taxonID	type	description	language	source
4D5D879288274752A2AD8ED7FC0AECF5.taxon	description	Balcus violaceus (Fabricius): Schenkling’s (1906: 265) inclusion of Australia in the distribution of Balcus signatus Broun was followed by a question mark in parentheses, indicating doubt. Opitz (2013) synonymised B. signatus with B. violaceus, rendering the genus monotypic. It is possible that Schenkling had before him the Australian species, Orthrius sepulcralis (Westwood), which bears strong superficial resemblance to maculate specimens of Balcus violaceus. This author has not encountered a single Australian-collected Balcus specimen. Of relevance, and worth documenting here, is past confusion around the identity of Chalciclerus pantomelas Boisduval. While documenting Australian clerid types in MNHN, Paris, I found two possible syntype specimens of ‘ Chalciclerus pantomelas ’, a species described from Australia (Western Port in Victoria) and now assigned to the genus Eleale Newman: one labelled ‘ Chalciclerus pantomelas Boisduval, Australie, Port Western, D’Urville — 1829 / TYPE’ (Fig. 1), clearly an Eleale; the other, labelled ‘ N. Zealande, Pantomelas, Ex Museo Minisz (Coll. Oberthur) / SYNTYPE? ’ (Fig. 2), clearly a specimen of Balcus violaceus (Fabricius). Though presently assigned to Eleale and considered an Australian species (supported by the labels on the first-mentioned syntype, and the illustration of a very Eleale - like C. pantomelas published by Boisduval 1835, see t. 6, f. 14), ‘ pantomelas ’ had, in the past, been referred to as a New Zealand species (White 1846, Broun 1880, Hudson 1934, Corporaal 1950 a). For the record, to prevent future confusion potentially resulting in erroneous synonymy of Eleale pantomelas with Balcus violaceus, I state clearly here that the second-mentioned, Ex Museo Minisz, type, potentially the reason White (1846) considered pantomelas a New Zealand species, is not a type specimen of Chalciclerus pantomelas Boisduval, Balcus violaceus Fabricius, either synonym of the latter (i. e., Balcus niger Sharp or Balcus signatus Broun), or of any other species.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288274752A2AD8ED7FC0AECF5.taxon	distribution	Distribution: New Zealand (Opitz 2013). Status: Balcus violaceus is non-native and absent in Australia.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288274754A2AD896DFC2DED9D.taxon	description	Gastrocentrum dux (Westwood): Westwood (1853) described Tillus dux from “ Nova Hollandia apud Fluvium Cygnorum ”, i. e., New Holland near Swan River, from material “ In Mus [eum] Melly ” and stated to be 13 and-a-half ‘ lines’ in length, i. e., approx. 3 cm. Blackburn (1900) referred to Tillus dux as a “ complete enigma ” and, due to its large size, considered it likely to represent a misidentified species of Natalis (now Eunatalis). Schenkling (1903: 13) indicated doubt about the Australian distribution of Tillus dux and, in a subsequent catalogue (Schenkling 1910: 25) listing it as Gastrocentrum dux following Gahan (1910), mentioned only Ceylon and Java, omitting Australia altogether from its distribution. Corporaal (1950 a) clearly expressed doubt over the validity of the Australian type locality, giving the distribution of G. dux as “ Ceylon, India, Laos, Java (?), Australia (??) ”. Gerstmeier (2005), adding Thailand and Burma to the known distribution of G. dux, reiterated Corporaal’s doubt about its occurrence in Australia. Mawdsley (1999), however, focusing only on the Sri Lankan fauna, offered no comment on the type locality of G. dux. After 20 years of researching clerids, including documenting the Cleridae collections of 16 Australian and six European institutional collections (see Table 1), plus several private collections, this author has not found a single Gastrocentrum specimen undeniably collected in Australia. Yang et al. (2020) recognised nine species, five newly described, in their revision of Gastrocentrum which omitted Gastrocentrum brevicolle (Pic) due to unavailability of specimens. Of the three remaining already described species, type material was studied for G. unicolor (White) and G. laterimaculatum Gerstmeier, but not for G. dux (Westwood). Their interpretation of G. dux was therefore based on a single Gastrocentrum specimen bequeathed to the MNHN, Paris in 1930 from the collection of French Coleopterist Albert Sicard, labelled “ Tillus dux ” and, on a separate label, “ Australie ”, which cannot simply be assumed to represent the place of collection ... particularly when: a) the fact that it is printed in the same hand, on the same blue coloured paper and seemingly using the same ink (see Yang et al. 2020: fig. 2) as the “ Tillus dux ” label suggests high likelihood that both labels were printed, and added to the specimen, at the same time, the “ Australie ” label potentially based on the published type locality of the species the specimen was at that time determined to be, rather than necessarily indicating a collecting locality; b) the historical precedent for considering the Australian type locality of T. dux erroneous is well-established in the published literature (see above); and, c) the genus Gastrocentrum is not represented by a single Australian-collected specimen in any Australian institutional or private collection (also see above). Additionally, in support of point ‘ b’, it is known that individual specimens within the Melly Collection (in the Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Genève, Switzerland), commonly do not have locality and identification labels attached to them, with locality data only loosely associated with specimens by their position above a ‘ taxon name & region’ label within drawers (Guéorguiev et al. 2014). Several instances of doubt or confusion around collecting data of Melly material have been reported in the taxonomic literature (e. g., Saunders 1850, Kuijten 1983, Flores & Pizarro-Araya 2010), and I have likewise found numerous examples of Melly Collection material completely lacking locality data (e. g., Kuijten 1983, Geiser 2010, Sandoval-Gómez et al. 2014, Pecci-Maddalena & Lopes-Andrade 2017, Seidel et al. 2018). In his description of Tillus dux, Westwood (1853) writes of the insect in general as “ fusco-nigricans, setosus, pubescentia aurea obstus ” (i. e., brown-black, bristly, covered with golden pubescence), of the prothorax as “ elongatus, subcylindricus, elytris multo angustior, antice parum latior, ante et pone medium puallo constrictus ” (i. e., elongate, subcylindrical, much narrower than the elytra, a little wider anteriorly, constricted in front and at the middle by a pustule) and of the elytra as “ nubila seu fascia indistincta ante medium obscura ” which translates to “ a dark cloud or indistinct band before the middle ” with the latter feature suggestive of interruption in the distribution of the golden setae. The illustration of T. dux published by Westwood (1853; plate 24, fig. 11) clearly shows a dark section of the elytral disc positioned above the middle, interrupting what appears to represent the more broadly distributed golden pubescence mentioned in the description. Of the described Gastrocentrum species only G. magnum Yang, Yang & Shi approaches G. dux in body size, and the high-resolution photograph of G. magnum (Yang et al. 2020: Fig. 1) clearly shows elytra that are densely vested with golden setae, with a darker area above the middle where the setae are absent, exactly as described and illustrated by Westwood (1853). Additional points of consideration include: 1) the fact that G. dux determination labels are affixed to the pins of two G. magnum Paratypes from north-eastern India (Assam and Sikkim); and 2) much of the distribution given by Yang et al. (2020) for G. magnum (India, China, Vietnam, Thailand) overlaps with the previously known distribution of G. dux. Regarding the published type locality, “ Nova Hollandia apud Fluvium Cygnorum ”, i. e., New Holland near Swan River, there is, interestingly, a Swan River near the southern border of the State of Himachal Pradesh, in northern India. Geographically, just as Sikkim (where G. magnum occurs) does, Himachal Pradesh adjoins the southern Tibetan border. Considering the similarity between G. magnum Yang et al. and G. dux sensu Westwood (not sensu Yang et al.), and the possibility that the former is synonymous with the latter, it seems plausible to suggest that the western-most populations of such a sub-Himalayan-adapted species might extend as far as Himachal Pradesh from Sikkim. Himachal Pradesh is also only about 800 km northwest of the nearest known locality for the genus Gastrocentrum, Modi Khola, Nepal (for G. xiaodongi Yang et al. 2020). In the absence of establishing morphological congruence between the abovementioned MNHN “ Australie ” specimen and Westwood’s Tillus dux syntype, the morphological concept of G. dux sensu Yang et al. (2020) is supported only by faith that the “ Australie ” label represents a collecting event; not a strong case for its occurrence in Australia compared to the evidence presented above to the contrary. Therefore, as, after 160 years since the description of Tillus dux, there remains no definitive specimen-based evidence for the occurrence of Gastrocentrum dux in Australia, I propose that the genus Gastrocentrum be considered absent from the Australian fauna and the Australian type locality of Tillus dux erroneous. The status of Gastrocentrum magnum Yang, Yang & Shi in relation to Gastrocentrum dux Westwood requires further consideration.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288274754A2AD896DFC2DED9D.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Requires clarification, but potentially India, Sri Lanka, southern China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Burma (Corporaal 1950 a, Mawdsley 1999, Gerstmeier 2005, Yang et al. 2020). Status: Gastrocentrum dux is non-native and absent in Australia.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	description	Korynetes abdominalis (Fabricius): Schenkling (1906: 319) recorded this Indian species from Australia. Two specimens determined by Schenkling to be K. abdominalis, one labelled ‘ Nov Holl., Coll. Kraatz’, the other ‘ Austral. Mus. Hambg., Coll. Schenkling’, were located by the author in SDEI, where Schenkling’s collection resides. These specimens, likely to be those on which Schenkling’s published record was based, are in fact Thallis janthina Erichson (Erotylidae: Erotylinae: Dacnini), an Australian erotylid (Fig. 3).	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	distribution	Distribution: India (Corporaal 1950 a).	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	discussion	Status: Korynetes abdominalis is non-native and absent in Australia.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	description	Korynetes coeruleus (De Geer): Corynetes unicolor Chevrolat, 1876 (Fig. 4), described from ‘ Australie’, was synonymised with Korynetes coeruleus (De Geer) by Schenkling (1903 b: 16). The Australian type locality is likely erroneous because no other Australian specimens of K. coeruleus are known, plus the likelihood of the only known detected or intercepted specimen ending up in a European museum must be low. This species was listed as cosmopolitan by Schenkling (1903 a: 118), and only tentatively considered cosmopolitan by Corporaal (1950 a: 308). No subsequently collected specimens from Australia were found in any Australian or European institutional collection visited by the author (see Table 1).	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Northern and southern Europe, Russia, Japan, Taiwan (Löbl et al. 2007); possibly also Africa (see notes on Korynetes in Opitz 2011).	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	discussion	Status: Korynetes caeruleus is non-native and absent in Australia.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	description	Korynetes duboulayi (Pic): Lebasiella duboulayi Pic, 1950, described from a specimen labelled ‘ Swan River, Du Boulay’ (MNHN) (Fig. 5), was transferred to Korynetes by Corporaal (1950 b: 61), before being synonymised with the Chilean species Solervicensia ovata (Spinola) by Solervicens (2001) who speculated that the type was labelled ‘ Swan River’ in error.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288214754A2AD8CDEFDF3E8C5.taxon	discussion	Status: See Solervicensia ovata below.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288204755A2AD8E9FFC48EEED.taxon	description	Monophylla terminata (Say): Blackburn (1901) described Elasmocerus picticollis Blackburn (Fig. 6) from a single specimen collected in Victoria (specific location and circumstance not mentioned). Corporaal (1949) synonymised E. picticollis with the North American species Monophylla terminata (Say) after advice from E. A. Chapin who believed that Blackburn’s specimen was probably introduced into Australia with grape vines from America. The absence of subsequently collected Australian specimens suggests that M. terminata did not become established in Australia after it’s detection.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288204755A2AD8E9FFC48EEED.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Eastern North America to Texas and Arizona (Corporaal 1950 a). Status: Monophylla terminata is non-native and absent in Australia.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288204755A2AD8C4FFE60EB41.taxon	description	Solervicensia ovata (Spinola): Two synonyms of this native species of southern South America were described by Maurice Pic from Australia: Korynetes nigrosignatus Pic, 1941, synonymised with S. ovata above; and Labasiella duboulayi Pic, 1950, synonymised with S. ovata by Solervicens (2001) who supposed that the published type locality ‘ Swan River’ must correspond with a labelling error. It could, however, be possible that the error relates more to interpretation of the label as there is a Rio Cisnes (i. e., Swan River) in the Aysén Province of Chile (Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region), within the documented range of S. ovata (Solervicens 2001). The association of the specimen with Francis Houssemayne du Boulay, an English collector who immigrated to Western Australia in the late 1850 ’ s, cannot be explained, but the L. duboulayi type specimen (Fig. 5, examined by the author) is definitely a specimen of S. ovata, a species not represented by a single specimen confirmed as having been collected in Australia.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288204755A2AD8C4FFE60EB41.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Chile and Argentina (Solervicens 2001). Status: Non-native and absent in Australia (probable erroneous Australian type localities of synonyms; no Australian specimens known).	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288204755A2AD8AA3FF7AEAFD.taxon	description	Thanasimus dubius (Fabricius): Introduced to southern and eastern Australia for control of Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff) (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) during the 1980 ’ s though reportedly failed to establish (Morgan et al. 1991). The only specimens I have seen in collections are voucher specimens from rearing programs. I know of no wildcollected specimens.	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
4D5D879288204755A2AD8AA3FF7AEAFD.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Canada, U. S. A., Mexico (Corporaal 1950 a). Status: Non-native and absent in Australia (biocontrol agent with no evidence for establishment beyond release).	en	Bartlett, Justin S. (2023): Clarification of ambiguous genus records for Australian Cleridae (Coleoptera: Cleroidea). Zootaxa 5383 (3): 375-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5383.3.6, URL: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5383.3.6/52459
