↓ Skip to main content

Revisited larval morphology of Thanatophilus rugosus (Coleoptera: Silphidae)

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Legal Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Revisited larval morphology of Thanatophilus rugosus (Coleoptera: Silphidae)
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00414-017-1764-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Novák, Pavel Jakubec, Jarin Qubaiová, Hana Šuláková, Jan Růžička

Abstract

Determination of insect species and their instars, occurring on human remains, is important information that allows us to use insects for estimation of postmortem interval and detect possible manipulation with the body. However, larvae of many common species can be identified only by molecular methods, which is not always possible. The instar determination is even more challenging, and qualitative characters that would allow a more precise identification are mostly unknown. Thanatophilus rugosus (Linnaeus, 1758) is a common necrophagous beetle in the whole Palaearctic region from Europe to Japan. The species is often encountered on corpses of large vertebrates including humans, and its potential to become a useful bioindicator for forensic entomology is therefore high. Adults can be easily distinguished from other species; however, larvae were never thoroughly described to allow species and instar identification. The aim of this study was to provide reliable morphological characters that would allow species and instar identification of T. rugosus larvae. The material for morphological study was obtained from rearing under controlled conditions (20 °C and 12:12 h of light/dark period), and specimens that were not studied morphologically were allowed to complete their development. Quantitative and qualitative morphological characters for instar and species identification are described and illustrated. Additionally, we report observations of biology and developmental length for all stages of the species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 38%
Environmental Science 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Unknown 5 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#6,338,385
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#303
of 2,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,744
of 440,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#6
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.