1 (edited by charliebarnes 27-11-2017 17:52:56)

Topic: More issues with Oulema melanopus :-)

Chris, Oulema melanopus, TVK NHMSYS0020148469 has a synonym of Oulema melanopus s.l. (TVK=NHMSYS0001744241). I think this is wrong?

Possibly other synonyms are as well.

When looking at Andrew Duffs checklist in Recorder it's telling me:

Oulema melanopus (Linnaeus, 1758) [Spp]

Cereal Leaf Beetle
List Synonyms

Oulema melanopa auctt. [Spp]

Other Synonyms
Lema melanopa (Linnaeus) [Spp]
Oulema melanopa (Linnaeus, 1758) [Spp]
Oulema melanopus s.l. [Agg]

But Duff's Oulema melanopus is s.s.

Should Oulema melanopus s.s. (TVK NHMSYS0001744242) be synonymized with Oulema melanopus (TVK NHMSYS0020148469) instead of Oulema melanopus s.l.?

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

2

Re: More issues with Oulema melanopus :-)

Good question but it might all come down to the use of that particulat TVK in history. Although it is used in Duff's checklist the name itself might predate the split. The only "safe" Oulema melanops s.s. for biological recording purposes is the sensu strictu concept.

Chris Raper, Manager of the UK Species Inventory, Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity,
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD.  (tel: 020 7942 5894)
also Tachinid Recording Scheme (http://tachinidae.org.uk/)

3

Re: More issues with Oulema melanopus :-)

But Duff's Oulema melanopus is the taxon in in the strictest sense? Would it be better to add the attributes s.s. to Duff's taxon?

I certainly have been using it for s.s. when I know that the data is using Duffs checklist. I.e. I would expect Oulema melanopus, entered using Duff's checklist, to be the s.s. taxon (not as s.l. which is the recommended taxon now)

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

4

Re: More issues with Oulema melanopus :-)

Just bumping this as it caught me out last week and appears to affect the NBN as well (i.e. wider use of the taxon).

E.g. Steve Lane's dataset contains 125 records of Oulema rufocyanea and 92 records of Oulema melanopus "agg", with no records of Oulema melanopus s.s. This is itself unusual, and to add to that, Steve's records also contain comments indicating dissection was carried out: https://records.nbnatlas.org/occurrence … 1d7ab9913f. I'd be surprised if Steve could recognize male O. rufocyanea but not O. melanopus s.s. ! I suspect this record should refer to O. melanopus s.s.

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

5

Re: More issues with Oulema melanopus :-)

Just bumping this again, before I manually go through all 300 of our Oulema melanopus records........

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership