Taxonomy Based on Science Is Necessary for Global Conservation [Formal comment]

Taxonomy is a scientific discipline that has provided the universal naming and classification system of biodiversity for centuries and continues effectively to accommodate new knowledge. A recent publication by Garnett and Christidis expressed concerns regarding the difficulty that taxonomic changes represent for conservation efforts and proposed the establishment of a system to govern taxonomic changes. Their proposal to “restrict the freedom of taxonomic action” through governing subcommittees that would “review taxonomic papers for compliance” and their assertion that “the scientific community\u27s failure to govern taxonomy threatens the effectiveness of global efforts to halt biodiversity loss, damages the credibility of science, and is expensive to society” are flawed in many respects. They also assert that the lack of governance of taxonomy damages conservation efforts, harms the credibility of science, and is costly to society. Despite its fairly recent release, Garnett and Christidis\u27 proposition has already been rejected by a number of colleagues. Herein, we contribute to the conversation between taxonomists and conservation biologists aiming to clarify some misunderstandings and issues in the proposition by Garnett and Christidis. Placing governance over the science of taxonomy blurs the distinction between taxonomy and nomenclature. Garnett and Christidis\u27s proposal is far-reaching but represents a narrow perspective of taxonomy, as utilized by conservation, and reflects an increasingly broad misunderstanding throughout biology of the scientific basis of taxonomy, formalized nomenclature, and the relationship between them. This trend may have resulted from the attenuation of instruction in taxonomic principles and, in particular, nomenclature at many universities, in part because of a shift in research priorities away from taxonomy

Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation

Peer reviewe

Rds Of Propylea Quatuordecimpunctata (Coleoptera:coccinellidae) From Long Island, New York: Evidence For A Naturalized Population Before 1991

Volume: 107Start Page: 36End Page: 3

Xixuthrus heros

Xixuthrus heros (Heer, 1868) Figs. 3­4 Specimens examined: 1 male, " Viti Lefu " (BMNH); 1 male, Fiji, 1962 N.W. Simmonds (BMNH); 1 male, 1 female, Fiji, Suva, 15.ix.1932, W. Simmonds (BMNH); 1 male, no data (BMNH); 1 male, Fiji, 1953 H. Simmonds (BMNH); 1 male, Fiji, 1905, Fry Coll. (BMNH); 1 male, Fiji, Viti Levu, Lami, 5.vii.1986, coll. Tevita Tuimereke (MAFF); 1 male, Fiji, Viti Levu, Naivikinikini village, 178°24'E, 18°06'S, 30.xii. 2003, 50m, coll. Isikeli Delaivuna (MAFF) [Fig. 3]; 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Colo­i­Suva Forest Station 22.v.1996 (MAFF) [Fig. 4]; 1 male, " Fidgi " (Z. Komiya); 1 female " Fidsdsi, Tassein Viti Levu " (Z. Komiya); 1 male, Viti Levu, Navai Mill, nr. Nandarivatu, 13.ix.1938, 2,400ft. (BPBM). Diagnosis: This species is easily distinguished from the other Fijian species as the elytra have broad glabrous stripes and the flagellomeres (except the distal pair) bear numerous prominent spinules in the male (Fig. 3). Females (Fig. 4) are further distinguished from ganglbaueri by numerous structural features, as mentioned above, including the longer forebasitarsi, apically swollen and spiculate scape, less produced medial pronotal ridges, and longer antennae. A few specimens have the frontal groove nearly as deep as in ganglbaueri, so this feature seems of limited diagnostic value, though we have seen none with elytral pubescence of exactly the same color. Structurally, both sexes of heros are nearly identical to terribilis, though the latter typically have a slightly more elongated vertex (Figs. 5 & 6) and lack elytral stripes. These latter two species share not only the male antennal spinules and long necks and mandibles, but also have the same pronotal and prosternal sculpture, and forebasitarsal proportions, in both sexes. Remarks: We consider it likely that heros and terribilis are very close sister taxa, and they may or may not be allopatric; anecdotal reports indicate that heros may occur on Vanua Levu (not on Taveuni, contrary to Ryan, 2000), where terribilis has also been found, and the holotype of heyrovskyi is labeled as having come from Viti Levu, though no other specimens have ever been recorded from the island. As mentioned earlier, the holotype of heros is missing, but the identity of the species is not in doubt, so a neotype cannot be designated (following ICZN Article 75.2). A male from Fiji, Viti Levu, Lami, collected in 2004 (not listed above), was selected as a genetic voucher for this species. Komiya (2000) has an excellent habitus photo of a male heros.Published as part of Yanega, Douglas, Olson, David, Shute, Sharon & Komiya, Ziro, 2004, The Xixuthrus species of Fiji (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae), pp. 1-10 in Zootaxa 777 (1) on pages 6-7, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.777.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/503041

New genera and subgenera of augochlorine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae).

Two new augochlorine genera, Chlerogelloides and Xenochlora, and three new subgenera, Megalopta (Noctoraptor), Megommation (Stilbochlora), and Megommation (Cleptommation), are described and figured. Three new combinations are made: Megommation minutum (Friese), Xenochlora nigrofemorata (Smith), and Xenochlora ianthina (Smith). Six new species are described: Chlerogelloides femoralis, Xenochlora ochrosterna, Xenochlora chalkeos, Megalopta (Noctoraptor) byroni, M. (N.) noctifurax, and Megommation (Stilbochlora) eickworti. Megalopta (Noctoraptor) and Megommation (Cleptommation) are parasitic, possibly on other species of Megalopta and Megommation, respectively, and together increase the number of origins of cleptoparasitism in the tribe Augochlorini to three. For each genus-group taxon, modified couplets are provided for Eickwort's key to the genera of Augochlorini

New genera and subgenera of augochlorine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) /

no.

27 Apoidea (Hymenoptera)

The known bee fauna of Mexico is the result of 236 years of taxonomic work during which ca. 95 authors have contributed to the description of species. The authors that, at present, have described the majority of the Mexican species are: Cockerell (with 443 taxa), Timberlake (393), Cresson (187), Smith (92), LaBerge (68), Michener (62), and Vachal (50), who have contributed 77.5% of all known taxa. The apifauna of Mexico is composed of seven families (if one include Anthophoridae in Apidae), 144 genera, and 1800 species and subspecies. The families with the greatest numbers of species are Apidae (597) and Andrenidae (522), representing 62% of the total. The remainder: Colletidae (98), Oxaeidae (10), Halictidae (217), Melittidae (11), and Megachilidae (345), represent 38% of the taxa. The genera richest in species are: Perdita (248), Megachile (110), Andrena (91), Lasioglossum (79), Exomalopsis (74), Heterosanis (57), Centris (54), Colletes (51), Melissodes (48), and Calliopsis (45) collectively representing 48% of all taxa. In contrast, there are 38 and 21 genera (41%) with one and two species, respectively. The genera Paragapostemon, Aztecanthidium, Agapanthinus and Loxoptilus are endemic to Mexico. Pectinapis, Mexalictus and Xenopanurgus have species which borely range into the United States and might also be considered endemics. The diversity of Mexican bees appears intermediate between those of the United Stated and Central America

Xixuthrus ganglbaueri Lameere 1912

Xixuthrus ganglbaueri Lameere, 1912 Figs. 1–2 Specimens examined: Neotype female (here designated), " Fiji, Viti Levu, Tamavua FSN, 28.v.2003, coll. Salanieta Tawake ", " NEOTYPE Xixuthrus ganglbaueri Lameere, det. D. Yanega 2003" (originally from MAFF; will be permanently deposited in BPBM, as type #16557) [Figs. 1, 2]; 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Nasinu, 05.v.81, coll. Marika Rasekaseka (MAFF); 1 female, same locality, 01.viii.88, coll. A. Vosanibola (MAFF); other specimens known only from photographs. Diagnosis: This species can easily be confused with heros (with which it is sympatric; both species are presently confirmed only from Viti Levu, primarily the SE quadrant of the island), though careful examination reveals that it differs in numerous characters, ultimately uniquely sharing little more than the broad glabrous elytral stripes. The major differences (compare Figs. 2 and 4) include the lack of prickly spicules on the antennal scape, which is instead covered with distinct, shallow punctures; the scape is only gradually and slightly enlarged apically, in distinct contrast to the apically swollen scape in heros and terribilis; much shorter antennae relative to body length; there is a glabrous, impunctate, diamond­shaped area in the center of the pronotum; and, in particular, the forebasitarsi are scarcely longer than broad (the mid and hind basitarsi are similarly proportioned, but the difference between ganglbaueri and the other species is more evident in the foretarsi). Additionally, the posterior portion of the head is not as elongated, nor are the mandibles; the mandibular teeth are much smaller; the frontal groove is rather deeply impressed from the clypeus up to the vertex; the distal tarsomere is relatively shorter; the pronotal surface is more generally shining, with the medial ridges generally weaker but more strongly produced and somewhat tuberculate posteriorly. The general coloration of the pubescence is more grayish, or somewhat silvery, in comparison to the usual coloration of heros, which is more brownish to golden, but this difference is somewhat less evident in more worn specimens. Remarks: The female chosen as the neotype is considered appropriate for two reasons: (1) this is the specimen from which a mesotarsus was removed for sequencing while it was still alive, and it is the genetic voucher for the species, and (2) given Lameere's original claim that the species resembled helleri, and the description of the antennae and foretarsi, the evidence supports that the neotype is in fact the same species that Lameere originally described. The alternative hypothesis, that ganglbaueri was a mislabeled New Guinean species, and there just happens, by coincidence, to be an undiscovered Fijian species which shares several features with it, is far less acceptable. New Guinean specimens which Tippmann identified as ganglbaueri have proven, upon examination (by S.S.), to be helleri. We have seen only a photograph of one male which could definitively be associated with the female, and it also possesses short forebasitarsi, short antennae, strong pronotal ridges, and grayish pubescence (though not clear, it does seem that the photo shows a punctate scape, and central glabrous pronotal spot, but to be cautious we do not use these features in the key below); it is possible that other males may be more difficult to distinguish from male heros, but at least this one specimen is readily separable. We further note that the shorter head, mandibles, and antennae of ganglbaueri are not an artifact of the specimens being smaller than those of heros (i.e., the differences are not due to allometry), even though the average size appears slightly smaller; the neotype female is nearly 9 cm, while the heros female figured is 11 cm, and the differences are independent of the size of heros individuals used for comparison (several of which were in fact smaller). Gene sequencing (performed by David Hawks) leaves no doubt whatsoever that this specimen is not conspecific with X. heros from the same general locality; the number of base pair differences and large number of insertions (54 base pair changes and 49 insertions in ribosomal 28S regions D2 and D5) constitute as substantial a genetic difference as is sometimes seen between different genera in other families of beetles (Hawks & Heraty, in prep.). The numerous genome insertions suggest that ganglbaueri is the more derived taxon, and we expect to find that when terribilis is sequenced, it will prove to be the sister taxon to heros, rather than ganglbaueri.Published as part of Yanega, Douglas, Olson, David, Shute, Sharon & Komiya, Ziro, 2004, The Xixuthrus species of Fiji (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae), pp. 1-10 in Zootaxa 777 (1) on pages 4-6, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.777.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/503041

Nesting Biology of Glenostictia pictifrons (F. Smith) (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae: Bembicini)

A population of Glenostictia pictifrons in Kansas practices progressive provisioning, using Diptera of at least 7 families as prey. Nests have a single terminal cell at a mean depth of 4. 1 cm, which is also the average depth at which the shallow soil is underlain by bedrock at this nesting site. Adult females provision one nest at a time, spending a mean of 5.5 days per nest. The wasps make an outer closure when away from the nest, but no inner closure, and neither sex spends the night or periods of inclement weather inside nests. Wasps do not level mounds while digging or after completion of a new nest, although the mound is completely levelled during final closure. The egg is laid erect on the base of the wing of the first prey placed in the cell, and the cocoon has an outer shroud of silk embedded with prey remains. Circumstantial evidence suggests nest parasitism by the mutillid wasp Dasy mutilla quadriguttata (Say)