Charaphloeus aeneus (Grouvelle, 1876), 2025

Charaphloeus aeneus (Grouvelle, 1876) comb. nov.

Fig. 1 A – C View Figure 1

Laemophloeus aeneus Grouvelle, 1876: 492, plate 8: fig. 9 (original combination) (nec Laemophloeus aeneus Sharp, 1885 [preoccupied name, now Parandrita aenea); Kessel, 1923: 93 (checklist); 1926: 72, 86 (key, checklist); Hetschko, 1930: 21 (catalogue); Blackwelder, 1945: 419 (checklist).

Type material.

Lectotype (here designated) • deposited at MNHN, labelled: “ n. Fribou [ Nova Friburgo ] / Deyr ” (brown, handwritten) // “ Type ” (light brown, printed) // “ Aeneus / A. Grouv. Ann Fr. / p. ” (light brown, printed) // “ Muséum Paris / 1917 / coll. A. Grouvelle ” (white, printed) // “ SYNTYPE ” (red, printed) // “ SYNTYPE / Laemophloeus / aeneus Grouvelle, 1876 ” (white, printed) // “ MNHN, Paris / EC 51936 ” (white, printed with QR code) .

Distribution.

BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Friburgo (Grouvelle 1876).

Remarks.

Based on the analysis of the types of both species, Charaphloeus aeneus comb. nov. closely resembles C. frequens (Sharp, 1899) because of the general body form and colour light to dark brown, but it is distinctive by the frontoclypeal suture nearly straight (V-shaped in C. frequens ) and the anterior margin of clypeus with shallow antennal emarginations (deep, incised antennal emarginations in C. frequens ) ( syntypes of C. frequens imaged in Bremer (2023; figs 1–4 )).

Even though there is no size variation in the original description of this species, we accept the only available original specimen as a syntype due to the absence of explicit evidence that Grouvelle (1876) based his description on a single specimen. This specimen is here designated as the lectotype (Fig. 1 A View Figure 1 ) of C. aeneus in order to ensure nomenclatural stability. Hetschko (1930) recorded this species from Rio Grande do Sul, but this likely represents a misinterpretation of its type locality in Rio de Janeiro state.

Nomenclatural note.

Although Laemophloeus aeneus Sharp, 1885 is a junior primary homonym of Laemophloeus aeneus Grouvelle, 1876 , the former was subsequently transferred to Parandrita LeConte & Horn, 1880 by Sharp (1908) and has remained in use without replacement. According to Article 23.9. 5 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999): “ When an author discovers that a species-group name in use is a junior primary homonym of another species-group name also in use, but the names apply to taxa not considered congeneric after 1899, the author must not automatically replace the junior homonym; the case should be referred to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power and meanwhile prevailing usage of both names is to be maintained ”. Regarding its applicability to this case, Article 23.9. 5 is not satisfied because both nominal species remained congeneric until 1908 (i. e. after 1899), when the junior homonym was transferred to Parandrita . Hence, a new replacement name ( nomen novum) for Parandrita aenea is required under the provisions of the ICZN Articles 57.2 and 60 to solve the primary homonymy and best serve nomenclatural stability. However, we follow current usage of the name until a future revision of Parandrita , which is the best place to address the issue (ICZN 1999).