1,720,967 research outputs found
A new Nalassus Mulsant, 1854 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Helopini), the first representative of the genus from the Russian Far East
No full textNabozhenko, M. V., Ivanov, S. N. (2015): A new Nalassus Mulsant, 1854 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Helopini), the first representative of the genus from the Russian Far East. Zootaxa 3955 (1): 137-141, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3955.1.
Isomira Mulsant 1856
No full textA key to Isomira known from Eocene amber 1(2). Antennomere 3 about twice as long as antennomere 2. Male and female with subequal eye sizes............................................................................................. I. hoffeinsorum 2(1). Antennomeres 2 and 3 short, subequal in length. Male with distinctly larger eyes than female. 3(4). Antennae very weakly serrate (Figs 7, 8), antennomere 3 with straight anterior margin, ultimate and penultimate antennomeres subequal in length...................... I. avula 4(3). Antennae distinctly serrate (Fig. 9), antennomere 3 with oblique anterior margin, ultimate antennomere 1.4 times as long as penultimate one................................................................................................ I. lobanovi sp. n.Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V. & Bukejs, A., 2021, A new species and a key to Isomira Mulsant, 1856 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Alleculinae) from Eocene Baltic amber, pp. 51-56 in Caucasian Entomological Bulletin (Caucas. entomol. bull.) (Caucas. entomol. bull.) 17 (1) on page 54, DOI: 10.23885/181433262021171-515
Menephiloides Fujiyama 1973
No full textMenephiloides Fujiyama, 1973 Type species: Menephiloides minensis Fujiyama, 1973 by original designation [Fujiyama, 1973: 378]. Monotypic genus. Type stratum. Omine, Japan, Hazegatani coal mine, Monomoki Formation, Carnian, Upper Triassic (235–221.5 Ma). This genus was originally included under question in the family Tenebrionidae. Fujiyama [1973] tried to compare the single elytron of M. minensis with those in Menephilus Mulsant, 1854 (Stenochiinae: Cnodalonini) and Tenebrio Linnaeus, 1758 (Tenebrioninae: Tenebrionini). In fact, the elytron of this species has 10 striae without scutellary striole, which is uncharacteristic for Tenebrionidae. Menephiloides minensis specially was not included in the fossil records [Kirejtshuk at al., 2008; Kirejtshuk, Ponomarenko, 2018; Nabozhenko, 2019]. However Bao and Antunes-Carvalho [2020] still wrote that it is Tenebrionidae. Here we propose to interpret Menephiloides minensis as Coleoptera incertae sedis.Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V. & Bukejs, A., 2021, A new species and a key to Isomira Mulsant, 1856 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Alleculinae) from Eocene Baltic amber, pp. 51-56 in Caucasian Entomological Bulletin (Caucas. entomol. bull.) (Caucas. entomol. bull.) 17 (1) on page 55, DOI: 10.23885/181433262021171-515
Adelidium Tillyard 1918
No full textAdelidium Tillyard, 1918 Type species: Adelidium cordatum Tillyard, 1918 by original designation [Tillyard, 1918: 752]. Monotypic genus. Type stratum. New South Wales, Australia, Glenlee railway cutting, Anisian, Middle Triassic (247–242 Ma). This genus was included in the family Tenebrionidae without any comparison with tenebrionid taxa. Tillyard [1918] suggested that A. cordatum possibly closely related to some Ademosyne Handlirsch, 1906 (Archostemata: Ademosynidae) from the Upper Triassic Ipswich Coal Measures (Queensland, Australia). In fact, characters of wide and very convex single elytron of Adelidium with eight or nine visible striae without scutellary striole can be interpreted very widely. The taxon distinctly does not belong to the family Tenebrionidae, which is known reliably only from the Late Jurassic. Adelidium cordatum specially was not included in the fossil records [Kirejtshuk at al., 2008; Kirejtshuk, Ponomarenko, 2018; Nabozhenko 2019]. However Bao and Antunes-Carvalho [2020] still wrote that it is Tenebrionidae. Here we propose to interpret Adelidium cordatum as Coleoptera incertae sedis.Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V. & Bukejs, A., 2021, A new species and a key to Isomira Mulsant, 1856 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Alleculinae) from Eocene Baltic amber, pp. 51-56 in Caucasian Entomological Bulletin (Caucas. entomol. bull.) (Caucas. entomol. bull.) 17 (1) on page 55, DOI: 10.23885/181433262021171-515
Isomira Mulsant 1856
No full textGenus Isomira Mulsant, 1856 The studied specimen under consideration belongs to the genus Isomira of the tribe Alleculini and the subtribe Gonoderina based on the combination of the following characters: five abdominal ventrites (inner sternite and ventrite VIII are hidden, unlike Cteniopodini with externally visible sclerites in male and female), weakly serrate antennae (species of Cteniopodini are with filiform or moniliform antennae, while the majority of Alleculini have serrate antennae), simple penultimate tarsomere (the majority of Alleculina have lobed or bilobed penultimate tarsomere, but species of Gonoderina are with simple one). The specimen has not distinct rows of deep strial punctures or clear impressed striae unlike the majority of gonoderine genera. Only two genera have the mentioned above complex of characters: Isomira and Asiomira. The fossil specimen examined distinctly differs from Middle East species of the genus Asiomira by the subequal length of antennomeres 2 and 3.Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V. & Bukejs, A., 2021, A new species and a key to Isomira Mulsant, 1856 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Alleculinae) from Eocene Baltic amber, pp. 51-56 in Caucasian Entomological Bulletin (Caucas. entomol. bull.) (Caucas. entomol. bull.) 17 (1) on page 52, DOI: 10.23885/181433262021171-515
Euboeus mori Nabozhenko & Nikitsky & Keskin 2017, comb. n.
No full textEuboeus (s. str.) mori (Brullé, 1832), comb. n. (Figs. 1C, D; 5) Brullé, 1832: 222; Kiеsеnwеttеr, 1861: 233 (Ηelops); Oеrtzеn, 1886: 260 (Ηelops); Schustеr, 1915: 5 (Ηelops); Koch, 1948: 360 (Probaticus); Kühnеlt, 1965: 49 (Probaticus); Picka, 1984: 28 (Probaticus); F. Soldati & Pеsliеr, 2016: 237 (Probaticus (s. str.)). = Ηelops angulicollis Fairmairе, 1883: clxx. = Ηelops terrenii Frivaldszky, 1845: 183; Kiеsеnwеttеr, 1861: 233 (Ηelops); Baudi di Sеlvе, 1876: 280 (Ηelops (Euboeus)); Baudi di Sеlvе, 1877: 132 (Ηelops (Euboeus)). Material. 1♂, 1♀: Attica (leg. Reitter) (ZIN); 2♀: Greece, Peloponnese, Panagitsa, 37°46ʹN, 22°13ʹE, 3–5.vi.2009 (leg. Sveč) (CT). Distribution. Greece: Crete, Peloponnese (Arkadia, Lakonia, Messene, Kampos, Corinth), Ionian Islands (Kythira), Thessaly (Ossa Mt.), Saronic Islands (Aegina), Northern Sporades, Dodecanese (Rhodes).Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V., Nikitsky, N. B. & Keskin, B., 2017, Taxonomic review of the genus Euboeus s. str. Boieldieu, 1865 (= Probaticus s. str. Seidlitz, 1896, syn. n.) (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) in Zootaxa 4358 (3), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4358.3.6, http://zenodo.org/record/106879
Euboeus Boieldieu 1865
No full textGenus Euboeus Boieldieu, 1865 Typе spеciеs Euboeus mimonti Boiеldiеu, 1865 by monotypy Euboeus Boiеldiеu, 1865: 10; Baudi di Sеlvе, 1876: 280; Allard, 1876: 3; Allard, 1877: 233; Sеidlitz, 1896: 678; Rеittеr, 1922b: 165. = Probaticus Sеidlitz, 1896: 697 (as Probatius), 764 (as Probaticus); Sеidlitz, 1898: 849 (corrеction of pagе 697 of 1896), syn. n. (typе spеciеs Ηelops mori Brullé, 1832, by subsеquеnt dеsignation (Gеbiеn 1943: 419)) (Ηelops (Probaticus)); Rеittеr, 1922a: 32; Antoinе, 1949: 132; Español, 1956: 88; Ardoin, 1958: 14; Viñolas, 1997: 2011; Viñolas & Kartagеna, 2005: 37, 38; Fеrrеr, 2008: 425 –429.Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V., Nikitsky, N. B. & Keskin, B., 2017, Taxonomic review of the genus Euboeus s. str. Boieldieu, 1865 (= Probaticus s. str. Seidlitz, 1896, syn. n.) (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) in Zootaxa 4358 (3), DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4358.3.6, http://zenodo.org/record/106879
Cornucistela serrata Campbell 1980
No full textCornucistela serrata Campbell, 1980 (Figs 1–8) Material examined. Saudi Arabia: “Arabia: S. Hedjax [Hejaz], Qui’iya. 14.viii.1931. H. St. J. B. Philby. B.M.1931-549 // NHMUK014381294 ”, 1 male (NHM). Note. We found only two localities with similar names in Saudi Arabia: Qai’iya (=Al-Qai’yah; 24°19 ′ N 43°31 ′ E) and Quai’iya (=Al Quway’iyah; 24°03 ′ N 45°15 ′ E). Both villages are located in the Riyadh Province of Saudi Arabia, and not in the south of the historical region Hejaz, where the specimen was ostensibly collected. Hejaz includes six current provinces in the west of Saudi Arabia. We found that Philby travelled near Taif and As-Shafa in Southern Hejaz and from Mecca to Riyadh during August–October 1931, according to the inventory of the Philby archive (“collection”) available online (Harry St John Philby collection, 2004). However, localities with the name “Qui’iya” or similar are absent in the Hejaz region (at least we did not find it on available maps of the 20th century and modern maps). The second of two localities listed above, village Quai’iya (=Al Quway’iyah; 24°03 ′ N 45°15 ′ E), is situated on the road between the latter two cities and two regions, Hejaz and Riyadh. We assume that the specimen was collected there. Diagnostic characters of the specimen. Body rufo-testaceous, pronotum and head slightly darker than elytra. Ocular index 48. Ratios of length: width of antennomeres 1–11: 1.5: 1.5, 1.2: 1.1 (l = 1.09), 2.5: 1.9 (l = 1.32), 2.1: 2.5 (t = 1.19), 1.7: 2.7 (t = 1.58), 1.9: 2.8 (t = 1.64), 1.7: 2.8 (t = 1.64), 1.8: 2.8 (t = 1.55), 2.0: 2.5 (t = 1.25), 1.9: 2.4 (t = 1.26), 2.5: 2.0 (l = 1.25). Basal margin of pronotum straight in middle, fully pubescent with moderately long dense setae. Elytra covered with clear dense recumbent pubescence; setae longer and suberect on lateral sides and apical parts of elytra. Distribution. The species is distributed in central Saudi Arabia. The locality in western Saudi Arabia (Hejaz region) on the map shown by Novák & Nabozhenko (2019) is erroneous. Here we use for our map (Fig. 9) the following localities and coordinates published for the expedition of Prof. Wilhelm Büttiker, who collected the type series of C. serrata in Saudi Arabia in 1977–1978 (Sabatinelli & Pontuale, 1998): Wadi Khumra (24°57 ′ N 46°06 ′ E; type locality), Heith, 40 km S of Riyadh (24°29 ′ N 47°00 ′ E), and Kushm al-Buwaybiyat (25°12 ′ N 46°50 ′ E).Published as part of Nabozhenko, M. V. & Matsumoto, K., 2021, New data on diagnostics and distribution of the little-known comb-clawed beetle Cornucistela serrata (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Alleculinae), pp. 8-12 in Zoosystematica Rossica (Zoosyst. Rossica) (Zoosyst. Rossica) 30 (1) on page 9, DOI: 10.31610/zsr/2021.30.1.
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
