On Eryphus Perty, 1832 (Dichophyiini), Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 (Trachyderini, Trachyderina), and Eryphus Klug, 1829, with description of a new genus, and corrections on publication dates (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

Abstract

The validity of two forgotten names, EryphusKlug, 1829 and E. rubricollisKlug, 1829, is discussed. The former is considered a nomen oblitum and synonymized with EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834, a nomen protectum; the latter is revalidated and Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 is considered a junior synonym of Eriphus rubricollis (Klug, 1829). A lectotype is designated to Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829. The date of the work where EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834 was described is corrected. A new genus is described in Dichophyiini Gistel, 1848 to include the species currently allocated in Eryphus sensuNapp & Martins (2002). The dates of publication of genera and species described by Fairmaire & Germain (Révision des Coléoptères du Chili (suite)) are corrected.

Keywords:
Longhorned woodboring beetles; Neotropical region; Taxonomy

INTRODUCTION

During the process of identifying specimens sent by various institutions, we encountered a problem involving three generic names: EryphusKlug, 1829, EryphusPerty, 1832, and EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834. EryphusKlug (1829) and its type species, E. rubricollisKlug, 1829, have been completely omitted from recent catalogues. The biggest hurdle in trying to solve the problems involving these names was the absence of specimens identified as Eryphus rubricollis in the ZMHB collection (see acronym below). However, we believe that they are present in this collection as “coccineus”. The work where Klug described Eryphus and E. rubricollis (1829) was a list of duplicate specimens for sale. Thus, even if some specimens of E. rubricollis were actually sold, the institution would never have sold all the specimens. The dates of publication of Eriphus Audinet-Serville, and of a work by Fairmaire & Germain are corrected.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Photographs of MZSP specimens were taken with a Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR camera, Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.8 1-5X macro lens, controlled by Zerene Stacker AutoMontage software.

The species were identified using original descriptions, redescriptions, photographs of the types, and comparisons with specimens of the MZSP collection.

The collection acronyms used in the text are as follows: BMNH=The Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom; MZSP=Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; ZMHB=Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.

RESULTS

On Eryphus Klug, 1829, Eryphus Perty, 1832, and Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834

Perty (1832) has been wrongly credited as the author of the genus Eryphus (Dichophyiini) for the description of Eryphus bipunctatus (Figs. 2A-2C) from Brazil (Minas Gerais). However, Perty (1832) was only including a new species in EryphusKlug, 1829. It is evident that Perty (1832) was not describing a new genus because when he did so in the same work, he clearly indicated as in the description of Tropidosoma, Psygmatocerus, Homalopterus and Hypselomus.

Figure 1
Eriphus spp. (A-B) Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean: (A) Dorsal habitus; (B) Labels. (C) Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829, lectotype, dorsal habitus. (D-E) Pages of the catalogue of ZMHB listing the species of Eriphus present in the old collection. (F) Drawer with species of Eriphus at ZMHB.

Figure 2
Solangebira spp. (A-B) S. bipunctatus (Perty, 1832), male from Brazil (São Paulo, São Paulo): (A) Dorsal habitus; (B) Ventral habitus. (C) S. atricollis (Melzer, 1931), dorsal habitus, lectotype female from Brazil (Minas Gerais). (D) S. carioca (Napp & Martins, 2002), dorsal habitus, paratype male from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro). (E) S. carinatus (Zajciw, 1970), dorsal habitus, holotype male from Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), by Monné et al. (2022). (F) S. bivittatus (Melzer, 1934), dorsal habitus, paratype from Argentina (Tucumán). (G) S. tacuarembo (Napp & Martins, 2002), dorsal habitus, paratype female - from Uruguay (Tacuarembó). (H) S. transversalis (Fairmaire & Germain, 1864), dorsal habitus, male from Chile (Santiago, Cerro Manquehue).

Klug (1829) described Eryphus rubricollis as follows: “82. Eryphus rubricollis Dej. (i. litt.) niger, thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris.” Accordingly, Klug (1829) was formally describing a new genus and a new species (Trachyderini), and both are available. Agassiz (1846), Sherborn (1926), and Neave (1939) correctly reported Klug as the author of Eryphus. Nevertheless, surprisingly, Eryphus Klug remained unknown to Cerambycidae researchers.

Eriphus (Trachyderini) has been reported as published in Audinet-Serville (1834b). However, the genus was described in Audinet-Serville (1834a), without the inclusion of species, but with description of the taxon (ICZN 1999: 12.1). Audinet-Serville (1834b) included three species: Eriphus bisignatus (Germar, 1823); E. mexicanusAudinet-Serville, 1834; and E. immaculicollisAudinet-Serville, 1834 (ICZN 1999: 67.2.2). Both Audinet-Serville (1834a) and Audinet-Serville (1834b) were published in March 1834 (e.g.,Sherborn (1926: 2189 - on Eriphus; 2246 - on Eurymerus)). Unfortunately, it was not possible to know the day of each publication. However, even if they were published on the same day, it is more coherent to accept that the description of the genus occurred in the lower numbered volume. Chevrolat (1845: 404) designated Callidium (Clytus) bisignatumGermar, 1823 as the type species of Eriphus Audinet-Serville.

White (1855) indicated Audinet-Serville (1834b) as the author of Eriphus. In the same work, he listed Eriphus sensuDejean (1835; part) as a synonym of Callideriphus Blanchard, 1851 (Dichophyiini), and included Eryphus bipunctatus in Callideriphus.Gemminger (1872) listed Callidium Fabricius, 1775 (part), Batyle Thomson, 1864, and Eriphus (part) as synonyms of Callideriphus. However, he did not indicate the author of Eriphus, and did not state that Perty had used Eryphus, although had included E. bipunctatus Perty in his list of species of Callideriphus.Aurivillius (1912) also did not mention Eryphus Perty, and also included E. bipunctatus in Callideriphus.Napp & Martins (2002) considered Eryphus Perty as different from Callideriphus and revalidated and transferred some species to the former. Therefore, part of the species considered as belonging to Callideriphus by White (1855), Gemminger (1872), and Aurivillius (1912) are currently included in EryphusPerty, 1832 according with Napp & Martins (2002).

Making everything even more complicated, according to Dejean (1835): “ERIPHUS, Serville./Rubricollis Dej. Brasilia=Bisignatus. Germar. id. [Brasilia].” Thus, Dejean (1835) synonymized Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829 (wrongly attributing the authorship to himself) with Eriphus bisignatus (Germar, 1823). Dejean (1835) simply ignored the use of the name Eryphus by Klug (1829). Examination of a specimen of Eriphus rubricollis (Figs. 1A­1B)/Eriphus bisignatus from Dejean’s collection (label handwritten by Dejean himself) makes evident that Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean is really equal to E. bisignatus. However, the original description by Klug makes clear that the pronotum and elytra are reddish with the dorsal area black (“thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris.”), which does not agree with E. bisignatus. Therefore, the synonymy proposed by Dejean (1835) was not correct and made evident that E. rubricollis in Dejean (in litteris) collection is not equal to E. rubricollis Klug.

It is very likely that Joseph Anton Maximilian Perty had seen the specimens identified by Johann Christoph Friedrich Klug as Eryphus rubricollis.Klug’s brief description (1829) would not allow Perty to recognize the species and not even to which tribe it belonged. In fact, it would only be possible to infer the family, because Klug (1829) listed Eriphus rubricollis among known species of Cerambycidae. As Dejean’s catalog (1835) listing this species as equal to Callidium (Clytus) bisignatusGermar, 1823 had not yet been published, it would not be possible for Perty to make the association. In addition, it is very unlikely that Perty personally knew Dejean’s collection, and we were unable to find an indication that Dejean sent him material or a letter describing his Eriphus rubricollis.

As the general appearance of Eryphus bipunctatus Perty (Figs. 2A-2C) is similar to that of Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean (=Eriphus bisignatus (Germar) (see Bezark, 2022 and Fig. 1), it is possible to infer that Eryphus rubricollis Klug also has a similar overall appearance to them. Evidently, this does not allow us to know if the Klug’s species was actually of the same genus and tribe as the Perty species.

Although there are specimens identified as Eriphus bisignatus (designated as lectotype and paralectotypes by Monné & Monné, 2015) at the ZMHB collection, they could not be present in this collection at the time of Klug if they really belonged to the private collection of Ernst Friedrich Germar. According to Horn & Kahle (1935): “Germar, Ernst Friedrich (1786-1853), Curculionid. an Zool. Univ. Mus., Halle a. S. - Restl. Ins. Via H. Schaum vereinzelt: I. Auswahl Coleopt. an Zool. Mus. Berlin [currently, Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universität in Berlin]; Rest ex parte via G. Kraatz an Deutsch. Entom. Institut, Berlin-Dahlem [currently, ZMHB].” Germar died in 1853 and his nephew, Hermann Rudoph Schaum (who kept the collection after Germar’s death), died in 1865. Therefore, it is most probable that was only after 1865 that the types of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus were deposited at the ZMHB. One of the labels currently placed in the lectotype indicates that the specimen was collected by Olfers (see Monné & Monné, 2015: 392-393). This collector name appears in several species described by Klug in several works. This may suggest that the “types” at the ZMHB collection are not the true “types”, or that they always belonged to this collection (loaned by Klug to Germar). According to Klug (1829) they were friends (translated): “For the curculionids, I have used the information I requested and received from my friend, Prof. Germar, with few exceptions, and also indicated his determinations where they did not agree with those I had received from Count Dejean.” But apparently, Germar also received specimens from Olfers (see Germar, 1823: IX) (translated): “It remains to me as much as possible to thank my friends who have enriched this work by sharing the beauty that they have discovered ... Bescke father and son, ..., Olfers...” These reasoning on the types of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus are important because if they were present at the ZMHB in 1829, Klug would hardly have described the species again, if Eryphus rubricollis Klug really was a synonym of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus Germar.

There are three possibilities to explain why Klug knew that there were specimens named as Eriphus rubricollis in the Dejean collection: Klug personally knew the Dejean collection; Dejean sent him specimens on loan; or Dejean gave him information about the species. In all three cases, it is not possible to know why Klug used Eryphus and not Eriphus (as was later published by Dejean and was probably written in the specimens of his collection).

There is no evidence that Dejean sent specimens to Klug or that Klug personally saw Dejean’s collection. Furthermore, the introduction in Klug (1829) suggests that they just exchanged letters (translated): “Therefore, in identifying the probable new species, I largely followed the advice of my respected correspondents and in particular that of Count Dejean, who was as forgiving as he was insightful and experienced...”

If the third option was the real one, Dejean would probably have described the species in such a way that it was possible for Klug to recognize it, which would undoubtedly include the two circular spots on the pronotum, the general color of the pronotum and elytra. Notwithstanding, he described it as “thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris”, which means that both the pronotum and the elytra are reddish with dorsal (central) area black. A quick comparison with photographs of the types of Germar’s species, as well as specimens of Eriphus rubricollis from Dejean’s collection reveals that the elytra are not so (and we never saw this type of variation in Eriphus bisignatus). However, we already saw another description by Klug with contradictory information on these structures. For example, in the original description of Chlamys exarata Klug, 1824 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae), he informed: “thorace coleoptrisque rugosus, quadri-sulcatis.” However, in the same description he also pointed out: “Thorax ... sulcis quatuor apice coëuntibus nigris exaratus. Elytra ... bi-sulcata.” This may suggest that the original description of E. rubricollis was inaccurate. However, it is difficult to believe in this mistake, and it is easier to accept that the information from Dejean was inexact or that Klug wrongly interpreted them. Dejean did not write in German, as it is possible to see in a letter from him to Germar in 1818 (Dieckmann, 1986) (translated): “If you are not used to writing in the French, Italian and Latin languages, you can write to me in German, but using, please, the Latin characters. As for me, I beg your pardon, but I can only write to you in French; besides, I suppose that if you do not understand this language, you will easily find a translator.”

Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB) sent us precious information on historical specimens of Eriphus present in ZMHB, including photograph of the drawer (Fig. 1F), and copy of some pages of Eryphus records section in the catalog of their historical collection (Figs. 1D-1E). According to him, there is no specimen named “rubricollis” among the specimens of Eriphus (or Eryphus), and also no record on the catalog using this name. As the work by Klug (1829) was a list of duplicates of specimens for sale, it is possible that there is at least one syntype specimen in some other museum which may allow recognizing the species. However, even if it(them) survived, it will be extremely difficult to find it (them).

In fact, the species that more perfectly matches the description by Klug (1829) is Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, which is present in the ZMHB collection as “coccineus” (Figs. 1C and 1F). Based on the fact that Eryphus coccineus Klug in litteris (=E. purpuratus), Eryphus ruficollis Klug in litteris (=E. immaculicollisAudinet-Serville, 1834, the specimens have a label with “N” after the species name, meaning “Nobis”) were considered by Klug himself as belonging to Eryphus, it is logical to assume that EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834 is a junior synonymy of EryphusKlug, 1829 (type species Eryphus rubricollis). However, as both conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2) are present, EryphusKlug, 1829 is considered a nomen oblitum, and EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834 a nomen protectum (for citations using Eriphus, exclusively for the genus or in its 23 species see, for example, Monné, 2005, 2022). According to Klug (1829) (translated): “Apart from a few Lepidoptera from Cuba, the present directory contains only Coleoptera, first from southern Brazil, collected by Sellow in the vicinity of Montevideo [Uruguay], Cassapava [probably Caçapava do Sul in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul], Porto Alegre [Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul], then from Cuba from a year ago by a certain Maximil.” At least six specimens identified as “coccineus” in the ZMHB collection were collected by Sellow. As the original description of Eryphus rubricollis and the collector (see Figs. 1D and 1F, and introduction in Klug (1829)) agree perfectly with the specimens labeled as “coccineus” in ZMHB collection, we think that they are the syntypes of the former. According to Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB, personal communication): “The historical specimens arranged under the purpuratus label (written by our former curator Kuntzen) have the manuscript name “coccineus N.” obviously provided by Klug.” It is not possible to know if there was an error in labelling the specimens as “coccineus” instead of “rubricollis” and, if so, if the error was that of the curator or Klug himself. But we think it is very likely that the specimens are the true syntypes of Eryphus rubricollis Klug. However, it is probable that Klug had changed the name of the species, from E. rubricollis to E. coccineus, after the publication of the catalogue of Dejean (1835). However, as Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean is equal to Eriphus bisignatus (Germar) and not equal to Eryphus rubricollis Klug, again, the synonymy is not correct, and the latter name is available. Accordingly, Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 is a junior synonym of Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829. As only one of the conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article 23.9.1) is present (Article 23.9.1.1), Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 cannot be considered a nomen protectum.

According to ICZN (1999: 72.4.1.1): “For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.” As Klug (1829) mentioned “Dej. (i. litt.)”, we think it is necessary to consider the specimens from Dejean’s collection, identified as Eriphus rubricollis, as syntypes of Eryphus rubricollis. As E. rubricollis sensu Dejean is not equal to Klug’s species, this makes this species an amalgam of species. It is important to record that it is also possible that the specimens in Dejean’s collection are also syntypes of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatum, becoming them as syntypes of two species. This because Dejean offered specimens for study to Germar (Dieckmann, 1986): “In answering me, have the kindness to let me know approximately what you want and I will have the greatest pleasure to send you everything that will be possible for me...” Unfortunately, we have no evidence that Dejean sent specimens to him except, probably, specimens of Curculionidae.

It is important to mention that the southern region of Brazil, as well as southern Argentina and Uruguay are places where intensive collections of insects were carried out in the last 100 years and no species that agrees with the original description of Eryphus rubricollis was found, except Eriphus purpuratus, which occurs in the same region.

In short, we are proposing EryphusKlug (1829) as nomen oblitum, and EriphusAudinet-Serville (1834) as nomen protectum; synonymizing E. purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 with Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829; and transferring Eryphus rubricollis to Eriphus.

We are designating the specimen currently identified in the ZMHB collection as Eriphus purpuratus (Figs. 1C, 1F), first row, specimen located on the left and labeled, as lectotype of Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829. The lectotype has the following labels: 1) white (printed) - 18806; 2) green (handwritten) - coccineus/N./Bras. Sello.; 3) green (printed) - Hist.-Coll. (Coleoptera)/Nr. 18806/Eriphus coccineus N./Brasil/Sellow/Zool. Mus. Berlin; 4) red (printed) - Lectotype/Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829.

Napp & Martins (2002) included 10 species in EryphusPerty, 1832, and reported (translated): “The name Eryphus was used by Perty (1832: 91) for E. bipunctatus, species described and illustrated, which makes it available. Eryphus is not a homonym of EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834, belonging to the tribe Trachyderini (ICZN 1999: 58, art. 56.2).”

Our conclusion is that Napp & Martins (2002) transferred several species from Callideriphus to Eryphus sensuPerty (1832), a nonexistent genus. Therefore, it is necessary to erect a new genus in Dichophyiini Gistel, 1848 to include these 10 species.

DICHOPHYIINI Gistel, 1848

Solangebira Santos-Silva, Botero & Nascimento, gen. nov. (Fig. 2)

Eryphus;Napp & Martins, 2002: 84; Monné, 2005: 290 (cat.); 2012: 30 (cat.); Botero & Monné, 2018; Monné, 2022: 221 (cat.).

Etymology: Fusion of the names of two great deceased Brazilian researchers who dedicated their entire lives to the study of Cerambycidae: Dilma Solange Napp, and Ubirajara Ribeiro Martins de Souza (Bira). Masculine gender.

Type species:Eryphus bipunctatusPerty, 1832, here designated.

Description: Frons transverse, flat. Genae shorter than lower eye lobe. Eyes finely faceted, emarginate; lower eye lobes large, occupy nearly entire lateral region of head. Last maxillary and labial palpomeres sub-cuneiform in both sexes (securiform in both sexes of E. laetus). Mandibles triangular-shaped, non-angular on external lateral face, acute at apex. Antennae 11 antennomeres, filiform or nearly so, without sulci or carinae; in male, reaching or surpassing elytral apex; in female, not or reaching elytral apex (sometimes, weakly surpassing). Scape sub-cylindrical from basal quarter, from slightly shorter to slightly longer than antennomere III. Antennomere III shorter than V, longer or about as long as IV; antennomeres VIII-XI with similar length, filiform or somewhat serrate; antennomeres lacking apical spine, and dense and long setae ventrally. Prothorax rounded laterally, lacking lateral tubercle, not longitudinally carinate. Pronotum lacking tubercles. Procoxal cavities slightly open laterally, open behind. Prosternal process narrow centrally, expanded posteriorly (almost not expanded in E. flavicollis). Mesoventral process as wide as or slightly narrower than mesocoxa, parallel-sided, without articular projections, notched at apex. Mesocoxal cavities closed laterally. Pro- and mesocoxae not distinctly elevated. Elytra parallel-sided, wider than posterior area of prothorax, flattened or slightly convex dorsally; apex variable. Femora pedunculate-clavate (femoral club not abrupt and not strongly widened); apex of metafemora reaching or not elytral apex, not reaching in female. Tibiae not carinate. Metatarsomere I as long or slightly longer than II-III together.

Remarks:Solangebiragen. nov. differs from Allodemus Zajciw, 1962 and Erythrochiton Zajciw, 1957 by the antennomere III shorter than V (longer in Allodemus and Erythrochiton). It differs from Eriphosoma Melzer, 1922 by the antennomere III longer than V (longer or subequal in Eriphosoma), and femora pedunculate-clavate (cylindrical or nearly so in Eriphosoma). Solangebira can be separated from Homogenes Thomson, 1862, by the prothorax lacking lateral tubercles (present in Homogenes). It can be separated from Callideriphus Blanchard, 1851 by the pronotum not longitudinally striate (striate in Callideriphus).

According to Napp & Martins, 2002 on their new genus Tacyba (translated): “Eryphus [=Solangebira, here named as Eryphus sensuNapp & Martins (2002)] differs from Tacyba gen. nov.: antennomeres VIII-XI long in both sexes, not tumid in females; prothorax wider than long, with sides uniformly rounded; elytra flattened dorsally, parallel-sided and slightly convex close to apex; legs proportionally short; metafemoral club cylindrical; metatibiae cylindrical and just shorter than metafemora. In Tacyba: antennomeres VIII-XI shortened in both sexes, tumid in females; prothorax as long as wide, sub-hexagonal; elytra convex dorsally, narrowed about middle and convex at apex; legs proportionally long and stout; metafemora fusiform; metatibiae flattened and slightly longer than metafemora.” However, the antennomeres VIII-XI in females of Tacyba is not different from that in males, which means they are not tumid, but they are somewhat wider than the previous segments, which does not occur in Solangebira except, apparently, in S. carinatus (Zajciw, 1970); the prothorax in S. carinatus is very similar to that in Tacyba, and is slightly longer than wide; the elytra is distinctly not flattened in S. tacuarembo (Napp & Martins, 2002) (Fig. 2G), and S. bivittatus (Melzer, 1934) (Fig. 2F), they are convex dorsally, and very weakly flattened in S. laetus (Blanchard, 1851); the elytral side is variable in Solangebira and can be identical or nearly so to that in Tacyba (for example, in S. carioca (Napp & Martins, 2002) (Fig. 2D)); the length of the legs in Solangebira is variable, as well as the shape, and may be identical or nearly so as in Tacyba; the metafemora in Tacyba cannot be defined as fusiform, and is very similar to that in S. transversalis (Fairmaire & Germain, 1864), gradually widened from base to near apex; and the metatibia is somewhat variable in some specimens of Tacyba tenuis (Blanchard, 1851), and may be identical or nearly so as in Solangebira, especially regarding the flattening. Accordingly, the only reliable difference between Solangebira and Tacyba is the length of the antennomeres VIII-XI, which have similar length in the former and X-XI distinctly shorter than VIII-IX in the later. Apparently, S. carinatus (Fig. 2E) and S. transversalis (Fig. 2H) do not belong to this genus. However, we could not examine specimens of S. carinatus and females of S. transversalis. Thus, we prefer to keep them provisionally in Solangebira.

Included species:S. bipunctatus (Perty, 1832), comb. nov.; S. bivittatus (Melzer, 1934), comb. nov.; S. carinatus (Zajciw, 1970), comb. nov.; S. carioca (Napp & Martins, 2002), comb. nov.; S. flavicollis (Fisher, 1938), comb. nov.; S. laetus (Blanchard, 1851), comb. nov.; S. marginatus (Zajciw, 1970), comb. nov.; S. picticollis (Gounelle, 1911), comb. nov.; S. tacuarembo (Napp & Martins, 2002), comb. nov.; and S. transversalis (Fairmaire & Germain, 1864), comb. nov.

Correction of dates

The work by Fairmaire & Germain in the “Annales de la Société Entomologique de France” has been reported as published in 1859. However, according to Desmarest (1860) this work was published in parts in different dates: “3^e trimester: texte, p. 369 à 512; Bulletin, p. CXXXIX à CLXXVI, et planches 8, 9, 10 et 11, le 9 novembre 1859;” and “Et 4^e trimestre : texte, p. 513 à 680 ; Bulletin, p. CLXXVII à la fin du volume et planches 12, 13 et 14, le 1^er mars 1860.” As the work by Fairmaire & Germain encompasses the pages 483 to 532, the dates of the new Cerambycidae genera and species published in it are as follows:

• AdalbusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 490);

• Adalbus crassicornisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 490);

• Adalbus dimidiatipennisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 492);

• Adalbus flavipennisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 491);

• Astynomus obliquatusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 511);

• CacostolaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 527);

• Cacostola vagelineataFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 527);

• Callideriphus testaceicornisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 505);

• Callisphyris apicicornisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 497);

• Callisphyris asphaltinusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 497);

• Callisphyris semicaligatusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 496);

• ChenoderusFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 532);

• Cycnoderus tricolorFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 502);

• EmphytoeciaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 529);

• Emphytoecia suturaalbaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 531);

• EstolaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 524);

• Estola hirsutaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 525);

• Estola unicolorFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 526);

• Grammicosum flavonitidumFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 507);

• Grammicosum semipolitumFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 508);

• Hebestola apicalisFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page, 529);

• Hephaestion flavicansFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 495);

• Hephaestion opacusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 494);

• Hephaestion pallidicornisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 493);

• Hephaestion rufofemoratusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 494);

• Hephaestion virescensFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 495);

• Hesperophanes inspergatusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 509);

• HesychaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 523);

• Hesycha cribripennisFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 523);

• Holopterus araneipesFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 500);

• Holopterus compressicornisFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 501);

• Hoplonotus subarmatusFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 516);

• Leiopus asperipennisFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 513);

• Leiopus soricinusFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 512);

• Microcleptes variolosusFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 520);

• Sibylla flavosignataFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 489);

• Sibylla integraFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 488);

• TaloeporaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 521);

• Taloepora nanaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 522);

• Taloepora pusillaFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 521);

• Tillomorpha myrmicariaFairmaire & Germain, 1859 (Page 502);

• Zygocera picturataFairmaire & Germain, 1860 (Page 518).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We express our sincere thanks to Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB) for sending photographs of old specimens of Eriphus and of the catalog, as well as information on the specimens and catalog. Special thanks also to Michael Geiser (BMNH) for the photographs of Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean, and for the precious information and help during the first steps of this work.

REFERENCES

• Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomina systematica generum coleopterorum, tam viventium quam fossilum, secundum ordinem alphabeticum disposita, adjectis auctoribus, libris in quibus reperiuntur, anno editions, etymologia et familiis ad quas pertinent. Fascículo XI. In: Agassiz, L. Nomenclator Zoologicus continens nomina systematica generum animalium tam viventium quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum disposita, adjectis auctoribus, libris, in quibus reperiuntur, anno editionis, etymologia et familiis, ad quas pertinent, in singulis classibus Soloduri [=Solothurn, Switzerland], Jent et Gassmann. xi+170p.
• Audinet-Serville, J.G. 1834a. Nouvelle classification de la famille des longicornes (suite). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 2(4): 528-573.
• Audinet-Serville, J.G. 1834b. Nouvelle classification de la famille des longicornes (suite). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 3(1): 5-110.
• Aurivillius, C. 1912. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 39, Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae. Berlin, W. Junk. 574p.
• Bezark, L.G. 2022. A photographic Catalog of the Cerambycidae of the World New World Cerambycidae Catalog. Available: Available: http://bezbycids.com/byciddb/wdefault.asp?w=n Access: 08/11/2022.
  » http://bezbycids.com/byciddb/wdefault.asp?w=n
• Botero, J.P. & Monné, M.L. 2018. Cladistic analysis of the tribe Eburiini Blanchard, 1945 and revalidation of the tribe Dychophyiini Gistel, 1848 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 185(4): 1095-1122.
• Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1845. Eriphus, In: D’Orbigny, C.V.D. Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle résumant et complétant tous les faits présentés par les encyclopédies, les anciens dictionnaires scientifiques, les oeuvres complètes de Buffon, et les meilleurs traités spéciaux sur les diverses branches des sciences naturelles; donnant la description des êtres et des divers phénomènes de la nature, l’étymologie et la définition des noms scientifiques, les principales applications des corps organiques et inorganiques, à l’agriculture, à la médecine, aux arts industriels, etc.; dirigé par M. Charles d’Orbigny, et enrichi d’un magnifique atlas de planches gravées sur acier Vol. 5. Paris, Langlois & Leclercq, Fortin, Masson & Cie. p. 404.
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1835. Cleonis. In: Catalogue des Coléopteres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean [Livraison 4]. Paris, Méquignon-Marvis. p. 257-360.
• Desmarest, E. 1860. Publications de la Société. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 3ª. Série, 7(4): CCLXXXIX-CCXC.
• Dieckmann, L. 1986. Aus der Korrespondenz Dejean - Germar, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entomologie. Beiträge zur Entomologie, 36(1): 193-200.
• Fairmaire, L. & Germain, P. 1859-1860. Révision des Coléoptères du Chili (suite). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 3ª. Série, 7(3): 483-532 [pp. 483-512, 1859; pp. 513-532, 1860].
• Gemminger, M. 1872. In: Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus Monachii, Gummi, v. 9, p. 2669-2988.
• Germar, E.F. 1823. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae Halae, Hendel & Sons, xxiv+624p.
• Horn, W. & Kahle, I. 1935. Über Entomologische Sammlungen. Entomologische Beihefte aus Berlin-Dahlem, 2: 1-160+16 plates.
• International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature London, ICZN. xxx+306p.
• Klug, J.C. 1829. Preis-Verzeichniss vorrathiger Insecten-doubletten des Konigl Berlin, Zoologischen Museums der Universität. 18p.
• Monné, M.A. 2005. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the Neotropical Region. Part I. Subfamily Cerambycinae. Zootaxa, 946: 1-765.
• Monné, M.A. 2012. Catalogue of the type-species of the genera of the Cerambycidae, Disteniidae, Oxypeltidae and Vesperidae (Coleoptera) of the Neotropical Region. Zootaxa, 3213: 1-183.
• Monné, M.A. 2022. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the Neotropical region Part I. Subfamily Cerambycinae. Available: Available: https://cerambycids.com/catalog Access: 08/11/2022.
  » https://cerambycids.com/catalog
• Monné, M.A.; Monné, M.L.; Lingafelter, S.W.; Micheli, C.J. & Nearns, E.H. 2022. Cerambycoid Holotypes of the Museu Nacional Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ) Available: Available: https://cerambycids.com/brazil/mnrj Access: 08/11/2022.
  » https://cerambycids.com/brazil/mnrj
• Monné, M.L. & Monné, M.A. 2015. Lectotype designations of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) described by E.F. Germar in 1824 and J.C. Klug in 1825 and a new synonymy. Zootaxa, 3981(3): 385-396.
• Napp, D.S. & Martins, U.R. 2002. Eryphus Perty, 1832 e Tacyba, um novo gênero de Heteropsini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 46(1): 83-92.
• Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera in zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935 Vol. 2. London, The Zoological Society of London. 1025p.
• Perty, J.A.M. 1832. De insectorum in America meridionali habitantiam vitae genere, moribus ac distributione geographica observationes nonnullae. In: Delectus animalium articulatorum quae in itinere per Brasilian annis MDCCCXVII-MDCCCXX jussu at auspicis Maximiliani Josephi I. Bavariae regis augustissime peracto collegerunt Dr. J.B. de Spix et Dr. C.F. Ph. de Martius Monachii, iii+224p., +40 plates.
• Sherborn, C.D. 1926. Index Animalium. Sive índex nominum quae ab A.D. MDCCLVIII. Generibus et speciebus animalium imposita sunt. Sectio Secunda. A Kalendis ianuariis, MDCCCI usque ad finem decembris, MDCCCL London, British Museum (Natural History). p. 2009-2248.
• White, A. 1855. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum Catalogue of Longicornia, Coleoptera , pt II London, British Museum, v. 8, p. 175-412.

• FUNDING INFORMATION: This project did not use any external financial support.
• https://zoobank.org/F9EB7DFA-A659-43EF-8A83-B1631E6B15CF
• Published with the financial support of the "Programa de Apoio às Publicações Científicas da Universidade de São Paulo"

Edited by

Edited by: Simone Policena Rosa.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 May 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  09 Nov 2022
• Accepted
  27 Feb 2023
• Published
  02 May 2023