identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D587E0FFA04401D3EBFBEBFD16F939.text	03D587E0FFA04401D3EBFBEBFD16F939.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anhammus (Aurivillius 1922)	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Anhammus vs.  Nephelotus</p>
            <p> While describing  Nephelotus, Pascoe (1866) did not take into account  Anhammus but considered both genera in the key to the Malayan  Lamiinae (Pascoe, 1866) .  Nephelotus was keyed differently due to the “elytra not toothed at the shoulders”, while the original description expressly stated the opposite (“ Elytra sub-angustata, humeris in dentem productis ”). Gahan (1906) considered  Nephelotus as a subgenus of  Anhammus without providing any differential characters. Ritsema (1914) and Aurivillius (1922) considered these as separate genera, without stating any reasons. Finally, Breuning (1943) keyed both genera differently, due to the scape with closed (  Anhammus ) or open cicatrix (  Nephelotus ). Actually, the cicatrix is open in both genera. </p>
            <p> Anhammus and  Nephelotus are closely related taxa, as supported by the facts that Breuning (1982) described a  Nephelotus species as member of  Anhammus , by comparison of  Mimonephelotes to  Anhammus (Breuning, 1970) and then, he renamed it as  Mimanhammus (Breuning, 1971) . The main differences are related to the body size (29–44 mm in  Anhammus vs. 19–27 mm in  Nephelotus ) and the different elytral pattern (numerous small points of yellowish pubescence forming two more or less conspicuous spots in  Anhammus versus an irregular ochreous pattern and a large pre-median whitish spot in  Nephelotus ). </p>
            <p> The pronotal spines, long and acute in  Anhammus , tend to disappear in  Nephelotus but they are still present in some Philippine species, though always shorter than those of  Anhammus . These differences suggest that  Nephelotus should be considered as a subgenus of  Anhammus , as Gahan (1906) supposed; nonetheless, we prefer to conserve the current taxonomy waiting for further analyses. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D587E0FFA04401D3EBFBEBFD16F939	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	Vitali, Francesco;Chemin, Gerard	Vitali, Francesco, Chemin, Gerard (2022): Taxonomic notes about the genus Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Zootaxa 5141 (1): 79-86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.7
03D587E0FFA04407D3EBF8FFFD6DFD62.text	03D587E0FFA04407D3EBF8FFFD6DFD62.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paranhammus Breuning 1944	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Paranhammus vs.  Nephelotus</p>
            <p>(Figs 1–8)</p>
            <p> Breuning (1944 a, b) separated  Paranhammus from  Nephelotus on the basis of the following characters: </p>
            <p> 1) Scape with closed (  Paranhammus ) or open cicatrix (  Nephelotus ) </p>
            <p> 2) Antennomere III as long as IV (  Paranhammus ) or longer than IV (  Nephelotus ) </p>
            <p> 3) Mesosternum armed with a rounded tubercle (  Paranhammus ) or unarmed (  Nephelotus ) </p>
            <p> 4) Pronotal base with three (  Paranhammus ) or two (  Nephelotus ) transverse furrows </p>
            <p>Actually, both genera have an open cicatrix, antennomere III about as long as IV, unarmed mesosternum and pronotal base with two large furrows. Only a specimen of Mindanao shows a supplementary incomplete superficial transverse impression between these furrows. Thus, all stated differential characters are untrue.</p>
            <p> Monohammus marcipor and  Nephelotus conspersus show the same body structure and analogous pattern, differing little in antennal colour (dark brown in  marcipor and reddish testaceous in  conspersus ) and, maybe, the glabrous spot on the pronotal disc (rhomboidal in  marcipor and transverse in  conspersus ). Both characters can be considered specific or even subspecific. The taxa are also biogeographically related since  conspersus and  marcipor seem to coexist in Palawan (Philippines). There is no substantial reason to consider them as belonging to different genera; consequently, the following taxonomic changes are proposed. </p>
            <p> Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866</p>
            <p> =  Paranhammus Breuning, 1944 n. syn. </p>
            <p> Nephelotus marcipor (Newman, 1842) n. comb.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D587E0FFA04407D3EBF8FFFD6DFD62	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	Vitali, Francesco;Chemin, Gerard	Vitali, Francesco, Chemin, Gerard (2022): Taxonomic notes about the genus Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Zootaxa 5141 (1): 79-86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.7
03D587E0FFA64407D3EBFCDCFAACF945.text	03D587E0FFA64407D3EBFCDCFAACF945.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mimonephelotes Breuning 1970	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Mimonephelotes and  Mimanhammus vs.  Nephelotus</p>
            <p>(Figs 9–15)</p>
            <p> Breuning (1970) did not compare  Mimonephelotes to  Nephelotus but to  Anhammus , stating that it differs from it in the shorter lateral pronotal spine and in the presence of a short carina on each elytral base. This carina is, in reality, a double series of tubercles located on a bulge similar in all to that of  N. conspersus or  N. marcipor . Thus, the provided characters are just typical of the genus  Nephelotus . </p>
            <p> However, this taxon from Luzon clearly differs from  N. marcipor . The body size is more robust and larger (19- 27 mm vs 19-23 mm), the basal granulation of elytra forms distinct rows separated by smooth areas, the humeral tubercle is longer and finally, the pronotal disc is densely punctate (rather than smooth) at sides. Moreover, it differs from the Luzon population of  N. marcipor in the pronotal tubercles twice as long as wide. These characters support the validity of  N. enganensis as a true species. </p>
            <p> Breuning (1971) introduced  Mimanhammus as substitute name for  Mimonephelotes , claiming that this name was preoccupied. Actually, the name in question was  Mimonephelotus Breuning, 1940 , which differs by one letter (Mimonephelot-e-s vs. Mimonephelot-u-s); thus,  Mimanhammus is an unnecessary replacement name. Finally, Breuning (1982) described this species for a second time as  Anhammus luzonicus , based again on a female from Luzon. </p>
            <p>In conclusion, the following taxonomic changes are proposed:</p>
            <p> Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866</p>
            <p> =  Mimonephelotes Breuning, 1970 n. syn. </p>
            <p> =  Mimanhammus Breuning, 1971 n. syn. </p>
            <p> Nephelotus enganensis (Breuning, 1970) n. comb.</p>
            <p> =  Anhammus luzonicus Breuning, 1982 n. syn.</p>
            <p> Both  M. enganensis and  A. luzonicus were described from females. The male, still unknown, is described here. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D587E0FFA64407D3EBFCDCFAACF945	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	Vitali, Francesco;Chemin, Gerard	Vitali, Francesco, Chemin, Gerard (2022): Taxonomic notes about the genus Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Zootaxa 5141 (1): 79-86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.7
03D587E0FFA64407D3EBF8F6FBA6F871.text	03D587E0FFA64407D3EBF8F6FBA6F871.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nephelotus enganensis (Breuning 1970) Vitali & Chemin 2022	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Nephelotus enganensis (Breuning, 1970) male </p>
            <p>(Fig. 15)</p>
            <p>Description: Body length 23 mm.</p>
            <p>Extremely similar to the female but body slightly narrower; elytra more tapered apically; protibiae more arcuate at apex; antennae 2.7 times as long as body and antennomere V slightly surpassing the elytral apex (in female, antennae 1.6 times as long as body and antennomere VI hardy reaching the elytral apex).</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D587E0FFA64407D3EBF8F6FBA6F871	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	Vitali, Francesco;Chemin, Gerard	Vitali, Francesco, Chemin, Gerard (2022): Taxonomic notes about the genus Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Zootaxa 5141 (1): 79-86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.7
03D587E0FFA44405D3EBFF66FBE0FE0D.text	03D587E0FFA44405D3EBFF66FBE0FE0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mimanhammus mindanaonis Breuning 1980	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Mimanhammus mindanaonis</p>
            <p> The type of  N. marcipor (Luzon) is a taxon with a very short lateral tubercle (about as long as wide), not dissimilar from that of  N. conspersus . Specimens from Panay and Mindanao show tubercles two or three times as long as wide; nonetheless, the holotype of  Mimanhammus mindanaonis perfectly corresponds to the population from Luzon. Whether this type was destroyed and later substituted or two different forms inhabit these southern islands could be clarified by the paratype preserved in Berlin. Currently, it is not available for study. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D587E0FFA44405D3EBFF66FBE0FE0D	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	Vitali, Francesco;Chemin, Gerard	Vitali, Francesco, Chemin, Gerard (2022): Taxonomic notes about the genus Nephelotus Pascoe, 1866 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). Zootaxa 5141 (1): 79-86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.7
