贯叶连翘的开花动态与繁育系统研究

野外观察贯叶连翘的开花进程和花部形态特征,运用花粉萌发、杂交指数、花粉-胚珠比等方法测定其繁育系统。结果显示:贯叶连翘雌雄异熟,柱头先花药成熟,雌雄蕊无明显异位。单花花期4～5d。仅在开花当日有昆虫传粉,蜜蜂为主要传粉者。花粉在花药开裂1h后活力最大,萌发率达40.10%,花粉在柱头萌发3h后接近子房。根据杂交指数(OCI)推测其繁育系统属于异交,部分自交亲和,有时需要传粉者。花粉-胚珠比(P/O)则表明贯叶连翘的繁育系统为兼性异交。贯叶连翘结实率低,可能与花粉活力,花粉管的生长速度及花粉在柱头的竞争有关。     

濒危植物肉苁蓉（Cistanche deserticola）繁育系统研究

在自然居群中通过野外定位观测,运用杂交指数（OCI）;花粉—胚珠比（P/O）;去雄、套袋、人工授粉等方法对濒危植物肉苁蓉（Cistanche deserticola Ma）的花序发育、开花特性、花粉活力、柱头可授性、传粉方式、繁育系统进行了研究,结果表明：肉苁蓉穗状无限花序的生长发育期可明显分为拱土期、出土期、开花期、结实与种子成熟期四个阶段。两性花,单花开放时间2~3d,花序有花期持续20~25d。种群开花历时36~38d。开花时柱头略高出花药,柱头较大,下垂。重力玻片法检测,风媒导致的异株异花传粉完全可以忽略。主要访花昆虫为蜂类。扫描电镜观察虫体,蜂类携带大量花粉,但传粉飞行距离大部分为0。杂交指数为3;花粉—胚珠比为35.45±8.56;结合去雄、套袋和人工授粉试验结果,认为肉苁蓉属于以自交为主的繁育系统。     

烟台甜樱桃柱头的可授性、形态特征与坐果率

采用数码照相、电镜扫描、联苯胺-过氧化氢测试及去雄套袋等技术手段,对烟台甜樱桃（Cerasus avium）花期不同发育阶段柱头的可授性、形态特征和坐果状况进行了观察。结果表明,烟台甜樱桃在套袋状态下,柱头可授期从开花前1天开始可持续5–7天。从杯状花期到花瓣平展期,柱头逐渐有乳突细胞破裂并呈现分泌液,出现渐强的可授性;从花瓣平展期到花瓣脱落期,柱头由暗黄渐变至暗黑,逐渐萎缩并丧失可授性。去雄套袋及人工授粉实验结果显示,在大蕾期、杯状花期、花瓣展放期、花瓣平展期和花瓣脱落期进行人工授粉,烟台甜樱桃的坐果率分别为60.50%、58.33%、62.08%、57.14%和39.13%。在自然条件下烟台甜樱桃的坐果率一般为30%–42%,传粉成功的最佳期主要发生在杯状花期至花瓣平展期。     

烟台甜樱桃柱头的可授性、形态特征与坐果率

采用数码照相、电镜扫描、联苯胺-过氧化氢测试及去雄套袋等技术手段, 对烟台甜樱桃(Cerasus avium)花期不同发育阶段柱头的可授性、形态特征和坐果状况进行了观察。结果表明, 烟台甜樱桃在套袋状态下, 柱头可授期从开花前1天开始可持续5–7天。从杯状花期到花瓣平展期, 柱头逐渐有乳突细胞破裂并呈现分泌液, 出现渐强的可授性; 从花瓣平展期到花瓣脱落期, 柱头由暗黄渐变至暗黑, 逐渐萎缩并丧失可授性。去雄套袋及人工授粉实验结果显示, 在大蕾期、杯状花期、花瓣展放期、花瓣平展期和花瓣脱落期进行人工授粉, 烟台甜樱桃的坐果率分别为60.50%、58.33%、62.08%、57.14%和39.13%。在自然条件下烟台甜樱桃的坐果率一般为30%–42%, 传粉成功的最佳期主要发生在杯状花期至花瓣平展期。     

膏桐花粉活力与柱头可授性及其生殖特性研究

采用TTC法测定了膏桐花粉的活力和寿命,用联苯胺-过氧化氢法测定其柱头可授期,以套袋结果检测花粉活力与柱头可授性的变化,以研究柱头颜色变化与柱头可授性的关系以及开花式样对生殖成功的影响.结果表明:(1)膏桐雄花单花花期一般为2 d,花后0~9 h内花粉活力相对较高,24~33 h后花粉活力较低,48 h后花粉基本无活力.(2)膏桐雌花单花期为5~12 d,柱头可授性在花后1~4 d最强,5~8 d可授性开始逐渐降低,第9天基本失去可授性.(3)膏桐柱头表面无明显的渗出物,柱头的可授性与柱头颜色的变化相关,柱头绿色越多,柱头可授性越强;遇降雨时,少量雌花的花瓣展开而柱头仍呈球状,或者花瓣不展开而柱头先伸出,此时柱头可授性较差.(4)膏桐常表现为雄性先熟,尽管雌花数目较少,但开放速率较快,且集中在第3~5天开放,雌花开放完毕也仍有雄花未开放,为展开后的柱头留有较长时间等候昆虫传送花粉,为保障生殖成功提供了机会,但少数花序先开雌花,后开雄花,有支持异交而降低自交的倾向.     

新疆特有珍稀灌木银沙槐繁育系统研究

通过固定样地、样株的观测和室内、室外实验分析,运用杂交指数、花粉-胚珠比、花粉活力和柱头可授性观测、人工授粉和套袋实验等方法,对银沙槐自然种群的繁育系统进行了研究.结果表明：该种单花花期一般7~11 d,依据花的发育进程分为花蕾期、散粉前期、散粉期和萎蔫期4个阶段;花粉-胚珠为16243．35,杂交指数为4;结合人工授粉及结实结籽率结果,综合考虑银沙槐繁育系统属于异交型,部分自交亲和,没有无融合生殖现象存在,需要传粉者.银沙槐繁育系统以异交为主,存在与自交相适应的结构和行为.     

珍稀濒危植物陕西羽叶报春的开花及传粉生物学研究

陕西羽叶报春为中国珍稀濒危植物,研究其开花物候、传粉者及访花行为、花粉活力、柱头可授性、繁育系统,以明确陕西羽叶报春的传粉特性及制濒机制。以勉县陕西羽叶报春野生居群为研究对象,通过野外观察和人工授粉实验首次对陕西羽叶报春的传粉生物学进行研究。结果表明:(1)陕西羽叶报春种群花期为2-4月中旬,单花花期一般为14~17 d;单花开花进程中花部形态有6个明显发育变化:全部被萼片包裹、花苞伸出并为深粉色、花朵打开为淡粉色、花冠为白色、花朵枯萎、花冠脱落花萼宿存。(2)陕西羽叶报春为异花授粉植物,蜜蜂属为其主要传粉者。(3)柱头在花粉未开裂前就具有可授性,可授性逐渐增强;花药在花瓣打开后的第3天才开始开裂、散粉,在第4天活力最高,为98.18%,此后逐渐减弱。(4)繁育系统检测显示,长、短柱型花的花粉/胚珠比分别为902.26和831.48,杂交指数为4;套袋实验显示,陕西羽叶报春异型交配可育,同型交配不可育。由此表明,陕西羽叶报春的繁育系统为异交型,自交不亲和,需要传粉者。综上所述,陕西羽叶报春传粉者种类少、自交不亲和、胚珠败育现象可能是导致陕西羽叶报春濒危的重要原因。     

海滨锦葵花内五柱头裂片弯曲的独自调节(英文)

海滨锦葵花柱有5柱头裂片,若传粉失败,柱头裂片向下弯曲使柱头与自身花粉接触,发生延迟自交。传粉不足条件下发生的延迟自交可能提供繁殖保障。该研究定量分析了花粉搁置和授精胚珠数对花内未授粉柱头裂片运动的影响,并测定了花粉—胚珠比及柱头可授性和花粉生活力。结果表明,花内未授粉柱头裂片的弯曲不受其他柱头接受花粉量及授精胚珠数的影响,仅响应于其自身是否接受到花粉,花粉-胚珠比值显示海滨锦葵交配系统属兼性异交;未授粉柱头经弯曲与自身花粉授触时的强柱头可授粉和高花粉生活力为自交授粉的发生提供了可能。包括柱头裂片运动在内的多个花性状有机地展示了一种新花内混合交配系统,且花内柱头裂片弯曲的独自调节为从花水平验证被广泛接受的自交进化解释——繁殖保障假说提供了可能。     

濒危植物缙云卫矛繁育系统研究

运用花粉萌发、联苯胺-过氧化氢法、花粉—胚珠比、杂交指数和套袋实验等方法,对缙云卫矛(Eu-onymuschloranthoidesYang)花粉活力、柱头可授性及繁育系统进行了研究。结果表明缙云卫矛花粉-胚珠比为764~1340,杂交指数等于3,结合人工授粉和套袋实验结果可以确定该物种的繁育系统属于自交亲和,有时需要传粉者。根据套袋实验及实地观察可以推测该物种以风媒传粉为主。其花粉活力较高,持续时间较长,花粉质量可能不是导致该物种濒危的主要原因。其雌雄性功能表达具一定的重叠期,提高了同株异花授粉的几率,雌雄性功能表达在时间上的差异不是影响其结实率的主要原因。气候条件对传粉过程的限制可能是导致该物种濒危的原因之一。     

紫荣莉的花部综合特征与繁育系统

采用定株观察,运用花粉-胚珠比、联苯胺-过氧化氢法、杂交指数和套袋实验等方法,对紫茉莉（Mirabilis jalapa L．）的开花状态及繁育系统进行了研究。结果表明：种群花期一般为6—10月,单花花期一般为2—3d;单花花期依其形态和散粉时间可分为散粉前期、散粉初期、散粉盛期、花闭合期、凋谢期5个时期;在花闭合时期,晴天有66．80％的花的柱头在闭合花冠内,阴天时有81．65％的花的柱头在闭合花冠内,雨天柱头在闭合花冠内的花可达99．22％;按照杂交指数,其繁育系统属于自交亲和,有时需要传粉者;P／O值约为269,判断繁育系统类型属于兼性自交;开花6h左右,柱头的可授性最强,此时花粉活力、置落在柱头上的花粉数及其在柱头上的萌发率都达到最高。套袋实验显示,紫茉莉自然条件下没有无融合现象,繁育系统为自交、异交亲和,以自交为主,但有时也需要传粉者;在长期的环境选择压力下,紫荣莉选择将更多的柱头留在闭合花冠内,是其对不利环境条件的一种适应进化策略。     

Effect of host plants on the infectivity of nucleopolyhedrovirus to Spodoptera exigua larvae

Previous studies have shown that the infectivity of baculovirus to herbivores is affected by phytochemicals ingested during the acquisition of viral inoculum on the foliage of host plants. Here, we measured the effects of 14 host plant species on the infectivity of Spodoptera exigua nucleopolyhedrovirus (SeNPV) to its larvae. The order of the LD₅₀ values of SeNPV among the host plants was Ipomoea aquatica > Brassica oleracea > Raphanus sativus > Amaranthus tricolor > Spinacia oleracea > Vigna unguiculata > Solanum melongena > Capsicum annuum > Apium graveolens > Allium fistulosum > Lactuca sativa > Brassica chinensis > Zea mays > Glycine max, with 940.1 ± 2.26, 424.0 ± 0.60, 295.2 ± 1.13, 147.3 ± 0.63, 138.6 ± 0.22, 119.9 ± 0.07, 119.8 ± 0.02, 109.2 ± 0.18, 104.8 ± 0.62, 102.1 ± 0.66, 97.9 ± 0.22, 89.9 ± 0.32, 79.0 ± 0.13 and 64.0 ± 0.38 OBs per larva, respectively, and the values of mean time to death of virus‐infected larvae were 6.21 ± 0.11, 7.12 ± 0.10, 7.33 ± 0.21, 6.97 ± 0.02, 7.06 ± 0.01, 7.29 ± 0.03, 7.32 ± 0.05, 7.07 ± 0.08, 7.24 ± 0.11, 7.09 ± 0.13, 7.50 ± 0.06, 7.23 ± 0.01, 7.30 ± 0.02 and 7.19 ± 0.07 days, respectively. The mean time to death of larvae decreased with increasing viral dose, and corrected mortality decreased as the larval mean time to death increased. These findings have significance for understanding the effects of host plants on the infectivity of baculovirus to noctuids.     

The genera in the second catalogue (1833–1836) of?Dejean’s Coleoptera collection

All genus-group names listed in the second edition of the catalogue (1833-1836) of Dejean’s beetle collection are recorded. For each new genus-group name the originally included available species are listed and for generic names with at least one available species, the type species and the current status are given. Names available prior to the publication of Dejean’s second catalogue (1833-1836) are listed in an appendix.The following new synonymies are proposed: Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 (= Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854) [Hydrophilidae], Hyporhiza Dejean, 1833 (= Rhinaspis Perty, 1830) [Scarabaeidae], Aethales Dejean, 1834 (= Epitragus Latreille, 1802) [Tenebrionidae], Arctylus Dejean, 1834 (= Praocis Eschscholtz, 1829) [Tenebrionidae], Euphron Dejean, 1834 (= Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858) [Tenebrionidae], Hipomelus Dejean, 1834 (= Trachynotus Latreille, 1828) [Tenebrionidae], Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 (= Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889) [Tenebrionidae], Zygocera Dejean, 1835 (= Disternopsis Breuning, 1939) [Cerambycidae], and Physonota Chevrolat, 1836 (= Anacassis Spaeth, 1913) [Chrysomelidae]. Heterogaster pilicornis Dejean, 1835 [Cerambycidae] and Labidomera trimaculata Chevrolat, 1836 [Chrysomelidae] are placed for the first time in synonymy with Anisogaster flavicans Deyrolle, 1862 and Chrysomela clivicollis Kirby, 1837 respectively. Type species of the following genus-group taxa are proposed: Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 (Sphaeromorphus humeralis Erichson, 1843) [Scarabaeidae], Adelphus Dejean, 1834 (Helops marginatus Fabricius, 1792) [Tenebrionidae], Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrio cristatus DeGeer, 1778) [Tenebrionidae], Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 (Opatrum acutum Wiedemann, 1823) [Tenebrionidae], Charactus Dejean, 1833 (Lycus limbatus Fabricius, 1801) [Lycidae], Corynomalus Chevrolat, 1836 (Eumorphus limbatus Olivier, 1808) [Endomychidae], Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 (Acanthocinus marginicollis Boisduval, 1835) [Cerambycidae], Pterostenus Dejean, 1835 (Cerambyx abbreviatus Fabricius, 1801) [Cerambycidae], Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 (Lucanus femoratus Fabricius, 1775) [Lucanidae], and Pygolampis Dejean, 1833 (Lampyris glauca Olivier, 1790) [Lampyridae]. A new name, Neoeutrapela Bousquet and Bouchard [Tenebrionidae], is proposed for Eutrapela Dejean, 1834 (junior homonym of Eutrapela Hübner, 1809).The following generic names, made available in Dejean’s catalogue, were found to be older than currently accepted valid names: Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 over Catoxantha Solier, 1833 [Buprestidae], Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 over Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 [Buprestidae], Charactus Dejean, 1833 over Calopteron Laporte, 1836 [Lycidae], Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 over Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 [Hydrophilidae], Ancylonycha Dejean, 1833 over Holotrichia Hope, 1837 [Scarabaeidae], Aulacium Dejean, 1833 over Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 [Scarabaeidae], Sciuropus Dejean, 1833 over Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835 [Scarabaeidae], Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 over Ceratocanthus White, 1842 [Scarabaeidae], Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 over Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 [Lucanidae], Adelphus Dejean, 1834 over Praeugena Laporte, 1840 [Tenebrionidae], Amatodes Dejean, 1834 over Oncosoma Westwood, 1843 [Tenebrionidae], Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 over Phligra Laporte, 1840 [Tenebrionidae], Euphron Dejean, 1834 over Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858 [Tenebrionidae], Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 over Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889 [Tenebrionidae], Anoplosthaeta Dejean, 1835 over Prosopocera Blanchard, 1845 [Cerambycidae], Closteromerus Dejean, 1835 over Hylomela Gahan, 1904 [Cerambycidae], Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 over Ancita Thomson, 1864 [Cerambycidae], Mastigocera Dejean, 1835over Mallonia Thomson, 1857 [Cerambycidae], Zygocera Dejean, 1835 over Disternopsis Breuning, 1939 [Cerambycidae], Australica Chevrolat, 1836 over Calomela Hope, 1840 [Chrysomelidae], Edusa Chevrolat, 1836 over Edusella Chapuis, 1874 [Chrysomelidae], Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836 over Asphaera Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1842 [Chrysomelidae], and Pleuraulaca Chevrolat, 1836 over Iphimeis Baly, 1864 [Chrysomelidae]. In each of these cases, Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: 23.9) or an applicationto the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be necessary to retain usage of the younger synonyms.     

Comments on controversial tick (Acari: Ixodida) species names and species described or resurrected from 2003 to 2008

There are numerous discrepancies in recent published lists of the ticks of the world. Here we review the controversial names, presenting evidence for or against their validity and excluding some altogether. We also address spelling errors and present a list of 17 species described or resurrected during the years 2003–2008. We consider the following 35 tick species names to be invalid: Argas fischeri Audouin, 1826, Ornithodoros boliviensis Kohls and Clifford, 1964, Ornithodoros steini (Schulze, 1935), Amblyomma acutangulatum Neumann, 1899, Amblyomma arianae Keirans and Garris, 1986, Amblyomma bibroni (Gervais, 1842), Amblyomma colasbelcouri (Santos Dias, 1958), Amblyomma concolor Neumann, 1899, Amblyomma cooperi Nuttall and Warburton, 1908, Amblyomma curruca Schulze, 1936, Amblyomma cyprium Neumann, 1899, Amblyomma decorosum (Koch, 1867), Amblyomma nocens Robinson, 1912, Amblyomma perpunctatum (Packard, 1869), Amblyomma striatum Koch, 1844, Amblyomma superbum Santos Dias, 1953, Amblyomma testudinis (Conil, 1877), Amblyomma trinitatis Turk, 1948, Dermacentor confractus (Schulze 1933), Dermacentor daghestanicus Olenev, 1928, Haemaphysalis himalaya Hoogstraal, 1966, Haemaphysalis vietnamensis Hoogstraal and Wilson, 1966, Hyalomma detritum Schulze, 1919, Ixodes apteridis Maskell, 1897, Ixodes donarthuri Santos Dias, 1980, Ixodes kempi Nuttall, 1913, Ixodes neotomae Cooley, 1944, Ixodes rangtangensis Teng, 1973, Ixodes robertsi Camicas, Hervy, Adam and Morel, 1998, Ixodes serrafreirei Amorim, Gazetta, Bossi and Linhares, 2003, Ixodes tertiarius Scudder, 1885, Ixodes uruguayensis Kohls and Clifford, 1967, Ixodes zealandicus Dumbleton, 1961, Ixodes zumpti Arthur, 1960 and Rhipicephalus camelopardalis Walker and Wiley, 1959. We consider the following 40 names valid: Argas delicatus Neumann, 1910, Argas vulgaris Filippova, 1961, Ornithodoros aragaoi Fonseca, 1960, Ornithodoros dugesi Mazzoti, 1943, Ornithodoros knoxjonesi Jones and Clifford, 1972, Ornithodoros marocanus Velu, 1919, Ornithodoros nattereri Warburton, 1927, Amblyomma beaurepairei Vogelsang and Santos Dias, 1953, Amblyomma crassipes (Neumann, 1901), Amblyomma echidnae Roberts, 1953, Amblyomma fuscum Neumann, 1907, Amblyomma orlovi (Kolonin, 1995), Amblyomma parkeri Fonseca and Arag?o, 1952, Amblyomma pseudoconcolor Arag?o, 1908, Bothriocroton oudemansi (Neumann, 1910), Bothriocroton tachyglossi (Roberts, 1953), Dermacentor abaensis Teng, 1963, Dermacentor confragus (Schulze 1933), Dermacentor ushakovae Filippova and Panova, 1987, Haemaphysalis anomaloceraea Teng, 1984, Haemaphysalis filippovae Bolotin, 1979, Haemaphysalis pavlovskyi Pospelova-Shtrom, 1935, Hyalomma excavatum Koch, 1844, Hyalomma isaaci Sharif, 1928, Hyalomma rufipes Koch, 1844, Hyalomma turanicum Pomerantzev, 1946, Ixodes arabukiensis Arthur, 1959, Ixodes boliviensis Neumann, 1904, Ixodes columnae Takada and Fujita, 1992, Ixodes maslovi Emel′yanova and Kozlovskaya, 1967, Ixodes sachalinensis Filippova, 1971, Ixodes siamensis Kitaoka and Suzuki, 1983, Ixodes sigelos Keirans, Clifford and Corwin, 1976, Ixodes succineus Weidner, 1964, Rhipicephalus aurantiacus Neumann, 1907, Rhipicephalus cliffordi Morel, 1965, Rhipicephalus pilans Schulze, 1935, Rhipicephalus pseudolongus Santos Dias, 1953, Rhipicephalus serranoi Santos Dias, 1950 and Rhipicephalus tetracornus Kitaoka and Suzuki, 1983.     

The Nabidae (Insecta,Hemiptera, Heteroptera) of?Argentina

In Argentina, five genera and 14 species are recorded in the subfamilies Prostemmatinae and Nabinae: Hoplistoscelis sordidus Reuter, Lasiomerus constrictus Champion, Metatropiphorus alvarengai Reuter, Nabis argentinus Meyer-Dür, Nabis (Tropiconabis) capsiformis Germar, Nabis faminei Stål, Nabis paranensis Harris, Nabis punctipennis Blanchard, Nabis roripes Stål, Nabis setricus Harris, Nabis tandilensis Berg, Pagasa (Pagasa) costalis Reuter, Pagasa (Lampropagasa) fuscipennis Reuter and Pagasa (Pagasa) signatipennis Reuter.     

A food plant specialist in Sparganothini: A new genus and species from Costa Rica (Lepidoptera,Tortricidae)

Sparganocosma docsturnerorum Brown, new genus and new species, is described and illustrated from Área de Conservación (ACG) in northwestern Costa Rica. The new genus shares a long, crescent- or ribbon-shaped signum in the corpus bursae of the female genitalia with Aesiocopa Zeller, 1877, Amorbia Clemens, 1860, Amorbimorpha Kruse, 2011, Coelostathma Clemens, 1860, Lambertiodes Diakonoff, 1959, Paramorbia Powell & Lambert, 1986, Rhynchophyllus Meyrick, 1932, Sparganopseustis Powell & Lambert, 1986, Sparganothina Powell, 1986, and Sparganothoides Lambert & Powell, 1986. Putative autapomorphies for Sparganocosma include the extremely short uncus; the smooth (unspined) transtilla; and the upturned, free, distal rod of the sacculus. Adults of Sparganocosma docsturnerorum have been reared numerous times (>50) from larvae collected feeding on rain forest Asplundia utilis (Oerst.) Harling and Asplundia microphylla (Oerst.) Harling (Cyclanthaceae) at intermediate elevations (375–500 m) in ACG. Whereas most Sparganothini are generalists, typically feeding on two or more plant families, Sparganocosma docsturnerorum appears to be a specialist on Asplundia, at least in ACG. The solitary parasitoid wasp Sphelodon wardae Godoy & Gauld (Ichneumonidae; Banchinae) has been reared only from the larvae of Sparganocosma docsturnerorum.     

Contributions to the knowledge of subterranean trechine beetles in southern China’s karsts: five new genera (Insecta,Coleoptera, Carabidae,Trechinae)

Recent discoveries reveal that southern China’s karsts hold the most diverse and morphologically modified subterranean trechine beetles in the world, albeit the first troglobitic blind beetle was only reported in the early 1990’s. In total, 110 species belonging to 43 genera of cavernicolous trechines have hitherto been recorded from the karsts of southern China, including the following five new genera proposed below: Shiqianaphaenops Tian, gen. n., to contain two species: Shiqianaphaenops majusculus (Uéno, 1999) (= Shenaphaenops majusculus Uéno, 1999, comb. n.), the type species from Cave Feng Dong, Shiqian, Guizhou, and Shiqianaphaenops cursor (Uéno, 1999) (= Shenaphaenops cursor Uéno, 1999, comb. n.), from Cave Shenxian Dong, Shiqian, Guizhou; and the monotypic Dianotrechus Tian, gen. n. (the type species: Dianotrechus gueorguievi Tian, sp. n., from Cave Dashi Dong, Kunming, Yunnan), Tianeotrechus Tian & Tang, gen. n. (the type species: Tianeotrechus trisetosus Tian & Tang, sp. n., from Cave Bahao Dong, Tian’e County, Guangxi), Huoyanodytes Tian & Huang, gen. n. (the type species: Huoyanodytes tujiaphilus Tian & Huang, sp. n., from Longshan, Hunan) and Wanhuaphaenops Tian & Wang, gen. n. (the type species: Wanhuaphaenops zhangi Tian & Wang, sp. n., from Cave Songjia Dong, Chenzhou, Hunan).     

Revision of the subfamily Opiinae (Hymenoptera,Braconidae) from Hunan (China), including thirty-six new species and two new genera

The species of the subfamily Opiinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from Hunan (Oriental China) are revised and illustrated. Thirty-six new species are described: Apodesmia bruniclypealis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Apodesmia melliclypealis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Areotetes albiferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Areotetes carinuliferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Areotetes striatiferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Coleopioides diversinotum Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Coleopioides postpectalis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Fopius dorsopiferus Li, van Achterberg & Tan, sp. n., Indiopius chenae Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opiognathus aulaciferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opiognathus brevibasalis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius crenuliferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius malarator Li, van Achterberg & Tan, sp. n., Opius monilipalpis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius pachymerus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius songi Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius youi Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius zengi Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma acuticlypeata Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma angiclypeata Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma antenervalis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma depressiclypealis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma flavisoma Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma nigrisoma Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma protuberator Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma rugulifera Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Li & van Achterberg,Phaedrotoma striatinota Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma vermiculifera Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis latipennis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis longicaudifera Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis maculosa Li, van Achterberg & Tan, sp. n., Rhogadopsis obliqua Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis sculpturator Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Utetes longicarinatus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n. and Xynobius notauliferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n. Areotetes van Achterberg & Li, gen. n. (type species: Areotetes carinuliferus sp. n.) and Coleopioides van Achterberg & Li, gen. n. (type species: Coleopioides postpectalis sp. n. are described. All species are illustrated and keyed. In total 30 species of Opiinae are sequenced and the cladograms are presented. Neopius Gahan, 1917, Opiognathus Fischer, 1972, Opiostomus Fischer, 1972, and Rhogadopsis Brèthes, 1913, are treated as a valid genera based on molecular and morphological differences. Opius vittata Chen & Weng, 2005 (not Opius vittatus Ruschka, 1915), Opius ambiguus Weng & Chen, 2005 (not Wesmael, 1835) and Opius mitis Chen & Weng, 2005 (not Fischer, 1963) are primary homonymsandarerenamed into Phaedrotoma depressa Li & van Achterberg, nom. n., Opius cheni Li & van Achterberg, nom. n. andOpius wengi Li & van Achterberg, nom. n., respectively. Phaedrotoma terga (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n.,Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead, 1905) and Biosteres pavitita Chen & Weng, 2005, are reported new for Hunan, Opiostomus aureliae (Fischer, 1957) comb. n. is new for China and Hunan; Xynobius maculipennis(Enderlein, 1912) comb. n. is new for Hunan and continental China and Rhogadopsis longuria (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n. is new for Hunan. The following new combinations are given: Apodesmia puncta (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Apodesmia tracta (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Areotetes laevigatus (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma dimidia (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma improcera (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma amputata (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma larga (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma osculas (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma postuma (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma rugulosa (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma tabularis (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis apii (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis dimidia (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis diutia (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis longuria (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis pratellae(Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis pratensis (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis sculpta (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis sulcifer (Fischer, 1975) comb. n., Rhogadopsis tabidula(Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Xynobius complexus (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Xynobius indagatrix (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Xynobius multiarculatus (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n.The following (sub)genera are synonymised: Snoflakopius Fischer, 1972, Jucundopius Fischer, 1984, Opiotenes Fischer, 1998, and Oetztalotenes Fischer, 1998, with Opiostomus Fischer, 1971; Xynobiotenes Fischer, 1998, with Xynobius Foerster, 1862; Allotypus Foerster, 1862, Lemnaphilopius Fischer, 1972, Agnopius Fischer, 1982, and Cryptognathopius Fischer, 1984, with Apodesmia Foerster, 1862; Nosopoea Foerster, 1862, Tolbia Cameron, 1907, Brachycentrus Szépligeti, 1907, Baeocentrum Schulz, 1911, Hexaulax Cameron, 1910, Coeloreuteus Roman, 1910, Neodiospilus Szépligeti, 1911, Euopius Fischer, 1967, Gerius Fischer, 1972, Grimnirus Fischer, 1972, Hoenirus Fischer, 1972, Mimirus Fischer, 1972, Gastrosema Fischer, 1972, Merotrachys Fischer, 1972, Phlebosema Fischer, 1972, Neoephedrus Samanta, Tamili, Saha & Raychaudhuri, 1983, Adontopius Fischer, 1984, Kainopaeopius Fischer, 1986, Millenniopius Fischer, 1996, and Neotropopius Fischer, 1999, with Phaedrotoma Foerster, 1862.     

Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)

We synthesize data on all known extant and fossil Coleoptera family-group names for the first time. A catalogue of 4887 family-group names (124 fossil, 4763 extant) based on 4707 distinct genera in Coleoptera is given. A total of 4492 names are available, 183 of which are permanently invalid because they are based on a preoccupied or a suppressed type genus. Names are listed in a classification framework. We recognize as valid 24 superfamilies, 211 families, 541 subfamilies, 1663 tribes and 740 subtribes. For each name, the original spelling, author, year of publication, page number, correct stem and type genus are included. The original spelling and availability of each name were checked from primary literature. A list of necessary changes due to Priority and Homonymy problems, and actions taken, is given. Current usage of names was conserved, whenever possible, to promote stability of the classification.New synonymies (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Agronomina Gistel, 1848 syn. nov. of Amarina Zimmermann, 1832 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalioini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Melandryini Leach, 1815 (Melandryidae), Polycystophoridae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Malachiinae Fleming, 1821 (Melyridae), Sclerasteinae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Ptilininae Shuckard, 1839 (Ptinidae), Phloeonomini Ádám, 2001 syn. nov. of Omaliini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Sepedophilini Ádám, 2001 syn. nov. of Tachyporini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Phibalini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Cteniopodini Solier, 1835 (Tenebrionidae); Agronoma Gistel 1848 (type species Carabus familiaris Duftschmid, 1812, designated herein) syn. nov. of Amara Bonelli, 1810 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalio Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela caraboides Linnaeus, 1760, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Melandrya Fabricius, 1801 (Melandryidae), Polycystophorus Gistel, 1856 (type species Cantharis aeneus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Malachius Fabricius, 1775 (Melyridae), Sclerastes Gistel, 1856 (type species Ptilinus costatus Gyllenhal, 1827, designated herein) syn. nov. of Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762 (Ptinidae), Paniscus Gistel, 1848 (type species Scarabaeus fasciatus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Trichius Fabricius, 1775 (Scarabaeidae), Phibalus Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela pubescens Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Omophlus Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrionidae). The following new replacement name is proposed: Gompeliina Bouchard, 2011 nom. nov. for Olotelina Báguena Corella, 1948 (Aderidae).Reversal of Precedence (Article 23.9) is used to conserve usage of the following names (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Perigonini Horn, 1881 nom. protectum over Trechicini Bates, 1873 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Anisodactylina Lacordaire, 1854 nom. protectum over Eurytrichina LeConte, 1848 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Smicronychini Seidlitz, 1891 nom. protectum over Desmorini LeConte, 1876 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Bagoinae Thomson, 1859 nom. protectum over Lyprinae Gistel 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Aterpina Lacordaire, 1863 nom. protectum over Heliomenina Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Naupactini Gistel, 1848 nom. protectum over Iphiini Schönherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Cleonini Schönherr, 1826 nom. protectum over Geomorini Schönherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Magdalidini Pascoe, 1870 nom. protectum over Scardamyctini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Agrypninae/-ini Candèze, 1857 nom. protecta over Adelocerinae/-ini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblita and Pangaurinae/-ini Gistel, 1856 nom. oblita (Elateridae), Prosternini Gistel, 1856 nom. protectum over Diacanthini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Elateridae), Calopodinae Costa, 1852 nom. protectum over Sparedrinae Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Oedemeridae), Adesmiini Lacordaire, 1859 nom. protectum over Macropodini Agassiz, 1846 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Bolitophagini Kirby, 1837 nom. protectum over Eledonini Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Throscidae Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Stereolidae Rafinesque, 1815 nom. oblitum (Throscidae) and Lophocaterini Crowson, 1964 over Lycoptini Casey, 1890 nom. oblitum (Trogossitidae); Monotoma Herbst, 1799 nom. protectum over Monotoma Panzer, 1792 nom. oblitum (Monotomidae); Pediacus Shuckard, 1839 nom. protectum over Biophloeus Dejean, 1835 nom. oblitum (Cucujidae), Pachypus Dejean, 1821 nom. protectum over Pachypus Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae), Sparrmannia Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Leocaeta Dejean, 1833 nom. oblitum and Cephalotrichia Hope, 1837 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae).     

Chemical implantation of Group 4 cations on silica via cyclopentadienyl- and N,N-dialkylcarbamato derivatives

Chemical implantation of Group 4 cations [Ti(III), Ti(IV), Zr(IV), Hf(IV)] has been carried out under mild conditions by the reaction of polycyclopentadienyl- (MCp_n; M = Ti, n = 3, 4; M = Zr, Hf, n = 4), mixed cyclopentadienyl/N,N-dialkylcarbamato (ML_x(O₂CNEt₂)_y; M = Ti, L = Cp, C₅Me₅ (Cp*), x = 2, y = 1; M = Hf, L = Cp, x = 1, y = 3), and N,N-dialkylcarbamato (M(O₂CNR₂)_n, M = Ti, n = 3, R = ⁱPr; M = Ti, Hf, n = 4, R = Et; M = Zr, n = 4, R = ⁱPr) derivatives, with the silanol groups of amorphous silica. Cyclopentadiene/pentamethylcyclopentadiene and/or carbon dioxide and the secondary amine are released in the process. The amount of implanted cations depends on the metal and on the ligands, the pentamethylcyclopentadienyl complex being less reactive than the unsubstituted congener. The starting complexes and the final products have been characterized by EPR or by ¹³C CP-MAS NMR spectroscopy.     

A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia)

The phylogenetic relationships of the cryptobranch dorids are studied based on morphological characters of species belonging to all previously described genera. The phylogenetic hypothesis supports the cryptobranch dorids as a monophyletic group. There are two major clades within the Cryptobranchia: the radula‐less dorids (Porostomata), and the radula‐bearing dorids ( Labiostomata new taxon ). Labiostomata consists of those taxa sharing a more recent common ancestor with Actinocyclus than with Mandelia, and includes several monophyletic groups: Actinocyclidae, Chromodorididae, Dorididae and Discodorididae. The traditional group Phanerobranchia is probably paraphyletic. The new classification proposed for the Cryptobranchia addresses concepts of phylogenetic nomenclature, but is in accordance with the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The following genera of cryptobranch dorids are regarded as valid: Doris Linnaeus, 1758, Asteronotus Ehrenberg, 1831, Atagema J. E. Gray, 1850, Jorunna Bergh, 1876, Discodoris Bergh, 1877, Platydoris Bergh, 1877, Thordisa Bergh, 1877, Diaulula Bergh, 1878, Aldisa Bergh, 1878, Rostanga Bergh, 1879, Aphelodoris Bergh, 1879, Halgerda Bergh, 1880, Peltodoris Bergh, 1880, Hoplodoris Bergh, 1880, Paradoris Bergh, 1884, Baptodoris Bergh, 1884, Geitodoris Bergh, 1891, Gargamella Bergh, 1894, Alloiodoris Bergh, 1904, Sclerodoris Eliot, 1904, Otinodoris White, 1948, Taringa Er. Marcus, 1955 , Sebadoris Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus, 1960, Conualevia Collier & Farmer, 1964, Thorybopus Bouchet, 1977, Goslineria Valdés, 2001, Pharodoris Valdés, 2001, Nophodoris Valdés & Gosliner, 2001. Several genera previously considered as valid are here regarded as synonyms of other names: Doridigitata d’Orbigny, 1839, Doriopsis Pease, 1860, Staurodoris Bergh, 1878, Fracassa Bergh, 1878, Archidoris Bergh, 1878, Anoplodoris Fischer, 1883, Etidoris Ihering, 1886, Phialodoris Bergh, 1889, Montereina MacFarland, 1905, Ctenodoris Eliot, 1907, Carryodoris Vayssière, 1919, Austrodoris Odhner, 1926, Guyonia Risbec, 1928, Erythrodoris Pruvot‐Fol, 1933, Neodoris Baba, 1938, Siraius Er. Marcus, 1955, Tayuva Ev. Marcus & Er. Marcus, 1967, Nuvuca Ev. Marcus & Er. Marcus, 1967, Doriorbis Kay & Young, 1969, Pupsikus Er. Marcus & Ev. Marcus, 1970, Percunas Ev. Marcus, 1970, Verrillia Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981 . The genera Artachaea Bergh, 1882, Carminodoris Bergh, 1889 and Homoiodoris Bergh, 1882 have been poorly described and no type material is known to exist. They are regarded as incertae sedis until more material becomes available. The genus names Xenodoris Odhner in Franc, 1968 and Cryptodoris Ostergaard, 1950 are unavailable within the meaning of the Code. Hexabranchus Ehrenberg, 1831 is not a cryptobranch dorid, as suggested by other authors, because of the lack of a retractile gill. Other nomenclatural and taxonomic problems are discussed, and several type species, neotypes and lectotypes are selected. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 136 , 535?636.