Two Simple Ways to Make Taxonomic Diagnoses More Useful

Abstract

I suggest two ways to make taxonomic diagnoses more useful: they should state overtly (1) what taxa the new one is diagnosed against, I term this the reference group; and (2) how to identify the reference group from others in the higher-level group to which it belongs, I call this more inclusive taxon the recognition group. Making the reference group identifiable within an as-large-as-possible recognition group increases the usefulness of a taxonomic paper. For diagnoses of 313 newly described insect genera, I assess the taxonomic level and number of genera in both reference and recognition groups. The two were identical in almost half of the cases and were at the same taxonomic level, but the reference group was geographically, ecologically or morphologically more restricted in less than 9%, and the recognition group was at a higher taxonomic level in the remainder. When authors explained how to identify the reference group from a larger recognition group, the number of genera from which the new one could be differentiated increased by a factor of more than four. I make a series of recommendations on how diagnoses can be improved based upon analyses of reference and recognition groups.

1. Introduction

There is increasing demand for tools to aid in the identification of the world’s biota, and while numerous modalities have been employed, at their description, new taxa are still mostly only identifiable using traditional morphological approaches. The most common of these methods are identification keys and diagnoses [1,2,3]. In a survey of almost 600 newly described insect genera, less than 40% were associated with a key to aid in their identification [3]. Thus, diagnoses are critically important especially for newly described taxa, for which they may be the easiest available tool permitting identification. Despite this, there is little advice associated with constructing diagnoses, and while Article 13.1.1 of the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [4] states that all new names must “be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon…”, those features are not required to be presented in the form of a diagnosis, which is only a recommendation:

“Recommendation 13A: Intent to differentiate. When describing a new nominal taxon, an author should make clear his or her purpose to differentiate the taxon by including with it a diagnosis, that is to say, a summary of the characters that differentiate the new nominal taxon from related or similar taxa.”

This leaves open the question of which taxa might be “related or similar” and how broadly those terms are to be interpreted. Both might best be understood in terms of the characteristics an organism possesses that indicate that the diagnosis might be relevant to a specimen at hand. This information is often not presented in a clear fashion. To improve how diagnoses may be formulated, I recommend the use of two terms which I define below: the reference group and the recognition group.

The reference group is the taxonomic group to which the diagnosis directly relates. For example, if the diagnosis states: “the new genus can be differentiated from others in the subtribe”, then the reference group is the relevant subtribe. Similarly, if the diagnosis is a comparison to only one other genus (as is commonly the case when a new genus is separated from the one to which its species previously belonged or would key out to), then the reference group is just the one genus in the comparison.

The recognition group is the highest level in the taxonomic hierarchy for which identifying features were provided in the paper—the taxonomic group to which a user must determine that their specimen belongs for the information provided to be worth investigating further. The recognition group is frequently at a higher taxonomic level than the reference group. For example, if the diagnosis is to a genus within a subtribe but elsewhere in the paper the authors explain how to differentiate the subtribe within the subfamily but not how to separate that subfamily from others in the family, the recognition group is the relevant subfamily, but the reference group remains the subtribe. Alternatively, the reference and recognition groups may be at the same taxonomic level but still contain different numbers of subtaxa, for example, if the reference group is a geographically, morphologically or ecologically restricted subset of a named taxon at the same level in the hierarchy (Western-hemisphere Orientalidae, members of the Filiantenninae with swollen flagellomeres or members of the Asterophagini that form galls on rhododendron, to give some imaginary examples).

Inclusion of a recognition group that is more expansive than the reference group increases the number of genera that the new genus can be discriminated from at the time of its description. As this is a desirable component of new taxon descriptions, the larger the number of taxa included in the recognition group the better. Additionally, the higher up the taxonomic hierarchy the recognition group is, the easier it will be for users to know that the content of the paper might be relevant to material in their collection because higher-level taxa are generally easier to identify.

In this paper, I provide results of assessments of reference and recognition groups associated with the description of new insect genera published over an 18-month period starting in January 2021. I chose the genus level to ensure that the dataset was both tractable in size but also included the entire range of insect diversity. The conclusions reached, however, should be applicable to any taxonomic rank for all groups of organisms.

2. Materials and Methods

In early 2022, I searched for newly described insect genera through Scopus searches using ordinal names combined with terms such as “new gen*” or “gen* n*” filtered for the year 2021. Searches were repeated in July and August 2022 but with 2022 as the filter. Papers dealing only with fossil taxa were removed from the sample for two reasons: First, because of the very different procedures used in palaeontology, and second, the much greater interest academics and the general public alike have in extant insects. The resulting papers were downloaded where available online or through the library resources available to me, and I attempted to obtain PDFs of papers published in Zootaxa (where the largest number of new genera were described) that were behind a paywall by contacting the senior authors and requesting a PDF (see [3] for more details).

For each newly described genus, I looked for a section in the paper that had the word diagnosis (or a derivative such as “diagnostic”) as a heading or subheading. Papers lacking this were not assessed further. For each newly described genus associated with a diagnosis, I gathered the following information in addition to standard reference data: (a) the reference group to which the diagnosis applied, (b) the information that enabled a user to identify the reference group, (c) where such information was placed, (d) the recognition group, (e) the reason for the difference between reference and recognition groups, when these were different, (f) the number of genera in the reference group, (g) the number of genera in the recognition group, (h) what reference or recognition groups were implied by the paper’s title and (i) whether the paper included a key permitting identification of the new taxa. Some of these variables require additional explanation as follows.

Reference and recognition groups were initially classified within the Linnean hierarchy as given in each paper. The categories found were a single genus, two or more genera (including genus complex, “phyletic series”, clade), subtribe, tribe, supertribe, subfamily, family, superfamily and order. In some cases, it was not possible to decide at which taxonomic level the diagnosis applied, and in two cases, the reference group was ecologically defined [5,6]. These levels were simplified to four categories for statistical analysis and visualization due to negligeable sample sizes for the more rarely used taxonomic levels. The groups retained were (i) genus plus genus group, (ii) subtribe to supertribe, (iii) subfamily and (iv) family level and above.

When both reference and recognition groups could be detected and were different, I searched for rationales for their difference as provided in the papers. These were either geographic or morphological, with the latter varying in detail from “appearance” or “size” to morphology-based phylogenies. For morphological differences, the number of features authors provided for differentiating reference from recognition groups was estimated for each new genus separately for males and females when applicable.

When data on number of genera in the reference or recognition groups were not provided in the paper, I searched elsewhere for the information. Taxon-specific databases such as the Orthoptera Species File [7] were particularly useful, but in some cases, Wikipedia or Wikispecies pages had to be consulted. All such online searches were conducted in September 2024, and the sources of information used are indicated in Table 1, columns J and K. I attempted to correct the numbers of genera to those that would have applied at the time the paper was written; all new genera described after 2020 were subtracted from the totals whenever this information could be readily located. Wherever possible, I used the numbers given by the authors without cross-correction for two reasons. First, the information presented in the paper would relate to how the authors understood the group at the time the new genus was described. Second, in cases of disagreement, it was not possible to decide which viewpoint might be most broadly accepted by the relevant taxonomic community.

Online sources may be inaccurate for various reasons. Thus, I analyzed group size data in two ways: first, with only information provided directly by the authors, and second, with data from additional sources also included. The latter enabled larger sample sizes. When the number of genera in the reference and/or recognition group was geographically or morphologically restricted, it was often not possible to discover how many genera were relevant, as such information is often not readily available.

The distribution of number of genera in reference and recognition groups had very long right-hand tails. As averages are strongly influenced by relatively few large numerical outliers, I often provide the median, which is a more accurate reflection of differences among subcategories in such instances.

Where in the paper the information permitting separation of the reference group from the recognition group was provided was noted. Ideally, this would be in the diagnosis itself, indicated by the term “diagnosis” in Table 1, column I or close by, either above it or following the description, denoted by the entry “close”. In more extensive treatments such as in revisions of higher-level taxa, this information might be given at the beginning of a taxonomy section, and although perhaps at some remove from a new genus’ diagnosis, its placement in such cases was considered “sensible”. Another useful place for this information to be provided would be associated with a key to genera if one was provided—“key”. Less useful were instances where the required information was far ahead of the diagnosis, for example, in an introduction—“far”—or near the end of the paper, usually in a discussion or concluding remarks—“end”. Analyses are presented on a per-genus basis irrespective of the number of new genera treated in the paper, as it is the genus that users need to identify. Additionally, sometimes, authors used different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy for different genera described in the same paper. For example, Lee et al. [8] had one genus as the reference group for Pulchrala but seemingly the entire subfamily for Tenupalpa (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae: Thiotrichinae).

3. Results

Three hundred and thirteen genera were described associated with one or more diagnoses in my sample of 213 papers [5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218] given in Table 1. I note in which column(s) the relevant raw data for the various analyses can be located.

Columns F and G in Table 1 show the taxonomic levels of the reference and recognition groups, as noted by the authors. I could not determine the reference and recognition groups unambiguously in two papers [81,131]. The two groups were identical, as originally stated in 148 cases (47.6%), were at the same taxonomic level, but the former was a morphological or geographical subset of the latter in 26 (8.4%). The recognition group was one level above the reference group in 111 instances (35.7%, 4 of these were further geographically restricted), two levels above it in 15 (4.8%), three levels above in 10 (3.2%) and four levels above in one (0.3%).

The authors explained the differences between the two groups for 160 genera (51.1% of the total, data in Table 1, column H). More than one category of reason (as many as three) was given for 14 genera; thus, there were 177 rationales in total. Most of these (140) were morphological in nature (79.1% of the total number of reasons, only 4 of which were phylogenetic), 34 (19.2%) were geographic and 3 (1.7%) were based upon taxonomic differences that were not detailed.

Data for taxonomic levels based on the simplified four categories are presented in Figure 1 for each order with at least 17 genera in the dataset as well as for the sum of all orders with fewer data (the largest of which was Blattodea with eight entries). Overall, reference groups around the tribal level were the most common (50.2% of instances), with the other three categories ranging from 14.5% (family level and above) to 18.1% (one or more genera) (Figure 1). For comparisons among orders, the number of cells in the table with fewer entries than five was too large for statistical analysis. Nonetheless, it is clear that Lepidoptera and the combined data for the smaller orders both stood out from the rest. For Lepidoptera, the percentage of reference groups at the generic level was 60%—more than twice that for the next largest value (29.4% for Orthoptera). This may reflect the rapid identifications commonly used for members of this group and the greater discriminatory power expected of lepidopterists, with decisions often based on wing patterns. For the smaller orders, the use of reference groups at the family level and above was substantially greater than in any of the larger orders (50.0% compared to an average of 11.8% among the others). This is perhaps unsurprising given that, by definition, the smaller orders have less diversity.

Table 1. Data on reference and recognition groups extracted from the 212 papers included in the analysis, arranged alphabetically by first author surname.

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M
Paper # *	Genus	Order	Family	Taxon in Title	Reference Group	Recognition Group	Reason for Difference	Ref. Group Position	# Genera Ref. Group ¢	# Genera Rec. Group ¢	# Morph Features	Key
[9]	Rinacapritermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	family	genus group §	genus group §	na	na	13	13	na	yes
[10]	Caribesialis	Megaloptera	Sialidae	family	family	order	morphology	far	8	36	4	yes
[11]	Apolemotermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	family	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	53	na	no
[11]	Koutabatermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	family	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	53	na	no
[12]	Alpinosciara	Diptera	Sciaridae	family	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[13]	Embiophoneus	Diptera	Tachinidae	family	2 tribes	subfamily	morphology	close	231 wk	240 wk	5	no
[14]	Tico	Hemiptera	Derbidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	24	49	3	no
[15]	Clypeuspinus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	genus	genus group	tribe §	morphology	sensible	2	77 wk	14	yes
[15]	Parasyleter	Coleoptera	Carabidae	tribe	genus group	tribe §	morphology	sensible	2	77 wk	14	yes
[16]	Australara	Coleoptera	Elmidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	sensible	2	28 ws	?	yes
[17]	Afrocharltona	Lepidoptera	Pyralidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	?	3	9	?	no
[17]	Afroromieuxia	Lepidoptera	Pyralidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	?	3	9	?	no
[18]	Ancylogastra	Lepidoptera	Crambidae	subfamily	genus group	subfamily	?	na	2	171 wk	na	no
[19]	Melanesicus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	42 ws	42 ws	na	no
[20]	Soqotranus	Coleoptera	Ptinidae	family	family	family	na	na	220 wk	220 wk	na	no
[21]	Troporhaconotus	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	12	194 wk	10	yes
[22]	Yalongaphaenops	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	genus group	subtribe	taxonomy & geography	diagnosis	?	?	?	no
[23]	Tuberoxenos	Strepsiptera	Xenidae	family	family	family	na	na	12	12	na	yes
[23]	Deltoxenos	Strepsiptera	Xenidae	family	family	family	na	na	12	12	na	yes
[23]	Sphecixenos	Strepsiptera	Xenidae	family	family	family	na	na	12	12	na	yes
[24]	Burmanyctycia	Lepidoptera	Noctuidae	genus group	genus group	genus group	morphology	diagnosis	3	4	10	no
[25]	Contractus	Coleoptera	Cerambycidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	30	30	na	yes
[26]	Stereophilus	Coleoptera	Mycetophagidae	genus	family	family	na	na	15 wk	15 wk	na	no
[27]	Striastigmus	Hymenoptera	Megastigmidae	family	family	family	na	na	13	13	na	no
[27]	Vitreostigmus	Hymenoptera	Megastigmidae	family	family	family	na	na	13	13	na	no
[28]	Salaziella	Hemiptera	Derbidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	27	27 F	na	no
[29]	Philippistenia	Coleoptera	Disteniidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	30	30	na	no
[30]	Bulbocornis	Hemiptera	Coreidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	37	363 ws	10	no
[31]	Auristeiphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	36 wk	36 wk	na	no
[31]	Macgrathphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	36 wk	36 wk	na	no
[32]	Sundaquedius	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe §	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	8	?	?	yes
[32]	Fluviphirus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	2	?	?	yes
[33]	Queiroziella	Hemiptera	Psyllidae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	?	?	?	?	no
[34]	Boltonia	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	2 families	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	4	401 aw	25	yes
[35]	Valkyriella	Hemiptera	Reduviidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	32	?	2	yes
[35]	Bacata	Hemiptera	Reduviidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	32	?	2	yes
[36]	Macrocosmetura	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	Na	no
[36]	Neocyrtopsides	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	Na	no
[36]	Acosmetides	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	Na	no
[37]	Carmenlyrus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	subtribe	subtribe *	subtribe	geography	diagnosis	23	75	?	no
[38]	Photinopygus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	family	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	31	31 ws	?	no
[39]	Ikaros	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	family	subtribe	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	30	206 ws	2	no
[40]	Ichneumonomacula	Diptera	Tephritidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	25	118 wk	2	yes
[41]	Ecuadoriphasma	Phasmatodea	Pseudophasmatidae	genus	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	14	14	na	no
[42]	Spinopholidoptera	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	8	8	na	no
[42]	Aparapholidoptera	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	8	8	na	no
[43]	Gracilepyris	Hymenoptera	Bethylidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	18	18	na	yes
[43]	Idatepyris	Hymenoptera	Bethylidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	18	18	na	yes
[43]	Austrepyris	Hymenoptera	Bethylidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	18	18	na	yes
[44]	Tetragus	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae †	genus	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	9	9	na	yes
[45]	Paralarsia	Diptera	Chironomidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[46]	Trigonoschema	Hemiptera	Cercopidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	end	40 wk	75 wk	6	no
[47]	Bozidaria	Coleoptera	Leiodidae	family	genus group	genus group	morphology	diagnosis	4	13	7	yes
[48]	Costalampys	Coleoptera	Lampyridae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	49 wk	49 wk	na	no
[49]	Haplocauda	Coleoptera	Lampyridae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	30 wk	49 wk	4	no
[50]	Gibbifronta	Diptera	Tephritidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	end	4	?	5	yes
[51]	Eudactylotinus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	genus	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	yes
[52]	Capanema	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	19	376 Osf	4	no
[52]	Tukunha	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	19	376 Osf	4	no
[53]	Jocezia	Hemiptera	Pentatomidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology	close	4	127	2	yes
[54]	Valallylum	Orthoptera	Tetrigidae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	1	74	12	no
[55]	Pinndorama	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	39	186	6	no
[56]	Magnana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	70	170	3	no
[5]	Ruschiola	Diptera	Cecidoymyiidae	family	tribe §	ecol tribe	na	na	4	4	na	no
[57]	Rudisculptus	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	subfamily?	subfamily?	na	na	142	142 wk	na	no
[58]	Regiominutus	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	141	141 wk	na	no
[59]	Andanicodes	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	family	family	na	na	161	161	na	no
[60]	Paramarginatus	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	family	family	na	na	1	52 D	na	no
[61]	Ptorthus	Hemiptera	Kinnaridae	family	genus group?	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[62]	Ebaiotrigona	Hymenoptera	Apidae	family	tribe §	tribe §	size	far	2	10	2	yes
[63]	Corrieopone	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	diagnosis	17	47	?	yes
[64]	Wallaciana	Hemiptera	Membracidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	?	36	40	?	no
[65]	Iberotrechodes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subtribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	12	267 wk	2	no
[66]	Parkerodynerus	Hymenoptera	Vespidae	tribe	genus group	subfamily	morphology	close	5	241 ws	2	no
[66]	Bohartodynerus	Hymenoptera	Vespidae	tribe	genus group	subfamily	morphology	close	5	241 ws	2	no
[67]	Holcoferonia	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subtribe	1 genus	subtribe §	morphology	close	2	2	6	no
[68]	Zagurya	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	46	46	na	no
[6]	Leucotaraxis	Diptera	Chamaemyiidae	family *	family §	family §	na	na	8	8	na	yes
[69]	Ysachron	Coleoptera	Cerambycidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	9	130 wk	8	yes
[70]	Paramegacraspedus	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	order	family	family	na	na	261 ws	261 ws	na	no
[71]	Tibiocnodes	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	23	69 wk	7	no
[71]	Tuberocnodes	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	23	69 wk	7	no
[72]	Notaferrum	Coleoptera	Ptinidae	family *	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	59	59 wk	na	no
[73]	Arumatia	Phasmatodea	Diapheromeridae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	46	46	na	no
[74]	Erwinianillus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Gregorydytes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Kimberleytyphlus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Neoillaphanus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Bylibaraphanus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Gilesdytes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Pilbaradytes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Pilbaraphanus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[75]	Sagarana	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	7	7	na	no
[76]	Chileothortus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Chimaerocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Connatocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Cordosomatula	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Foveocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Papuacryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Odontosomatula	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Paragnetaria	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Orthoscelis	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Humerocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Austroscelis	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Notocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Bellascelis	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[77]	Colossochares	Coleoptera	Hydrophilidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	22	157 ws	10	yes
[77]	Novochares	Coleoptera	Hydrophilidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	22	157 ws	10	yes
[78]	Irabola	Hemiptera	Issidae	genus group	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	60	60 F	na	no
[79]	Polychornum	Hemiptera	Caliscelidae	genus	tribe	tribe	na	na	16	16	na	no
[80]	Mejdalania	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	close	32	9224 ws	9	no
[81]	Takiyaella	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	subfamily	?	?	na	?	?	?	?	no
[82]	Beltrana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	71	71	na	no
[82]	Fulana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	71	71	na	no
[82]	Sicrana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	71	71	na	no
[83]	Melissocleptis	Hymenoptera	Halictidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	7	7	na	yes
[84]	Buestanmyia	Diptera	Tabanidae	tribe	tribe?	tribe	geography	far	41	57 wk	na	no
[85]	Ocellotetra	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	subtribe	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	14 Osf	14 Osf	na	no
[86]	Balleriodes	Coleoptera	Hybosoridae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	46 ws	46 ws	na	no
[87]	Nestorinus	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	387 wk	387 wk	na	no
[88]	Ebenacobius	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe *	tribe §	tribe	geography	diagnos	4	40	3	yes
[89]	Flospes	Orthoptera	Trigonidiidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	28 Osf	28 Osf	na	no
[90]	Ternicubitermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	genus group	genus group	subfamily	?	na	4	28	na	no
[90]	Polyspathotermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	genus group	genus group	subfamily	?	na	4	28	na	no
[91]	Pseudothenicus	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	50	50	na	no
[92]	Dorothee	Hymenoptera	Ichneumonidae	subfamily	subtribe	tribe	morphology	close	18	250 ws	11	yes
[93]	Hamotyrus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe	supertribe	morphology	far	86	118	1	yes
[93]	Plesiotyrinys	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe	supertribe	morphology	far	86	118	1	yes
[94]	Tiracaleda	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Tiramieua	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Tiraspirus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Ziweia	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Dzumacus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[95]	Valenciolenda	Hemiptera	Kinnaridae	family	family	family	na	na	24	24	na	no
[96]	Fangclia	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	5	5	na	no
[96]	Micrarsine	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	5	5	na	no
[96]	Callidarsine	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	25	25	na	no
[96]	Longarsine	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	41	41	na	no
[97]	Makalapobius	Orthoptera	Trigonidiidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	na	7	7	na	no
[97]	Gabusibius	Orthoptera	Trigonidiidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	na	7	7	na	no
[98]	Seselia	Orthoptera	Phalangopsidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	3	6	27	yes
[99]	Tibetisoperla	Plecoptera	Perlodidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	8	8	na	yes
[100]	Sinonichnus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	species	tribe	subfamily	morphology	end	23	80 wk	1	yes
[101]	Austroxiphyda	Hymenoptera	Xiphydriidae	subfamily	subfamily *	family	morphology	sensible	2	3	2	yes
[102]	Centroclumna	Blattodea	Blattellidae	genus group	family?	family	na	na	79	79	na	no
[103]	Nyxia	Hymenoptera	Ichneumonidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	diagnosis	2	29 ws	?	no
[104]	Corditarsus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	diagnosis	sensible	13	13	na	yes
[104]	Nisiborus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	diagnosis	sensible	13	13	na	yes
[104]	Xerasiborus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	diagnosis	sensible	13	13	na	yes
[105]	Karlsenius	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	9	9	na	no
[105]	Leiomicracis	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Neomicracis	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Microlanurgus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Pseudolanurgus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Diplotrichus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[106]	Sphaeraphodius	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	257 wk	377 wk	5	yes
[107]	Philibaetis	Ephemeroptera	Baetidae	family	family?	family	na	na	114	114	na	no
[108]	Megalabiops	Ephemeroptera	Baetidae	family	family	order	morphology	end	114	476	6	no
[109]	Toktokkus	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	subtribe	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	21 ws	21 wk	na	no
[110]	Saeculum	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	tribe §	tribe	geography	diagnosis	7	47 HCC	?	no
[111]	Apomyrsidea	Phthiraptera	Menoponidae	genus	family	family	na	na	70 ws	70 ws	na	yes
[112]	Eremohypera	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	72 ws	72 ws	na	no
[113]	Tainiasoma	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	family	family	order?	morphology	sensible	45	>28,000 HCC	26	no
[8]	Pulchrala	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	subfamily	1 genus	subfamily	key and morphology	sensible	1	6	9	yes
[8]	Tenupalpa	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	6	6	na	yes
[114]	Solomonocartus	Coleoptera	Rhynchitidae	tribe	tribe	supertribe?	morphology	close	2	33 wk	4	no
[115]	Parallobracon	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	?	187	?	no
[116]	Majialandrevus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	28	28	na	no
[117]	Infrantenna	Coleoptera	Bostrichidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	35	35	na	yes
[118]	Platydrilus	Coleoptera	Telegeusidae	family	family	order	taxonomy & morphology	close	4	>28,000 HCC	13	yes
[118]	Stenodrilus	Coleoptera	Telegeusidae	family	family	order	taxonomy & morphology	close	4	>28,000 HCC	13	yes
[119]	Bundoksia	Blattodea	Blattidae	family	2 subfams §	2 subfamilies §	na	na	11	27	?	yes
[120]	Pulchephemera	Ephemeroptera	Neoephemeridae	family	family	family	na	na	4	4	na	no
[121]	Elatosara	Ephemeroptera	Caenidae	subfamily	family	family	na	na	30	30 wk	na	no
[121]	Thainis	Ephemeroptera	Caenidae	subfamily	family	family	na	na	30	30 wk	na	no
[122]	Nyia	Diptera	Bombyliidae	genus group	tribe §	tribe	na	na	21	21	na	no
[123]	Lafontaineana	Lepidoptera	Noctuidae	genus	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[124]	Knudsonia	Lepidoptera	Geometridae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	6	6	na	no
[125]	Prokius	Hymenoptera	Cynipidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	50	50	na	no
[126]	Pentamerica	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Yamalaka	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Cervellaea	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Namaquania	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Springbokia	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Cederbergia	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[127]	Multipialus	Lepidoptera	Hepialidae	family	family	family	na	na	74 wk	74 wk	na	no
[127]	Agripialus	Lepidoptera	Hepialidae	family	family	family	na	na	74 wk	74 wk	na	no
[128]	Eraniella	Diptera	Chironomidae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	?	27 ws	27 wk	?	no
[129]	Telmatometropsis	Hemiptera	Gerridae	family	Subfamily §	subfamily	geography	diagnosis	8	?	?	yes
[130]	Tricosus	Diptera	Pipunculidae	family	tribes?	tribe?	na	na	?	?	na	no
[131]	Eilapinothrips	Thysanoptera	Phlaeothripidae	genus group	subfamily?	subfamily?	na	na	450 wk	480 ws	na	no
[132]	Cisandina	Lepidoptera	Nymphalidae	subfamily	genus group	genus group	na	na	5	5	na	no
[133]	Iranphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	family	family	na	na	282 ws	282 ws	na	yes
[134]	Mahabadphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	19 ws	19 ws	na	yes
[135]	Dariella	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	26	92	3	no
[135]	Labriella	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	26	92	3	no
[135]	Callitropisca	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	58	92	4	no
[135]	Laetifulvius	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	58	92	4	no
[135]	Micanitropis	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	58	92	4	no
[136]	Gentiliocossus	Lepidoptera	Cossidae	subfamily	subfamily?	subfamily?	na	na	21 ws	?	na	no
[137]	Vietnalia	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	subfamily	subfamily?	na	diagnosis	63	226	?	no
[138]	Dubianus	Dermaptera	Forficulidae	order	order §	order §	na	na	?	?	na	no
[139]	Arkaditilla	Hymenoptera	Mutillidae	tribe	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	13	13	na	no
[140]	Anicula	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	tribe	genus group	genus grp	na	na	2	2	na	no
[141]	Urbanthidium	Hymenoptera	Megachilidae †	subtribe	subtribe	subfamily	morphology	close	30	?	8	no
[142]	Viperinus	Lepidoptera	Lecithoceridae	family	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[143]	Spiniola	Lepidoptera	Lecithoceridae	subfamily	genus group	genus grp	na	na	3	3	na	no
[144]	Mixanigia	Coleoptera	Leiodidae	tribe	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	15	15	na	yes
[145]	Vietanna	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	subtribe	subtribe	subfamily	diagnosis	close	9	478 ws	9	yes
[146]	Rudogorites	Coleoptera	Leiodidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	12	265	10	yes
[147]	Spanglerelmis	Coleoptera	Elmidae	family	family	family	na	na	149	149	na	no
[148]	Parateleiopsis	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	family	family	family	na	na	261 ws	261 ws	na	no
[149]	Sahyadrialtica	Coleoptera	Chrysomelidae	subfamily *	genus group	tribe	morphology	far	9	500 wk	10	yes
[150]	Distinctamyia	Diptera	Cecidyomyiidae	subtribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	far	26	53 ws	3	no
[151]	Afrorogas	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	31	31	na	no
[151]	Papuarogas	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	31	31	na	no
[151]	Amanirogas	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	31	31	na	no
[152]	Cisanthrena	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae †	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	19 Mc	19 Mc	na	no
[152]	Austellurgus	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae †	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	19 Mc	19 Mc	na	no
[152]	Luisanthrena	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae †	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	19 Mc	19 Mc	na	no
[153]	Carinadelius	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	5	23	32	yes
[154]	Maculambrysus	Hemiptera	Naucoridae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	8	40	11	no
[154]	Australambrysus	Hemiptera	Naucoridae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	8	40	11	no
[155]	Brevialavenosa	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	tribe	tribe?	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	8	213 ws	10	no
[156]	Nelbroma	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	1	478 ws	14	no
[156]	Timbaltransversa	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology, geography	sensible	3	478 ws	15	no
[156]	Orientafroinsularis	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	2	478 ws	36	no
[156]	Mouldpsaltra	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	2	478 ws	14	no
[156]	Deremeces	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	9	478 ws	16	no
[157]	Citroriginis	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	subfamily	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	1	478 ws	49	no
[158]	Ebogotermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	52	na	no
[159]	Graziaphylus	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily *	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	59 wk	457 ws	3	no
[160]	Compsogusa	Mantodea	Gonypetidae	order?	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[161]	Protrachyasmus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	genus	1 genus	tribe	diagnosis	far	1	6	?	no
[162]	Michener	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	family	subfamily	family	morph	sensible	5	>1000	5	yes
[163]	Evansiclavelia	Hymenoptera	Pompilidae	subfamily	tribe §	subfamily	morphology, geography	sensible	5	25	10	yes
[163]	Maurilloides	Hymenoptera	Pompilidae	subfamily	tribe §	subfamily	morphology, geography	sensible	5	25	10	yes
[164]	Erythropompilus	Hymenoptera	Pompilidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	end	106 ws	214 ws	1	no
[165]	Miguelmonneus	Coleoptera	Cerambycidae	genus	genus group?	four genera	na	na	1	4	na	no
[166]	Saigusamyia	Diptera	Brachystomatidae	family	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	?	na	yes
[167]	Parallelodromia	Diptera	Hybotidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	27 ws	27 ws	na	no
[168]	Paraiteaphila	Diptera	Iteaphilidae	genus *	family	family	na	na	1	1	na	no
[169]	Echinothallis	Coleoptera	Erotylinae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	?	?	na	no
[169]	Microdacne	Coleoptera	Erotylinae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	?	?	na	no
[170]	Afropeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[170]	Mascaropeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[170]	Paederopeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[170]	Platopeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[171]	Visma	Zygentoma	Lepismatidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	2	2	na	no
[172]	Acanthamoplax	Hemiptera	Tingidae	genus	family	family	na	na	291	291 wk	na	yes
[173]	Gaufinia	Plecoptera	Chloroperlidae	family	family	family	na	na	18	18 ws	na	no
[174]	Flavorubivolatus	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	25	25	na	no
[174]	Retevolatus	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	25	25	na	no
[175]	Neotischeria	Lepidoptera	Tischeriidae	family?	family	family	na	na	6	6	na	no
[176]	Manitischeria	Lepidoptera	Tischeriidae	family	family	family	na	na	5	5	na	no
[177]	Sensorica	Hemiptera	Ricaniidae	family	family	family	na	na	67	67	na	no
[178]	Kazukuru	Hemiptera	Ricaniidae	family	family	family	na	na	67	67	na	no
[179]	Tarehylava	Hemiptera	Ricaniidae	family	family §	>family	geography	diagnosis	15	15	na	no
[180]	Dispardentium	Coleoptera	Chrysomelidae	genus	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	3	?	na	yes
[181]	Makaya	Hemiptera	Flatidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	57 ws	57 ws	na	no
[182]	Selizitapia	Hemiptera	Flatidae	family	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	5	5	na	no
[183]	Birabiro	Lepidoptera	Lycaenidae	none	genus group	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[183]	Kipepeo	Lepidoptera	Lycaenidae	none	genus group	genus group	na	na	3	3	na	no
[184]	Falcerminthus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	9	14	4	yes
[184]	Fadinthus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	9	14	4	yes
[185]	Rugabinthus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	subtribe	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	10	10	na	no
[186]	Megalofaciatus	Hemiptera	Miridae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	4 ws	34 ws	5	no
[187]	Arideneides	Hemiptera	Berytidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	11 ws	11 ws	na	no
[188]	Igaponera	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	sensible	48 aw	48 aw	3	no
[189]	Portentus	Coleoptera	Anthribidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	3	57 wk	5	yes
[190]	Pectotibialis	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe §	tribe	morphology	far	23	38	1	yes
[191]	Australolaius	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	genus	tribe §	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	16	38	1	yes
[192]	Tonyattalus	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	3	3	na	no
[192]	Tonycolotes	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	3	3	na	no
[192]	Arabotroglops	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	5	5	na	no
[193]	Helioandesia	Lepidoptera	Heliodinidae	genus	family	superfamily	morphology	far	13	465 ws	3	no
[194]	Zaragozapirhidius	Coleoptera	Ripiphoridae	subfamily	subfamily	family	multiple	far	5	40	5	yes
[195]	Ratsa	Lepidoptera	Geometridae	subfamily	2 genera	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[196]	Platycesta	Coleoptera	Chrysomelidae	tribe *	genus group	tribe	morphology	close	2	76 wk	3	no
[197]	Malayomelittia	Lepidoptera	Sesiidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology, geography	diagnosis	3	20	6	no
[197]	Scarlata	Lepidoptera	Sesiidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology, geography	diagnosis	4	20	8	no
[198]	Settelia	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subfamily	genus group	genus group	na	na	57	57	na	no
[199]	Siccasura	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	genus group	genus group	genus group	na	na	57	57	na	no
[200]	Kruegerilema	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	99	na	no
[201]	Apodytapion	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[201]	Turnerapion	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[201]	Lepanomidius	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[201]	Rhynchitapion	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[202]	Sabzia	Lepidoptera	Geometridae	species	2 genera	genus grp	na	na	2	2	na	no
[203]	Halopanurgus	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae	subfamily	genus group	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	4	37 Mc	7	yes
[204]	Concaviasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Specioscasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Tripunctiasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Coccineasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Longibrachiasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[205]	Stroehleia	Lepidoptera	Cossidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	77 ws	77 ws	na	no
[206]	Micrarbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	1	29	?	no
[206]	Ghatarbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family §	na	na	?	?	?	no
[207]	Tagoria	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	12	29	?	no
[208]	Marcopoloia	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	13	31	?	no
[209]	Tearbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	genus group	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[210]	Aukorbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	15	32	?	no
[211]	Subtilissimia	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	key	close	100	480 wk	3	no
[212]	Asicimbex	Hymenoptera	Cimbicidae	tribe	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	10	10	na	yes
[213]	Stonedahlia	Hemiptera	Miridae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	8	177	1	yes
[213]	Namyatovia	Hemiptera	Miridae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	8	177	1	yes
[214]	Phragmitalitus	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	species	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	139	924 ws	3	no
[215]	Eyarinella	Hemiptera	Veliidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	key	8	27 ws	na	yes
[215]	Thirumalaia	Hemiptera	Veliidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	key	8	27 ws	na	yes
[216]	Kavayva	Hymenoptera	Eurytomidae	family	family	family	na	na	85 wk	85 wk	na	no
[217]	Anuihuajianga	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	204	204	na	no
[218]	Tabwecala	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	tribe	family	family	na	na	2418 ws	2418 ws	na	no
[219]	Ruptor	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	220	220	na	no

*—arranged alphabetically by author, §—qualified as morphological, geographical or ecological subset, †—authors used a different family name, ¢—data from original authors except as follows: aw [220], D [60], F [221], Mc [222], Osf [7], HCC [223], wk—Wikipedia, ws—Wikispecies.

Table 1. Data on reference and recognition groups extracted from the 212 papers included in the analysis, arranged alphabetically by first author surname.

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M
Paper # *	Genus	Order	Family	Taxon in Title	Reference Group	Recognition Group	Reason for Difference	Ref. Group Position	# Genera Ref. Group ¢	# Genera Rec. Group ¢	# Morph Features	Key
[9]	Rinacapritermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	family	genus group §	genus group §	na	na	13	13	na	yes
[10]	Caribesialis	Megaloptera	Sialidae	family	family	order	morphology	far	8	36	4	yes
[11]	Apolemotermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	family	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	53	na	no
[11]	Koutabatermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	family	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	53	na	no
[12]	Alpinosciara	Diptera	Sciaridae	family	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[13]	Embiophoneus	Diptera	Tachinidae	family	2 tribes	subfamily	morphology	close	231 wk	240 wk	5	no
[14]	Tico	Hemiptera	Derbidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	24	49	3	no
[15]	Clypeuspinus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	genus	genus group	tribe §	morphology	sensible	2	77 wk	14	yes
[15]	Parasyleter	Coleoptera	Carabidae	tribe	genus group	tribe §	morphology	sensible	2	77 wk	14	yes
[16]	Australara	Coleoptera	Elmidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	sensible	2	28 ws	?	yes
[17]	Afrocharltona	Lepidoptera	Pyralidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	?	3	9	?	no
[17]	Afroromieuxia	Lepidoptera	Pyralidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	?	3	9	?	no
[18]	Ancylogastra	Lepidoptera	Crambidae	subfamily	genus group	subfamily	?	na	2	171 wk	na	no
[19]	Melanesicus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	42 ws	42 ws	na	no
[20]	Soqotranus	Coleoptera	Ptinidae	family	family	family	na	na	220 wk	220 wk	na	no
[21]	Troporhaconotus	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	12	194 wk	10	yes
[22]	Yalongaphaenops	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	genus group	subtribe	taxonomy & geography	diagnosis	?	?	?	no
[23]	Tuberoxenos	Strepsiptera	Xenidae	family	family	family	na	na	12	12	na	yes
[23]	Deltoxenos	Strepsiptera	Xenidae	family	family	family	na	na	12	12	na	yes
[23]	Sphecixenos	Strepsiptera	Xenidae	family	family	family	na	na	12	12	na	yes
[24]	Burmanyctycia	Lepidoptera	Noctuidae	genus group	genus group	genus group	morphology	diagnosis	3	4	10	no
[25]	Contractus	Coleoptera	Cerambycidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	30	30	na	yes
[26]	Stereophilus	Coleoptera	Mycetophagidae	genus	family	family	na	na	15 wk	15 wk	na	no
[27]	Striastigmus	Hymenoptera	Megastigmidae	family	family	family	na	na	13	13	na	no
[27]	Vitreostigmus	Hymenoptera	Megastigmidae	family	family	family	na	na	13	13	na	no
[28]	Salaziella	Hemiptera	Derbidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	27	27 F	na	no
[29]	Philippistenia	Coleoptera	Disteniidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	30	30	na	no
[30]	Bulbocornis	Hemiptera	Coreidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	37	363 ws	10	no
[31]	Auristeiphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	36 wk	36 wk	na	no
[31]	Macgrathphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	36 wk	36 wk	na	no
[32]	Sundaquedius	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe §	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	8	?	?	yes
[32]	Fluviphirus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	2	?	?	yes
[33]	Queiroziella	Hemiptera	Psyllidae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	?	?	?	?	no
[34]	Boltonia	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	2 families	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	4	401 aw	25	yes
[35]	Valkyriella	Hemiptera	Reduviidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	32	?	2	yes
[35]	Bacata	Hemiptera	Reduviidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	32	?	2	yes
[36]	Macrocosmetura	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	Na	no
[36]	Neocyrtopsides	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	Na	no
[36]	Acosmetides	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	Na	no
[37]	Carmenlyrus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	subtribe	subtribe *	subtribe	geography	diagnosis	23	75	?	no
[38]	Photinopygus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	family	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	31	31 ws	?	no
[39]	Ikaros	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	family	subtribe	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	30	206 ws	2	no
[40]	Ichneumonomacula	Diptera	Tephritidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	25	118 wk	2	yes
[41]	Ecuadoriphasma	Phasmatodea	Pseudophasmatidae	genus	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	14	14	na	no
[42]	Spinopholidoptera	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	8	8	na	no
[42]	Aparapholidoptera	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	8	8	na	no
[43]	Gracilepyris	Hymenoptera	Bethylidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	18	18	na	yes
[43]	Idatepyris	Hymenoptera	Bethylidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	18	18	na	yes
[43]	Austrepyris	Hymenoptera	Bethylidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	18	18	na	yes
[44]	Tetragus	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae †	genus	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	9	9	na	yes
[45]	Paralarsia	Diptera	Chironomidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[46]	Trigonoschema	Hemiptera	Cercopidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	end	40 wk	75 wk	6	no
[47]	Bozidaria	Coleoptera	Leiodidae	family	genus group	genus group	morphology	diagnosis	4	13	7	yes
[48]	Costalampys	Coleoptera	Lampyridae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	49 wk	49 wk	na	no
[49]	Haplocauda	Coleoptera	Lampyridae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	30 wk	49 wk	4	no
[50]	Gibbifronta	Diptera	Tephritidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	end	4	?	5	yes
[51]	Eudactylotinus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	genus	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	yes
[52]	Capanema	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	19	376 Osf	4	no
[52]	Tukunha	Orthoptera	Tettigoniidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	19	376 Osf	4	no
[53]	Jocezia	Hemiptera	Pentatomidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology	close	4	127	2	yes
[54]	Valallylum	Orthoptera	Tetrigidae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	1	74	12	no
[55]	Pinndorama	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	39	186	6	no
[56]	Magnana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	70	170	3	no
[5]	Ruschiola	Diptera	Cecidoymyiidae	family	tribe §	ecol tribe	na	na	4	4	na	no
[57]	Rudisculptus	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	subfamily?	subfamily?	na	na	142	142 wk	na	no
[58]	Regiominutus	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	141	141 wk	na	no
[59]	Andanicodes	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	family	family	na	na	161	161	na	no
[60]	Paramarginatus	Hemiptera	Aleyrodidae	family	family	family	na	na	1	52 D	na	no
[61]	Ptorthus	Hemiptera	Kinnaridae	family	genus group?	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[62]	Ebaiotrigona	Hymenoptera	Apidae	family	tribe §	tribe §	size	far	2	10	2	yes
[63]	Corrieopone	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	diagnosis	17	47	?	yes
[64]	Wallaciana	Hemiptera	Membracidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	?	36	40	?	no
[65]	Iberotrechodes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subtribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	12	267 wk	2	no
[66]	Parkerodynerus	Hymenoptera	Vespidae	tribe	genus group	subfamily	morphology	close	5	241 ws	2	no
[66]	Bohartodynerus	Hymenoptera	Vespidae	tribe	genus group	subfamily	morphology	close	5	241 ws	2	no
[67]	Holcoferonia	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subtribe	1 genus	subtribe §	morphology	close	2	2	6	no
[68]	Zagurya	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	46	46	na	no
[6]	Leucotaraxis	Diptera	Chamaemyiidae	family *	family §	family §	na	na	8	8	na	yes
[69]	Ysachron	Coleoptera	Cerambycidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	9	130 wk	8	yes
[70]	Paramegacraspedus	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	order	family	family	na	na	261 ws	261 ws	na	no
[71]	Tibiocnodes	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	23	69 wk	7	no
[71]	Tuberocnodes	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	23	69 wk	7	no
[72]	Notaferrum	Coleoptera	Ptinidae	family *	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	59	59 wk	na	no
[73]	Arumatia	Phasmatodea	Diapheromeridae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	46	46	na	no
[74]	Erwinianillus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Gregorydytes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Kimberleytyphlus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Neoillaphanus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Bylibaraphanus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Gilesdytes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Pilbaradytes	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[74]	Pilbaraphanus	Coleoptera	Carabidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	geography	sensible	18	74	?	yes
[75]	Sagarana	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	7	7	na	no
[76]	Chileothortus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Chimaerocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Connatocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Cordosomatula	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Foveocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Papuacryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Odontosomatula	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Paragnetaria	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Orthoscelis	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Humerocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Austroscelis	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Notocryptus	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[76]	Bellascelis	Coleoptera	Cryptophagidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	description	sensible	21	45	36	yes
[77]	Colossochares	Coleoptera	Hydrophilidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	22	157 ws	10	yes
[77]	Novochares	Coleoptera	Hydrophilidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	22	157 ws	10	yes
[78]	Irabola	Hemiptera	Issidae	genus group	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	60	60 F	na	no
[79]	Polychornum	Hemiptera	Caliscelidae	genus	tribe	tribe	na	na	16	16	na	no
[80]	Mejdalania	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	close	32	9224 ws	9	no
[81]	Takiyaella	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	subfamily	?	?	na	?	?	?	?	no
[82]	Beltrana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	71	71	na	no
[82]	Fulana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	71	71	na	no
[82]	Sicrana	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	71	71	na	no
[83]	Melissocleptis	Hymenoptera	Halictidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	7	7	na	yes
[84]	Buestanmyia	Diptera	Tabanidae	tribe	tribe?	tribe	geography	far	41	57 wk	na	no
[85]	Ocellotetra	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	subtribe	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	14 Osf	14 Osf	na	no
[86]	Balleriodes	Coleoptera	Hybosoridae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	46 ws	46 ws	na	no
[87]	Nestorinus	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	387 wk	387 wk	na	no
[88]	Ebenacobius	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe *	tribe §	tribe	geography	diagnos	4	40	3	yes
[89]	Flospes	Orthoptera	Trigonidiidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	28 Osf	28 Osf	na	no
[90]	Ternicubitermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	genus group	genus group	subfamily	?	na	4	28	na	no
[90]	Polyspathotermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	genus group	genus group	subfamily	?	na	4	28	na	no
[91]	Pseudothenicus	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	50	50	na	no
[92]	Dorothee	Hymenoptera	Ichneumonidae	subfamily	subtribe	tribe	morphology	close	18	250 ws	11	yes
[93]	Hamotyrus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe	supertribe	morphology	far	86	118	1	yes
[93]	Plesiotyrinys	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	tribe	tribe	supertribe	morphology	far	86	118	1	yes
[94]	Tiracaleda	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Tiramieua	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Tiraspirus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Ziweia	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[94]	Dzumacus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	supertribe	supertribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	118	1253 ws	6	no
[95]	Valenciolenda	Hemiptera	Kinnaridae	family	family	family	na	na	24	24	na	no
[96]	Fangclia	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	5	5	na	no
[96]	Micrarsine	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	5	5	na	no
[96]	Callidarsine	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	25	25	na	no
[96]	Longarsine	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subtribe	genus group	genus group	na	diagnosis	41	41	na	no
[97]	Makalapobius	Orthoptera	Trigonidiidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	na	7	7	na	no
[97]	Gabusibius	Orthoptera	Trigonidiidae	tribe	genus group	genus group	na	na	7	7	na	no
[98]	Seselia	Orthoptera	Phalangopsidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	3	6	27	yes
[99]	Tibetisoperla	Plecoptera	Perlodidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	8	8	na	yes
[100]	Sinonichnus	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	species	tribe	subfamily	morphology	end	23	80 wk	1	yes
[101]	Austroxiphyda	Hymenoptera	Xiphydriidae	subfamily	subfamily *	family	morphology	sensible	2	3	2	yes
[102]	Centroclumna	Blattodea	Blattellidae	genus group	family?	family	na	na	79	79	na	no
[103]	Nyxia	Hymenoptera	Ichneumonidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	diagnosis	2	29 ws	?	no
[104]	Corditarsus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	diagnosis	sensible	13	13	na	yes
[104]	Nisiborus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	diagnosis	sensible	13	13	na	yes
[104]	Xerasiborus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	diagnosis	sensible	13	13	na	yes
[105]	Karlsenius	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	9	9	na	no
[105]	Leiomicracis	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Neomicracis	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Microlanurgus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Pseudolanurgus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[105]	Diplotrichus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	20	270 ws	17	yes
[106]	Sphaeraphodius	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	257 wk	377 wk	5	yes
[107]	Philibaetis	Ephemeroptera	Baetidae	family	family?	family	na	na	114	114	na	no
[108]	Megalabiops	Ephemeroptera	Baetidae	family	family	order	morphology	end	114	476	6	no
[109]	Toktokkus	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	subtribe	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	21 ws	21 wk	na	no
[110]	Saeculum	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	tribe §	tribe	geography	diagnosis	7	47 HCC	?	no
[111]	Apomyrsidea	Phthiraptera	Menoponidae	genus	family	family	na	na	70 ws	70 ws	na	yes
[112]	Eremohypera	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	72 ws	72 ws	na	no
[113]	Tainiasoma	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	family	family	order?	morphology	sensible	45	>28,000 HCC	26	no
[8]	Pulchrala	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	subfamily	1 genus	subfamily	key and morphology	sensible	1	6	9	yes
[8]	Tenupalpa	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	6	6	na	yes
[114]	Solomonocartus	Coleoptera	Rhynchitidae	tribe	tribe	supertribe?	morphology	close	2	33 wk	4	no
[115]	Parallobracon	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	?	187	?	no
[116]	Majialandrevus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	28	28	na	no
[117]	Infrantenna	Coleoptera	Bostrichidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	35	35	na	yes
[118]	Platydrilus	Coleoptera	Telegeusidae	family	family	order	taxonomy & morphology	close	4	>28,000 HCC	13	yes
[118]	Stenodrilus	Coleoptera	Telegeusidae	family	family	order	taxonomy & morphology	close	4	>28,000 HCC	13	yes
[119]	Bundoksia	Blattodea	Blattidae	family	2 subfams §	2 subfamilies §	na	na	11	27	?	yes
[120]	Pulchephemera	Ephemeroptera	Neoephemeridae	family	family	family	na	na	4	4	na	no
[121]	Elatosara	Ephemeroptera	Caenidae	subfamily	family	family	na	na	30	30 wk	na	no
[121]	Thainis	Ephemeroptera	Caenidae	subfamily	family	family	na	na	30	30 wk	na	no
[122]	Nyia	Diptera	Bombyliidae	genus group	tribe §	tribe	na	na	21	21	na	no
[123]	Lafontaineana	Lepidoptera	Noctuidae	genus	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[124]	Knudsonia	Lepidoptera	Geometridae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	6	6	na	no
[125]	Prokius	Hymenoptera	Cynipidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	50	50	na	no
[126]	Pentamerica	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Yamalaka	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Cervellaea	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Namaquania	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Springbokia	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[126]	Cederbergia	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	diagnosis	sensible	6	>1300 wk	17	yes
[127]	Multipialus	Lepidoptera	Hepialidae	family	family	family	na	na	74 wk	74 wk	na	no
[127]	Agripialus	Lepidoptera	Hepialidae	family	family	family	na	na	74 wk	74 wk	na	no
[128]	Eraniella	Diptera	Chironomidae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	?	27 ws	27 wk	?	no
[129]	Telmatometropsis	Hemiptera	Gerridae	family	Subfamily §	subfamily	geography	diagnosis	8	?	?	yes
[130]	Tricosus	Diptera	Pipunculidae	family	tribes?	tribe?	na	na	?	?	na	no
[131]	Eilapinothrips	Thysanoptera	Phlaeothripidae	genus group	subfamily?	subfamily?	na	na	450 wk	480 ws	na	no
[132]	Cisandina	Lepidoptera	Nymphalidae	subfamily	genus group	genus group	na	na	5	5	na	no
[133]	Iranphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	family	family	na	na	282 ws	282 ws	na	yes
[134]	Mahabadphora	Diptera	Phoridae	family	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	19 ws	19 ws	na	yes
[135]	Dariella	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	26	92	3	no
[135]	Labriella	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	26	92	3	no
[135]	Callitropisca	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	58	92	4	no
[135]	Laetifulvius	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	58	92	4	no
[135]	Micanitropis	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	morphology	close	58	92	4	no
[136]	Gentiliocossus	Lepidoptera	Cossidae	subfamily	subfamily?	subfamily?	na	na	21 ws	?	na	no
[137]	Vietnalia	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	tribe	subfamily	subfamily?	na	diagnosis	63	226	?	no
[138]	Dubianus	Dermaptera	Forficulidae	order	order §	order §	na	na	?	?	na	no
[139]	Arkaditilla	Hymenoptera	Mutillidae	tribe	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	13	13	na	no
[140]	Anicula	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	tribe	genus group	genus grp	na	na	2	2	na	no
[141]	Urbanthidium	Hymenoptera	Megachilidae †	subtribe	subtribe	subfamily	morphology	close	30	?	8	no
[142]	Viperinus	Lepidoptera	Lecithoceridae	family	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[143]	Spiniola	Lepidoptera	Lecithoceridae	subfamily	genus group	genus grp	na	na	3	3	na	no
[144]	Mixanigia	Coleoptera	Leiodidae	tribe	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	15	15	na	yes
[145]	Vietanna	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	subtribe	subtribe	subfamily	diagnosis	close	9	478 ws	9	yes
[146]	Rudogorites	Coleoptera	Leiodidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	12	265	10	yes
[147]	Spanglerelmis	Coleoptera	Elmidae	family	family	family	na	na	149	149	na	no
[148]	Parateleiopsis	Lepidoptera	Gelechiidae	family	family	family	na	na	261 ws	261 ws	na	no
[149]	Sahyadrialtica	Coleoptera	Chrysomelidae	subfamily *	genus group	tribe	morphology	far	9	500 wk	10	yes
[150]	Distinctamyia	Diptera	Cecidyomyiidae	subtribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	far	26	53 ws	3	no
[151]	Afrorogas	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	31	31	na	no
[151]	Papuarogas	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	31	31	na	no
[151]	Amanirogas	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	31	31	na	no
[152]	Cisanthrena	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae †	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	19 Mc	19 Mc	na	no
[152]	Austellurgus	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae †	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	19 Mc	19 Mc	na	no
[152]	Luisanthrena	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae †	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	19 Mc	19 Mc	na	no
[153]	Carinadelius	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	5	23	32	yes
[154]	Maculambrysus	Hemiptera	Naucoridae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	8	40	11	no
[154]	Australambrysus	Hemiptera	Naucoridae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	sensible	8	40	11	no
[155]	Brevialavenosa	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	tribe	tribe?	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	8	213 ws	10	no
[156]	Nelbroma	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	1	478 ws	14	no
[156]	Timbaltransversa	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology, geography	sensible	3	478 ws	15	no
[156]	Orientafroinsularis	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	2	478 ws	36	no
[156]	Mouldpsaltra	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	2	478 ws	14	no
[156]	Deremeces	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	family	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	9	478 ws	16	no
[157]	Citroriginis	Hemiptera	Cicadidae	subfamily	tribe	family	morphology	sensible	1	478 ws	49	no
[158]	Ebogotermes	Blattodea	Termitidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	52	na	no
[159]	Graziaphylus	Hemiptera	Miridae	subfamily *	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	59 wk	457 ws	3	no
[160]	Compsogusa	Mantodea	Gonypetidae	order?	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	1	na	no
[161]	Protrachyasmus	Coleoptera	Curculionidae	genus	1 genus	tribe	diagnosis	far	1	6	?	no
[162]	Michener	Hymenoptera	Braconidae	family	subfamily	family	morph	sensible	5	>1000	5	yes
[163]	Evansiclavelia	Hymenoptera	Pompilidae	subfamily	tribe §	subfamily	morphology, geography	sensible	5	25	10	yes
[163]	Maurilloides	Hymenoptera	Pompilidae	subfamily	tribe §	subfamily	morphology, geography	sensible	5	25	10	yes
[164]	Erythropompilus	Hymenoptera	Pompilidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	morphology	end	106 ws	214 ws	1	no
[165]	Miguelmonneus	Coleoptera	Cerambycidae	genus	genus group?	four genera	na	na	1	4	na	no
[166]	Saigusamyia	Diptera	Brachystomatidae	family	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	?	?	na	yes
[167]	Parallelodromia	Diptera	Hybotidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	27 ws	27 ws	na	no
[168]	Paraiteaphila	Diptera	Iteaphilidae	genus *	family	family	na	na	1	1	na	no
[169]	Echinothallis	Coleoptera	Erotylinae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	?	?	na	no
[169]	Microdacne	Coleoptera	Erotylinae	subfamily	tribe	tribe	na	na	?	?	na	no
[170]	Afropeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[170]	Mascaropeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[170]	Paederopeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[170]	Platopeplus	Coleoptera	Salpingidae	subfamily	subfamily	family	diagnosis	sensible	9	49	35	yes
[171]	Visma	Zygentoma	Lepismatidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	2	2	na	no
[172]	Acanthamoplax	Hemiptera	Tingidae	genus	family	family	na	na	291	291 wk	na	yes
[173]	Gaufinia	Plecoptera	Chloroperlidae	family	family	family	na	na	18	18 ws	na	no
[174]	Flavorubivolatus	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	25	25	na	no
[174]	Retevolatus	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	25	25	na	no
[175]	Neotischeria	Lepidoptera	Tischeriidae	family?	family	family	na	na	6	6	na	no
[176]	Manitischeria	Lepidoptera	Tischeriidae	family	family	family	na	na	5	5	na	no
[177]	Sensorica	Hemiptera	Ricaniidae	family	family	family	na	na	67	67	na	no
[178]	Kazukuru	Hemiptera	Ricaniidae	family	family	family	na	na	67	67	na	no
[179]	Tarehylava	Hemiptera	Ricaniidae	family	family §	>family	geography	diagnosis	15	15	na	no
[180]	Dispardentium	Coleoptera	Chrysomelidae	genus	subfamily §	subfamily §	na	na	3	?	na	yes
[181]	Makaya	Hemiptera	Flatidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	57 ws	57 ws	na	no
[182]	Selizitapia	Hemiptera	Flatidae	family	tribe §	tribe §	na	na	5	5	na	no
[183]	Birabiro	Lepidoptera	Lycaenidae	none	genus group	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[183]	Kipepeo	Lepidoptera	Lycaenidae	none	genus group	genus group	na	na	3	3	na	no
[184]	Falcerminthus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	9	14	4	yes
[184]	Fadinthus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	tribe	subtribe	tribe	morphology	sensible	9	14	4	yes
[185]	Rugabinthus	Orthoptera	Gryllidae	subtribe	subtribe	subtribe	na	na	10	10	na	no
[186]	Megalofaciatus	Hemiptera	Miridae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	4 ws	34 ws	5	no
[187]	Arideneides	Hemiptera	Berytidae	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	11 ws	11 ws	na	no
[188]	Igaponera	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	sensible	48 aw	48 aw	3	no
[189]	Portentus	Coleoptera	Anthribidae	family	tribe	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	3	57 wk	5	yes
[190]	Pectotibialis	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe §	tribe	morphology	far	23	38	1	yes
[191]	Australolaius	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	genus	tribe §	tribe	morphology	diagnosis	16	38	1	yes
[192]	Tonyattalus	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	3	3	na	no
[192]	Tonycolotes	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	3	3	na	no
[192]	Arabotroglops	Coleoptera	Melyridae †	family	tribe	tribe	na	na	5	5	na	no
[193]	Helioandesia	Lepidoptera	Heliodinidae	genus	family	superfamily	morphology	far	13	465 ws	3	no
[194]	Zaragozapirhidius	Coleoptera	Ripiphoridae	subfamily	subfamily	family	multiple	far	5	40	5	yes
[195]	Ratsa	Lepidoptera	Geometridae	subfamily	2 genera	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[196]	Platycesta	Coleoptera	Chrysomelidae	tribe *	genus group	tribe	morphology	close	2	76 wk	3	no
[197]	Malayomelittia	Lepidoptera	Sesiidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology, geography	diagnosis	3	20	6	no
[197]	Scarlata	Lepidoptera	Sesiidae	tribe	genus group	tribe	morphology, geography	diagnosis	4	20	8	no
[198]	Settelia	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	subfamily	genus group	genus group	na	na	57	57	na	no
[199]	Siccasura	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	genus group	genus group	genus group	na	na	57	57	na	no
[200]	Kruegerilema	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	tribe	1 genus	1 genus	na	na	1	99	na	no
[201]	Apodytapion	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[201]	Turnerapion	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[201]	Lepanomidius	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[201]	Rhynchitapion	Coleoptera	Brentidae	subfamily	genus group §	subfamily	phyl geog key	key	10	168 ws	6	yes
[202]	Sabzia	Lepidoptera	Geometridae	species	2 genera	genus grp	na	na	2	2	na	no
[203]	Halopanurgus	Hymenoptera	Andrenidae	subfamily	genus group	subfamily	morphology	diagnosis	4	37 Mc	7	yes
[204]	Concaviasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Specioscasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Tripunctiasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Coccineasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[204]	Longibrachiasca	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	far	105	480 wk	13	yes
[205]	Stroehleia	Lepidoptera	Cossidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	77 ws	77 ws	na	no
[206]	Micrarbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	1	29	?	no
[206]	Ghatarbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family §	na	na	?	?	?	no
[207]	Tagoria	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	12	29	?	no
[208]	Marcopoloia	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	13	31	?	no
[209]	Tearbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	genus group	genus group	na	na	2	2	na	no
[210]	Aukorbela	Lepidoptera	Metarbelidae	family	family §	family	geography	na	15	32	?	no
[211]	Subtilissimia	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	subfamily	tribe	subfamily	key	close	100	480 wk	3	no
[212]	Asicimbex	Hymenoptera	Cimbicidae	tribe	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	10	10	na	yes
[213]	Stonedahlia	Hemiptera	Miridae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	8	177	1	yes
[213]	Namyatovia	Hemiptera	Miridae	tribe	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	8	177	1	yes
[214]	Phragmitalitus	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	species	tribe	subfamily	morphology	sensible	139	924 ws	3	no
[215]	Eyarinella	Hemiptera	Veliidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	key	8	27 ws	na	yes
[215]	Thirumalaia	Hemiptera	Veliidae	subfamily	subfamily §	subfamily	geography	key	8	27 ws	na	yes
[216]	Kavayva	Hymenoptera	Eurytomidae	family	family	family	na	na	85 wk	85 wk	na	no
[217]	Anuihuajianga	Hemiptera	Cicadellidae	tribe	tribe	tribe	na	na	204	204	na	no
[218]	Tabwecala	Lepidoptera	Erebidae	tribe	family	family	na	na	2418 ws	2418 ws	na	no
[219]	Ruptor	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	subfamily	subfamily	subfamily	na	na	220	220	na	no

*—arranged alphabetically by author, §—qualified as morphological, geographical or ecological subset, †—authors used a different family name, ¢—data from original authors except as follows: aw [220], D [60], F [221], Mc [222], Osf [7], HCC [223], wk—Wikipedia, ws—Wikispecies.

For the recognition group, the most common taxonomic level overall was subfamily (38.8%) and the least common was genus (10.9%). Again, Lepidoptera and the combination of smaller orders are outliers requiring genus group-level identification and family or higher-level, respectively, for over half of the new genera (Figure 1), the reasons likely being the same as for the reference groups, as described above.

The number of genera in the reference group was stated in the paper in 257 cases (82.1%), and the data are presented in Table 1, column J. The number ranged from one to 257, averaging 27.1 and with a median value of 13. When data from additional sources were included, the reference group was given or could be estimated for 299 genera (95.5%), ranged from 1 to over 2400, averaged 43.7 and had a median of 17.

The authors provided the number of genera in the recognition group in 156 cases (49.8%), as shown in Table 1, column K. This number ranged from 1 to 265, with an average of 41.7 and median of 25. The number of genera in the recognition group could be estimated for an additional 138 genera (for a total of 294, 93.9%) when data from additional sources were included. The number of genera ranged from 1 to ~28,000 (all beetles), averaged 476.9 and had a median of 45.5.

The number of genera in the recognition group compared to the reference group could be estimated from the information presented by the authors for 150 genera (47.9%) and ranged from 0 to 253, with an average of 18.3 and median of 0 due to the large number of instances where the two groups were identical (91 instances—60.7% of the genera where the datum could be calculated). With zeros removed, the average became 45.9 and the median value 32. Again, with zeros removed, the number of genera from which the new one could be differentiated increased by an average of 8.4 times and a median of 4.1 times.

When other sources of information were included, the increase in size of the recognition compared to reference groups could be estimated in 289 cases (92.3%) and ranged from 0 to almost 24,000, averaged 440.7 and with a median of 9, which became 56 when zeroes were removed. Again, when identical recognition and reference groups were removed from the data, i.e., when group size(s) data estimated from extraneous information were included, discrimination of the recognition group resulted in an average increase of 127 times more genera, with a median of 5 times.

When morphological features were given to separate reference and recognition groups, the number of features requiring observation varied from 1 to 49, with an average of 12.1 and median of 7.5 (Table 1, column L). The relationship between the number of features requiring observation and the number of genera that could be excluded through differentiating the reference from the recognition group was negative (r = −0.13) but not significant (p = 0.41). Figure 2 shows these values when both group sizes were given in the original publications. To the bottom right, a mere six observations are required to exclude over 360 mayfly genera (108). To the top left, relatively large numbers of observations are required to exclude comparatively few genera for a range of different taxa.

One or more of the features required dissection (of genitalia or digestive system) in 47 cases ranging in relative proportion from 1 out of 26 features to both of 2. The average percentage of features that required dissection among all features was 10.5%. Both sexes were required to identify the reference group in six cases and both sexes as well as the pupa in one more. Thus for 5.3% of the genera for which the relevant data were presented, it was seemingly not possible for a user to embark on checking the diagnosis for the new genus unless they either had both sexes or a juvenile stage in addition to both sexes available.

Placement of the information that permitted differentiation of the reference group from the recognition group was in the diagnosis itself in 25 instances (15.4%), in a sensible position within the overall taxonomic treatment in 83 (51.2%), associated with an identification key in 6 (3.7%) and close to the diagnosis in 22 (13.6%) (usually immediately above it or in a remarks section beneath the description). Less usefully, these data were given two or more pages above the diagnosis in 21 instances (13.0%) and near the end of the paper in 6 (4.3%) (in 1 case, in a phylogenetic tree—see recommendation #6 below).

Keys were available to aid in the identification of 122 of the new genera (38.6%; Table 1, column M). Papers lacking a key had significant differences in the taxonomic levels of their reference and recognition groups compared to those with keys, but the patterns were not simple. Reference groups without a key were disproportionately less represented at intermediate taxonomic levels (subfamily and tribe) (χ² = 16.7, p < 0.001), whereas recognition groups had fewer subfamilies for those genera not made identifiable with a key compared to all other taxonomic levels (χ² = 27.1, p < 0.00001). The numbers of genera in reference or recognition groups did not differ significantly whether an identification key was or was not provided when based upon data provided by the authors (z = 0.75, p = 0.46 and z = 1.6, p = 0.11, respectively). When data from extraneous sources were included, there were significantly fewer genera in both reference and recognition groups in papers without a key compared to those with one (in both cases, z = 2.31, p = 0.021). Genera not made identifiable with a key were more likely to have the reference and recognition groups identical (χ² = 20.2, p < 0.00001), thus making the paper describing them less useful in two ways: lacking a key and having the smallest possible recognition group.

The taxonomic information provided in the paper’s title (Table 1, column E) indicated the reference group precisely in 64 cases (20.8%), differed only in terms of geographic or ecological delimitation in 95 (30.9%) and indicated a higher taxonomic level in 116 (37.8%) and a lower one in 24 (7.8%). The title reflected the recognition group in 25 cases (8.2%), differed only in ecological or geographic delimitation in 95 (30.9%), had a higher taxonomic level in 79 (25.7%) and had a lower taxonomic level in 107 (34.9%). Thus, the title of the paper may be considered misleading as to the taxonomic relevance of the information within (through over- or understating its generality) for ~80% of the genera.

4. Discussion

Diagnoses are important components of the description of new taxa, and their inclusion has been recommended by the ICZN since 1930 [224]. But how might a user decide whether the diagnosis is relevant to a specimen they wish to identify?

I have provided a framework whereby this information might be conveyed: the reference group being that to which the diagnosis applies directly, and the recognition group the taxon which the user needs to be able to identify before using the more finely discriminatory information in the publication. While these were the same in almost one-half of the diagnoses, there are two main advantages to proscribing a recognition group that is at as-high-a taxonomic level as possible, or at least as-high-a-level as might be reasonable depending on the target audience. First, the more expansive the recognition group is, the easier it will be for a user to determine whether or not their specimen belongs to it and thereby decide that further investigation of the paper is warranted. Second, the larger the recognition group the more likely it is that users will already have the information required to identify it. For example, if the diagnosis for the new genus compares it to only one other genus (especially if the shared features that differentiate them from higher taxonomic levels are not provided), the user needs to be able to identify the original genus. Precisely this situation was found in ten instances (where entries in Table 1, columns F and G both state “1 genus”). This does a disservice both to taxonomy and to those that use the results of taxonomic research: such papers will rarely be cited because so much additional information is required of a user for the paper to be readily understood as being useful to them.

At the opposite extreme, if a new genus is diagnosed within a family but how to tell members of that family from all others in the order is outlined, the user needs only to be able to identify a specimen at the ordinal level for the information in the paper to be potentially useful. A good example of this was the paper describing two new genera of beetles of the family Telegeusidae [118], in which the authors also explain how to differentiate the family from all other beetles. In this instance, the user can get from more than 28,000 genera to just 1 from a single research article (which included a global key to genera in the family). Recognition groups at the ordinal level were found in six instances (Table 1, column H). This approach is useful, as even beginner entomologists would likely be able to recognize most insects at this level. Recognition groups at the family level were found in 58 instances. This might be considered the lowest level at which a useful recognition group can be defined for a wide range of users in that keys to families within orders (globally or geographically limited) should be available to any committed entomological enthusiast.

How expansive the information associated with a new taxonomic description is should depend on the target clientele of the paper. Braby et al. [225] state that a diagnosis “should provide sufficient information to allow anyone to distinguish the new species from similar or closely related species” [italics mine]. By extension, diagnoses of genera should also allow anyone to identify the genus; indeed, their higher taxonomic rank should make their identification easier. Clearly these statements are too optimistic (not everyone has access to a microscope or the literature, for example), but it does seem that most new genus descriptions are aimed at an audience comprising no more than the few other taxonomic experts in the same group. This is a pity given the increasing global interest in, and acknowledged importance of, the world’s biota—especially given the repeated statements that the field of taxonomy is in crisis, e.g., [226].

Of course, the title of a journal article should provide the reader with the information required to decide whether to proceed in use of the paper to identify a specimen at hand. But in almost 40% of cases, the title suggested a broader (higher taxonomic level) relevance than was provided in the paper, potentially wasting user’s time. This doubtless results from the requirements of most journals to state in the title the order and family that are the topic of the paper. Loosening of that regulation so that either reference or recognition groups (or both) can be added would seem useful, and it would be preferable if stating what these are is mandatory.

Some journals require a complete taxonomic breakdown for the new taxa at the beginning of a taxonomy section. For example, the instructions to authors for the European Journal of Taxonomy state with respect to the results “[T]this section should start with a contextual account of the current taxonomic hierarchy of the target taxon”. However, this can be misleading, as it suggests that the subsequent diagnosis is relevant to the lowest level provided in the hierarchy that immediately precedes it. For example, in a paper describing a new genus of Mycetophagidae (Coleoptera) [26], the taxonomic hierarchy suggests that the diagnosis might differentiate the new genus from those within its tribe, whereas it is separated from “all other known genera” of the family, which is much more useful. In contrast, in a paper describing three new genera of meconematine crickets [36], each is diagnosed only with respect to one other genus, yet both the title and the taxonomic hierarchy suggest that differentiation from taxa at the tribal level might be expected and no key is provided to assist. These issues could easily be avoided through overt statement of the reference and recognition groups.

5. Conclusions

Diagnoses will be made considerably more useful if authors, reviewers and editors ensure that two simple terms are overtly addressed for each new taxon: (a) the reference group—that to which the diagnosis directly relates—and (b) the recognition group—a higher-level taxon that should be easier for a user to distinguish.

Based upon the deliberations above, I provide the following eight recommendations. Where appropriate, each is accompanied by a rationale and one or more examples. Although the data upon which these ideas were generated were from newly diagnosed insect genera, I believe these recommendations should apply to diagnoses for all taxa at all levels in the hierarchy, including the species level.

• State reference and recognition groups overtly: “the diagnosis contrasts the new taxon with all others in the subtribe Diagnostina (reference group), this subtribe can be differentiated from all others in the family (recognition group) by….”.
• State how both groups are understood. This would be analogous to the taxon concept [227,228]. This recommendation is necessitated by the seemingly disparate ways different authors sometimes understood the same taxon. In instances where there is taxonomic controversy as to group membership, authors should state which classification they are using. For example, Termitidae are placed in different orders in [11] and [158], and closely related bees are placed in different families in [142,202]. The best way to achieve this would be to cite a readily available reference that defined the group the way it is understood by the authors.
• State the number of taxa that are in the reference and recognition groups. This not only provides an additional potential check for the groups’ taxon concept but also gives the reader an idea of the complexity of the task of separating a specimen to be identified from others in the groups.
• State the reference and recognitions groups in the (sub)heading to the diagnosis and start the diagnosis with information that permits differentiation of the reference group from the recognition group. Alternatively, provide the characteristics separating reference from recognition groups in an obvious position, immediately above the diagnosis perhaps. It was often necessary to search the entire paper to find out whether a recognition group could be detected and to find the features that separate the reference group from it (if they were given): why hide the information that enables a potential citer to know whether the paper is worth further study? Of course, authors may have mentioned what I took to be a recognition group only “in passing”, and perhaps by accident, as their focus would have been on a more narrowly defined taxon.
• Provide information that enables a user to differentiate reference from recognition groups briefly and use features that are decisive. As with keys [3], features in diagnoses that have exceptions or overlapping states are of limited utility as they are indecisive, although if carefully worded, especially in the context of a combination of features, they may help exclude some taxa. Similarly, long descriptive text explaining how to identify the reference group will be more onerous for a user to get through.
• Discriminatory information should be easy for a user to access in the paper. As a counterexample, to discover the defining features to differentiate the reference group from the recognition group in [40], the user must: (i) locate the characters that define the group from the phylogeny given in a supplementary figure (where the states are not provided though character numbers are), then (ii) find the relevant matrix from among a set of supplementary tables wherein a 56 column and 55 row data matrix is provided to locate the relevant state numbers and then (iii) look at the character state descriptions elsewhere in the supplementary material. In this example, users must go through three unnecessarily time-consuming steps before obtaining an answer that could easily have been given in the body of the paper.
• The information provided to differentiate reference from recognition groups should be as easy to assess as possible. If the features provided include information from both sexes, then those features will not be assessable from a single specimen or presumes users have access to correctly associated members of the two sexes. If one or more of the features listed require dissection, unless they are the only suitable features, the information will be unnecessarily time-consuming to evaluate.
• Be consistent with respect to the reference or recognition group being used. For example, in [46], a new genus is listed under a subtribe, but the discussion states that it could not be placed in a subtribe, causing some confusion for the reader.