identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
2B6F645CAA06FFF6FF692BABFBEFC2BD.text	2B6F645CAA06FFF6FF692BABFBEFC2BD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amycterini	<div><p>Tribe Amycterini Waterhouse</p><p>Amycteridae G. R. Waterhouse, 1854: 75 (footnote). Euomides Lacordaire, 1863: 309, 315. Psaliduridae Pierce, 1914: 350.</p><p>This group of large, ponderous weevils, iconic of the Australian weevil fauna, is not only the largest but also the best-studied tribe of Cyclominae, having been taxonomically treated first by Macleay (1865, 1866), then by Ferguson in 17 papers between 1909 and 1923 and lastly by Zimmerman (1993). Zimmerman’s copiously illustrated work modernised Ferguson’s treatment significantly but did not greatly alter the concepts and numbers of the genera and species (Richardson &amp; Oberprieler 2007), and he himself recognised it only as a preliminary guide to the group rather than as a complete revision and that his amycterine classification was in need of corroboration by genital studies.</p><p>Schoenherr (1823) first placed his genus Amycterus in a division Amblyrhinides but later (Schoenherr 1826) included it together with Cyclomus in his division Cyclomides. Waterhouse (1854) proposed a family Amycteridae for Amycterus and four other Australian genera ( Acantholophus Boisduval, Euomus Schoenherr, Mythites Schoenherr and Tetralophus Waterhouse), and Lacordaire (1863) divided the group into two sections, the Amycterides vrais ( Amycterus, Acantholophus, Cubicorhynchus Lacordaire and Phalidura Fischer von Waldheim) and the Euomides ( Amorphorhinus Lacordaire, Euomus, Mythites and Tetralophus), based on the length of the scapes (passing the posterior margin of the eyes in the former but not in the latter). Zimmerman (1993) found this difference unworkable but tentatively kept Lacordaire’s groupings as subtribal entities (Amycterina and Euomina) based on the different structures of their oral cavity, although a number of genera have both conditions. A third family-group name, Acantholophini, was proposed by Schenkling &amp; Marshall (1931b) but is nomenclaturally unavailable because it is not accompanied by any description, as required for names published after 1930 (see also Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal 1999).</p><p>Controversy surrounds the name of the type genus of the tribe. As with Somatodes, Schoenherr (1823) did not furnish a description for either the genus Amycterus or for its type and single included species, A. talpa, but since Amycterus is the only genus included in his Cohors 2 of Subdivisio 1 of the division Amblyrhinides, which is briefly characterised, both Amycterus and talpa are in fact validated by this short combined description (as are Somatodes and sanctus in this paper, see above). Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal (1999) consequently reinstated Amycterus as the valid name over its synonym Phalidura Fischer von Waldheim, which was also published in 1823 but, in the absence of a precise publication date, is deemed to have been issued on the 31st December 1823 (Art. 21.3 of the ICZN (1999)), whereas Schoenherr’s paper was published on the 7th October of that year.</p><p>Despite his long text on the Amycterini, Zimmerman (1993) provided no details of their diagnostic characters other than a few features distinguishing the group from “Somatodini”. In the context of other cyclomine tribes, the Amycterini may be diagnosed by the following characters: rostrum shortened; epistome with posterior edge mostly raised, sharply carinate; mandibles generally plurisetose, sometimes densely setose or squamose, blade-like elongated with usually a single subapical cusp; maxillae enlarged, strongly sclerotised, coarsely sculptured, palpi on ental surface; labial palpi small, concealed; scrobes short, deep or posteriorly shallow, mostly running towards lower angle of eyes; funicles 6-segmented; eyes generally flat; prothorax generally with slight ocular lobes; metepisternal sutures completely obliterated; tibiae mucronate, without spurs; tarsi with pulvilli usually absent or sunk into pockets on tarsite lobes; ovipositor (Figs. 4–9) short, broad, strongly sclerotised, distal gonocoxites large, proximal gonocoxites smaller, laterally shortly extended anteriad, styli subterminal to dorsomedial, large, claw-like, curved outwards to downwards, sometimes bifid, without setae but generally surrounded by a field or ring of strong setae at their bases.</p><p>This type of ovipositor, featuring strong, claw-like styli without setae, is consistent in all Amycterini and evidently synapomorphic for the genera included in the group. A similar type occurs only in the Hipporhinini (below), most probably indicating a close relationship between these two tribes. Essentially the amycterine ovipositor differs from that of the Hipporhinini only in the position of the styli, whose insertion is not terminal in Amycterini but more apicomesal to dorsomedial and exceeded laterally by the apex of the distal gonocoxite. In Hipporhinini, by contrast, the styli are placed more properly apical to subapical and their insertion is only slightly and narrowly exceeded mesally by the apex of the gonocoxite (Figs. 10–19). As a result, the articulation membrane of the stylus is laterally exposed (“open”) in dorsal view in Hipporhinini but not so in Amycterini . This distinction appears to pertain to a difference in the plane of movement of the styli, being lateral in Hipporhinini but more to entirely dorsoventral in Amycterini .</p><p>As Zimmerman (1993) portended, the structure of the ovipositor carries taxonomic significance also within Amycterini . In its simplest (presumably plesiomorphic) type, the styli are subterminally positioned, gently curved outwards and more or less simply cylindrical to slightly compressed to become subspatulate with a sharp dorsal carina, and the proximal gonocoxites are often also laterally shortly extended anteriad as in Hipporhinini (Figs. 6–7). This type occurs mostly in the smaller forms, in the genera Acherres Pascoe, Alexirhea Pascoe, Amorphorhinus, Atychoria Pascoe, Brachyrothus Marshall, Chriotyphus Pascoe, Dialeptopus Pascoe, Ennothus Pascoe, Euomella Ferguson, Melanegis Pascoe, Oditesus Pascoe, Pseudonotonophes Ferguson and Tetralophus . In the bulk of the Amycterini, represented by the genera Achorostoma Uther Baker &amp; Thompson, Aedriodes Pascoe, Amycterus, Antalaurinus Zimmerman, Cucullothorax Ferguson, Dicherotropis Ferguson, Euomus, Gagatophorus Jekel, Hypotomops Uther Baker &amp; Thompson, Lataurinus Ferguson, Myotrotus Pascoe, Mythites, Notonophes Sloane, Ophthalamycterus Ferguson, Sclerorinus Macleay, Sclerorrhinella Ferguson, Sosytelus Pascoe and Talaurinus Macleay (probably also Talaurinellus Zimmerman, of which seemingly only males are known), the styli are longer, stronger and more acute, more strongly curved outwards or downwards and inserted more dorsomedially on the gonocoxites in a large membranous field ringed by stout setae (Figs. 4–5; see also Zimmerman 1993, figs. 160, 176, 215, 227, 242). This type is indicated to be a modification of the first, as the conditions in Acherres, Amorphorhinus, Atychoria, Euomella and Pseudonotonophes are slightly transitional in that their styli are positioned more dorsally and the membranous area is anterodorsally demarcated by some larger but irregular setae. A third type of amycterine ovipositor occurs in Acantholophus, Anascoptes Pascoe, Cubicorhynchus, Hyborrhinus Marshall, Molochthus Pascoe, Neohyborrhynchus Ferguson and Parahyborrhynchus Ferguson, in which the styli are generally straight, blunt and carry an inner basal tooth or large prong and are more or less drawn into the mesal side of the distal gonocoxites (Figs. 8–9; see also Zimmerman 1993, figs. 89, 182). The basal tooth is smallest in Hyborrhinus and strongest in Cubicorhynchus, in which the styli are antler-like to strongly double-pronged (Fig. 9). These three types of amycterine ovipositor indicate that the traditional subdivision of the group, into subtribes Amycterina and Euomina, cannot be upheld and that rather Acantholophus and allied genera may form a subgroup distinct from the others. Some external features, such as the conspicuous spine above the eye for which Acantholophus was named, support such a grouping but are in need of more comprehensive study.</p><p>The Amycterini currently number 39 genera and 408 species, but at least one new genus and a number of undescribed species are identified in Australian collections. Their biology is generally poorly known, but Howden (1986) provided a most useful summarising account of adult and larval hostplants, oviposition behaviour and pupation sites for a range of species and May (1994) described preimaginal stages for 16 species. Porch (2009) added a note on the host and feeding behaviour of Tetralophus . Circumstantial evidence indicates that eggs are laid by means of the specialised ovipositor into the soil, where the larvae feed ectophytically on underground stems, bulbs, tubers, rhizomes and perhaps roots of their hostplants. Only monocotyledons are reported as larval hosts, spanning both tough grasses and succulent lilies and also grasstrees ( Xanthorrhoea). Pupation occurs in the soil near the larval hostplants.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2B6F645CAA06FFF6FF692BABFBEFC2BD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Oberprieler, Rolf G.	Oberprieler, Rolf G. (2010): A reclassification of the weevil subfamily Cyclominae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 2515: 1-35, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.293976
2B6F645CAA0EFFEFFF692C0CFB36C1AB.text	2B6F645CAA0EFFEFFF692C0CFB36C1AB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Listroderini	<div><p>Tribe Listroderini LeConte</p><p>Listroderini LeConte, 1876: 124 . Palaechtini Brinck, 1948: 43.</p><p>This predominantly South American tribe is reasonably well studied, having been subjected to modern revisions (e.g., Morrone 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1994d) as well as phylogenetic (Morrone 1993b, 1994a, 1997b, Morrone &amp; Anderson 1995) and biogeographical analyses (Morrone 1994e, Morrone &amp; Urtubey 1997, Donato et al. 2003). Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal (1999) enumerated 30 genera in it, although Morrone (1997b) considered the tribe to also contain genera in New Zealand and Australia (after Kuschel 1964, May 1994), yet without clarifying the limits of the group. Donato et al. (2003) considered Listroderini to be a monophyletic group but were similarly vague about its limits or definition, and their dispersal-vicariance analysis of the 25 American genera also assumed these to constitute a monophyletic grouping despite Morrone’s (1997b) assessment that this was likely to be a paraphyletic assemblage without the five genera from the Tristan da Cunha islands and also the New Zealand and Australian genera. Even within America, however, the composition of the tribe remains unclear.</p><p>Rhigopsidius Heller, originally classified in Rhythirrininae (Heller 1906), was later transferred to Entiminae (Kuschel 1955, as Leptopiinae) but reinstated in Rhythirrinini by Wibmer &amp; O’Brien (1986), as the only New-World genus of this tribe and without explanation. This placement was accepted by Morrone &amp; Loiácono (1992) and Morrone (1997b), the latter consequently using Rhigopsidius as outgroup to root his phylogeny of Listroderini . Louw (1998) instead included the genus in his subtribe Gronopina, again without explanation but evidently based on the structure of its ovipositor as described and illustrated by Morrone &amp; Loiácono (1992). However, this ovipositor does not conform to the “clawed type ” as characteristic of Hipporhinini (see above), in that the sharp, outwardly pointed apices of the gonocoxites are not formed by the styli but by the gonocoxites themselves, the styli instead being reduced to a few setae mesally at the base of the bent gonocoxite apices (Fig. 30). Furthermore, the ovipositor is not as short and broad as it is in Hipporhinini, and the proximal gonocoxites are not laterally extended anteriad. In fact, the ovipositor of Rhigopsidius is rather similar to that of typical Listroderes (the L. costirostris group, after Morrone 1993a, 1993b) (Fig. 31), and Rhigopsidius evidently belongs near this genus in Listroderini, where it appears more strongly adapted and specialised to a terricolous life and oviposition in soil near potatoes, its larval host. Loiácono &amp; Morrone (1991) regarded its larva to be similar to those of Listronotus Jekel and the New Zealand Nestrius, and Marvaldi (1998) also did not note any larval characters noticeably different from those of other South American Listroderini .</p><p>On the other hand, Telurus Kuschel, nested within the Falklandius group of Listroderini in Morrone’s &amp; Anderson’s (1995) cladogram, bears small but clear scars of deciduous cusps on its mandibles (Figs. 32–33), in the same low position where they occur in the entimine tribe Cylydrorhinini, which is also diverse in temperate South America and with which the Listroderini have been affiliated and confused in the past. Atypically of Entiminae, Cylydrorhinini have phanerognathous mouthparts but may, in addition to their mandibular cusps, be distinguished from Listroderini by their dorsally and posteriorly open scrobes. Telurus agrees with Cylydrorhinini also in its mouthparts and scrobes, and its ovipositor is similar to that of Cylydrorhinus Guérin-Méneville in having sharply pointed distal gonocoxites, with the stylus reduced to a subterminal tuft of setae. It therefore belongs in this entimine tribe rather than in Listroderini and Cyclominae . Kuschel (1955) had in fact originally described Telurus in Cylydrorhinini and he only later transferred the genus to Listroderini (Kuschel 1958) . Whether other genera of the Falklandius group or of Listroderini as currently constituted may be similarly misplaced in this tribe remains to be investigated; species examined of Falklandius Enderlein and of Adioristidius Morrone, Amathynetoides Morrone, Antarctobius Fairmaire, Germainiellus Morrone, Hyperoides Marshall, Listroderes Schoenherr, Listronotus Jekel and Trachodema Blanchard do not have mandibular scars but, as shown by the subantarctic entimine tribe Ectemnorhinini (Kuschel &amp; Chown 1995), the absence (loss) of mandibular cusps is not necessarily evidence that a genus does not belong to the Entiminae . The current composition and definition of Listroderini is therefore in need of reassessment.</p><p>This state of affairs also extends to Australia and New Zealand, where certain genera have sometimes been included in Listroderini but never on the basis of any proper and comprehensive concept of the tribe. Of the Australian “rhythirrinine” fauna (as in Zimmerman 1992), the genera referable to Listroderini are Anorthorhinus, Steriphus and also Methypora (listed in Aterpinae in Zimmerman (1992, 1994)), which differ from the other five genera (here provisionally kept in Rhythirrinini, as above) in possessing tibial spurs (respectively 1-1-1, 1-1-1 or 0-0-0, 0-1-2), a plesiomorphic ovipositor (with small, blunt subapical styli) and also a vestiture similar to that of the South American Listroderini . Also the New Zealand genera Gromilus and Nestrius (again with spur formula 1-1-1) and seemingly Liparogetus (not examined) have to be classified in Listroderini .</p><p>No native listroderines are hitherto recorded from Africa, but there are two species of an evidently undescribed genus in the Cape Province of South Africa that must be referred to Listroderini on account of their Steriphus -like habitus and vestiture, tibial spur formula (1-1-2) and unmodified ovipositor. They do not appear to be adventive in South Africa from either South America (as is Hyperoides fragariae Marshall) or from Australia (no such species described there as Steriphus or Desiantha) and thus seemingly are the only autochthonous listroderine element in Africa. One of the species has been reared from stems of Geranium (Geraniaceae) and the other collected on leaves of Crassula coccinea (Crassulaceae) . The Gondwanan distribution of Listroderini is further manifested by the discovery of Pliocene fossils in Antarctica (Ashworth et al. 1997, Ashworth &amp; Kuschel 2003), which were assigned to the Listroderes complex (rather than the Falklandius group), although the head as illustrated in Ashworth &amp; Kuschel (2003) shows weak, dorsolaterally open scrobes more similar to the condition in the Falklandius group.</p><p>Given the uncertain composition of Listroderini, no clear definition and diagnosis of the tribe can as yet be provided. Based on the Australian, New Zealand and African genera here assigned to it and a small representation of American genera as examined, the following features characterise the group: dorsum mostly densely setose or squamose, setae on rostrum and pronotum often directed anteriad or mesad, on elytra posteriad; scrobes lateral but posteriorly sometimes curving onto rostral venter, posteriorly mostly open but occasionally angled down (e.g., Listronotus); epistome generally poorly demarcated, rarely raised ( Acrostomus, Rhigopsidius); eyes large, flat, usually oval (subcircular in Falklandius and Lanteriella); mandibles paucisetose (3 or fewer setae); funicles with 1st and often 2nd segment elongated; prothorax with or without ocular lobes; prosternum long, sometimes slightly depressed, rarely excavate ( Rhigopsidius); tibiae mucronate, generally with 1 or 2 spurs; claws divaricate, simple or with slight basal swelling; gonocoxites generally simple, with large, apical or subapical stylus carrying a tuft of setae, but occasionally without stylus and apex of gonocoxite flattened and bent (Figs. 30–31).</p><p>Information on the biology and hosts of Listroderini is also scarce but more comprehensive than for the other tribes of Cyclominae, largely due to the fact that many listroderine larvae are considered pests in countries where they have been introduced. Suitable summaries with references are given by Marvaldi (1998) for the American and by May (1993, 1994) for the New Zealand and Australian genera.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2B6F645CAA0EFFEFFF692C0CFB36C1AB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Oberprieler, Rolf G.	Oberprieler, Rolf G. (2010): A reclassification of the weevil subfamily Cyclominae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 2515: 1-35, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.293976
2B6F645CAA15FFEAFF6928C3FB2DC39D.text	2B6F645CAA15FFEAFF6928C3FB2DC39D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aterpini	<div><p>Tribe Aterpini Lacordaire</p><p>Heliomeneidae Gistel, 1848: [2] (a nomen oblitum; Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal 2002). Aterpides Lacordaire, 1863: 410.</p><p>Pélororhinides Lacordaire, 1863: 415.</p><p>Rhinarides Jekel, 1865: 546.</p><p>As indicated by Oberprieler et al. (2007), this tribe is a compound group including, in its current composition, several discordant elements. The uncinate tibiae and wood-boring larvae of most of the genera indicate a molytine affinity, and indeed several were originally classified in “Hylobiinae” and there are a number of undescribed Australian genera (one illustrated by Zimmerman 1992, plate 595, figs. 1–2) that may equally well be classified as aterpines than as molytines. Also the so-called Diabathrariini of Australia (see below), in particular Aromagis Pascoe, readily fit into Aterpini in the current concept of this group, both on morphology and larval biology. On the other hand, the rare Catocalephe Blackburn, again transferred to Aterpini by Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal (1999), where Blackburn (1895) had placed it originally, does not show an affinity with any of the other genera included in this tribe. Instead it agrees rather well with Therebus Pascoe in its vestiture, rostrum with flat, porrect mandibles, small ocular lobes and the hind tibiae having a false corbel, and it evidently likewise belongs in the tribe Psepholacini, classified in Cryptorhynchinae by Alonso- Zarazaga &amp; Lyal (1999) but in Molytinae by Oberprieler et al. (2007). In fact, Lea (1913) had concluded its placement in Psepholacini near Therebus almost a century ago. The Rhadinosomini, classified as a subtribe of Aterpini in Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal (1999), are a similarly mixed group and mostly appear to belong somewhere in Curculioninae rather than in Cyclominae or Molytinae . Thus, pending a more thorough study of the aterpines, it seems that many of the genera may eventually have to be excluded from Cyclominae . Arguing for their inclusion in Cyclominae is apparently only the position of setae des 3 in the larva, which are situated in the frontal sutures or on the frons in the aterpine genera studied by May (1993, 1994) — Aesiotes Pascoe, Anagotus Sharp, Chrysolopus Germar, Pelororhinus Schoenherr and Rhadinosomus Schoenherr — and seemingly also in the Chilean Aegorhinus Erichson (van Emden 1951, Marvaldi 1997). This position of des3 typically occurs in the curculionid subfamilies Brachycerinae, Entiminae and Cyclominae but not in Molytinae as currently understood, although the New Zealand fern weevil genus Megacolabus Broun, generally classified in Molytinae (Kuschel 1964, 1987, May 1993, Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal 1999, Leschen et al. 2003), also has des3 situated in the frontal sutures (May 1973) and would therefore equally readily fit into Aterpini (May 1993) . Also the Australian fern weevil Syagrius Pascoe, similarly placed in Molytinae (in the tribe Phrynixini), has des3 positioned on the frons (Anderson 1952; pers. obs.) and could thus be included in Aterpini, although the other New Zealand fern weevil, Rystheus Broun, and also Phrynixus Pascoe do not (May 1993). Further, the molytine tribe Anchonini (at least Anchonus Schoenherr) also has des3 placed on the frons (Anderson 1952), while in Paramecops Schoenherr, classified in Hylobiini in Alonso-Zarazaga &amp; Lyal (1999), they are located on the epicranium right next to the frontal sutures (Oberprieler 1988b). In other characters the known aterpine larvae readily agree with those of Molytinae (van Emden 1951, May 1994), and it therefore appears that the aterpines conflict with the current limits between Cyclominae and Molytinae . Detailed studies are needed to resolve this problem, including also similarly controversial African genera (e.g., Brachyceropsis Aurivillius, Lithinus Klug and Rhytidophloeus Schoenherr). Like the Listroderini, the Aterpini generally have a simple ovipositor, with well developed, setose styli, and the gonocoxites are only slightly modified for piercing or pushing in a few genera ( Nemestra Pascoe, some Pelolorhinus, Rhinoplethes Pascoe) but never to an extent as is common in the terricolous groups of Cyclominae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2B6F645CAA15FFEAFF6928C3FB2DC39D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Oberprieler, Rolf G.	Oberprieler, Rolf G. (2010): A reclassification of the weevil subfamily Cyclominae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 2515: 1-35, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.293976
