History of the taxonomic affiliation of the tribe Necydalini

Community and Forum → Taxonomy. Classification → History of the taxonomic affiliation of the tribe Necydalini

John-ST, 11.03.2010 1:42

Please enlighten me on this issue, here I read in the Net that the tribe Necydalini was until recently part of the subfamily Lepturinae, after which I got into a slight stupor. Having climbed in the net, I saw that on several American sites this tribe is still registered in the subfamily Lepturinae. When I first started studying entomology and did not know about the division of the barbel family into subfamilies (more precisely, I knew about the existence of subfamilies and assumed that the barbel family was somehow divided into subfamilies, but from the available literature the beetle subfamilies were given only for lamellidae), I intuitively divided all the barbels from the determinant into four groups based on the defining keys: the first - the subfamily Prioninae; the second - the subfamily Lepturinae;the third-the subfamilies Necydalinae, Spondylidinae, Cerambycinae and the fourth - the subfamily Lamiinae, although sometimes on the basis of the same definitional keys assumed that the genus Necydalis is the only representative in the European part of the USSR of some separate group characteristic of the tropics (although sometimes divided the third already into four, separating from Cerambycinae flat purple and all sorts of different clites).
In 1998, I got to the Internet, found the Zinovsky site there, and the problem (for me)with the classification of barbels, the Lepturinae tribe disappeared (Necydalinae is a separate family) and then after 12 years - "until recently", while it seems that the Lepturinae tribe is still on a serious site (Iowa State University). Is it really true that Necydalini was until recently part of the subfamily Lepturinae, or is this, after all, the original view of American entomologists on the systematics of barbels?

This post was edited by John-ST-11.03.2010 03: 19