[Odonata-l] Best current text on Odonata morphology/taxonomy?

[Nick and Ailsa Donnelly]

It is pretty difficult to beat Tillyard (1917) for morphology, and for a lot
more.  My copy is close at hand at all times and is fairly dog eared from
much use.  
 
Asahina's 1954 Epiophlebia book  is more detailed and goes into things like
muscles.  It is based on a single taxon, and an odd one at that, but there
is a huge amount of comparison with other damselfly and dragonfly taxa, so
it is more generally useful than it seems at first glance.  Chao's 1953
"Morphology of Onychogomphus ardens" is pretty thorough for gomphids, but
less help for other odonates. Snodgrass's 1954 "The Dragonfly Larva" is very
useful.
 
Wing venation is a mess.  The most commonly used scheme in most manuals is
the old Needham- Comstock scheme, which in spite of some glaring problems is
the most commonly used scheme general manuals, even though the authors
presenting it almost always point out its problems.  So one needs to learn
this terminology in spite of the problems with it.  The Tillyard - Fraser
scheme is better but has been used less.   A more recent scheme by Edgar
Riek and Jarmila Kukalova-Peck is better still, but is used by very few
workers.  The obstacle here has been to try to relate odonate wing veins
with those of other insects, which is surprisingly contentious.
 
Many regional manuals have good introductory morphology sections.  The North
American dragonfly (Needham, Westfall, and May) and damselfly (Westall and
May) manuals have fairly thorough morphology, using (natch . . .) the
Needham Comstock scheme.  The Australian Watson et al manual (With Tillyard
Fraser terminology!) has a good morphology section very similar to Alex
O'Farrell's section in the Insects of Australia (a huge book likely to break
your foot if you carelessly drop it, and a book, by the way, which is still
to me the best introduction to all insects that I have seen.  Happily I have
been able to avoid dropping it.).
 
For taxonomy you will have to punt.  I still like Fraser's 1957
Reclassification of the order Odonata as a useful place to start, although I
believe less and less in the details as the years goes by.  I find that I
don't much agree with the various modern groupings, all of which have ardent
supporters and still manage to disagree with each other.  Someone has to be
wrong, and it is not certain anyone is correct.  It is still amazing to me
how much the moderns still agree with Fraser even though they dismiss him as
an old arm waver.  Lieftinck, arguably the most illustrious odonatist in the
19th century, never really got heavily involved with taxonomy above the
genus level.  Maybe there is a lesson for all of us.
 
If you are really into phylogenetic relationships, you should take a look at
Grimaldi and Engel's  magnificent (and heavy!) 2005 book "Evolution of the
Insects".  It is heavy on fossil insect studies and is magnificently
illustrated.
 
Overall, Jill Silsby's recent book "Dragonflies of the World" is an
extremely useful place to get acquainted with the individual families.   If
you are not a world traveler and haven't encountered many of these guys
personally, it would be the book I would strongly recommend.
 
Nick Donnelly

  _____  

From: odonata-l-bounces at listhost.ups.edu
[mailto:odonata-l-bounces at listhost.ups.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Reimer
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 10:35 AM
To: Odonata-l at listhost.ups.edu
Subject: [Odonata-l] Best current text on Odonata morphology/taxonomy?


I'm just wondering if someone can give me a pointer to the best current text
on Odonata morphology and taxonomy before I plow through Tillyard downloaded
from Richard Rowe's site?  Is there anything that supercedes that text?  
 
Warm regards,
Bob Reimer
Al Ain
United Arab Emirates
 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwreimer>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwreimer 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailweb.ups.edu/pipermail/odonata-l/attachments/20080321/03199d62/attachment.html