|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
От редакции
Комментарий М. Данилевского к этому тексту - в конце
вышестоящей страницы.
I was read
interesting topic
and I prepare my own comment for "problem of pygidium":
The meaning of the term "pygidium" is not connected with exact tergit
and have destinaton as
descriptive word. In addition, term "postpygidium" is in itself illogical
and inconsistent with the definition of
"pygidium" (behind last?) . Thus, should be resign use of it in future. However, the practice of using the
term "pygidium" has a very long history. It was used in many historical books,
at the beginning in reference
to Scarabaeidae and Lucanidae, for example: (chronologically):
Stephens (1829), Gebler (1830), Mulsant
(1839, 1844, 1863-64), White (1846), Thomson (1857), Kraatz (1859),
Stierlin (1864), Pascoe (1864),
Lacordaire (1869), Reitter (1889), Pic (1892), Ganglbauer (1881-84),
Aurivilius (1904) and at present
Holzschuh, Dauber, Sama, Vitali, Danilevsky and many more.
Unfortunately , I couldn't find any article (about Cerambycidae)
containing picture of "pygidium" as
a part of abdomen. Finally, owing to the correspondence with Mikhail
Danilevsky (march 2016), I was able
to obtain the picture of "pygidium" with the graphic explanation of this term.
I used the phrase "system of
Mikhail" only because he kindly sent me his own pictures of pygidium, for
wich I am highly greateful to him.
Mikhail Danilevsky properly indicates that in many group of
Cerambycidae pygidium must be
connected to different tergites. It is a fact, that in Cerambycidae that last
segment differs depending on the
group.
Main problems:
1. The usage of the term "pygidium" in connection with "postpygidium"
causes the loss of sense in definition of "pygidium" as last.
2. The usage of the term "pygidium" in Cerambycidae must be addressed to
different tergites.
Hence, only a one conclusion may be drawn from the above - the term
"pygidium" should not be
apllied to Cerambycidae. Apart from this, the term "postpygidium" lacks
logical sense. Terms pygidium can
be used only with propygidium but never with postpygidium (postpygidum is
illogical). And indeed, in
modern fundamental publications of the XXI century about morphology of
Coleoptera, the term "pygidium"
is not used (the term has completely disappeared).
Reasuming, the usage of the term "pygidium" is historical legacy.
In Cerambycidae it will cause
problems of the logical nature. Therefore, to avoid misunderstanding about
usage "pygidium" in the
future, I propose to replace the term "pygidium" with numbering of
corresponding tergites.
Modern publications about morphology of Coleoptera:
Lawrence, J. F., Beutel R. G., Leschen R. A. B. and A. Slipinski. 2010a. 2. Glossary of morphological terms, pp. 9-20. In: Leschen, R. A. B, Beutel, R. G. and J. F. Lawrence (eds.). Handbuch der Zoologie/Handbook of Zoology. Band/Volume IV Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles. Volume 2. Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim). W. DeGruyter, Berlin.
Svacha P. & Lawrence J. F. 2014: 2.1 Vesperidae Mulsant, 1839; 2.2 Oxypeltidae Lacordaire, 1868; 2.3 Disteniidae J. Thomson, 1861; 2.4 Cerambycidae Latreille, 1802. In: Leschen R. A. B. & Beutel R. G. (eds.): Handbook of Zoology, Arthropoda: Insecta; Coleoptera, Beetles, Volume 3: Morphology and systematics (Phytophaga). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, pp. 16-177.
Lawrence J.F., Slipinski A., Seago A.E., Thayer M.K., Newton A.F., Marvaldi A.E. 2011. Phylogeny of the Coleoptera based on morphological characters of adults and larvae. Annales Zoologici (Warszawa) 61(1): 1-217.