A phylogenetic study of the subtribe Dicrepidiina (Elateridae, Elaterinae, Ampedini)

It is presented a cladistic analysis of the Dicrepidiina aiming to test the monophyletism of the subtribe and to establish the relationships among the genera. The subtribe is composed by 36 genera and all of them, except Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis and Spilomorphus were included in the analysis. Fifty two species, especially the type-species of each genus were studied: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 and Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), and species of the other subtribes of Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) and Anchastus digittatus and Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina) were used as outgroups. The results of the phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that Dicrepidiina, as formerly defined, does not form a monophyletic group. One genus, represented by Ovipalpus pubescens, was removed from the subtribe. The subtribe is characterized by presence of lamella under 2nd and 3rd tarsomeres of all legs. Also, it was revealed that the genera Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus and Propsephus are not monophyletic. Due to the scarcity of information, all the studied species are redescribed and illustrated.

Hygienic behavior of the stingless bee Plebeia remota (Holmberg, 1903) (Apidae, Meliponini)

We investigated hygienic behavior in 10 colonies of Plebeia remota, using the pin-killed method. After 24 h the bees had removed a mean of 69.6% of the dead brood. After 48 h, the bees had removed a mean of 96.4% of the dead brood. No significant correlation was found between the size of the brood comb and the number of dead pupae removed, and there was no apparent effect of the origin and the condition of the colony on the hygienic behavior of the bees. Plebeia remota has an efficiency of hygienic behavior superior to that of three of the other four stingless bee species studied until now.

Letters that construct limits: intellectual and political projects in the letters of Capistrano de Abreu to Barao do Rio Branco (1886-1903)

The intention of this paper is to analyze the letters from Capistrano de Abreu to Barao do Rio Branco in the years between 1886 and 1903. The focus will be given to the divergences around the notion of territorial formation, a basic concept for these authors who were thinking about the construction of a historical narrative at the end of the 19(th) and beginning of the 20(th) century. Later, the question is the construction of the craft of the historian in the letters of Capistrano de Abreu and his distinction and proximity to the ideas of the Barao do Rio Branco.