Homocopris torulosus ( Eschscholtz, 1822 )

Homocopris torulosus ( Eschscholtz, 1822) View in CoL

( Fig. 1–3 View Figures 1–9 )

Copris torulosa Eschscholtz 1822: 29 (original combination). Type locality: “ Chili, Conception.”

Copris valdivianus Philippi 1859: 661 (junior subjective synonym)

Pinotus torulosus var. minor Luederwaldt 1925: 68 View in CoL (junior subjective synonym)

Pinotus dahli Landin 1955: 5 View in CoL (junior subjective synonym)

Type material examined. Lectotype female (here designed) at ZMUM [examined through photographs], labeled as ( Fig. 1–3 View Figures 1–9 ): a) “ Torulosa. / Esch. / Chili.” [handwritten], b). “ Copris / torulosus Eschscholtz, 1822 / LECTOTYPE / J. Mondaca & F. Vaz-de-Mello 2024” [typeset, red label, double black margin] ( ZMUM).

Remarks. The lectotype of C. torulosus is the only specimen in the ZMUM collection whose labels (see Fig. 3 View Figures 1–9 up) relate to the original Eschscholtz specimens (curator Aleksey A. Gusakov, pers. comm.). The whereabouts of the other two original syntypes and their sex are unknown. Horn et al. (1990) mentioned that part of Eschscholtz’s collection was divided and ended up in the Dorpat Museum ( Estonia) and Helsinki Museum ( Finland), the latter via the Mannerheim collection. Another part went to Berlin ( Germany) and St. Petersburg ( Russia); according to Papavero (1971: 52), the specimens collected during the Russian Rurick expedition were split between these two museums.

The first author searched for the other two syntypes without success in the collections of the Finnish Museum of Natural History, Helsinki, Finland (via Conrad Gillett) and at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Science, St. Peterburg, Russia (via Andrey Frolov). It is unknown whether these specimens are present in the collections of the Dorpat or Berlin Museum.

The original labels of the Eschscholtz types are unique and characteristic due to their square shape, the names of the species are written in handwriting and underlined, and the surname of the descriptor appears abbreviated. In these, only the country of collection is indicated and not the specific location mentioned in the original description (see Fig. 3, 5, 7, 9 View Figures 1–9 ). This mismatch between the specimen and the original description does not affect the individualization and designation of the specimen bearing the name.