download:

『http://www.cerambycids.com/checklist/Monne&Hovore_2005.pdf』 --Dr.Moth

Checklist order

Subfamilies are arranged in traditional checklist order, although Napp (1994) has provided a phylogenetic analysis which suggests the following sequence: Anoplodermatinae, Parandrinae, Prioninae, Spondylidinae, Lepturinae, Aseminae, Cerambycinae, Lamiinae. Tribal classifications within the subfamilies have not been evaluated phylogenetically, so their ordering is alphabetical. It is acknowledged that this results in the artificial separation of similar-appearing (and undoubtedly closely related) taxa (i.e., Anaglyptini – Clytini – Tillomorphini; Acanthocinini – Colobotheiini; Bothriospilini – Torneutini), and the breakup of the lamiine tribes with bifid tarsal claws. However, the functional value of a checklist is as an organizing reference tool, and for that reason-- and until such time as a tribal phylogeny has been determined-- the ordering is arranged for ease of use. Genera and species also are listed alphabetically. Citation of author, year and page number follows each taxon name, with synonymies cited in italics. Geographical distributions listed reflect the present knowledge of the authors and previous published data, and are subject to expansion as new information is contributed. An effort has been made to verify all contributed records, but the possibility exists that some erroneous identifications have led toincorrect distributional parameters for some species. These are corrected as we become aware of them. State or other provincial citations have been used where known for some larger countries to more accurately indicate known ranges. For more complete references by species, the authors refer the reader to Monné, 1993, et seq., Catalogue of the Cerambycidae of the Western Hemisphere (Parts 1 - 22), and Monné, 2005 (Part I, Part II). A bibliography of systematic and distributional references is provided at the end of the checklist.

The status of the disteniine longhorns has been the subject of considerable debate, and at various times they have been treated as a separate family, the Disteniidae. The issue remains open to debate, and for the purposes of this list we have employed the taxonomic placement of Lawrence & Newton, 1995, as a cerambycid subfamily, Disteniinae.