hope, 1831)= Desera Hope, 1831 (nec Dejean, 1825) Type species: Desera nepalensis Hope, 1831 Bousquet (2002) and Liang et al. (2004) have correctly reconstructed the complex nomenclatorial history of this genus, reaching the conclusion that its valid generic name is Dendrocellus Schmidt-Goebel, 1846, instead of Desera Dejean, 1825, as it was frequently considered previously. We only observe that back in 1949 Jeannel already wrote: “Les Dendrocellus Schm. -Goeb. (type: discolor Schm. -Goeb.,= nepalensis Hope) sont généralement classés à tort sous le nom de Desera. … Malgré leurs ongles tarsaux pectinés, ils sont très voisins des Drypta s. str. ” (Jeannel, 1949). So, it seems the french author had already reached the same conclusions. This genus, recently revised by Liang & Kavanaugh (2007), contains 22 species occuring in Africa, Asia and Australia. Systematically it is extremely close to Drypta, differing only in its tarsal claws pectinate instead of smooth. The genitalic characters of both sexes are the same, the external resemblance among members of the two genera is sometimes puzzling and a few species of Dendrocellus show very slight tarsal pectination, sometimes leaving a doubt on their generic pertinence; only a comparative study of all the characters of the species belonging to the two genera will allow to decide whether they can be really maintained as separate genera. Already in 1968 Darlington observed: “ Desera differs from Drypta only in having pectinate tarsal claws. A modern revision of the species is needed to show whether both genera are really monophyletic and distinct” (Darlington, 1968, p. 218). The unique combination of characters distinguishing this genus from the others of the tribe is: pronotal bead absent or very rudimental (fig. 10); punctuation on head and pronotum dense, regular, the punctures usually well distinct from each other; pronotum very feebly constricted towards base; elytral microsculpture well developed; elytral pubescence dense, usually arranged in two-three more or less regular rows; scutellar pore constantly single; intervals flat or slightly convex; tarsal claws slender, more or less pectinate on inner side; two to five evident setae on outer side of stylomere (fig. 8).

Published as part of Sciaky, Riccardo & Anichtchenko, Alexander, 2020, Taxonomic notes on the tribe Dryptini Bonelli, 1810 with description of a new genus and species from China (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Dryptini), pp. 522-530 in Zootaxa 4731 (4) on page 524, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4731.4.5, http://zenodo.org/record/3661980

Keywords

Coleoptera, Insecta, Arthropoda, Animalia, Biodiversity, Carabidae, Taxonomy, Dendrocellus

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 32
  • 32
    views
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
32
Green