Scymnini?

Tribe Scymnini and its genera

Please see the topic Coccinellidae in the Taxonomy forum. This discussion has gotten beyond the scope of the Web Site Improvements forum.

-----original comment-----

Oh, good, someone else brought this up. I wasn't sure I could get away with it! May I use "LBLB" (little brown lady beetle) as shorthand for "beetles in the genera of Tribe Scymnini" in my comments below?

1. Placement of Insects (and their images)
1a. =v= often refers LBLBs from ID Request to Tribe Scymnini, so something he ID's winds up there most of the time. And this is correct. Beetles ID'd to genus usually wind up in their genus, which is sometimes correct (Cryptolaemus is easy, and there are experts who can pick out the lesser-known genera like Scymnobius and Stethorus). The ones that aren't obviously Cryptolaemus or ID'd by an expert tend to go to Scymnus, though, whether they are or not. I'm guilty of this myself. It's a big genus, but that doesn't mean it's a catch-all. Tribe Scymnini is a catch-all.

1b. But then there's another problem:
Any LBLB moved to Tribe Scymnini that is later ID'd to genus has to be taken out of Tribe Scymnini. That happened to me w/ this beetle today:

2. Finding and Viewing Images
2a. The LBLBs can't be easily browsed or visually compared, because all genera under Coccinellidae are in alphabetical order under the Browse tab: the LBLBs in Stethorus and Zagloba are separated by big orange Subcoccinella and shiny blue Thalassa. If all LBLB genera were under Tribe Scymini, they could be browsed without interruption or visual distraction.

2b. Larval images are similarly difficult to find and view. I'm slowly finding reliable identification techniques for the "fuzzy whites," but it's difficult to even find all the larval images when I'm genus-jumping. Especially before I got a list of the genera of Tribe Scymnini and was literally checking every genus of Coccinellidae for them. (Not that someone who knew lady beetles to begin with would have that problem. But it still takes a lot of navigation, and would be simpler if the genera were grouped together.)

… Abigail Parker, 28 August, 2009 - 3:39pm

Before you actually move them

maybe you could post a question and see if people would prefer the tribes or the subfamilies. We think the tribes don't change as often as subfamilies do, but the beetle people would be better at answering this. We would still like to know if the images posted to the tribe could be ID'd to genus if someone worked at it, though.

… john and jane balaban, 27 August, 2009 - 5:29pm

Moving

If somebody familiar with beetles wants to do the move, it would be fine.
I keep hoping for a new version of Bugguide which allows searches of many different kinds, from alphabetical (like Nearctica) to cladistic (like ToL). It would make things a lot easier and this discussion unnecessary. One can dream.
I just realized that there is an overview with subfamilies and tribes in Coccinelidae but I am glad that I asked this question anyway.

… Beatriz Moisset, 28 August, 2009 - 9:04am

raising tiny hand

If I ever became an editor I would only use my powers for good and not for evil, like moving reliably-identified lady beetle images. I spend all my time rummaging through Coleoptera and Coccinellidae and ID Request for them anyway...

… Abigail Parker, 28 August, 2009 - 4:04pm

overview

Indeed there is an overview there, but I found it hard to read - too many colors, for one thing, the red is hard on my eyes.

It would be more useful w/ capsule descriptions or a representative thumbnail image - if something next to "Tribe Scymnini" said or showed "little brown lady beetles" someone who didn't know what the heck any of the genera were wouldn't have to click on the links to find out. I mean, yeah, you have to click on links to get anywhere, but limiting the amount of initial effort in narrowing down "I've got a lady beetle" would get them ID'd to genus and species more easily and perhaps accurately.

(More time and less frustration = less likely to say "It's midnight, this is the twelfth genus I've looked at, I'm sick of red beetles with black spots - dangit, I'm sticking it here.")

… Abigail Parker, 28 August, 2009 - 3:42pm

Are you looking for a job?

With all your expertise in Coccinelidae and all your good suggestions you are a step closer to being offered the position of editor. (The pay isn't good, but the benefits are superb : )
Really, you could take care of the Overview, which would be more useful than the mix of "representative images". You could move the genera under subfamily or tribe, move some larvae to lower taxa, add some life cycles to info pages, etc.

… Beatriz Moisset, 28 August, 2009 - 4:11pm

Take a look...

...at the "Identification" section of the Coccinellidae info page now. I had a very good time this weekend.

I didn't delete that big "representative image" section or the multicolored, linked taxonomy chart - they're just commented out in the code. Anyone who clicks "edit" can see them, and I saved a backup of the whole thing.

Maybe the taxonomy chart should be under "Articles," with a link to it on the Coccinellidae info page. There's great information in it, but it made the info page confusing and hard to navigate for the non-taxonomically inclined.

… Abigail Parker, 6 September, 2009 - 10:55pm

Hmmm!

Maybe the other way around would be better. The section you created with groupings of ladybugs by shape would make a nice article and the overview (multicolored or not) should go back where it was. I am glad that you saved it.
We have been creating overviews of many taxa and they serve important functions; they allow you to navigate to the subtaxa without going through the tedious procedure of using "browse" and in this case they show how genera are grouped into subfamilies. The goal is to have taxonomic overviews for all or most taxa.
I suspect that the "representative image" section was created before the overview. In my opinion it became rather superfluous afterward. I wouldn't mind eliminating it to avoid cluttering.

… Beatriz Moisset, 7 September, 2009 - 6:43am

Okay, I can do that

Fortunately it's a three-day weekend!

The identification section w/ photos is just an expansion of what used to be a jargon-heavy list - if you didn't know what a tarsal formula or a pronotum was, it didn't help much. I didn't want to change the text, but figured a picture of a tarsal segment would help the non-entomologists! I can indeed make the full section an article, and maybe keep a few of the pics in the ID section of the family page just for the more intimidating phrases.

I literally spent 16 hours a day doing nothing but BugGuide this weekend - 7 to midnight, with an hour and a half dinner break. (Lunch? What's that?) And I'm loving every minute of it!

… Abigail Parker, 7 September, 2009 - 9:15am

it would make my day, actually

Because I'm that much of a combined bug-and-computer geek. And I'm adequately underpaid at my real, computer-geek job already :-)

… Abigail Parker, 28 August, 2009 - 4:25pm

Biolib lists nine genera

here. We clearly have several of those genera which could be moved under the tribe. We don't know if the images posted to the tribe can't be ID'd to genus and that's why the tribe was added or not. It would seem best to get those images currently on the tribe page ID'd to genus if possible. If that's not possible, are we certain about the images already ID'd to genus?? We are not big on added layers of taxonomy, so if possible, we would rather see the tribe page disappear than have all the subfamilies and tribes added and the genera moved under them. But that's just us.

… john and jane balaban, 27 August, 2009 - 12:17pm

Tribes

There are so many genera in Coccinelidae that it would be nice to see the similar ones grouped together in a tribe. I am in favor of keeping the tribe and moving the genera under it. It was the similar looking larvae of Cryptolaemus and Scymnus that got me into this.
I guess that Scymnobius also belongs to this tribe.

… Beatriz Moisset, 27 August, 2009 - 1:03pm

There is apparently an entire book

with at least three genera here

… john and jane balaban, 27 August, 2009 - 12:12pm

The Coccinellidae of California lists five genera

and some 50 species here

… john and jane balaban, 27 August, 2009 - 12:09pm

Spelling?

Google has no hits on that name, and it's certainly not in Nearctica. Could that be an error for Scymnus? The tribe Scymnini is named from Scymnus with the standard -ini tribe ending- it looks suspiciously like a misinterpretation of thst word.

… Chuck Entz, 27 August, 2009 - 2:35am

Tribe, genera

Mike Quinn created the page and gave this info: "Author of Tribe: Mulsant 1846. 6 genera North of Mexico." V. Belov and Boris Buche identified a few specimens as members of the tribe. The question is which genera belong to it.

… Beatriz Moisset, 27 August, 2009 - 8:28am

According to Gordon (1985)

there are six genera in the tribe Scymnini in the U.S.: Nephaspis, Cryptolaemus, Diomus, Scymnus, Didion, and Nephus.

… Michael C. Thomas, 27 August, 2009 - 12:27pm

here is the word from Bob Gordon:

The number is now six, but there are 5 subgenera under the genus Nephus.
Also, the genus Diomus formerely in Scymnini is now in Diomini, which now contains 3 North American genera. See Vandenber, 2002, In American Beetles, Vol. 2

… Guy A. Hanley, 7 September, 2009 - 12:30am

If Diomus

has been moved into a tribe of its own, what's the sixth scymnine genus?

… Michael C. Thomas, 7 September, 2009 - 1:31pm

I can provide

the most current taxonomy from the reference I list....check back soon....

… Guy A. Hanley, 7 September, 2009 - 10:47pm

here it is

This looks to be the most up to date, Clitostethus, listed right under Pseudoscymnus I believe is the sixth genus, but its not clear in the reference, and did not list how many species are in it.

Tribe Scymnini
Nephaspis:four neotropical species
Cryptolaemus: one species
Didion: three species
Scymnus:
Subgenus Scymnus:11 species
Subgenus Pullus: 82 species
Pseudoscymnus: one introduced species
Clitostethus:
Nephus:
Subgenus Nephus: one species
Subgenus Sidis: one species
Subgenus Turboscymnus: one species
Subgenus Scymnobius: nine species
Subgenus Depressoscymnus: one species

… Guy A. Hanley, 8 September, 2009 - 9:28am

More complications

Seems that Pseudoscymnus Chapin is a junior homonym of a fish genus and was replaced in 2004 by Sasajiscymnus Vandenberg. Its one U.S. species appears to be Sasajiscymnus tsugae (Sasaji and McClure), a biological control agent imported from Japan to be used against the hemlock woolly adelgid.

… Michael C. Thomas, 9 September, 2009 - 9:27pm

I'll change in our overview

We don't have any images for that genus so it's not in the taxonomy tree, but it is listed in the Coccinellidae overview as "Pseudoscymnus Chapin, 1962." Can you tell me if this is the correct way to list it now?

Sasajiscymnus Chapin, 1962

(My very basic knowledge of taxonomy indicates that author/date don't change when genus name changes, but I really want to make sure of that!)

… Abigail Parker, 10 September, 2009 - 9:05am

Sasajiscymnus Vandenberg 2004

The author and date of the species do not change when the genus name changes (although they do then go between parentheses), but the author of the new genus name is listed; the author of the old genus name stays with the old name, i.e., Pseudoscymnus Chapin 1962. So the resulting generic synonymy looks like:

Sasajiscymnus Vandenberg 2004
Pseudoscymnus Chapin 1962

… Michael C. Thomas, 10 September, 2009 - 2:44pm

Thank you, will change now

Glad I asked! I'll update the Coccinellidae page as you indicated.

… Abigail Parker, 10 September, 2009 - 2:54pm

exactly what we need!

That would be terrific, I know the one on our Coccinellidae family page is out of date. I've posted that one over in the Taxonomy forum. (I hope I'm not repeating that too much, just trying to shift the taxonomic discussion to where more people will see it.)

… Abigail Parker, 8 September, 2009 - 8:40am

BG Coccinellidae list in Taxonomy forum

Actually, on BG there are seven...

I started a new topic in the Taxonomy forum with a list of Coccinellidae subdivisions as they currently appear on BG's family info page.

Hopefully this discussion can be continued, and expanded, in that forum - it would be great to have Coccinellidae reviewed by experts and others with taxonomic interest and experience.

I'm just an amateur, but I love the ladies and I'm good at Web coding and site maintenance. If the experts work out the taxonomy, I'll happily do all the page creating, moving, and updating!

… Abigail Parker, 7 September, 2009 - 2:52pm