Main Page English Version  

Продолжение дискуссии о названиях последних стернитов и тергитов брюшка усачей

J. Kurzawa

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.