IDF-Report : newsletter of the International Dragonfly Fund
http://www.dragonflyfund.org/de/idf-report.html
Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (16) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of Periodical (12)
- Article (4)
Language
- English (16) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16) (remove)
160:1-20
160:21-74
164
Damselflies recorded before the administrative partition of the Indian Subcontinent and now housed at National Insect Museum (NIM), Islamabad were reviewed and catalogued. This collection is the divided part of National PUSA Collection (NPC) transferred to the Pakistan during 1947. Data for this collection had never been available or published. A record of 104 taxa is reported herein. Few of the species were found double named, misidentified and not updated as per valid classification. Some of the specimens were found unidentified. All such issues were resolved by following regional literature.
166
Inhalt:
Preparation of preserved field collected dried damselfly specimens for
character illustrations S. 1-7
Imaging preserved damselflies for scientific publications S. 9-20
165
Two new congeneric species endemic to Fiji are introduced: Nesobasis martina sp. nov. [holotype female, Viti Levu Is] and N. monika sp. nov. [holotype male, Taveuni Is]. The species are placed in the comosa- and erythrops-groups respectively (grouping following Donnelly 1990). Diagnostic features are proposed, but not discussed. Further discussion is left for an ongoing revision of the genus (Donnelly & Marinov in prep. ). The new species reported here are introduced ahead of this revision in a study which was made possible due to the International Dragonfly Fund (IDF) offering the opportunity to pick a new species' name for a donation.
167
This paper offers an explanation of each of the 44 scientific names given by Leopold Krüger (1861-1942) to odonate taxa together with that for the names of all the genera into which they are sorted now. But prior to that there is some information about the life and work of this scientist, and in the final part his preferences in odonatological nomenclature are compared with those in the names created by F.M. Brauer and F. Ris and some impressions of his studies on Neuroptera are presented and considerations about his aspirations in his work are given.