@article {1884,
	title = {Southern African dung beetles (Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae) attracted by defensive secretions of Diplopoda},
	journal = {African Entomology},
	volume = {7},
	number = {2},
	year = {1999},
	note = {Times Cited: 2Cited Reference Count: 9Cited References:      BERNON G, 1981, THESIS BOWLING GREEN     CAMBEFORT Y, 1980, ANN U DABIDJAN E, V13, P61     DORBIGNY H, 1913, ANN SOC ENTOMOLOGIQU, V82, P1     KRELL FT, 1997, ENTOMOLOGICA SCAND S, V51, P281     KRELL FT, 1998, ZOOLOGY ANAL COMP S1, V101, P12     PERINGUEY L, 1901, T S AFRICAN PHILOS S, V12, P1     SCHOLTZ CH, 1983, DUNG BEETLES     SCHOLTZ CH, 1986, INSECTS SO AFRICA     ZURSTRASSEN R, 1965, SENCKENBERG BIOL, V46, P219EnglishArticle292QKAFR ENTOMOL},
	month = {Sep},
	pages = {287-288},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000085806400015},
	author = {Krell, F. T.}
}
@article {1885,
	title = {Impact factors aren{\textquoteright}t relevant to taxonomy},
	journal = {Nature},
	volume = {405},
	number = {6786},
	year = {2000},
	note = {321HFNATURE},
	month = {Jun 1},
	pages = {507-508},
	keywords = {dung beetles tropical forest ecology},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000087449500016},
	author = {Krell, F. T.}
}
@article {1886,
	title = {Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies - pitfalls and applicability of {\textquoteright}morphospecies{\textquoteright} sorting},
	journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation},
	volume = {13},
	number = {4},
	year = {2004},
	note = {762WVBIODIVERS CONSERV},
	month = {Apr},
	pages = {795-812},
	abstract = {Parataxonomic sorting of samples to recognizable taxonomic units (RTUs, morphospecies, morphotypes or, as proposed here: parataxonomic units [PUs]) is generally considered to be a sufficiently reliable and conservative approach in ecological biodiversity studies or conservation biology. It is obviously time-saving because it avoids the burdens of taxonomy. However, evaluations of parataxonomic sorting by taxonomic resorting show many overestimations of species numbers. Hence, RTU sorting is not necessarily conservative. Sorting errors can be more than 100\% (median in the present compilation: 22\%). Even if the cumulative results for diverse groups like beetles have a very low overall error, the error rate in the single families is generally much higher. This pattern is likely to cause severe problems in multivariate analyses. The presumable error rate in sorting does not depend only on the group to be sorted, but also on the sorter and the sample. Therefore, the sorting error is not predictable. Since PUs are generally neither described nor assigned to existing names, the sorting results are difficult to check and it is mostly not revealed why the samples are sorted as they are. Since parataxonomy does not use existing biological knowledge, creates typological units and does not disclose its sorting criteria, inter-subjective testability and falsifiability of the sorting results are more difficult than of taxonomic identifications (or are even impossible). Parataxonomy does not fulfil the criteria of a scientific method, but is propedeutic and can be a heuristically valuable tool to find out patterns in taxonomically neglected groups. However, it is only the first step in sorting and identifying samples in biodiversity studies. PUs are useless for inventories and area selection in conservation evaluation, biogeographical and autecological studies; they provide only uncertain data for studies in species turnover and overlap, but they can be used quite reliably for global comparisons of gross species richness, non- comparative descriptions of species richness of single sites or for comparisons of sites without species overlap. If results of parataxonomic sorting show clear and biologically meaningful patterns, the sorting is likely to be reliable. Weak or no detectable patterns may easily be caused by erroneous sorting.},
	keywords = {Dung beetles},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000188005900009},
	author = {Krell, F. T.}
}
@article {1887,
	title = {Repellents as attractants - extreme specialization in afrotropical dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) as a competition avoiding strategy},
	journal = {Zoology},
	volume = {101},
	number = {Supplement},
	year = {1998},
	pages = {12},
	author = {Krell, F. T. and Schmitt, T. and Dembele, A. and Linsenmair, K. E.}
}
@article {1888,
	title = {Diplopod defensive secretions as attractants for necrophagous scarab beetles (Diplopoda; Insecta, Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae)},
	journal = {Entomologica Scandinavica},
	year = {1997},
	note = {Times Cited: 0Cited Reference Count: 26Cited References:      BALTHASAR V, 1966, REICHENBACHIA, V8, P45     BALTHASAR V, 1966, REV ZOOLOGIE BOT AFR, V74, P242     BROWN WL, 1992, PSYCHE, V99, P275     CAMBEFORT Y, 1980, ANN U DABIDJAN E, V13, P61     CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P22     CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P156     CAMBEFORT Y, 1984, TRAVAUX CHERCHEURS S, V3     DANGERFIELD JM, 1996, MEMOIR MUS NATL HIST, V169, P617     DANGERFIELD JM, 1990, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V34, P141     DEMANGE JM, 1993, MILLEPATTIA, V2, P29     EISNER T, 1978, ARTHROPOD VENOMS, P41     EISNER T, 1965, NAT HIST, V74, P30     GILL BD, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P211     HAACKER U, 1974, S ZOOL SOC LOND, V32, P317     HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY     HOFFMAN RL, 1996, MYRIAPODOLOGICA, V4, P43     HOPKIN SP, 1992, BIOL MILLIPEDES     ISTASSE A, 1982, ANN SOC ROY ZOOL BEL, V112, P41     KINKEL H, 1955, Z ANGEW ENTOMOL, V37, P401     MAHSBERG D, 1997, ENT SCAND S, V51, P269     OCHI T, IN PRESS GIORNALE IT     ROTH LM, 1962, ANNU REV ENTOMOL, V7, P107     SMOLANOFF J, 1975, PSYCHE, V82, P78     STOVE MK, 1995, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V92, P23     WALTER P, 1978, THESIS U SCI TECHNIQ     WHEELER JW, 1964, SCIENCE, V144, P540EnglishArticle51YW107ENTOMOL SCAND},
	pages = {281-285},
	abstract = {The necrophagous dung beetle Onthophagus latigibber d{\textquoteright}Orbigny, 1902 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) was attracted in large numbers to diplopod carcasses. The attractiveness of diplopod (Spirobolida) defensive secretions to three Onthophagus species was demonstrated in field experiments. Since these beetles are attracted by a repellent, they have the advantage of being the first and exclusive users of freshly dead diplopods.},
	keywords = {attractant, COLEOPTERA, defensive secretions, Diplopoda, millipede, necrocenosis, quinones, savanna, Scarabaeidae, tropical Africa},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000071897600036},
	author = {Krell, F. T. and Schmitt, T. and Linsenmair, K. E.}
}
@article {2104,
	title = {Who steals the eggs? Coprophanaeus telamon (Erichson) buries decomposing eggs in western Amazonian rain forest (Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae)},
	journal = {The Coleopterists Bulletin},
	volume = {58},
	number = {1},
	year = {2004},
	note = {digital copy},
	month = {Mar},
	pages = {21-27},
	abstract = {The necrophagous dung beetle Coprophanaeus telamon (Erichson 1847) buried decomposing hen eggs in the rain forest of Ecuador. We suppose that the volatiles 2-butanone, cresol, indole, skatole, and butyric acid are responsible for attracting Coprophanaeus because these components of dung odour attract dung beetles and are also present in rotten eggs. A number of them are also produced by bacterial spoilage of raw meat. Abandoned clutches, infertile eggs or eggs with dead embryos of ground-nesting birds may be used as a resource by dung beetles.},
	keywords = {mammals},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000220808700003},
	author = {Pfrommer, A. and Krell, F. T.}
}
@article {2191,
	title = {Quinone mixture as attractant for necrophagous dung beetles specialized on dead millipedes},
	journal = {Journal of Chemical Ecology},
	volume = {30},
	number = {4},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Times Cited: 0Cited Reference Count: 37Cited References:      ALDRICH JR, 1995, J ARACHNOL, V23, P212     ATTYGALLE AB, 1993, J NAT PRODUCTS, V56, P1700     BAKER GH, 1985, J AUST ENTOMOL SOC, V24, P247     BLUM MS, 1981, CHEM DEFENSES ARTHRO     BRUHL C, 2003, COLEOPTS BULL, V57, P51     CAMBEFORT Y, 1984, TRAV CHERCH STATION, V3, R1     CAMBEFORT Y, 1984, TRAVAUX CHERCHEURS S, V3, P1     DANGERFIELD JM, 1990, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V34, P141     DEMANGE JM, 1993, MILLEPATTIA, V2, P29     DISNEY RHL, 1994, SCUTTLE FLIES PHORID     EISNER T, 1978, ARTHROPOD VENOMS, P41     EISNER T, 1998, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V95, P1108     FREY G, 1961, PARC NATL GARAMBA MI, V21, P69     GODFREY IM, 1974, J CHEM SOC P1, P1353     HOFFMAN RL, 1996, MYRIAPODOLOGICA, V4, P43     HOPKIN SP, 1992, BIOL MILLIPEDES     HUTH A, 2000, FRAGM FAUN S, V43, P191     IMREI Z, 2002, Z NATURFORSCH C, V57, P177     INOUCHI J, 1988, APPL ENTOMOL ZOOL, V23, P167     KOPF A, 1997, ECOL ENTOMOL, V22, P176     KRELL FT, 1997, ENTOMOLOGICA SCAND S, V51, P281     KRELL FT, 1998, ZOOLOGY ANAL COMP S1, V101, P12     KRELL FT, 1999, AFR ENTOMOL, V7, P287     KRELL FT, 1999, TROP ZOOL, V12, P297     LAWRENCE RF, 1987, CENTIPEDES MILLIPEDE     LEVIEUX J, 1972, ANN U ABIDJAN E, V5, P143     LULY JR, 1981, J ORG CHEM, V46, P2745     MAHSBERG D, 1997, ENT SCAND S, V51, P269     MASUMOTO K, 2001, ELYTRA, V29, P439     POILECOT P, 1991, IVC87007 UNESCOPNUD, V2, P1     POREMBSKI S, 1991, NAT MUS, V121, P61     RUTHER J, 2001, OECOLOGIA, V128, P44     SHARMA PK, 1985, ACTA CHIM HUNG, V120, P163     STOWE MK, 1995, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V92, P23     VALDERRAMA X, 2000, J CHEM ECOL, V26, P2781     WELDON PJ, 2003, NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, V90, P301     ZUK M, 1998, Q REV BIOL, V73, P415EnglishArticleJ CHEM ECOL822HV},
	month = {Apr},
	pages = {731-740},
	abstract = {2-Methyl-1,4-benzoquinone (toluquinone) and 2-methoxy-3-methyl1,4-benzoquinone are the most common components of defensive secretions of juliform millipedes (Diplopoda: Juliformia). A natural and a synthetic millipede-defensive secretion composed of these two substances attract dung beetles of a few Onthophagus species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) that feed mainly on freshly dead millipedes. This olfactory mechanism and adaptation to the toxic effects of quinones enables them to be the first and exclusive users of this resource.},
	keywords = {attractants, benzoquinones, chemical defense, COLEOPTERA, defensive secretions, diplopod-defensive secretions, Diplopoda, Dung beetles, food, necrophagy, predators, quinones, Scarabaeidae},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000221530700004},
	author = {Schmitt, T. and Krell, F. T. and Linsenmair, K. E.}
}
