Hisserdude
Dynastes
TLDR; The proper, current name for this species is Phloeodes diabolicus, NOT "Nosoderma diabolicum".
Now here's the actual explanation in layman's terms, because I know there's a lot of confusion regarding this species and which name to use.
So once upon a time, there were two different Nosoderma, the first (and thus the VALID one) is Nosoderma Guérin-Méneville 1838, as opposed to the later described Nosoderma Solier 1841. Now, since Solier's genus was errected after the original Nosoderma Guérin-Méneville 1838, his genus "Nosoderma" was later declared a homonym and the species within were placed in the genus Verodes in 2007, (see the abstract to that paper here).
Back in 2006 though, Phloeodes and the species within were erroneously synonymized with "Nosoderma" Solier 1841... (see the paper here). However as we know, that genus is now known as Verodes, and further examination shows that Verodes and Phloeodes are definitely two different genera, so in the most recent revision to the tribe Zopherini, which came out in 2008, Phloeodes was restored as a genus, (see the paper here).
So Phloeodes diabolicus is the correct combination, that genus is valid, and as far as I know there have been no papers since 2008 that change this. However, it seems some hobbyists found the paper from 2006 that made Phloeodes a synonym of "Nosoderma" Solier 1841 ( = Verodes), and have been rolling with that name, evidently not knowing another paper came out two years later changing their placement back and restoring Phloeodes as a genus... Hope you guys find this useful!
(FYI, Wikipedia has yet to update their info on the subject and still lists this species as "Nosoderma diabolicum". Wikipedia however is not really known for being all that up to date on invertebrate taxonomy...
).
Here's a relevant excerpt from the recent 2008 paper "A phylogenetic analysis of the tribe Zopherini with a review of the species and generic classification" By I.A. Foley & M.A. Ivie.
Now here's the actual explanation in layman's terms, because I know there's a lot of confusion regarding this species and which name to use.
So once upon a time, there were two different Nosoderma, the first (and thus the VALID one) is Nosoderma Guérin-Méneville 1838, as opposed to the later described Nosoderma Solier 1841. Now, since Solier's genus was errected after the original Nosoderma Guérin-Méneville 1838, his genus "Nosoderma" was later declared a homonym and the species within were placed in the genus Verodes in 2007, (see the abstract to that paper here).
Back in 2006 though, Phloeodes and the species within were erroneously synonymized with "Nosoderma" Solier 1841... (see the paper here). However as we know, that genus is now known as Verodes, and further examination shows that Verodes and Phloeodes are definitely two different genera, so in the most recent revision to the tribe Zopherini, which came out in 2008, Phloeodes was restored as a genus, (see the paper here).
So Phloeodes diabolicus is the correct combination, that genus is valid, and as far as I know there have been no papers since 2008 that change this. However, it seems some hobbyists found the paper from 2006 that made Phloeodes a synonym of "Nosoderma" Solier 1841 ( = Verodes), and have been rolling with that name, evidently not knowing another paper came out two years later changing their placement back and restoring Phloeodes as a genus... Hope you guys find this useful!
(FYI, Wikipedia has yet to update their info on the subject and still lists this species as "Nosoderma diabolicum". Wikipedia however is not really known for being all that up to date on invertebrate taxonomy...
). Here's a relevant excerpt from the recent 2008 paper "A phylogenetic analysis of the tribe Zopherini with a review of the species and generic classification" By I.A. Foley & M.A. Ivie.
Last edited by a moderator:
?