BELLAMY C.L. 2003. An illustrated summary of the higher classification of the superfamily Buprestoidea (Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana, Supplementum 10: 1-197, 453 colour illustrations. ISBN 80-86447-09-4. Published by Vít Kabourek, Sokolská 3923, CZ-760-01 Zlin, Czech Republic; tel/fax +420 577 437 870, e-mail: vk@kabourek.cz. Price: US$88.00.

We live in the Era of Catalogues and Colour Albums: not only private scientists like me but even large libraries find it difficult or impossible to keep pace with the flood of [more or less exhaustive, more or less critically compiled, more or (if at all) less extensively commented, world-wide or regional] lists of taxa, and still less so with new and new [often gorgeously illustrated but (unfortunately - or perhaps, at least from the "viewpoint" of our pockets, very fortunately indeed...) of in most cases rather little scientific value] picture-books. If well done, such edition - making easier the (otherwise hopelessly time-consuming) search for published information and helping to avoid (otherwise practically inevitable) mistakes and overlookings - is of great value to a student of the respective group, and nevertheless his/her first reaction is frequently "oh, God! - one more book which I am expected to know and quote but will never have easy access to"! And, in effect, many of them do remain hardly accessible, rarely quoted and only exceptionally - in cases of absolute necessity - searched for in libraries and (if found there...) appropriately used... The publication now before me is a catalogue and a picture-book at once (though apparently not primarily intended as either of these), but I hope its exceptional merits will allow it to rise from the ranks and find its way not only to all serious zoological libraries, but also to the desks of all taxonomists interested in the Buprestidae.

Short (1 page) "Introduction" - mostly devoted to the explanation of the main sources of the accepted classification - is followed by "Methods and Materials", divided into three parts: "Biogeographical Regions" (definitions of nine major continental areas in terms of which the geographical distribution of genera is referred to in the text), "Abbreviations" (further remarks on the presentation of data), and "Availability of Certain Family- and Genus-group Names" (discussion of the status of names introduced by Chevrolat, Dejean, Gistel, Gory and Laporte, and Spinola). The main part of the book (pages 12-100) is "The Higher Classification System" - essentially a catalogue of supraspecific (including - at the end - fossil) taxa showing synonymy, references to original publications, originally ascribed status, type-species (with the authorship of designation), and sometimes notes on important revisional works, nomenclature, or taxonomic placement; for recent genera (not for subgenera!) also gender, number of species, and general (in terms of the above-mentioned nine areas) distribution is given. On pages 102-145 the reader finds 453 colour photographs, illustrating representatives (very often "TS" - type-species?) of almost as many subgenera of nearly all genera (many of them very rare, poorly described, not known even to experienced buprestidologists, and/or never previously photographed). The book is completed with exhaustive (ca. 750 titles) list of "References", "Index of Illustrated Species", and "Index of Superspecific Taxa".

What I find somewhat disappointing is the fact that it is not what the title seems to suggest! Having heard of the "summary of the higher classification" I expected either a bare systematic (according to the Author's views) list of taxa (i.e. "summary" in the strict sense), or - rather! - a commented comparison of various [recently] published opinions (with or without formulation of the Author's own standpoint) as to the subdivision of Buprestoidea in general and/or placement of controversial subgroups in particular; the book before me is much more than the former, but (as a "summary of classification") much less than the latter: it is an illustrated catalogue of supraspecific taxa arranged according to (mostly uncommented) combination of two partial systems. Moreover, neither of these two systems is that (of Holynski 1988, 1993) mentioned in the Introduction as "accepted, in principle": the subfamily Agrilinae have been arranged according to Kubán & al. (2000), all the remaining groups follow Volkovitsh's (2001) conclusions based on antennal sensory structures [the choice of the latter - and the use of categorical formulations like "Holynski included X into Y, but Volkovitsh showed that it belongs to Z" - seems somewhat surprising, as Volkovitsh (2001) himself expressedly (and emphatically!) disclaimed the applicability of the suggestions summarized in his "List of examined buprestid higher taxa arranged with respect to antennal structures" to such a purpose ("It is vital to note that I do not suggest a new classification of the Buprestidae, because in my opinion the creation of a natural classification based on single character system is impossible")]! Of course the Author has the right to base his work on the system he prefers - what I am criticizing here is only the misleading formulation, suggesting to the reader that I am responsible for multitude of decisions which in fact I have never proposed and definitely do not agree with... On the other hand, the accomodation of the Volkovitsh's (2001) "List" - with its admittedly "informal [emphasis mine - RBH] categories as complex, lineage, branch, and generic group" - to the role of regular classification produced a confused, cumbersome arrangement where the relations between taxa and "quasi-taxa" are often virtually impossible to unravel. Is, e.g., "generic group [tribal level] sensu Volkovitsh, 2001" co-ordinate (of equal rank) or subordinate to tribe (and, respectively, "generic group [subtribal level] sensu Volkovitsh, 2001" to subtribe)? If "Anilara generic group [tribal level] sensu Volkovitsh, 2001" is co-ordinate to the "Tribe Curini", how Anilarini can be a synonym of the latter?; if subordinate, what does the "tribal level" mean? And what about "generic group sensu Volkovitsh, 2001" (without indication of the "level")?

So, in my opinion, as "summary of the classification" the publication is a misfire: it does not provide either a coherent, usable original system, or critical presentation of the various recently advocated opinions. However, paradoxically, many readers will find this an advantage: while "quarrels" about higher classification are interesting to (alas!) relatively few enthusiasts of the noble science of "pigeonholing", a beautifully illustrated and professionally good (despairingly rare combination!) catalogue can be very helpful and/or enjoyable as well to world-famous jewel-beetle specialist as to nature-loving amateur - and as a catalogue the book is excellent! Dr. Charles L. Bellamy is one of the topmost authorities in the taxonomic studies of the Buprestidae, and his favourite occupation seems to be the painstaking, time-consuming, spurned by most zoologists (but indispensable if we wish to know what are we speaking about), "bibliographic drudgery" (search in often old and hardly accessible literature for authors and dates, priorities and current usages, homonyms and synonyms, original spellings and type-designations - the very kind of information a good catalogue is primarily expected to provide). We may (and do...) frequently disagree on the warrantness of particular nomenclatural and/or taxonomic decisions, but whenever doubts arise as to the basic underlying data (which paper appeared earlier? has the type-species of the genus X been ever properly designated? what was the original combination for the species Y described in some obscure publication?) the first "reflex" is "I must ask Chuck"... So, he is certainly the person better than anybody else qualified to prepare the World Catalogue of the Buprestidae, and indeed he has been working on such projects already since decades: his first, preliminary list of supraspecific taxa (Bellamy 1985) has served as indispensable tool for buprestid taxonomists since 18 years, and the comprehensive (down to varieties) version approaches completion - the present publication is apparently an "extract" from the latter. As could be expected from such authority, the very detailed, carefully checked, beautifully and purposefully illustrated (a splendid and remarkably useful idea!) catalogue makes an exquisite source of reliable information.

The only features of general nature that I perceive as shortcomings are overly generalized geographical regionalization (indications like "PAL"[aearctic] do not tell very much, one would like to know whether the genus in question represents endemism of Canary Is., is widely distributed over Siberian taiga, or perhaps inhabits Formosa and Ryu-Kyu Archipelago...) and the disparate treatment of what the Author considers "full" genera vs. subgenera (some data - esp. gender and distribution - are provided only for the former; in view of notorious subjectivity of criteria for, and vast variety of opinions on, the ranks of buprestid supraspecific taxa, such discrimination seems not easily justifiable); luckily, in this case helps Bellamy's (otherwise often irritating to me...) extreme "splitter inclination": it is not easy to find a group treated usually as a genus but downgraded by him... By the way, I can hardly imagine what kind of "conclusive studies" could ever "show" what rank should be accorded to particular taxon (cf. e.g. the Note under Peronaemis - :55)?

Of course, in a publication like this some simple mistakes inevitably occur, but only few have come to my attention. So, Acmaeoderoidina (:16) "were combined by Holynski (1993a)" with Ptosimina (not with Nothomorphina!); "the subtribal structure" of the Anthaxiini (:66) is certainly not "essentially that proposed by Holynski", mainly because... the tribe as accepted by Bellamy is not "subtribally structured" at all: of the 13 subtribes recognized by Holynski (1993) only the "content" of the nominotypical one - plus the genera Cylindrophora (removed from my Curidina) and Chalcogenia (from the Melanophilina) - has been left here...; some of the photographed beetles have been misidentified (fig. 96 shows Chalcoplia (Chalcomroczkowskia) auricollis, not aurofoveata; fig. 141 - a member of the Chrysodema [antennata]-superspecies, not deyrollei; fig. 145 - Metataenia quadriplagiata, not meeki) but, as their primary function is to illustrate genera/subgenera, the inexactitude at the species level does not matter very much. The fact that (despite having turned over the pages rather thoroughly) I have no more fault to find with (except some - also very scarce - trifling clerical errors) confirms the top quality of the Author's and Editor's work (of course there are many points where I disagree with the views, decisions, solutions, conventions adopted in the book, but these - even if not simply the matter of personal taste - offer the material for further scientific discussion, not for the reviewer's criticism).

To sum up, notwithstanding the somewhat misleading title, this publication is certainly more than worth its price, and should find its way not only to major zoological libraries but especially to the shelves of everybody working on, or interested in, the buprestid taxonomy; many students of other groups of beetles or other branches (e.g. ecology, zoogeography, evolution) of general biology, as well as just "nature-lovers", will undoubtedly also find the book useful or at least enjoyable!

Literature cited
Bellamy C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Navors. Nas. Mus. Bloemf. 4, 15: 405-472
Holynski R.B. 1988. Remarks on the general classification of Buprestidae Leach as applied to Maoraxiina Hol. Folia Ent. Hung. 49, 1: 49-54
Holynski R.B. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae LEACH (Coleoptera). Crystal (Zool.) 1: 1-42
Kubán V., K. Majer, J. Kolibác. 2000. Classification of the tribe Coraebini BEDEL, 1921 (Coleoptera, Buprestidae, Agrilinae). Acta Mus. Morav. (Sci. Biol.) 85: 185-287
Volkovitsh M.G. 2001. The comparative morphology of antennal structures in Buprestidae (Coleoptera): evolutionary trends, taxonomic and phylogenetic implications. Part 1. Acta Mus. Morav. (Sci. Biol.) 86: 43-169

Roman B. Holynski, PL-05822 Milanówek, ul. Graniczna 35, skr. poczt. 65, POLAND. E-mail: holynski@interia.pl