Systematic Catalogue of the Reduviidae of the World (Insecta: Heteroptera)
Page(s):
x + 694
Publisher:
University of Puerto Rico
Publication Place:
Mayagüez, Puerto Rico
ISBN/ISSN:
/
Notes:
A Special Edition of the Caribbean Journal of Science
Reference for:
Sciaphilocoris
Author(s)/Editor(s):
Forthman, Michael, and Christiane Weirauch
Publication Date (Listed/Actual):
2017-07-01 / 2017-07-01
Article/Chapter Title:
Millipede assassins and allies (Heteroptera: Reduviidae: Ectrichodiinae, Tribelocephalinae): total evidence phylogeny, revised classification and evolution of sexual dimorphism
Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.:
Systematic Entomology, vol. 42, no. 3
Page(s):
575-595
Publisher:
Publication Place:
ISBN/ISSN:
/0307-6970
Notes:
doi: 10.1111/syen.12232
Reference for:
Sciaphilocoris
Author(s)/Editor(s):
Kerzhner, I. M.
Publication Date (Listed/Actual):
1992-01-01 / 1992-01-01
Article/Chapter Title:
Nomenclatural and bibliographic corrections to J. Maldonado Capriles (1990) "Systematic catalogue of the Reduviidae of the World (Insecta: Heteroptera)"
Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.:
Zoosystematica rossica, vol. 1
Page(s):
46-60
Publisher:
Publication Place:
ISBN/ISSN:
/0320-9180
Notes:
Reference for:
Sciaphilocoris
Author(s)/Editor(s):
Miller, N. C. E.
Publication Date (Listed/Actual):
1949-12-15 / 1949-12-15
Article/Chapter Title:
A new genus and new species of Malaysian Reduviidae (Hemiptera)
Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.:
Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Series B Taxonomy, vol. 18, parts 11-12
Page(s):
229-237
Publisher:
Publication Place:
ISBN/ISSN:
/
Notes:
Reference for:
Sciaphilocoris
Sciaphilocoris: Geographic Information
Geographic Division:
Jurisdiction/Origin:
Sciaphilocoris: Comments
Comment:
Miller (1949:234) gives the explicit etymology from three Greek words, the final being koris (a bug, masculine). Even though there is a Latin word (coris = plant with bug-like seeds, feminine), the Greek word specified by Miller determines the gender of the name as masculine (following Art. 30.1.2, not 30.1.1). This agrees with Kerzhner's (1992:52) assertion that the species must be S. ornatus, rather than the original S. ornata