Eburodacrys ( Oncoptera ) Lacordaire, 1868

Eburodacrys ( Oncoptera) Lacordaire, 1868

Oncoptera Lacordaire, 1868: 297 .

Remarks. Özdikmen (2025b) also revalidated Oncoptera as a subgenus of Eburodacrys : “Also, I propose here as another subgenus, Eburodacrys ( Oncoptera) Lacordaire, 1869 [ sic, 1868] rest. nov. with the type species Oncoptera vidua Lacordaire, 1869 [ sic, 1868] from Uruguay ( Montevideo) by original designation and monotypy;” and “Despite of all, the type species Oncoptera vidua Lacordaire, 1869 on which this subgenus is established does not resemble any of the species of Eburodacrys White, 1853 known so far an exception of Eburodacrys seabrai Zajciw, 1958 in terms of design of upperside of the body. Moreover, in my opinion, the most important differential diagnostic characteristic of this species and therefore the subgenus is to be very swollen of tarsal segments I and II at least in males. It is unique in this respect.” However, this statement is incorrect as there are other species currently included in Eburodacrys with these features as, for example, E. pumila Monné & Martins, 1992 .

According to Monné & Martins (1992) (translated): “ Oncoptera is distinguished from Eburodacrys solely by the swelling of the first two tarsomeres in males. The features cited by Lacordaire (1869) [sic, 1868] to distinguish Oncoptera from other genera of Eburiini —considering the numerous species currently included in Eburodacrys — are limited to extreme variations in coloration, arrangement and size of elytral markings, and tarsal modifications. In our opinion, these characters do not justify the retention of Oncoptera as a separate genus.” Therefore, in agreement with Monné & Martins (1992), we conclude that this feature should not be used to divide the genus. Consequently, we synonymize Eburodacrys (Oncoptera) with Eburodacrys . We believe that proposing subgenera requires a comprehensive revision of the genus. It is important to note that the cladistic analysis by Botero & Monné (2018) included a very limited number of Eburodacrys species. Therefore, it is also possible that the inclusion of a much larger number of species could result in a significantly different arrangement in the resulting tree.