scispace - formally typeset
M

Mary Liz Jameson

Researcher at Wichita State University

Publications -  50
Citations -  916

Mary Liz Jameson is an academic researcher from Wichita State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Rutelinae & Scarabaeidae. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 48 publications receiving 763 citations. Previous affiliations of Mary Liz Jameson include Universidade Federal de Viçosa & University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The beetle tree of life reveals that Coleoptera survived end‐Permian mass extinction to diversify during the Cretaceous terrestrial revolution

TL;DR: A phylogeny of beetles based on DNA sequence data from eight nuclear genes, including six single‐copy nuclear protein‐coding genes, for 367 species representing 172 of 183 extant families provides a uniquely well‐resolved temporal and phylogenetic framework for studying patterns of innovation and diversification in Coleoptera.
Journal ArticleDOI

Floral Associations of Cyclocephaline Scarab Beetles

TL;DR: The most important areas for future research include elucidating the factors that attract cyclocephalines to flowers including floral scent chemistry and thermogenesis, determining whether cyclocephaline dicot visitation is truly limited to the New World, and inferring evolutionary relationships within the Cyclocephalini to rigorously test vicarance hypotheses, host plant shifts, and mutualisms with angiosperms.
Journal ArticleDOI

Synopsis of the New World Genera of Anomalini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae) and Description of a New Genus from Costa Rica and Nicaragua

TL;DR: A new genus of anomaline scarab, Anomalorhina, is described from Costa Rica and Nicaragua and is characterized by the clypeal apex that is abruptly reflexed, the base of the frons that has prominent tubercles in males, and the pronotum with a depressed fovea in males.
Journal ArticleDOI

Biology Needs a Modern Assessment System for Professional Productivity

TL;DR: The authors argue that adjusting assessment criteria to correspond to modern scholarly productivity is essential for the success of individual scientists and of our discipline as a whole. But the assessment system that governs professional success has not kept pace, creating a mismatch between modes of scholarly productivity and academic assessment criteria.