Erosida Thomson, 1861

Erosida Thomson, 1861 View in CoL

Erosida Thomson, 1861: 242 View in CoL .

Erosida ( Plusformosa) Özdikmen, 2025b: 2919 . Syn. nov.

Remarks. Özdikmen (2025b) divided Erosida into two subgenera and reported: “In first group [ Erosida ( Erosida) J. Thomson, 1861: 242 ], pronotum always with two distinct, discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum of same color as remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum uniformly colored;” and “In second group, pronotum always with two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum black contrasting in color from remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum not uniformly colored.”

For a rebuttal of these statements, see the remarks under Beraba . According to Martins (1999) (translated): “The specimens that I assign to this species (elytral color pattern, fig. 101) do not have the curved basal eburneous macula as in Blanchard’s illustration, which I reproduce in figure 105. These specimens also have more brownish pronotal tubercles, which are likewise inconsistent with BLANCHARD’s (1843) figure.” However, even more important is that the type species of Erosida ( Plusformosa) — Eburia formosa Blanchard, 1847 —was described based on syntypes, which may or may not belong to the same species. Therefore, until a comprehensive revision of Erosida is done, with designation of a lectotype for E. formosa , it is absurd to create a subgenus with this species as its type species. It should be noted that Blanchard (1847) did not describe the color of the pronotal tubercles, which may suggest they are not black. We are synonymizing Erosida ( Plusformosa) with Erosida .