4.3 Article

The strongly dimorphic bark beetle genus Pseudomicracis (Coleoptera, Scolytinae) in Madagascar-an integrated taxonomic revision

Journal

ZOOTAXA
Volume 5125, Issue 3, Pages 325-343

Publisher

MAGNOLIA PRESS
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5125.3.5

Keywords

Afrotropics; Micracidini; Phylogeny; Taxonomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Malagasy bark beetle genus Pseudomicracis has been revised based on molecular and morphological studies. Six new species have been described from Madagascar. The diagnosis of the type species was fixed using an auxiliary species. New distributional and host records are given for some species, and a molecular phylogenetic analysis was conducted. A key and photographs of all Malagasy species are provided.
The largely Malagasy bark beetle genus Pseudomicracis Eggers, 1920 is revised based on molecular data and morphological studies. Because the type species P. elsae Eggers, 1920 from Tanzania has no intact type material, the diagnosis is fixed using an auxiliary species, P. madagascariensis (Schedl, 1961), which is typical for the genus and supports the original description of P. elsae. Six new species are described from Madagascar: P. atra Jordal, sp. nov., P. coronata Jordal, sp. nov., P. lauricola Jordal, sp. nov., P. pilosa Jordal, sp. nov., P. verrucosa Jordal, sp. nov., and P. vitrioculata Jordal, sp. nov. Mimiocurus camerunus (Hagedorn, 1909) has no existing type material and is transferred from Pseudomicracis based on Hagedorn's illustrations of the antenna and protibia. New distributional and host records are given for P. dispar (Schedl, 1961), P. difficilis (Schedl, 1965) and P. madagascariensis (Schedl, 1961). A molecular phylogenetic analysis included 8 of 12 known species, documenting a strongly supported clade of Pseudomicracis species, but with highly uncertain internal relationships. A key and photographs to all Malagasy species are provided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available