2005
DOI: 10.1017/s1477200004001616
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Moths of the Neotropical generaIschnopteris, StegothecaandRucana(Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Ennominae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is likely that about one‐third of all species sampled are new to science. Indeed, six species on the list have recently been described as new (Brehm, 2004, 2005; Pitkin, 2005). Compared with well known groups such as birds or vascular plants, several hundred new species sampled in the course of a single study is very high.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is likely that about one‐third of all species sampled are new to science. Indeed, six species on the list have recently been described as new (Brehm, 2004, 2005; Pitkin, 2005). Compared with well known groups such as birds or vascular plants, several hundred new species sampled in the course of a single study is very high.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the third reared Nacophorini, Cargolia arana (Figure 18), the antenna and trunk sheaths extended only beyond the wing sheaths. This feature was not mentioned by Rindge (1983) in his revision of the Nacophorini or by Pitkin (2002, 2005), but may be a synapomorphy for the tribe. On the other hand, Parra and Henriquez-Rodriguez (1993) showed the pupae of two Nacophorini ( Mallomus falcatus and M. tumidus ) that lacked this feature, possibly suggesting that this character state is restricted to a smaller clade within the Nacophorini.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Caterpillars that failed to develop into adults were preserved in 70% ethanol, as were pupal exuviae and parasitoids that emerged in captivity. Nomenclature follows Pitkin (2002, 2005) for members of the subfamily Ennominae and Scoble (1999) for all remaining species. Morphospecies ID codes of Brehm et al (2005) were used.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%