4.2 Review

Updated diagnoses for the cricket family Trigonidiidae (Insecta: Orthoptera: Grylloidea) and its subfamilies (Trigonidiinae, Nemobiinae), with a review of the fossil record

期刊

ZOOLOGISCHER ANZEIGER
卷 294, 期 -, 页码 80-91

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcz.2021.06.004

关键词

Systematics; Diagnosis; Calibration; Fossil record; Crickets

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Morphological diagnoses were provided for the cricket family Trigonidiidae and its subfamilies, with the transfer of the genus Lissotrachellus being a key focus. Fossils attributed to these groups were reviewed to aid in future phylogenetic studies. The study highlighted the need for further research into the classification of fossils within the Trigonidiidae and its subfamilies.
Morphological diagnoses are given for the cricket family Trigonidiidae and its two monophyletic subfamilies, the Trigonidiinae and the Nemobiinae. Owing to their morphological characters, we transfer the extant genus Lissotrachellus Hubbell, 1838 from the Gryllidae: Pentacentrinae to the Trigonidiidae: Nemobiinae. Lissotrachellus was the type genus of Lissotrachelini including also Trigonidomimus Caudell, 1912 and Tohila Hubbell, 1938 which are here transferred to Pentacentrinae incertae sedis. The fossils currently attributed to the Trigonidiidae and its subfamilies are reviewed, in order to facilitate future phylogenetic studies. Few fossils can actually be classified in Nemobiinae or Trigonidiinae, and most are Cenozoic: the oldest nemobiine is the Eocene Baltonemobius fossilis Gorochov, 2010 (37.2-33.9 Ma), while the oldest representatives of the crown group Trigonidiinae date from the Miocene (20.43-13.65). The early Cretaceous Liaonemobius tanae Ren, 1998, originally described in the Trigonidiinae, and currently listed in the Gryllidae, proved an Elcanidae. The mid-Cretaceous Birmaninemobius hirsutus Xu et al., 2020, described in the Nemobiinae, is here transferred to the stem group Trigonidiinae. (c) 2021 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据