identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
9A72F069A214FFA4FF00FC6EFA8961B1.text	9A72F069A214FFA4FF00FC6EFA8961B1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Athyreus soesilae , Makhan 2008	<div><p>Synonymization of Athyreus soesilae Makhan, 2008 with Neoathyreus (Neoathyreus) excavatus (Laporte, 1840) (Geotrupidae: Bolboceratinae: Athyreini)</p> <p>Makhan (2008: 1) describes the species Athyreus soesilae based on a type series of one male and four female specimens that was collected in Suriname. Judging by the rather short description, accompanying pictures and stated type locality, I suspected this species to be synonymous with a previously described species. Makhan (2008) states that the holotype of A. soesilae is deposited in the University of Suriname, Department of Entomology (= National Zoological Collection of Suriname, NZCS). However, upon my request to examine the holotype, Mr. Anielkoemar Gangadin, the long-serving Assistant Curator of Invertebrates of the NZCS, assured me they never received either the holotype or a paratype of this species. Regardless, I am confident that the following narrative amounts to a solid case for synonymization.</p> <p>Howden and Martínez (1963: 348) split the genus Athyreus MacLeay, 1819 (p. 123) in four different genera, three of which occur in the Neotropics. Of these, the genus Parathyreus Howden and Martínez, 1963 (p. 348) has never been found north of the Amazon / Rio Madeira main stem (Howden 1985b: 171). This leaves two relevant genera to consider here, namely Athyreus and Neoathyreus Howden and Martínez, 1963 (p. 350), both of which have several representatives in the Guianas. The characters mentioned in the generic key in Howden and Martínez (1963: 348) which are relevant with respect to Makhan’s brief description, are sexual dimorphism and size. The genus Athyreus is defined as having dissimilar sexes and a length of over 15 mm (Howden and Martínez 1963: 348, 350; 1978: 2), while Neoathyreus has similar sexes and a length below 15 mm (Howden and Martínez 1963: 348, 350; Howden 1985a: 3).</p> <p>According to Makhan (2008), the sexes of A. soesilae are similar, with the male holotype having a length of 11 mm (no information is given regarding the four paratypes, except that they do not differ from the holotype and are all female). This clearly puts A. soesilae within the genus Neoathyreus, the existence of which was apparently unknown to Makhan. It is noteworthy that the only publication cited by Makhan is Howden and Martínez (1978), which does not cite the name Neoathyreus. However, in its introduction this publication does refer to Howden and Martínez (1963) and notes that the genus Athyreus is restricted “to include only a group of relatively large, sexually dimorphic species.” Evidently, Makhan did not notice this statement or chose to disregard it.</p> <p>At present, seven species of Neoathyreus are known from the Guianas (Boilly 2011: 24, 2014: 308), four of which have been found in Suriname (A. J. Hielkema, unpublished data). Makhan (2008) states his specimens were caught in “the north of Suriname,” later specifying “District Suriname.” In fact, the District Suriname was abrogated during the rearrangement of the Surinamese administrative regions, which took place several years before Makhan collected his specimens. The district was situated around the country’s capital Paramaribo and along both shores of the lower Suriname River. All of it was located in the coastal zone and the northern savanna belt (Stichting Planbureau Suriname 1988: C1). Of the four known Surinamese species of Neoathyreus, two appear to be restricted to the forests of the interior, one (N. (Neoathyreus) excavatus (Laporte, 1840) (p. 103)) has as yet only been found in the coastal area and the northern savanna belt and one (likely N. (N.) lanuginosus (Klug, 1845) (p. 28)) is found in the interior while a singleton of it was recently found in a flight interception trap in an old secondary forest in the coastal area (A. J. Hielkema, unpublished data).</p> <p>Neoathyreus (N.) excavatus is relatively commonly collected at lights and in flight interception traps in the present districts Paramaribo and Para, which makes it the best candidate for Makhan’s specimens. In fact, N. (N.) excavatus was first reported for Suriname in Howden (1985a) and is at present still the only valid species published for Suriname. According to Makhan, at least one of his specimens was “collected on cow dung.” This substrate is not unusual for N. (N.) excavatus, as I once found a specimen of this widespread species in a tunnel under cow dung in Guatemala.</p> <p>Makhan’s picture of the habitus of his type specimen is unfortunately too low-quality to clearly distinguish the species. However, when comparing his picture of the aedeagus of A. soesilae with the aedeagi of other Guianan Athyreini (see e.g. Boilly 2011: 30), a striking resemblance with that of N. excavatus can be seen, while it differs significantly from those of all the other possible species.</p> <p>Based on the provided pictures and corroborated by the description and the type locality, and in accordance with ICZN (2012) Article 23.3, I therefore synonymize Athyreus soesilae Makhan, 2008 with Neoathyreus (Neoathyreus) excavatus (Laporte, 1840).</p> <p>After his description of A. soesilae, Makhan (2008) comments that he believes that the Surinamese specimen of A. bellator Westwood, 1848 (p. 387) mentioned in Howden and Martínez (1978: 42) is probably a specimen of A. soesilae. Makhan acknowledges that he has not seen the specimen and remarks that the males of these two species differ externally as well as with regards to their genitalia. He does not mention the difference in size between his specimens (11 mm) and the size of A. bellator (17–22 mm) as mentioned in Howden and Martínez (1978). I am aware of three more specimens of A. bellator from Suriname, one of which I collected myself. Given Makhan’s clear lack of knowledge of the Athyreini, his disregard of the differences he mentions and the fact that Howden was at the time already a renowned specialist of world Geotrupidae, it may be concluded that Makhan’s remark is entirely unfounded.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9A72F069A214FFA4FF00FC6EFA8961B1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Hielkema, Auke J.	Hielkema, Auke J. (2017): Some corrections and remarks regarding the nomenclature of Neotropical Athyreini, Passalini, Phanaeini, Rutelini, Cyclocephalini, Dynastini and Oryctini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Insecta Mundi 2017 (561): 1-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5168803
9A72F069A213FFA5FF00FB0DFA7C64B1.text	9A72F069A213FFA5FF00FB0DFA7C64B1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scalmus Zang 1905	<div><p>Replacement of Scalmus Zang, 1905 with its senior synonym Neleuops Kuwert, 1891, nec Neleurops Kuwert, 1891 (Passalidae: Passsalinae: Passalini)</p> <p>As part of his extensive and ongoing overhaul of the Neotropical Passalidae, Boucher (2015: 116) revives the genus Scalmus Zang, 1905 (p. 154) to accommodate several species previously placed in Passalus Fabricius, 1792 (p. 240). While doing this, he also places the genus Neleuops Kuwert, 1891 (p. 179) (spelled by him as Neleurops) in synonymy with Scalmus. According to Boucher (personal communication, 2015), this latter action is taken because Zang explicitly created Scalmus as a substitute name for Ninus Kaup, 1871 (p. 89), nec Ninus Stål, 1859 (p. 252) (Hemiptera). However, as Boucher (2015) considers Neleuops and Scalmus synonymous, ICZN (2012) Article 60.2 requires that the senior synonym, in this case Neleuops, takes priority, regardless of the fact that the junior synonym, here Scalmus, is created with the explicit goal to serve as a substitute name.</p> <p>Regarding the spelling variant Neleurops, it should be stated that the original spelling of the genus in Kuwert (1891) is Neleuops and that there are no indications that Kuwert intended a different spelling. The spelling Neleuops is subsequently used as a valid genus name in Kuwert (1896: 222, 1898a: 142) and as a synonym of Passalus in Gravely (1918: 51) and Luederwaldt (1931: 79). The later authors Hincks and Dibb (1935: 39), Blackwelder (1944: 192) and Fonseca and Reyes-Castillo (2004: 14) use the spelling Neleurops as a synonym of Passalus. I am unaware of the use or the mentioning of this genus in any other publication. Given the very limited number of authors who have used the genus in either spelling, it is not possible to speak of a prevalent use of the subsequent incorrect spelling. Thus, according to Article 32.2, Neleuops is the correct original spelling. There is no compelling reason to preserve the incorrect subsequent spelling as per Article 33.3.1.</p> <p>Because Scalmus is synonymized with Neleuops, the following four species, all transferred from Passalus to Scalmus in Boucher (2015), change from genus accordingly: Scalmus interstitialis (Eschscholtz, 1829) (p. 18) becomes Neleuops interstitialis (Eschscholtz, 1829), Scalmus huebneri (Kuwert, 1898) (1898b: 277) becomes Neleuops huebneri (Kuwert, 1898), Scalmus kaupi (Boucher, 2004) (p. 113) becomes Neleuops kaupi (Boucher, 2004), and Scalmus rhodocanthopoides (Kuwert, 1891) (p. 179) returns to the genus it was originally described in and becomes Neleuops rhodocanthopoides Kuwert, 1891.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9A72F069A213FFA5FF00FB0DFA7C64B1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Hielkema, Auke J.	Hielkema, Auke J. (2017): Some corrections and remarks regarding the nomenclature of Neotropical Athyreini, Passalini, Phanaeini, Rutelini, Cyclocephalini, Dynastini and Oryctini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Insecta Mundi 2017 (561): 1-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5168803
9A72F069A21EFFA9FF00FD8EFA696192.text	9A72F069A21EFFA9FF00FD8EFA696192.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclocephala aulustjaorum Hielkema 2017	<div><p>Cyclocephala aulustjaorum, a replacement name for the preoccupied name Cyclocephala brevis Höhne, 1923 (Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae: Cyclocephalini)</p> <p>In his treatise of the Dynastinae of Costa Rica and Panama, Ratcliffe (2003: 93, 96) observed Cyclocephala pubescens Burmeister, 1847 (p. 68) to be a junior homonym of C. pubescens Erichson, 1847 (p. 96), which itself is a junior synonym of C. sexpunctata Laporte, 1840 (p. 125). Because of this observation, he needed a replacement name for Burmeister’s species. After he concluded that the only available synonym was C. pubescens brevis Höhne, 1923 (p. 373) and that Höhne’s syntypes of this taxon were conspecific with Burmeister’s C. pubescens, he proceeded to elevate this name to specific rank.</p> <p>However, it appears to have escaped Ratcliffe’s attention that the name C. brevis Höhne, 1923 is itself a junior homonym of C. brevis Perty, 1830 (p. 46) which, despite the fact that its type is presumed to be lost or destroyed, is usually considered to be a synonym of Euetheola bidentata (Burmeister, 1847) (p. 81). In fact, this is even mentioned by Ratcliffe in the same publication (p. 276) in which he elevated Höhne’s C. brevis.</p> <p>In agreement with Ratcliffe’s comment, there appear to be no other synonymic names for this taxon, and ICZN (2012) Article 60.3 therefore requires the homonym to be replaced with a new name. Thus, the replacement name Cyclocephala aulustjaorum nomen novum is here proposed for C. brevis Höhne, 1923. This name is an honorific of my grandparents and created from the first letters of their names.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9A72F069A21EFFA9FF00FD8EFA696192	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Hielkema, Auke J.	Hielkema, Auke J. (2017): Some corrections and remarks regarding the nomenclature of Neotropical Athyreini, Passalini, Phanaeini, Rutelini, Cyclocephalini, Dynastini and Oryctini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Insecta Mundi 2017 (561): 1-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5168803
9A72F069A21DFFAAFF00FD8DFB7E6312.text	9A72F069A21DFFAAFF00FD8DFB7E6312.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stenocrates haackae Ratcliffe 1977	<div><p>The spelling Stenocrates haackae Ratcliffe, 1977 is preserved and deemed to be the correct original spelling (Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae: Cyclocephalini)</p> <p>The etymology of the species originally named Stenocrates haacki Ratcliffe, 1977 (p. 433) is, in the describing publication, given as “This species is named after Martha J. Haack, Scientific Illustrator at the University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A., in recognition of her superb renditions of entomological subjects.” Obviously, if not by the name “Martha” then by the possessive determiner “her,” the person honored with the name S. haacki is a woman. As is explained in ICZN (2012) Article 31.1.2, the suffix “i” behind a name’s stem refers to a man, while the correct way to refer to a woman is by adding the letters “ae” to the stem. Thus, the name is unfortunately malformed for its intended purpose, but does not correspond to any of the categories of mandatory corrections listed under Article 32, and thus cannot be corrected under the ICZN.</p> <p>In a paper published in 1978 (p. 494), Ratcliffe describes additional species of the genus Stenocrates, as well as the female of the species S. haacki, which he lacked while writing the original description. Interestingly, he spells the name here as S. haackae, presumably because he was made aware of his earlier error. He does not, however, allude to the difference in spelling. The species is again mentioned by Endrödi (1985: 178), who refers to it as “ Stenocrates haacki (recte haackae, because Martha Haack) Ratcliffe, 1978.” The other uses I have found of the name are in Krajcik (2012: 247, 2013: 110), Ratcliffe (2015: 778) and Ratcliffe et al. (2015: 202). The latter four publications all exclusively use the spelling S. haackae.</p> <p>It should be noted that the spelling used in the describing publication from 1977 is the “correct original spelling” as defined in Article 32.2. The amended spelling is, according to Article 33.3, an “incorrect subsequent spelling,” and thus not to be used as a substitute name except if the conditions of Article 33.3.1 are met. Accordingly, it must be noted that six out of seven publications, written by a total of three authors (and eight coauthors), use the incorrect subsequent spelling. It can thus be argued that the latter name is in prevailing usage, defined in the Glossary of the Code as “that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published.” Given the prevailing usage of the spelling S. haackae, I hereby invoke Article 33.3.1 and deem the subsequent spelling as the correct original spelling, to be used as the only valid spelling from now on.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9A72F069A21DFFAAFF00FD8DFB7E6312	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Hielkema, Auke J.	Hielkema, Auke J. (2017): Some corrections and remarks regarding the nomenclature of Neotropical Athyreini, Passalini, Phanaeini, Rutelini, Cyclocephalini, Dynastini and Oryctini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Insecta Mundi 2017 (561): 1-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5168803
9A72F069A21DFFACFF00F9AEFE9A65F2.text	9A72F069A21DFFACFF00F9AEFE9A65F2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scarabaeus simson Linnaeus 1758	<div><p>Invalidation of Scarabaeus simson Linnaeus, 1758 as a synonym of Megasoma actaeon (Linnaeus, 1758) (Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae: Dynastini)</p> <p>Linnaeus (1758: 345) gives a short description of the new species Scarabaeus simson, referencing Sloane (1725: 205, pl. 237, fig. 4, 5) and Browne (1756: 428, pl. 43, fig. 6). In Linnaeus (1764: 5) the first description is expanded upon, and this is done again in Linnaeus (1767: 542), albeit with different wordings. It is important to notice that in both later publications, the exact same references are used as in 1758. In all three publications are allusions to the similarities of Sc. simson with Sc. actaeon, which in each publication is the preceding species.</p> <p>At present, Strategus simson (Linnaeus, 1758) is the valid name of a species of Oryctini endemic to Jamaica, the Caribbean island that is mentioned by Sloane (1725) and Browne (1756) as the source of their specimens. Publications using this name include Ratcliffe (1976: 141) and Endrödi (1976: 155).</p> <p>Curiously, the name Sc. simson Linnaeus, 1758 (also cited as Sc. simson Linnaeus, 1764 or 1767 or Geotrupes simson Fabricius, 1801) also appears in various old and new publications as a junior synonym of Megasoma actaeon (Linnaeus, 1758) (between 1847 and 1915 as Megalosoma actaeon), a species belonging to the Dynastini and occurring exclusively on the mainland of South America and southern Central America. Publications mentioning this synonymy include Endrödi (1941: 69, 1977: 41), Voirin (1978: 4) and Lachaume (1985: 34).</p> <p>Indeed, several authors working extensively with Dynastinae actually use the specific epithet simson (albeit with different assigned years of description) both as a synonym or valid name in Strategus and as a synonym in Megasoma (see Burmeister 1847: 136 vs. 274; Arrow 1937: 76 vs. 99; Blackwelder 1944: 257 vs. 259; Endrödi 1985: 611 vs. 637; Ratcliffe and Cave 2015: 209 vs. Ratcliffe 2003: 461), suggesting that older literature, though commonly cited, is rarely critically read. The oldest publication I have found which attributes both uses of the name unambiguously to Linnaeus is Arrow (1937).</p> <p>To elucidate the dual use of this name, it is necessary to look at some of the older post-Linnean publications.</p> <p>Drury (1770: 81, pl. 36: fig. 3, 4) refers to Linnaeus (1767), Sloane (1725) and Browne (1756) in his text regarding the drawings of his Jamaican specimens. Fabricius (1775: 7, 10) appears to be the first to create a rift by using the name Sc. simson for a species allied to Sc. actaeon (with reference to Linnaeus (1767)) as well as mentioning the name in the description of his new Sc. titanus (with references to Sloane (1725) and Drury (1770)). The rift is continued in Goeze (1777), where on page 6 Sc. simson is mentioned, and on page 59 Sc. titanus “der Drurysche simson.” Importantly, both entries use the references Sloane (1725) and Drury (1770) next to other references, even though Goeze mentions that Fabricius (1775) was probably right in dismissing these references for simson “close to actaeon.” Each of the treatments even links to the other one, demonstrating that this dual use of references is not done accidentally. Strangely enough, Goeze also appears to say that simson “synonym of titanus ” is larger than simson “close to actaeon.” The first after Fabricius (1775) to consider the simson “close to actaeon ” as a completely different species than the simson “synonym of titanus ” is Herbst (1785), who treats the former on page 251 and the latter on page 282. He explicitly states that he does not understand why Goeze (1777) uses the references to Sloane (1725) and Browne (1756) for both species, while Fabricius (1775) excludes them from his simson “close to actaeon ” treatment. It appears that Herbst lacked access to at least some of the relevant publications, for otherwise he would likely have noticed that both “species” were in fact based on the same material. I believe it was Herbst’s text that completed the split between the two uses of the name Sc. simson. Olivier (1789) appears to be the first author to depict an actual minor male of M. actaeon with the name Sc. simson (p. 13, pl. 15, fig. 142) while showing an actual St. simson under the name Sc. titanus (p. 26, pl. 5, fig. 38).</p> <p>Hope (1837: 87) places Sc. titanus in his new genus Strategus. Burmeister (1847: 136) upholds this placement and Fabricius’ vision of Sc. simson as a synonym of St. titanus. Chapin (1932: 449) applies the principle of priority and makes Sc. titanus a synonym of St. simson instead of vice versa. All later authors also treat St. simson as a valid species and Sc. titanus as its synonym.</p> <p>In conclusion, I restate that Sloane (1725) and Browne (1756), the references used by Linnaeus, both mention a species with a length of about 3 to 4 cm living on Jamaica. This applies to St. simson but not to M. actaeon, which has a minimum length of over 5 cm and is strictly continental. It is thus clear that Linnaeus’ description of Sc. simson concerns the Jamaican species Strategus simson. The other use of the name, as a synonym of Megasoma actaeon, is clearly erroneous and a relic of a time in which zoological taxonomy and nomenclature were less developed. From the texts in the various early taxonomic works it can be concluded that the superficial similarities between these species, especially the convergent characters of two forward-protruding thoracic horns, the recurved and bifurcate cephalic horn and the uniform blackish color, have been the source of the misapplications of the name Sc. simson and the eventual schism of this name. I consider Olivier’s (1789) application of the name Sc. simson for a minor male of the present M. actaeon as a misidentification. As is evident from the various recent publications using both present meanings of the name Sc. simson, the dual application of this name has not yet been rectified. I hereby therefore invalidate the use of the name Scarabaeus simson Linnaeus, 1758 (also 1764, 1767 and Geotrupes simson Fabricius, 1801) as a synonym of Megasoma actaeon (Linnaeus, 1758).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9A72F069A21DFFACFF00F9AEFE9A65F2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Hielkema, Auke J.	Hielkema, Auke J. (2017): Some corrections and remarks regarding the nomenclature of Neotropical Athyreini, Passalini, Phanaeini, Rutelini, Cyclocephalini, Dynastini and Oryctini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Insecta Mundi 2017 (561): 1-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5168803
