Lasiochilus

Reuter, 1871

Lasiochilus is a of in the , established by Reuter in 1871. The genus comprises approximately 14–17 described . These predatory are part of the Lasiochilinae and tribe Lasiochilini. Members of this genus are small, cryptic that occur in diverse .

Lasiochilus by (c) Justin Williams, some rights reserved (CC BY), uploaded by Justin Williams. Used under a CC-BY license.Lasiochilus by (c) Justin Williams, some rights reserved (CC BY), uploaded by Justin Williams. Used under a CC-BY license.

Pronunciation

How to pronounce Lasiochilus: //læsɪˈoʊkɪləs//

These audio files are automatically generated. While they are not always 100% accurate, they are a good starting point.

Identification

Lasiochilus can be distinguished from other by features of the Lasiochilinae , including the structure of the ostiolar and characters. Species-level identification requires examination of male genitalia and other microscopic features. The is characterized by its placement within the tribe Lasiochilini, which has distinctive morphological traits separating it from related anthocorid genera.

Images

Distribution

of Lasiochilus have been recorded from multiple regions globally, though specific distribution data varies by species. The occurs in both the Old World and New World.

Ecological Role

As members of the , Lasiochilus are presumed to function as of small and their , contributing to of pest in various .

Similar Taxa

  • Other Anthocoridae generaLasiochilus can be distinguished from other by subfamilial characters of Lasiochilinae, particularly the structure of the metathoracic and associated , as well as genitalic .

More Details

Taxonomic placement

The placement of Lasiochilinae has been subject to revision. While some sources (iNaturalist, Catalogue of Life) recognize as a distinct family, GBIF and NCBI classify Lasiochilus within . The is consistently placed in Lasiochilinae and tribe Lasiochilini across sources.

Species count discrepancy

Sources differ on the number of described : Wikipedia approximately 17 species, while iNaturalist reports about 14. This discrepancy likely reflects ongoing taxonomic revisions and varying treatments of species validity.

Sources and further reading