Download full text (PDF 4.5 MB) - University of Nebraska State ...

12 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITYOF NEBRASKA STATE MUSEUM
specimens, along with the entire Coleoptera
and Lepidoptera collections, were destroyed
in July 1943 by an air raid (Klapperich 1948).
Ohaus’ type concept was similar to others
of his time; never designating a single specimen
to be the primary type of his new species.
He always considered the entire type series
to be “cotypes” (properly called syntypes).
He would often label the type series with a
male and female “type” and with the remainder
of the type series “cotypes,” but this
was not done consistently. Sometimes he
would label a male and female in one collection
as “type” and another male and female
in another collection as “type.” Even though
Ohaus labeled some specimens as “type,”
these cannot be considered to be holotypes because
they were not fixed in the original publication.
According to the ICZN, holotypes
must be fixed in the original publication
(ICZN Article 73). Ohaus never did this so the
type series of all the species he described
must be considered to consist of syntypes until
a lectotype is designated. The only exception
is when the taxon was described using a
single specimen (there must be clear evidence
of this from the original publication or a secondary
source), and then the holotype is fixed
by monotypy (ICZN Article 73.1.2). To further
complicate matters, Ohaus would often label
specimens as types even though he examined
them after the original description was published.
This habit was observed with many
Platycoelia specimens and has been commented
on in the past by other authors
(Kuijten 1992; Jameson 1998). As a result, it
is necessary to be conservative and critical
when deciding if specimens with Ohaus’ type
labels are truly types. This can usually be
done using the original descriptions, because
Ohaus often indicated the collecting locality,
collector, and/or type depository for specimens
in the original descriptions of new species.
The retroactively and erroneously labeled
types are often evident because they have
slightly different type labels (the paper and
ink are often different), and the data label are
not congruent with the information given in
the original description.
PHYLOGENETIC METHODS
AND MATERIALS
Phylogenetic Analysis
The phylogeny of Platycoelia was reconstructed
using 91 adult morphological characters.
The character matrix was constructed
using MacClade 4.03 (Maddison and Maddison
2002) and analyzed using PAUP*
4.0b10 (Swofford 2002). Phalangogonia
sperata Sharp was used as an outgroup for the
analysis. The outgroup was selected based on
the preliminary generic-level phylogenetic
analysis of the tribe Anoplognathini, the phylogenetic
analysis of the subtribe Brachysternina
(Smith 2002a), and the historic idea
that this is the most closely related taxon to
Platycoelia (Burmeister 1844; Ohaus 1904b).
Homology was assessed using position and
quality of resemblance as basic criteria (derived
from Remane [1956]). If these basic criteria
were met, then the character states were
assumed to be homologous. Ultimately, the
results of the phylogenetic analysis provide
futher evidence for or against the homology
assumptions.
Character Definition
All descriptions are based on adults unless
otherwise specified. The following definitions
and standards were used in the scoring
of character states for the phylogenetic analyses
and for the generic and species descriptions.
For definitions of entomological terms
used in this work, see Torre-Bueno (1989).
Color: based on dried, pinned specimens. The
color of some specimens darkens considerably
after death.
Body length: measured from the apex of the
clypeus to the apex of the elytron.
Body width: measured at the widest point of
the elytra.
Puncture density: dense = punctures separated
by less than two puncture diameters to
punctures confluent; moderate = punctures
separated by 2-6 puncture diameters; sparse
= punctures separated by more than 6 puncture
diameters.