Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Allogamus auricollis braueri (Kolenati, 1859) = Allogamus auricollis (Pictet, 1834) in Lavandier 1979. TAXO. While A. auricollis was originally identified as a single species, Oláh et al. (2014), based on an examination of the phallic organ, split it into two distinct species: Allogamus alpensis Oláh, 2014 (exclusively in the Alps) and A. auricollis (in other regions). However, Malicky (2016), based on both molecular and in-depth morphological analyses, indicates that more species might arise, arguing that the differentiation proposed by Oláh et al. (2014) was trivial. Given that the topotype of A. auricollis described by Pictet (1834) comes from the Alps, Malicky (2016) reclassified A. alpensis as A. auricollis auricollis in the Alpine region and designated the populations in other areas (e. g., Massif central, Pyrenees, Germany) as A. auricollis braueri. We thus rather referred to the classification provided by Malicky (2016) rather than the ones provided by Oláh et al. (2014), and names our individuals as A. auricollis braueri. DIFF. We therefore decided to change A. auricollis in Lavandier’s dataset to A. auricollis braueri.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Launay et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: