From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • New Zealand [endemic?]
  • NOTE: Macfarlane et al. (2010: 429) list both Hybolasius and Poecilippe as valid genera endemic to New Zealand. Leschen et al. (2003) did not mention Poecilippe at all. Hayashi (1961: 55, 'syn. nov.') "formally" sunk Poecilippe as a synonym of Polyacanthia. I am unaware of any published literature in which it is "formally" revalidated, or the alleged synonymy even discussed. Kuschel (1990: 67) effectively treated Poecilippe as a synonym of Hybolasius by listing the type species of Poecilippe as Hybolasius sticticus. I have chosen to follow Kuschel (1990), despite his apparent oversight of not indicating the combination or implied synonymy to be new. I consider this to be a perfectly acceptable means of data conflict resolution in Wikispecies, and the best of the available options. The only other options are to (1) follow Macfarlane et al. (2010: 429) and list both Hybolasius and Poecilippe as valid genera, or (2) maintain the synonymy of Poecilippe with Polyacanthia because it has never been "formally" revalidated. Based on my personal knowledge of the taxa and authorities concerned, I consider both of these latter options to almost certainly be poor taxonomic judgements. Note that unlike nomenclature, there is no regulation of taxonomy, no rule requiring the most recent published taxonomic opinion to be followed, and no regulated concept of what constitutes a "formal" synonymy. Note also that mindlessly following the most recent published literature could in general lead to great instability, since there is no well defined demarcation between taxonomic and "grey literature", and the latter tends to commonly contain both errors and poor taxonomic decisions. Note also that 'In the Cerambycidae, for example, Dr Kuschel has carefully organised the entire collection [NZAC], and has examined the types of all the Lamiinae, so 196 native and 8 introduced species is an accurate count of species in the collection' (Watt, 1982: 217). This provides further good reason to accept the taxonomic opinion of Kuschel (1990), whereas Macfarlane et al. (2010) offer no explanation for their listing of Poecilippe as a valid genus.


  • Hayashi, M. 1961: Cerambycidae from New Caledonia (Col.), Part I. Bulletin of the Osaka Museum of Natural History, (13): 7-66.
  • Kuschel, G. 1990: Beetles in a suburban environment: a New Zealand case study. DSIR Plant Protection report, (3) ISSN: 0114-8818 ISBN 0-477-02596-X PDF
  • Leschen, R.A.B.; Lawrence, J.F.; Kuschel, G.; Thorpe, S.; Wang, Q. 2003: Coleoptera genera of New Zealand. New Zealand entomologist, 26: 15-28.
  • Macfarlane, R.P. et al. 2010: [Chapter] NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects. Pp. 233-467 in Gordon, D.P. (ed.): New Zealand inventory of biodiversity. Volume 2. Kingdom Animalia. Chaetognatha, Ecdysozoa, ichnofossils. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-87725793-3
  • Watt, J.C. 1982: 1981 presidential address. New Zealand beetles. New Zealand entomologist, 7(3): 213-221.


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hybolasius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)