taxonID	type	description	language	source
B66087DC9C33FF898E10155EFE22FAD9.taxon	description	Externally, Rhagiosoma and Megamerus have a similar shape of body outline and should be distinguished by characters summarized in Table 1. Megamerus and Rhagiosoma also differ in the shape of male genitalia; this character was not studied by MONRÓS (1956). I have examined male genitalia of type specimens of the following species: R. chapuisi nom. nov., R. fraternum, R. grossum, R. madagascariensis and four other unidentified Madagascan species. I have also seen specimens of Megamerus kingi MacLeay, 1827 (type species of Megamerus), and M. cf. femoralis Lea, 1917. I found strong differences in the shape of the parameres and aedeagus. In Megamerus, the parameres are robust and gradually thickened towards apex, with a shallow apical cleft and apex of each face broadly rounded (Fig. 1 c), this structure is rather similar to Sagra Fabricius, 1792. Rhagiosoma have apices of parameres not thickened but with a very deep apical cleft (often reaching to 2 / 3 of length) and each apical face angulate to slightly obtuse (Figs. 2 c, 3 c). The aedeagus in Megamerus is very stout, parallel-sided, without a sharp apex and with a shallow apical cleft (Figs. 1 a, b). On the other hand, Rhagiosoma has the aedeagus parallel-sided in the anterior part and then tapered; the apex is sharp and differently shaped than in Megamerus (Figs. 2 a, 3 a). The findings mentioned above lead me to remove Rhagiosoma from the synonymy of Megamerus.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C30FF8B8E8915ACFE31FDA5.taxon	description	(Figs. 2 a-c)	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C30FF8B8E8915ACFE31FDA5.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. ‘ Madagascar’. Type material. LECTOTYPE (designated here): J, ‘ Coll. et. detrm. / Dr. Chapuis [w, p, bb, h] // Coll. Chapuis [w, p, s] // 1590 [w, p, s] // Madagascar [violet, p, s] // Type [w, p, s] // Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B. [blue, p, h; preceding two labels glued on this label] // TYPE [red, p, bb, h] ’ (IRSN). PARALECTOTYPES: J, ‘ Coll. et. detrm. / Dr. Chapuis [w, p, bb, h] // Coll. Chapuis [w, p, s] // 1592 [w, p, s] // Madagascar [violet, p, s] // M. R. Belg. [w, p, s] // Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B. [blue, p, h; preceding two labels glued on this label] // Para- / type [orange, p, bb, h] ’ (IRSN); J, ‘ Coll. et. detrm. / Dr. Chapuis [w, p, bb, h] // v. Krogh [w, hw, bb, s] // Coll. Chapuis [w, p, s] // 1590 [w, p, s] // Madagascar [violet, p, s] // M. R. Belg. [w, p, s] // Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B. [blue, p, h; preceding two labels glued on this label] // Para- / type [orange, p, bb, h] ’ (IRSN); ♀, ‘ Coll. et. detrm. / Dr. Chapuis [w, p, bb, h] // Coll. Chapuis [w, p, s] // Madagascar [violet, p, s] // Type. [w, p, s] // Coll. R. I. Sc. N. B. [blue, p, h; preceding two labels glued on this label] // Allo- / TYPE [red, p, bb, h, first row hw] ’ (IRSN); J, ‘ TYPE [red, p, bb, h] // TYPE [r, p, h] // MUSÉE DU CONGO / Madagascar / Coll. Clavareau [w, p, h, middle row hw] // Madagascar / Coll. Chapuis [w, hw, h] // Rhagiosoma / madagascariense / TYPE Chp. [w, hw, h] // R. DÉT. / C / 1795 [w, p, h, middle row hw] // J [w, p, h] ’ (MRAC). The specimens are provided with the following label: ‘ LECTOTYPUS [or PARALECTOTYPUS] / Rhagiosoma / madagascariense / Chapuis, 1878 / L. Sekerka des. 2006 [red, p, bb, h] ’.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C30FF8B8E8915ACFE31FDA5.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C30FF8B8E8915ACFE31FDA5.taxon	discussion	Comments. Based on the examination of the type material, Mecynodera madagascariensis fully corresponds with the generic characters of Rhagiosoma, and I propose a new combination, R. madagascariense (Heyden, 1877), comb. nov. Thus, R. madagascariense Chapuis, 1878, nec Heyden, 1877, becomes its junior secondary homonym. Rhagiosoma chapuisi nom. nov. is proposed here as a new substitute name for R. madagascariense Chapuis, 1878, nec Heyden, 1877. I found constant differences between R. madagascariense and R. chapuisi nom. nov. based on the study of the type material. Differential diagnosis and additional comments are given under R. madagascariense.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C31FF8D8F8E147DFC35FCA5.taxon	description	(Figs. 3 a-c)	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C31FF8D8F8E147DFC35FCA5.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality. ‘ Nossi-Bé. Madagascar’ [= Nossi Bé Island NW of Madagascar]. Type material. LECTOTYPE (designated here): J, ‘ Nossi-Bé. [w, hw, h] / Mecynodera / madagascariensis [w, hw, h] ’ (ZMHB). PARALECTOTYPES: J, ‘ Fauna / Ins. Nossibé. [w, p, s] // madagascariensis / [w, hw, s] // Coll. / B. Schwarzer [w, p, h] // Senckenberg- / Museum / Frankfurt / Main [w, p, h] ’ (SMF); J, ‘ Nossibé / 96.70 [w, hw, s] // Mecynodera / madagascariensis / Nossibé [w, hw, s] ’ (BMNH); J, ‘ Fauna / Ins. Nossibé. [w, p, s] // Mecynodera / madagascariensis / Nossibé [w, hw, s] // Coll. Kraatz [w, p, h] // coll. DEI / Müncheberg [w, p, h] ’ (DEI). The specimens are provided with the following label: ‘ LECTOTYPUS [or PARALECTOTYPUS] / Mecynodera / madagascariensis / Heyden, 1877 / L. Sekerka des. 2007 [red, p, bb, h] ’. Additional material examined. MADAGASCAR: Nossi-bé, 2 JJ 1 ♀, without additional data (ZMHB); Ins. Nossibé, 1 J, without additional data (DEI); Nossibé, 2 JJ 1 ♀, without additional data (BMNH); Nossi-bé, 1885, 5 JJ, Stumpff (SMF).	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C31FF8D8F8E147DFC35FCA5.taxon	diagnosis	Differential diagnosis. Rhagiosoma madagascariense is very similar to R. chapuisi nom. nov. and R. grossum Reineck, 1913. Rhagiosoma grossum distinctly differs from both species in a stouter and larger body (length / width body ratio in R. grossum: males below 3.15 and females below 2.50; in R. madagascariense: males over 3.20 and females over 2.60); distinctly more convex body, more convergent elytra (converging from 1 / 3 of the length), well-marked elytral punctuation and striae, and punctures with distinct fovea. On the other hand, R. madagascariense and R. chapuisi nom. nov. have elytra almost parallel-sided and converging only near apex, only slightly convex on the disc, and smooth surface without distinct foveae at punctures and without impressed striae. The latter two species are extremely close and can be reliably identified only by the structure of the aedaeagus. The aedaeagus of R. chapuisi is distinctly stouter and larger with a more curved lobe and without deep sulci (Figs. 3 a, b). The aedaeagus of R. madagascariense has a nearly straight lobe and distinct sulci stretching from apex to half length of the tube (Figs. 2 a, b); the parameres have a deep basal sulcus (Fig. 2 c) and a deeper cleft than in R. chapuisi (Fig. 3 c). However, it is also possible to distinguish the two species by some external morphological characters. Rhagiosoma madagascariense is somewhat less arched with elytral plate rather depressed, and has a dull pronotum with irregular punctuation, several wrinkles, and a smooth and impunctate medial area extended from the base to the anterior margin. The pronotum of R. chapuisi is stouter with somewhat elevated anterior margin, shiny and nearly regularly punctate without wrinkles.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C31FF8D8F8E147DFC35FCA5.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar, Antsiranana province, Nossi-bé Island.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C31FF8D8F8E147DFC35FCA5.taxon	discussion	Comments. Mecynodera madagascariensis was described from Nossi-bé Island (HEYDEN 1877) and was omitted in all catalogues and papers until MONRÓS (1958) cited it, without any comments, as a synonym of R. madagascariense. Even in his revision of the genus Megamerus, MONRÓS (1956) pointed out only the occurrence of Mecynodera Hope, 1840, in Madagascar without any additional data. Both species are very close, and R. madagascariense may represent only an insular form of R. chapuisi. Besides types, I have seen only limited material of R. madagascariense. All examined specimens show constant morphology in both species, thus both are treated as valid. It is necessary to examine more material from various Madagascan localities to verify their status. The number of available specimens and deposition of type (s) was not mentioned in the original description of M. madagascariensis by HEYDEN (1877). Heyden’s collection is spread among several museums and institutions. According to L. Zerche (2006, pers. comm.), DEI houses mainly the Palaearctic part of Heyden’s collection and exotic specimens are deposited in SMF. I found a total of four specimens bearing the identification label ‘ Mecynodera madagascariensis ’. Their labels are handwritten by Heyden and they are deposited in museums which contain parts of his collection. These facts lead me to suppose that with great probability they belong to syntypes, and I designate them as lectotype and paralectotypes. Figures of genitalia given in REINECK (1913) correspond with R. madagascariense and not with R. chapuisi. I have examined several specimens with locality ‘ Nossi-bé’ dissected by Reineck (deposited at ZMHB) and confirm that they belong to R. chapuisi.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8E8917CCFD9AFDCD.taxon	description	REINECK (1913): 303 (incl. genitalia). Megamerus madagascariensis: MONRÓS (1956): 107; MONRÓS (1958): 5; MONRÓS (1959): 73.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8E8917CCFD9AFDCD.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8E8917CCFD9AFDCD.taxon	discussion	Comments. According to REINECK (1913), figures given in DE BORRE (1880) and JACOBY (1903) are conspecific with R. grossum.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8EED14E2FCB7FC8D.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar, Antsiranana province, Fenérive.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8EF11525FCB6FC4A.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar, Antsiranana province, Vohémar.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8E7A1264FCF9FB34.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar, Antsiranana province, Nossi-bé Island.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8EF712EAFDFBFA3B.taxon	distribution	Distribution. East Africa.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8EF712EAFDFBFA3B.taxon	discussion	Comments. Distribution of this species is doubtful; the species was based on a single specimen labeled ‘ E. Africa’ (PIC 1914). Monrós never examined the type. Nevertheless, he suggested its synonymy with Megamerus funerarius.	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
B66087DC9C34FF8E8EE413F7FC50F99F.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Madagascar, Antsiranana province, Antsiranana (= Diégo-Suaréz).	en	Sekerka, Lukáš (2007): On the genus Rhagiosoma and the identity of R. madagascariense (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Sagrinae: Megamerini). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47: 195-202, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5328315
