New insect species found in Borneo

this is the news of 2008 ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobaeticus_chani

This post was edited by Musolin - 24.04.2010 20: 21

Borneo is kind of an amazing cauldron of new species. I know the situation from butterflies. Jeremy Holloway was tired of describing new moths from there. Already 10 books have been published on the butterflies of Borneo. Moreover, narrow specialists add. As far as I know, some bombycetes were found there by Zolotukhin, limacodids by Solovyov. There were Cossides, too. The richest island. The mountains there save nature. Java is all cut down. There are almost as many people living there as in the Russian Federation. There's still plenty of fishing to do in Borneo.

Nothing surprising! New species and subspecies, both among beetles and butterflies, are also found in central Russia! And the fauna of tropicanka is still quite poorly developed..
And what is there on insects-an ant and a stick insect?! And there's a lot more to it..

Do you know what is the most studied territory in the world? Britain!
Of course, individual continental species are occasionally added to the insect lists, but in general they are complete.
And only one group of insects still manages to describe new species from Britain. Of course, these are parasitic horsemen (order Hymenoptera)! However, this applies mainly to the smallest (1-2 mm) and little significant families for humans, for example, platygastrid (Proctotrupoidea s.l.) or Ceraphronoidea (Ceraphronoidea). It is probably impossible to discover a new species among ichneumonids, braconids or chalcidoids from Britain now.
As for the territory of continental Europe and the European part of Russia, let experts in beetles and butterflies correct me, it is now almost impossible to describe a good new species from there. (I will immediately make a reservation that I do not take into account the molecular species and fauna of the North Caucasus).

And Borneo, that's Borneo... Well, I have 300 undescribed views from there, so what? And another 500 from New Zealand, 300 from South Africa, 1000 from South America (you don't have to go any further).

This post was edited by Proctos - 25.04.2010 05: 22

Continental Europe and Europe. Russia is still not so well studied - and new species and subspecies are described over time..

Do you know what is the most studied territory in the world? Britain!
Of course, individual continental species are occasionally added to the insect lists, but in general they are complete.
And only one group of insects still manages to describe new species from Britain. Of course, these are parasitic horsemen (order Hymenoptera)! However, this applies mainly to the smallest (1-2 mm) and little significant families for humans, for example, platygastrid (Proctotrupoidea s.l.) or Ceraphronoidea (Ceraphronoidea). It is probably impossible to discover a new species among ichneumonids, braconids or chalcidoids from Britain now.
As for the territory of continental Europe and the European part of Russia, let experts in beetles and butterflies correct me, it is now almost impossible to describe a good new species from there. (I will immediately make a reservation that I do not take into account the molecular species and fauna of the North Caucasus).

And Borneo, that's Borneo... Well, I have 300 undescribed views from there, so what? And another 500 from New Zealand, 300 from South Africa, 1000 from South America (you don't have to go any further).

New species are still found in Europe-Spain, Greece. Recently, I managed to find copies of a new cossida from the Peloponnese in two old collections. It has already been described as Dyspessa aphrodite. It's a great new look. Some things are found, but these are exceptions, of course.

In fact, many groups of coenophiles from many tropical regions are more likely to encounter a new taxon than an already known one.

I am far from Proctos, but I have a new genus (at least one) collected in Borneo. Waiting in line...

This is true - out of 7 species collected, for example, in the Congo, 4 are new. These are normal statistics. This is for large butterflies

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 25.04.2010 14: 55

If even for large butterflies... Even if it wasn't daytime?

Not... according to my cossides. This is the biggest family. The fact that Agrippina is the largest species is bullshit, the largest are the Australian cossids of the genus Endoxyla. They are up to 30 cm and huge bellies, ovipositors of 5 cm each. Serious creatures. They were stuffed with cotton wool so that they would stand in collections. Like starlings.
Hawk moth is still very much found. Very. Approximately 15% at serious points. Scoops are more than 50% new. Nightmare, in short....

why a nightmare! it's great that there are still enough species for our age

This post was edited by Konung-25.04.2010 18: 48

This is great, on the one hand, but on the other terrible, as it is already a mess, and such hordes of insects that are more likely to disappear before someone realizes that these are new species.

No, there is just the least confusion with tropical insects. Little was written about them. Collect literature, take a look at the types and go ahead. Methodically, it is easier to deal with any tropical group. In a systematic way. This is not like tearing up the rubble of literature in Europe, where the intricacies of synonymy and in general all these fellow brothers Denis, Schiffermuller, Hufnagel, Duponchel and Oksenheimer were such devils... There are no types. Only a third person, who lived about 200 years ago, but whose point of view everyone accepts, can explain why one thing got into a synonym for another. There are many dogmas in taxonomy. The less information and the more up-to-date it is, the easier it is. Methodically, the work of the taxonomist is reduced in a primitive version to:
1. Analysis of published literature
2. Type revisions.
3. Analysis of the available material in the context of the first points.
All...
Therefore, if the types are scattered all over the world, many died under Napoleon, and some of the publications are generally devilish, and if you find them, you don't understand a damn thing, you don't know how to quote, often each page is dated to its own year - like Huebner... This is hell. And the tropics are beautiful. A dozen publications, the oldest somewhere in 1856 (Walker), the types are all as good as new. And go ahead.
Otherwise, I completely agree. Many species die out before they are collected. Java, Madagascar, Western China, India (all of it!), Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central Africa, etc....

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 25.04.2010 22: 29

In the taxonomy of cossids, I was looking for one "joke". I kept an idea in mind, what if the type Cossus cossus Linnaeus turns out to be terebra... It didn't work out. The type of kossus is a normal odorous woodcutter.

I was just thinking about types today. It would be cool to make good storage museums for types. 1 for Europe, 1 for North America, for example, and so on. And it would be much more convenient to collect the types of insects found in those zones in a single repository.
Silly dreams, of course..

I join your "stupid" dreams. I've dreamed about it a million times myself!!! Asia and Africa should also be in Europe... They can't stand in Lhasa and Tripoli...

I join your "stupid" dreams. I've dreamed about it a million times myself!!! Asia and Africa should also be in Europe... They can't stand in Lhasa and Tripoli...

Dreams, dreams.. Only it is better not to mention them in the Yuar museums, they will be beaten!
They have a 100-year war going on with the British Museum over types. Local taxonomists grumble, go for it, catch it without permission, and even keep the types for themselves. By the way, the permits issued through local museums clearly indicate that future holotypes from this material, after publication, must be returned. Leave paratypes to your health.

This post was edited by Proctos - 26.04.2010 02: 02

Wow, these Africans... wow, they're tricky.

Methodically, the work of the taxonomist is reduced in a primitive version to:
1. Analysis of published literature
2. Type revisions.
3. Analysis of the available material in the context of the first points.

I would say that this is the work of a taxonomist, a taxonomist still primarily builds a system (analyzes signs, draws cladograms, etc.)

Do you know what is the most studied territory in the world? Britain!
And only one group of insects still manages to describe new species from Britain. Of course, these are parasitic horsemen (order Hymenoptera)! However, this applies mainly to the smallest (1-2 mm) and little significant families for humans, for example, platygastrid (Proctotrupoidea s.l.) or Ceraphronoidea (Ceraphronoidea). It is probably impossible to discover a new species among ichneumonids, braconids or chalcidoids from Britain now.

No, Victor, that's not quite true. Ichneumonids can also be found there, I think, and in other families, too, not everything is still open.
Here's a fresh example: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/z02394p068f.pdf
I really immediately found a couple more species of this genus from Karelia after him, and recently one - Mexican.

Borneo..
A banal island effect + the most powerful formogenetic factors - and here you have a wild variety and originality of the evolutionary cauldron, as correctly noted by Roman Yakovlev. The territories of tropical and subtropical islands have always attracted fundamental research.Darwin derived the main propositions of the evolutionary theory from the material from the Galapagos and Seychelles Islands, and not from the Foggy Albion . It's too vivid, too lively in such places, multimodulation is going on.

However, no less interesting results can be achieved by studying the fauna and flora of the highlands. The island effect is the same, with some reservations - but how much more interesting it is to follow adaptive radiation and reconstruct formogenesis! After all, in high - altitude conditions, specialization is much higher, and therefore adaptive mechanisms are also much higher. And we know inexcusably little about them, although the mountains are right in our country, you don't need to go to any Borneo. The Caucasus, Altai, Transbaikalia, even Sikhote-Alin-keep a lot of unsolved secrets.

Borneo also has mountains, God forbid...
one Kina-Balu is worth a lot.
By the way, not all tropical islands are as rich as Borneo. For example, about. Easter .
Yes, even in Indonesia, the effect of impoverishment is already strongly visible, depending on the size of the island, the presence of mountains there, or belonging to a particular biogeographic group. For example, Flores and East Timor are already severely depleted, but with a colossal endemism. If you take Tasmania or New Zealand, then whole families fall out there. New Guinea, for example, is very POOR in childbirth. There are a small number of genera that give enormous radiation-a lot of species. I'm certainly not responsible for all insects, but... Take the same Delias. Island fauna is a separate issue that is very well understood primarily by British and Dutch colleagues.
Our mountains are also islands. Moreover, the island effect was repeatedly shown. I think beetles work best here.

There is no need to exaggerate the diversity of our country's fauna. In fact, this is a monotonous strip along the Arctic ice, heavily depleted, and even regular glaciation. Historically, the fauna is young, and therefore not very useful for reconstructing phylogeny. It is not surprising that the systems built by Europeans on such material did not stand the test of time and after studying the world's diversity were redone. Unfortunately or fortunately, the tropical zone and the southern hemisphere contain the most important taxa for understanding evolution, at the level of genera, families, and orders.

Yes, the fauna of the Russian Federation is poor, of course. Huge tracts of the poorest taiga, forest-steppe, swamps. This is 4-5 square meters of the Russian Federation. Only the borderlands remain-the Caucasus, the south of the Volga, the mountains of Siberia and the Far East.

Not only is the species composition poor in general (by the way, there are some groups that give a large number of species in these latitudes (sawflies, ichneumonids, probably ground beetles), but these are young groups within their higher taxa and they are not very interesting to the taxonomist who is busy building the system. Simply put, everything in the Holoarctic is almost extinct! In "living fossil" reserves-Australia, New Zealand, Southern Chile, South Africa (fragments of Gondwana) they still fly and crawl! Yes, they are poor in species and thank God there is only one representative of the richest family living somewhere in New Zealand, but what a great family! Our people will look through binoculars and cry out, another planet, signs like those of Cretaceous ancestors flattened on rocks.

the point of interest is that everywhere there are interesting taxa for understanding evolution - both for us and"them". Despite the fact that we have fewer such insects, they still exist, and this does not make them any less interesting - Cupedidae in the Far East is one of the oldest beetles.
But, after all, it is interesting that there are not only ancient groups. young groups are also very interesting! Aren't they the best way to see how and why new species/subspecies/forms start forming in the group?
As well as huge territories that wonderfully show which groups originate from where - by the number of species, by diversity (although this is more difficult, since you need to take into account more factors - but if a group somewhere on the plains is diverse, and in the mountains it is poorly represented, then this shows that most likely, the distribution went from there).
And even more interesting, for example, non-flying beetles that live on 2-3 continents at once (we are talking not only about species, but also genera), which shows that they originate before the separation of continents, and this in itself is very interesting! Here, in my opinion, it is interesting to conduct genetic studies and see what changes the genetic information of the same species has undergone on different continents, and if the changes are not significant, the question arises WHY! I wonder how this species was formed and separated, thanks to what and for how long it happened.
Here)

you don't understand me.
a pity.

I agree with Andrey - do not underestimate the living fossils that live in the Palearctic and Russia, in particular. We started to discover them relatively recently (grylloblattids-60e, Haglidae-80e, sikhote-alinia was caught in 74, described in 96m). In general, it is not clear how many such species still remain in our country.

yes, they seem to understand, just all about their own )

I agree with Andrey - do not underestimate the living fossils that live in the Palearctic and Russia, in particular. We started to discover them relatively recently (grylloblattids-60e, Haglidae-80e, sikhote-alinia was caught in 74, described in 96m). In general, it is not clear how many such species still remain in our country.

And look at where these "living fossils"are geographically located. And most of the territory was indeed wiped out by the glacier, and repeatedly.

And the mountains in Central Asia are quite young - for example, about a million years ago, the Chatkal range was 1500-2000 meters lower. I quote from memory, but the order of digits is the same. By the way, the mountains in New Guinea are also young.

So there in New Guinea, too, young groups are thriving. as we have in the mountains eneis or Parnassus, or karabus there delias. And many more of my own, but I do not know.

So I'm talking about the same thing.

Another funny thing is the young appearance of the orthopteroid fauna (cockroaches, earwigs, mantises, orthoptera - information from Gorokhov on them) in Australia and New Zealand. There are no relics like grylloblattids, cyfoderins, or cryptocercus. A plausible explanation: Australia, as we know, drifted north and stayed for a long time in high latitudes with a rather harsh climate (even adjusted for more favorable climatic conditions of the Mesozoic - Early Cenozoic). Staying in high latitudes led to the depletion of the orthopteroid fauna. When Australia "swam" to low latitudes, an intensive exchange with the Indo-Malay fauna began, which could largely "kill" autochthons. In any case, in northern Australia with the most favorable climate for these groups of insects. According to the above groups, northern Australia has a completely "Indo-Malay" appearance. Significant desiccation of the continent additionally "cleaned" the fauna. There are specific groups (for example, Polyzosteriinae from Blattidae), but they do not look, in my opinion, as ancient. The picture is somewhat spoiled by Mastotermis darwiniensis (the most primitive modern termite), but it is just adapted to arid areas.

As for New Zealand, the recent catastrophic glaciation, which is postulated by some geologists, seems to be a logical explanation. However, it is not clear in this case how these glaciations survived giant birds and Deinacridinae (endemic giant grasshoppers). Okay, deinacridines can be quite young - but birds?

That's how it is - quite chaotic, but otherwise the article will have to be written.

I need to write it... the article

Indeed, the fauna of Australia, apparently in many groups, falls into two clusters-the ancient fauna of Australia and newcomers from Asia. The fauna of Queensland really bears a very strong (generic at least) appearance of New Guinea, etc.
In general, Australia is worth working there - more than a dozen years.

Yes, but Australia doesn't want the bastards working there )

In general, I think it is interesting to study insects that we cannot yet understand in different areas. One of the topics is viviparous insects or fertile larvae.. In general, there are many such interesting topics.. The other is insects with mystical development - which we do not yet know where and how they develop. Third - intermediate links - between species, genera, families, etc ... Fourth-history - from young to ancient species-the evolutionary ladder.
And so on.. Of course, it is interesting to find new mussels, as large Christmas toys are nice, but I don't think this is what entomology should strive for.. After all, to look for differences between almost exactly the same degrees is the same fun, but still does not play, as it seems to me, a particularly important role.

Go to the topic: "A new moth species discovered in the forests of England"

News on BBC Russian

Luzhkov said that 10-centimeter white cockroaches live in Neglinka

Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov found 10-centimeter white cockroaches under the Bolshoi Theater. Answering a question today about how the Neglinka River, which flows under the foundation of the Bolshoi Theater, affects its condition, Luzhkov said that cockroaches are "the only thing that is terrible there."
"There live large cockroaches, which we in our everyday life could not even imagine-centimeters under 10", - said Luzhkov. "They are white because it is dark there, and they don't want people to touch them with their hands. I've tried this, but they immediately jump into the water. They are very good swimmers, " said the mayor of Moscow. He considers the existence of cockroaches in the waters of Neglinka quite understandable, since the water in the underground river is warm and clean. ITAR-TASS

http://gazeta.ru/news/lenta/2010/04/29/n_1489285.shtml