Neophyllaphidinae, Takahashi, 1921
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.2847.1.1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CD6987B8-0C3F-7A18-FA8B-FA17FDAEFF6B |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Neophyllaphidinae |
status |
|
Neophyllaphis brimblecombei Carver (1971)
Blackman & Eastop (1994) stated that “specimens from Podocarpus chinensis in HK (BMNH) also key to this species [ N. brimblecombei ]” but the only BMNH specimens are two alatae in poor condition. Despite the poor condition of the two BMNH alatae, this determination has been confirmed through re-examination of the material (Wolfgang Quednau, pers. comm.). N. brimblecombei was also reported from HK, on P. macrophyllus by Tao (1999a), and on P. macrophyllus var. maki by Lee & Winney (1981) but there are no known vouchers in either case. HK Herbarium (2004) did not list P. chinensis , even as a synonym, but it is listed as a synonym of P. macrophyllus var. maki elsewhere. Tao mistakenly listed the distribution of N. brimblecombei as solely HK, whereas it was actually described from P. elatus in Queensland, Australia.
Neophyllaphis podocarpi Takahashi (1920)
Several HK samples in BMNH, all from Podocarpus macrophyllus . Also reported on P. macrophyllus var. maki from HK by Lee & Winney (1981) but not reported from HK by Tao (1999a). However, the species is referred to by Takahashi (1941c), who collected material from Podocarpus chinensis [see P. brimblecombei , above] in HK in March 1940. N. podocarpi is common in HK but the frequency of occurrence of N. brimblecombei in HK remains unknown.
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.