11,043 research outputs found
TACC3-ch-TOG track the growing tips of microtubules independently of clathrin and Aurora-A phosphorylation
Full text linkThe interaction between TACC3 (transforming acidic coiled coil protein 3) and the microtubule polymerase ch-TOG (colonic, hepatic tumor overexpressed gene) is evolutionarily conserved. Loading of TACC3–ch-TOG onto spindle microtubules requires the phosphorylation of TACC3 by Aurora-A kinase and the subsequent interaction of TACC3 with clathrin to form a microtubule binding surface. Whether there is a pool of TACC3–ch-TOG that is independent of clathrin in human cells, and what is the function of this pool, are open questions. Here, we report that TACC3 is recruited to the plus-ends of microtubules by its association with ch-TOG and that this pool is independent of phosphorylation and binding to clathrin. The plus-end binding of TACC3–ch-TOG persists in interphase and we propose that one cellular function of TACC3–ch-TOG is to modulate cell migration. We also describe the distinct subcellular pools of TACC3, ch-TOG and clathrin. TACC3 is often described as a centrosomal protein, but we show that there is no significant population of TACC3 at centrosomes. The delineation of distinct protein pools reveals a simplified view of how these proteins are organized and controlled by post-translational modification
Buddhism in the thought of Liang Shu-ming = 梁漱溟思想與佛教
No full textLiang Shu-ming (1893–1988) is one of the most influential thinkers of contemporary China. Most studies on Liang Shu-ming focus on his Confucian thought and his role as the forerunner of the New Confucianism movement. However, Liang Shu-ming was a devoted Buddhist in his youth. He employed Buddhist concepts and terminology extensively in his works, and publicly declared himself a Buddhist in his old age. Hence there have been heated debates among scholars to determine whether Liang Shu-ming was a Buddhist or a Confucianist. The present thesis analyses in detail Liang Shu-ming’s central writings and teachings; with a view to highlighting the importance of Buddhism to his thought.
Liang Shu-ming grew up at a time when China was increasingly exposed to Western influences. When new style intellectuals were denouncing traditional knowledge, Liang Shu-ming chose to believe in Buddhism, and proclaimed in his early works that Buddhism was superior to Western philosophy. He argued that only Buddhism could provide the ultimate solution to the cardinal human problem of suffering, that Buddhist ideas were not as restrictive as Western philosophical concepts (e.g. idealism, materialism), that the supramundane absorption advocated by Buddhism was superior to secular intelligence.
Liang Shu-ming declared himself a Confucianist by the time he reached middle age, but his works continued to use a large number of Buddhist notions and terms. He constructed his epistemology around Yogācāra concepts, and evaluated culture mainly from the Buddhist standpoint. Especially significant for our purpose are his claim that Buddhism is the highest religion, and his prediction of the revival of Buddhism at the final stage of development of human civilization.
Buddhism occupied an even more important position in his late works, in which he, among other things, compared and contrasted the teachings of Buddhism with those of Confucianism and Daoism. He discussed in some depth the similarities and dissimilarities in their understanding of human nature, the purpose of life, the significance of bodily and spiritual cultivation, etc, with the aim of demonstrating that Buddhism will eventually become the main stream of world culture in the future.
The thesis also investigates the personal, social and historical factors contributing to Liang Shu-ming’s early belief in Buddhism, his shift from Buddhism to Confucianism in his middle years, and his return to Buddhist in his old age, so as to determine whether he was ultimately a Confucianist or a Buddhist.published_or_final_versionChineseDoctoralDoctor of Philosoph
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS: THEIR DEVELOPMENT, USES, AND RISKS
No full textAbout the editors -- Contributors -- Preface -- Ch. 1. Transformation: a powerful tool for crop improvement / D.Z. Skinner, S. Muthukrishnan, G.H. Liang -- Ch. 2. Mechanism(s) of transgene locus formation / David A. Somers, Paula M. Olhoft, Irina F. Makarevitch, Sergei K. Svitashev -- Ch. 3. Gene stacking through site-specific integration / David W. Ow -- Ch. 4. Transgenics of plant hormones and their potential application in horticultural crops / Yi Li, Hui Duan, Yan H. Wu, Richard J. McAvoy, Yan Pei, Degang Zhao, John Wurst, Qi Li, Kerning Luo -- Ch. 5. Avidin: an egg-citing insecticidal protein in transgenic corn / Karl J. Kramer -- Ch. 6. Genetic engineering of wheat: protocols and use to enhance stress tolerance / Tom Clemente, Amitava Mitra -- Ch. 7. Development and utilization of transformation in medicago species / Deborah A. Samac, Stephen J. Temple -- Ch. 8. Sorghum transformation for resistance to fungal pathogens and drought / S. Muthukrishnan, J.T. Weeks, M.R. Tuinstra, J.M. Jeoung, J. Jayaraj, G.H. Liang -- Ch. 9. Rice transformation: current progress and future prospects / James Oard, Junda Jiang -- Ch. 10. Cotton transformation: successes and challenges / Roberta H. Smith, James W. Smith, Sung Hun Park -- Ch. 11. Progress in transforming the recalcitrant soybean / Jack M. Widholm -- Ch. 12. Progress in vegetable crop transformation and future prospects and challenges / Zamir K. Ptmja, Mistianne Feeney -- Ch. 13. Genetic transformation of turfgrass / Barbara A. Zilinskas, Xiaoling Wang - - Ch. 14. Risks associated with genetically engineered crops / Paul St. Amand -- Inde
A Comparison between Researches by Liang and Chien on the Academic History of the Ching Dynasty \ue2 with a Focus on the Chinese Academic History of the Last Three Centuries
No full textBoth Mr. Liang Ch\ue2i Ch\ue2ao and Mr.Ch\ue2ien Pin Ssu wrote different books with the same name the\ue2Academic History of China of the Past 300 Years\ue2. Their writing techniques are considerably distinct. Mr. Liang used the style of academic history ,but Mr. Ch\ue2ien used Chinese traditional\ue2 Xue'an Essay Style\ue2 to write the academic thoughts of Ch\ue2in Confucian. Mr. Liang spent a good portion of his book \ue2Intellectual trends in the Ch\ue2in period\ue2 comparing the similarity of west and east culture which were the Ch\ue2in academic and the Renaissance respectively. The Manchurian Incident occurred when Mr. Ch\ue2ien Pin Ssu was teaching the class of \ue2Academic History of China of the Past 300 Years\ue2. It let Mr. Ch\ue2ien Pin Ssu think about the topic of Chinese traditional culture and Nationalism and his book is full its influence. All throughout history researchers compared the books\ue2Intellectual trends in the Ch\ue2in period\ue2 of Mr. Liang Ch\ue2i Ch\ue2ao and \ue2 Academic History of China of the Past 300 Years\ue2. However, for this thesis, I consulted all their books about the history of Ch\ue2in academic and tried to find the difference between Mr. Ch\ue2ien and Mr. Liang
Downregulation of BRG-1 repressed expression of CD44s in cervical neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma.
No full textImprovement in the Cumulative Failure Distribution of High-k Dielectric Subjected to Nanoscale Stress by D-2 Post-Deposition Annealing
No full text[[abstract]]By taking advantage of the small contact area of the conductive atomic force microscopy (CAFM) tip with the sample surface, and the powerful measurement capability of the semiconductor parameter analyzer, a nanoscale stress was applied to the atomic-layer-deposited (ALD) HfO2 high-k dielectrics prepared with N-2, D-2, and no post-deposition anneal (PDA), respectively. The statistical breakdown behavior of ALD HfO2 under nanoscale stresses was determined and is presented in this paper. It is evident that the cumulative failure distribution of breakdown voltage of high-k dielectrics under nanoscale CVS basically follows the Weibull statistics. We also found that the ALD HfO2 prepared with D-2 PDA showed an obvious improvement in cumulative failure distribution when compared with those prepared with N-2 PDA and no PDA. The result indicates that D, PDA can substantially suppress the generation of defects during the application of nanoscale stress and improve the reliability of high-k dielectrics. (C) 2009 The Japan Society of Applied Physics[[note]]SC
Sundaoodes Guéorguiev & Liang 2020, gen. n.
No full textSundaoodes gen. n. hainanensis Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. kalimantanensis Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810 subgenus Oodes Bonelli, 1810 americanus Dejean, 1826 brevis Lindroth, 1957 echigonus Habu & Baba, 1960 fluvialis LeConte, 1863 gracilis A. & G.B. Villa, 1833 = similis Chaudoir, 1837 = gracilior Lambert, 1853 helopioides (Fabricius, 1792) = varians Letzner, 1851 [unav.] = parallelus Motschulsky, 1858 [nec Say, 1830], syn. n. = parallelogrammus Motschulsky, 1858, syn. n. = thessalonicensis Schatzmayr, 1909 = fiorii Porta, 1923 integer Semenov, 1889 Note: Type material of O. integer has not been examined. tokyoensis Habu, 1956 Note: Type material of O. tokyoensis has not been examined. subgenus Lachnocrepis LeConte, 1853 [= Eulachnocrepis Habu, 1956] japonicus (Bates, 1873), comb. n. = piceolus Fairmare, 1887 parallelus Say, 1830 desertus Motschulsky, 1858 = prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. = hahni Reitter, 1908 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968 subgenus Oodes Bonelli, 1810 americanus Dejean, 1826 brevis Lindroth, 1957 echigonus Habu & Baba, 1960 fluvialis LeConte, 1863 gracilis A. & G.B. Villa, 1833 = similis Chaudoir, 1837 = gracilior Lambert, 1853 helopioides (Fabricius, 1792) = varians Letzner, 1851 [unav.] = parallelus Motschulsky, 1858 [nec Say, 1830], syn. n. = parallelogrammus Motschulsky, 1858, syn. n. = thessalonicensis Schatzmayr, 1909 = fiorii Porta, 1923 integer Semenov, 1889 Note: Type material of O. integer has not been examined. tokyoensis Habu, 1956 Note: Type material of O. tokyoensis has not been examined. subgenus Lachnocrepis LeConte, 1853 [= Eulachnocrepis Habu, 1956] japonicus (Bates, 1873), comb. n. = piceolus Fairmare, 1887 parallelus Say, 1830 desertus Motschulsky, 1858 = prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. = hahni Reitter, 1908 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968 subgenus Lachnocrepis LeConte, 1853 [= Eulachnocrepis Habu, 1956] japonicus (Bates, 1873), comb. n. = piceolus Fairmare, 1887 parallelus Say, 1830 desertus Motschulsky, 1858 = prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. = hahni Reitter, 1908 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968Published as part of Guéorguiev, Borislav & Liang, Hongbin, 2020, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental representatives of Lachnocrepis LeConte and Oodes Bonelli (Coleoptera: Carabidae), with special account on Chinese species, pp. 1-89 in Zootaxa 4850 (1) on pages 83-85, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4850.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/440707
Sundaoodes Guéorguiev & Liang 2020, gen. n.
No full textSundaoodes gen. n. hainanensis Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. kalimantanensis Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810 subgenus Oodes Bonelli, 1810 americanus Dejean, 1826 brevis Lindroth, 1957 echigonus Habu & Baba, 1960 fluvialis LeConte, 1863 gracilis A. & G.B. Villa, 1833 = similis Chaudoir, 1837 = gracilior Lambert, 1853 helopioides (Fabricius, 1792) = varians Letzner, 1851 [unav.] = parallelus Motschulsky, 1858 [nec Say, 1830], syn. n. = parallelogrammus Motschulsky, 1858, syn. n. = thessalonicensis Schatzmayr, 1909 = fiorii Porta, 1923 integer Semenov, 1889 Note: Type material of O. integer has not been examined. tokyoensis Habu, 1956 Note: Type material of O. tokyoensis has not been examined. subgenus Lachnocrepis LeConte, 1853 [= Eulachnocrepis Habu, 1956] japonicus (Bates, 1873), comb. n. = piceolus Fairmare, 1887 parallelus Say, 1830 desertus Motschulsky, 1858 = prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. = hahni Reitter, 1908 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968 subgenus Oodes Bonelli, 1810 americanus Dejean, 1826 brevis Lindroth, 1957 echigonus Habu & Baba, 1960 fluvialis LeConte, 1863 gracilis A. & G.B. Villa, 1833 = similis Chaudoir, 1837 = gracilior Lambert, 1853 helopioides (Fabricius, 1792) = varians Letzner, 1851 [unav.] = parallelus Motschulsky, 1858 [nec Say, 1830], syn. n. = parallelogrammus Motschulsky, 1858, syn. n. = thessalonicensis Schatzmayr, 1909 = fiorii Porta, 1923 integer Semenov, 1889 Note: Type material of O. integer has not been examined. tokyoensis Habu, 1956 Note: Type material of O. tokyoensis has not been examined. subgenus Lachnocrepis LeConte, 1853 [= Eulachnocrepis Habu, 1956] japonicus (Bates, 1873), comb. n. = piceolus Fairmare, 1887 parallelus Say, 1830 desertus Motschulsky, 1858 = prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. = hahni Reitter, 1908 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968 subgenus Lachnocrepis LeConte, 1853 [= Eulachnocrepis Habu, 1956] japonicus (Bates, 1873), comb. n. = piceolus Fairmare, 1887 parallelus Say, 1830 desertus Motschulsky, 1858 = prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. = hahni Reitter, 1908 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968 genus Nothoodes gen. n. angustatus (Lorenz, 1998), comb. n. = parallelus LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851 [nec Say, 1830] bharat Guéorguiev & Liang, sp. n. longus (Andrewes, 1940), comb. n. taprobanae (Andrewes, 1923), comb. n. genus Oodes Bonelli, 1810, species incertae sedis amaroides Dejean, 1831 Note: The setation of submentum, feebly sinuate base of pronotum, prosternal process more narrowly rounded apically, median lobe in lateral aspect (resembling much that of taxa of the “ rambouseki ” group), and general structure of spermathecal complex suggest that the species may be a member of Pseudoodes. Judging by the prosternal process bordered apically and the undifferentiated, relatively short seminal canal, O. amaroides may belong to a separate species group of Pseudoodes. bostockii Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 congoensis Burgeon, 1935 denisonensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 fitzroyensis W.J. MacLeay, 1888 froggatti W.J. MacLeay, 1888 impressus Chaudoir, 1882 inornatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = proximus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 † kachinensis Liu, 2014 laevissimus (Chaudoir, 1882) = longior (Darlington, 1968) latior Csiki, 1931 = latus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 [nec LaFerté-Sénectere, 1851] lenis Péringuey, 1896 Note: Péringuey (1896: 532) stated that the elytral interval 3 of O. lenis has no setiferous puncture. This character state is incongruous with the diagnosis of the genus. The same author also noted another peculiar trait, “ head smooth, with two minute punctures above the basal part of the epistoma, which is hardly distinct ” (ibid.: 530, 532). However, last indication contradicts to that in other pages of the same publication. In the identification key proposed for the genera of the South African Oodini, Péringuey (ibid.) stated that Oodes falls among groups having “ Head with one seta over the posterior part of the eye ” (ibid.: 527), and in the generic diagnosis he affirmed—“ head subquadrate… with only one seta over the back part of the eye ” (ibid.: 529). All the Eurasian species of Oodes have single supraorbital setiferous puncture on each side of the head as well as O. congoensis and all American congeners (Bousquet 1996: 470; present study). In contrast, the Australian species O. bostocki, O. impressus, and O. modestus have two supraorbital pores (Sloane, 1910: 441; Darlington 1968: 31). The type material of O. lenis must be revised. modestus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 nil Darlington, 1968 oblongus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = riverinae (W.J. MacLeay, 1873) = planipennis (W.J. MacLeay, 1878) par Darlington, 1968 palpalis Klug, 1853 Note: Most probably this taxon belongs to Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949. Chaudoir (1882: 359) compared it with his Oodes siamensis Chaudoir, 1882, a species subsequently placed in Brachyodes.Also, identifications of P. Basilewsky and Ch. Lecordier in MNHN showed that two specialists treated O. palpalis as belonging to Brachyodes and as a questionable synonym of Brachyodes natalensis (Chaudoir, 1882). In order to solve this problem, the primary types of Klug and Chaudoir must be compared. paroensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 parviceps Sloane, 1896 rossi Darlington, 1968 siccus Darlington, 1968 terrestris Darlington, 1971 = laevissimus Darlington, 1968 [non Chaudoir, 1882] trisulcatus Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 waterhousei Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 = interioris Laporte de Castelnau, 1867 wilsoni Darlington, 1968Published as part of Guéorguiev, Borislav & Liang, Hongbin, 2020, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental representatives of Lachnocrepis LeConte and Oodes Bonelli (Coleoptera: Carabidae), with special account on Chinese species, pp. 1-89 in Zootaxa 4850 (1) on pages 83-85, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4850.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/440707
- …
