Tricondyla aptera ssp

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:07 pm

Interesting -- one of the ground beetles?

Enormous eyes, and a dark and sinister pose!

--Rik

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:15 pm

It used be be called Cicindela aptera, a Tiger Beetle. Tiger Beetles differ from Ground Beetles by being active fliers but not this one, lacking wings

T. aptera is the Type Species of the genus.

Harold

Gérard-64 · Post by **Gérard-64** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:17 pm

See here: http://carabidae.pro/carabidae/aptera-o ... d_193.html

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:56 pm

I see. I looked up the name, noticed the family classification Carabidae (ground beetles) and failed to notice that the tiger beetles that used to be a full family Cicindelidae have now been reclassified as a subfamily Cicindelinae within Carabidae. Ah, systematics is such shifting ground...

--Rik

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:05 am

Rik,

It might depend on which taxomist or author you refer to. There are "splitters" and "lumpers" in all branches of taxonomy.

Harold

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:45 am

> There are "splitters" and "lumpers" in all branches of taxonomy.

Sure, but their powers ebb and flow.

When I learned beetles back in the 1960's, the tiger beetles seemed to be firmly ensconced in their own family, Cicindelidae.

These days, according to http://eol.org/pages/2649409/names?all=1, the score superficially appears to be 13 to 6 still in favor of Cicindelidae (albeit with some double-counting), but the "big guns" like Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) have shifted over to subfamily, Cicindelinae. ITIS specifically notes that Cicindelidae is "invalid".

Our friends at BugGuide.net go along with Cicindelinae, citing American Beetles (only $256 for both volumes at Amazon), but note in passing in their taxonomy forum that "Cicindelidae, Cicindelinae. Potatos, Pahtatos.

"

In any event, I now understand that my new friend Tricondyla aptera is and always has been a Tiger Beetle. It's just his place in the hierarchy of names that I was confused about.

--Rik

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:35 am

Impressive image, well placed in the dark side.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:44 am

rjlittlefield wrote: ITIS specifically notes that Cicindelidae is "invalid".

So far as I know, only names of species and genera can be invalid.

Harold

johan · Post by **johan** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:58 am

I like the angle, looking up at it. It's something on my list to work on. Black against black has its own challenges, the rim of light its right antennae worked wonders!

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:03 am

Harold Gough wrote:So far as I know, only names of species and genera can be invalid.

Beats me. See this response to query.

--Rik

rovebeetle · Post by **rovebeetle** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:33 am

First of all - what a marvellous image!
I have seen these (and other species of this genus) alive many times in Asia. There is quite a number of arboreal tiger beetles, but only a few, like this one, that are incapable of flight.

Harold Gough wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote: ITIS specifically notes that Cicindelidae is "invalid".
So far as I know, only names of species and genera can be invalid.Harold

"Invalid" is a silly term in this context. What if someone raises it to family level again, based on proper research - will it be valid again? Of course!
We taxonomists prefer to use the term "available", and both names (family and subfamily level) are available names.
However, names can be really invalid, or better, their introduction/description when it does not meet the requirements of the Int. Code of Zool. Nomenclature. The name is then unavailable, ergo - also family names can be unavailable.

Cheers

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:51 pm

rovebeetle wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote: ITIS specifically notes that Cicindelidae is "invalid".
"Invalid" is a silly term in this context.

I agree. Nonetheless, "invalid" is exactly the term that ITIS uses in their response to my query. See the image linked above.

I confess, I find this situation to be pretty amusing. Not only can we not agree on how to classify something, we can't even agree on how to talk about the lack of agreement!

Truly, it is a miracle we manage to communicate at all!

--Rik

Jody Melanson · Post by **Jody Melanson** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:19 am

Great lighting.

Gérard-64 · Post by **Gérard-64** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:21 am

Thanks guys.