ArticlePDF Available

On nomenclature and synonymy of Trichius rosaceus, T. gallicus, and T. zonatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae: Trichiini)

Authors:

Abstract

The name Scarabaeus rosaceus Voet, 1766-1778, currently in use as one of two names for a west Palaearctic Trichius species, is unavailable because Voet's work is not consistently binominal. The valid name for the species is Trichius gallicus Dejean, 1821 with the Sardinian and North African populations forming the subspecies T. g. zonatus Germar, 1831. The lectotype of Trichius zonatus Germar is designated.
Accepted by A.B.T. Smith: 13 Feb. 2012; published: 25 Apr. 2012
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)
Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press
Zootaxa 3278: 6168 (2012)
www.mapress.com/zootaxa/Article
61
On nomenclature and synonymy of Trichius rosaceus, T. gallicus, and T. zonatus
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae: Trichiini)
FRANK-THORSTEN KRELL
Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, Colorado 80205-5798, U.S.A.
Email: frank.krell@dmns.org
Abstract
The name Scarabaeus rosaceus Voet, 1766–1778, currently in use as one of two names for a west Palaearctic Trichius species,
is unavailable because Voet’s work is not consistently binominal. The valid name for the species is Trichius gallicus Dejean,
1821 with the Sardinian and North African populations forming the subspecies T. g. zonatus Germar, 1831. The lectotype of
Trichius zonatus Germar is designated.
Key words: bumblebee beetles, lectotype designation, taxonomy, Germar type, Europe, Palaearctic
Introduction
The European fauna west of the Caucasus contains three species of the genus Trichius Fabricius, 1775. Trichius
fasciatus (Linnaeus, 1758) and T. sexualis Bedel, 1906 (see Krell 2010) have been known under these undisputed
names for over a century. However, there is inconsistency in the valid name used for the third species that has a
broad white stripe only on the penultimate sternite of the males. Both Trichius zonatus (Germar, 1831) and Trichius
rosaceus (Voet, 1766-1778) are widely used as the valid names for this species, sometimes with the former name
being used for the Sardinian and North African subspecies of this species. Examples of usage are:
for T. zonatus—Brakman 1966, Báguena 1967, Machatschke 1969, Stebnicka 1983, Jessop 1986, Mrocz-
kowski & Stefa ska 1991, Krell & Fery 1992, Brandstetter & Kapp 1998, Bunalski 1999, Przewo ny 1999, Rößner
& Schulze 1999, Frank & Konzelmann 2002, Martin & Pedersen 2002, Micó & Galante 2002, Böhme 2005, Chi-
mi liu 2007, Troukens 2007;
for T. rosaceus—Janssens 1960, Baraud 1977, Paulian & Baraud 1982, Gangloff 1991, Baraud 1992, Král
1993, Carpaneto & Piatella 1995, Decelle 1995, Sparacio 1995, Inglebert 1997, Kraj ík 1999, San Martín et al.
2001, Pesarini 2004, Dutto 2005, Smetana 2006; Mertlik 2009, Ballerio et al. 2010;
and for T. rosaceus zonatus: Baraud 1977, Paulian & Baraud 1982, Chambon et al. 1985, Carpaneto & Piatella
1995, Kraj ík 1999, Dutto 2005, Lapiana & Sparacio 2006, Smetana 2006, Ballerio et al. 2010.
The parallel usage of different names for the same species is undesirable and needs to be resolved. Here, I pro-
pose a solution by strictly applying the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature 1999).
Trichius rosaceus (Voet, 1766–1778) (unavailable) and Trichius rosaceus Kraatz, 1891 (junior synonym)
In his Catalogus Systematicus Coleopterorum, Johann Eusebius Voet described Scarabaeus rosaceus from the
Netherlands in the Dutch and French editions, but from Belgium (“Habitat in Belgico.”) in the Latin edition, which,
however, belonged to the Austrian Netherlands at the time. The description is on sheet B, which was issued
between 1766 and 1778 (Hagen 1857). From description and illustration, it is unclear to which of the three Central
European Trichius species the author refers. Two species of Trichius occur in Belgium and the Netherlands:
Trichius fasciatus and the one that is currently called T. rosaceus or T. zonatus (Brakman 1966, Decelle 1995).
KRELL
62 · Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press
Fuessly (1778: 19) synonymized Voet’s Scarabaeus rosaceus with Trichius fasciatus (Linnaeus, 1758). In the
German translation of Voet’s work, Panzer (1802: 26) followed this interpretation, which also was adopted by
Schönherr (1817: 104). However, at the time it was unknown that more than one species of Trichius inhabits
Europe making this synonymy irrelevant for the interpretation of Voet’s species concept. With no collection of Voet
being mentioned by Horn et al. (1990) original material cannot be traced. Voet’s son did possess an insect collec-
tion (Smit et al. 1986), which, however, did not contain S. rosaceus (Voet 1769–1778: 12).
Until Kraatz’s (1891) reinstatement Voet’s name, T. rosaceus had remained largely forgotten. It was then tem-
porarily adopted by Reitter (1894, 1899), and used by other authors (e.g. Bivort 1903, Varendorff 1903). After
Bedel (1906) synonymized “T. rosaceus Kr., 1891” with "T. gallicus Heer, 1841", it went into oblivion again, with
the exception of Everts (1922: 315) who used it in parallel with T. gallicus and T. zonatus. In 1960, Janssens (p.
353) reinstated Voet’s name again, explicitly stating its priority. With some delay, T. rosaceus (Voet) became used
as a valid name (e.g. Baraud, 1977), particularly in western Europe. Stebnicka (1983: 133) spoke against reinstat-
ing T. rosaceus (Voet) as a valid name, despite having priority, because it had largely been forgotten for two centu-
ries. However, the usage of T. rosaceus increased further resulting in this name being currently as widely
established as its synonym, T. zonatus (see above).
Although several of Voet’s names are still in use, previous authors had already recognized that Voet did not
adopt binominal nomenclature. Sherborn did not include Voet’s names in his Index Animalium (Sherborn 1902).
Everts (1922: 315) wrote: “Voet volgde nog niet de binominale nomenklatuur.” Also Wiebes (1968: 27) noted cor-
rectly when discussing the nomenclature of a goliath beetle species: “While this appears to be the first description
of the species now known as Goliathus cacicus, Voet cannot be maintained as its author, because his work does not
satisfy the conditions of Art. 11 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.” In the current, 4th edition
of the Code (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999), Article 11.4. requires for the availabil-
ity of names that “The author must have consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature […] in the
work in which the name or nomenclatural act was published.” Since Voet used specific names consisting of one to
three, occasionally five words, this requirement indeed is not fulfilled; hence the names contained in Voet
(1766–1778) are unavailable.
In his German translation of Voet’s work, Panzer (1802) added annotations and synonymy. Could Voet’s names
be available from this edition? Twenty years ago, I doubted the availability of Voet’s names from Panzer’s work
(Krell & Fery 1992) and advised against using the name Trichius rosaceus. Certainly, Panzer followed the princi-
ples of binominal nomenclature in his own works. He also followed those principles in the synonymy he added to
Voet’s names: Whenever available he added a binomen from the available literature to Voet’s names, but he left
Voet’s names unchanged, containing one to five words in the specific name. Therefore, Panzer’s (1802) translated
edition does not fulfill the requirements of Art. 11.4 either. I was unsuccessful in tracing another work published
before Germar's (1831) description of the synonymous species T. zonatus, from which Voet's names would be
available. The first author to make Trichius rosaceus available is Kraatz (1891) who therefore is to be considered
the author of this name as Bedel (1906) did correctly.
Trichius gallicus Dejean, 1821 (valid species name)
The oldest available name for the species called Trichius rosaceus Voet by the authors listed above and others is
Trichius gallicus Dejean, 1821. Dejean (1821: 61) introduced Trichius gallicus as the valid name of Trichius fas-
ciatus sensu Olivier. The type locality is Paris. Since no description was given, Dejean's name has long been con-
sidered a nomen nudum (Sherborn 1926: 2628; but see Hoeven 1856: 510) and therefore has been credited to Heer
(1841), who supposedly was the first to publish a description of Trichius gallicus. However, Dejean’s (1821) refer-
ence to "Fasciatus. Ol." fulfils the requirements of Article 12.2.1 (International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature 1999) for availability by indication: "a bibliographic reference to a previously published description
or definition". The reference to Olivier's description of Trichius fasciatus, even if not fulfilling modern standards
for bibliographic references, unambiguously refers to Olivier's (1789: Cétoine 61) description of Cetonia fasciata.
However, the identity of Olivier's species cannot be determined from the description as it fits any of the European
Trichius species. The abdomen is described as black, which is true for the females of all European species and also
for the males of T. fasciatus. In his references, he refers to Voet's description, but also to Linnaeus's Trichius fascia-
Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press · 63
NOMENCLATURE OF EUROPEAN TRICHIUS SPECIES
tus. Olivier certainly subsumed at least two species under the name Cetonia fasciata. However, we can unequivo-
cally determine the identity of Trichius gallicus Dejean, 1821, since later, Dejean (1829) himself, in a so far
overlooked paper, described in detail the three Trichius species he mentioned in his catalogue. “Trichius abdomina-
lis. Dej.” from Austria is the species that we currently know as Trichius sexualis Bedel, 1906 (see Krell 2010) since
Dejean (1829) describes the male abdomen of this species "dont les taches jaunes de l'avant-dernier segment sont
plus grandes [in comparison to T. gallicus], et dont les segments antérieurs sont marqués d'une bande transversal,
jaune, un peu écrancrée postérieurement dans son milieu." Dejean's T. fasciatus is, without doubt, Trichius fascia-
tus (Linnaeus, 1758) as this is the only species occurring in Sweden (Smetana 2006) and, as Dejean (1829)
describes "Le dessous de l'abdomen du male n'a aucune tache jaune." Trichius gallicus (=Trichius rosaceus Kraatz)
occurs in the former Swedish territories in Pomerania (Köhler & Klausnitzer 1998), but they were no longer Swed-
ish at the time of publication of Dejean’s catalogue (Hacker & Hardenberg 2003), and Dejean (1829) did not know
this species from northern Germany. The third species, T. gallicus, is identical to the species we currently know as
T. rosaceus or T. zonatus, because the male abdomen of T. gallicus "présente les taches jaunes indiquées par MM.
Serville et comte de St.-Fargeau." Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville (1828: 703) described under “Trichie
fascié, T. fasciatus”, which they misinterpreted, the abdomen of T gallicus: “Le mâle a l’avant-dernier segment de
l’abdomen en dessous […] chargé à sa base de deux sections de cercle garnies d’écailles serrées, jaunâtres.” Dejean
had distinguished the three central European species correctly. Heer (1841) interpreted Dejean’s Trichius gallicus
correctly. Trichius gallicus Dejean, 1821 is the valid name for the species that is currently known as T. rosaceus and
T. zonatus. Until the mid 1900s, Trichius gallicus had been in use as valid name mainly in western Europe and
North Africa, e.g., by Houlbert & Monnot (1910), Bedel (1911), Martínez de la Escalera (1914), Doflein (1921),
Abot (1928; “T. zonatus Germ. var. gallicus Heer”), Sainte-Claire Deville (1935; “[zonatus Germ.] var. gallicus
Heer”), and Paulian (1941, 1959; “Trichius zonatus subsp. gallicus Heer”), until it was synonymized with T. rosa-
ceus by Janssens (1960: 353). After Janssens, T. gallicus has rarely been used, but was not completely forgotten
(see Bobîrnac et al. 1999: "Trichius zonatus Germ., ab. gallicus Herr"; Ádám 2003: “Trichius zonatus var. gallicus
Heer, 1841”; Davidts 2006: "Trichius gallicus"). The name was used on a French postage due stamp in 1982 (see
Lucht 1987). Its reinstatement, even with the different author Dejean, reviving the former use after a gap of 70
years, is unlikely to cause major confusion.
Trichius zonatus Germar, 1831 (valid subspecies name), lectotype designation
The other name currently in use for the species called Trichius rosaceus Voet by the authors listed above and others
is Trichius zonatus Germar, 1831. Germar described Trichius zonatus from Sardinia, Greece and Anatolia, Turkey.
The distribution indicates that he might have subsumed more than one species under his name, namely the true T.
zonatus from Sardinia plus one or two species that occur in Greece and Anatolia, because the only species occur-
ring in Sardinia (Carpaneto & Piattella 1995) occurs neither in Greece nor Anatolia (Mikši 1959; Baraud 1992,
Carpaneto et al. 2000, Smetana 2006), but Germar’s description of the white marks on the penultimate abdominal
segment fits perfectly what we today call T. zonatus or T. gallicus and can be considered a species-specific charac-
ter. Type material could neither be traced in the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (J. Frisch in litt., Apr. 2010) nor in
the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut Müncheberg (L. Behne in litt., Apr. 2011), nor in the Zoologische Sam-
mlung der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle (K. Schneider in litt., Jan. 2011). In Burmeister’s collection in Halle,
seven specimens of T. zonatus with locality ‘Sardinien” are present, but according to Burmeister (1842: 760), he
had only three specimens from Sardinia which he had received from Gené as T. fasciolatus. Five years after Ger-
mar, Gené (1836) described the same Sardinian taxon as Trichius fasciolatus, but soon recognized the synonymy
himself (Gené 1839) and used Trichius zonatus Germar as the valid name.
According to his account, Burmeister did have Germar’s types in his collection, a male and a female “aus dem
Littoral”, but they cannot be identified from the seven Sardinian specimens present today. The Germar collection
was split up and distributed by Hermann Rudolph Schaum (Horn et al. 1990) who certainly kept Cetoniinae
(including Trichiini) for his own collection. Those went via A. Melly to the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in
Geneva in 1843 (Horn et al. 1990) where one of the syntypes of Trichius zonatus could be traced. This specimen is
a male and is herewith designated as the lectotype of Trichius zonatus Germar, 1831 (Figs 1–3). The lectotype
corresponds to original description and engraving with the exception of the inner spot of the pre-apical yellow band
KRELL
64 · Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press
on the elytra. This spot clearly protrudes toward the apex in the lectotype whereas it is shown as a narrow transver-
sal band in the original engraving. This is well within the intraspecific variation (see Ballerio et al. 2010) and might
mean that the illustrator used another specimen from the type series. The lectotype has the following labels (Fig. 4):
tiny silver quadrate, “zonatus / Germ. typ.” [handwritten by H.R. Schaum], “Schaum. / TYPE” [first line handwrit-
ten], “Coll.Melly” [typeset], “LECTOTYPUS / Trichius / zonatus GERMAR 1831 / des. F.-T. Krell 2011” [handwrit-
ten on red cardboard].
Identification of the lectotype. The specimen (Figs 1–3) is fragile, but almost complete, with only the left pro-
tarsomeres III–V, the right protarsomeres II–V and the left metatarsal claw missing. The male lectotype, bearing a
white stripe on each side of the penultimate sternite (Fig. 3), together with the anterior black elytral band being
restricted to the humeral region (Fig. 1) and the mesotibiae being only slightly emarginated laterally, is clearly
identifiable as the species currently called T. rosaceus or T. zonatus. The extended black coloration on the posterior
part of the elytra (Fig. 1) together with the shorter pronotal setae leaving a small discal area bald indicates that the
specimen belongs to the Sardinian-North African subspecies (Paulian & Baraud 1982; Dutto 2005; figures in
Baraud 1985 and Ballerio et al. 2010).
FIGURES 1–4. Lectotype of Trichius zonatus Germar, 1831. Fig. 1, dorsal. Fig. 2, lateral, left side. Fig. 3, ventral. Fig.
4, labels.
Correct synonymy
With the name "Trichius rosaceus Voet" being unavailable, and T. gallicus being the oldest available name for the
species I suggest to apply the name T. gallicus zonatus to the Sardinian populations, which would also include the
Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press · 65
NOMENCLATURE OF EUROPEAN TRICHIUS SPECIES
North African populations. The other Palaearctic populations would be named T. gallicus gallicus Dejean.
I propose the following synonymies:
a) at the species level:
Trichius gallicus Dejean, 1821: 61
?= “Scarabaeus rosaceus” Voet, 1766–1778: 12 (unavailable and dubious)
= Trichius zonatus Germar, 1831 (junior synonym)
= Trichius fasciolatus Gené, 1836 (junior synonym)
= Trichius rosaceus Kraatz, 1891: 193 (junior synonym)
b) at the subspecies level:
Trichius gallicus gallicus Dejean, 1821: 61
?= “Scarabaeus rosaceus” Voet, 1766–1778: 12 (unavailable and dubious)
= Trichius rosaceus Kraatz, 1891: 193 (junior synonym)
Trichius gallicus zonatus Germar, 1831
= Trichius fasciolatus Gené, 1836 (junior synonym)
Acknowledgements
Johannes Frisch, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Germany; Lutz Behne, Deutsches Entomologisches Institut
Müncheberg, Germany; and Karla Schneider, Zentralmagazin Naturwissenschaftlicher Sammlungen der Martin-
Luther-Universität, Zoologische Sammlung, Halle, Germany, searched for Germar's type material in their respec-
tive collections. Giulio Cuccodoro, Musée d'Histoire Naturelle Genève, Switzerland, found one of Germar's syn-
types and kindly sent it on loan. I am grateful to Tristão Branco (Porto), Hans Fery (Berlin), and Andrew Smith
(Ottawa) for helpful comments.
References cited
Abot, G. (1928) Catalogue des Coléoptères Observés dans le Département de Maine-et-Loire. Lechevalier, Paris, XV+387 pp.
Ádám, L. (2003) Faunisztikai adatok a Kárpát-medencéb l (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Folia Historico Naturalia Musei
Matraensis, 27, 101–136.
Báguena, L. (1967) Scarabaeoidea de la Fauna Ibero-Balear y Pirenaica. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas,
Institut Español de Entomología, Madrid, XI+576 pp.
Ballerio, A., Rey, A., Uliana, M., Rastelli, M., Rastelli, S., Romano, M., & Colacurcio, L. (2010) Coleotteri Scarabeoidei d'Ita-
lia. Tarantola, Brescia. [DVD]
Baraud, J. (1977) Coléoptères Scarabaeoidea. Faune de l’Europe Occidentale. Belgique – France – Grande-Bretagne, Italie –
Péninsule Ibérique. Publications de la Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie 4. Laboratoire de Zoologie de l’Université Paul
Sabatier, Toulouse, 352 pp.
Baraud, J. (1985) Coléoptères Scarabaeoidea, Faune du Nord de l’Afrique du Maroc au Sinaï. Encyclopédie Entomologique,
46, 1–648.
Baraud, J. (1992) Coléoptères Scarabaeoidea d’Europe. Faune de France, France et Régions Limitrophes, 78, I–IX+1–856, 11
plates.
Bedel, L. (1906) Synonymies de Coléoptères paléarctiques. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 1906, 91–93.
Bedel, L. (1911) Faune des Coléoptères du Bassin de la Seine. 4 (1): Scarabaeidae. Société Entomologique de France, Paris,
164 pp.
Bivort, … (1903) Une liste de Coléoptères capturés aux environs de Fleurus. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique,
47, 225–226.
Bobîrnac, B., Chimi liu, C., & Mitrea, I. (1999) Asupra taxonomiei i ecologiei fam. Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera-Insecta) din
zonele colinar i montan ale Olteniei. Oltenia, Studii i Comunic ri, tiintele Naturii, 25, 96–99.
KRELL
66 · Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press
Böhme, J. (2005) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas K: Katalog (Faunistische Übersicht). 2nd ed. Elsevier, München, XII+515 pp.
Brakman, P.J. (1966) Lijst van Coleoptera uit Nederland en het omliggend gebied. Monographieën von de Nederlandsche Ento-
mologische Vereeniging, 2, I–X+1–218.
Brandstetter, C.M. & Kapp, A. (1998) Käferinventar von Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein. Erster Vorarlberger Coleopterologis-
cher Verein. Dornbirn, 92 pp.
Bunalski, M. (1999) Die Blatthornkäfer Mitteleuropas. Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea. Bestimmung – Verbreitung – Ökologie.
Slamka, Bratislava, 80 pp.
Burmeister, H. (1842) Handbuch der Entomologie. Dritter Band. Besondere Entomologie, Fortsetzung. Coleoptera Lamel-
licornia Melitophila. Enslin, Berlin, XXII+827 pp.
Carpaneto, G.M. & Piattella, E. (1995) Coleoptera Polyphaga V (Lucanoidea, Scarabaeoidea). Checklist delle Specie della
Fauna Italiana, 50, 1–18.
Carpaneto, G.M., Piattella, E., & Pittino, R. (2000) The scarab beetles of Turkey: an updated checklist and chorotype analysis
(Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Biogeographia, 21, 217–240.
Chambon, (J.P.), Chevin, (H.), Cocquemptot, ..., Dommanget, (J. L.), Genestier, ..., della Giustina, ..., Martinez, (M.), Brunel,
..., Cantot, ... & Tussac, ... (1985) Contribution à l'inventaire entomologique de la Haute-Vienne. Cahiers de Liaison OPIE,
19(3–4) (=nos. 58–59), 5–24.
Chimi liu, C. (2007) Consideration on the scarabeoidee fauna (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) from Iron Gates Natural
Park, Mehedin i District, Romania. Drobeta, Seria tiin ele Naturii, 17, 142–153.
Davidts, S. (Ed.) (2006) Plateau Avijl. Le Projet Alternatif. Un Livre Blanc de l'Association Protection et Avenir d'Avijl. Asso-
ciation Protection et Avenir d'Avijl, Uccle, 39 pp.
Decelle, J. (1995) Scarabaeidae (Pleurosticti). Enumeratio Coleopterorum Belgicae, 1, 42–44.
Dejean, [P.F.M.A.] (1821) Catalogue de la Collection de Coléoptères de M. le Baron Dejean. Crevot, Paris, viii+136 pp.
Dejean, [P.F.M.A.] (1829) [Review of:] Descriptions de quelques nouveaux genres et espèces de Coléoptères pétalocères; par
M. W. Kirby. (Zoological Journal ; no X, avril–sept. 1827.). Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie, 2, 323–327.
Doflein, F. (1921) Mazedonien. Erlebnisse und Beobachtungen eines Naturforschers im Gefolge des Deutschen Heeres.
Fischer, Jena, VIII+592 pp.
Dutto, M. (2005) Coleotteri Cetoniidae d’Italia. Natura Edizioni Scientifiche, Bologna, 218 pp.
Everts, J.E. (1922) Coleoptera Neerlandica. De Schildvleugelige Insecten van Nederland and het Aangrenzend Gebied. 3.
Nijhoff, s’Gravenhage, XVIII+668 pp.
Fabricius, I.C. (1775) Systema Entomologiae, Sistens Insectorum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, a Directis Synonymis,
Locis, Descriptionibus, Observationibus. Kortii, Flensburg and Leipzig, 832 pp.
Frank, J. & Konzelmann, E. (2002) Die Käfer Baden-Württembergs 1950–2000. Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-
Württemberg, Karlsruhe, 290 pp.
Fuessly, J.C. (1778) Etwas ueber Vœts Kæferwerk. Magazin für die Liebhaber der Entomologie, 1, 1–70.
Gangloff, L. (1991) Catalogue et Atlas des Coléoptères d’Alsace, 4: Lamellicornia Scarabaeidae Lucanidae. Société Alsaci-
enne d’Entomologie, Musée Zoologique de l’Université et de la Ville de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, 107 pp.
Gené, J. (1836) De quibusdam insectis Sardiniae novis aut minus cognitis. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di
Torino, 39, 161–199.
Gené, J. (1839) De quibusdam insectis Sardiniae novis aut minus cognitis Fasciculus II. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle
Scienze di Torino, 2. Ser., 1, 43–84, plates 1–2.
Germar, E.F. (1831) Fauna Insectorum Europae. 14. Kümmelii, Halle.
Hacker, H.-J. & Hardenberg, H. (2003) Die Schwedenstraße. Hinstorff, Rostock, 108 pp.
Hagen, H. (1857) Nachricht über das Käferwerk von Joh. Euseb. Voet. Entomologische Zeitung, Stettin, 18, 405–409.
Heer, O. (1841) Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica. Pars 1. Orelii, Fuesslini et Sociorum, Zürich, XII+652 pp.
Hoeven, J. van der (1856) Handbook of Zoology. 1. University Press, Cambridge, xvi+853 pp.
Horn, W., Kahle, I., Friese, G. & Gaedike, R. (1990) Collectiones entomologicae. Ein Kompendium über den Verbleib
entomologischer Sammlungen der Welt bis 1960. Teil II: L bis Z. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der
Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin, pp. 221–573.
Houlbert, C. & Monnot, E. (1910) Faune Entomologique Armoricaine. Coléoptères. Lamellicornes. Oberthur, Rennes,
VI+16+172 pp.
Inglebert, H. (1997) Scarabaeoidea Pleurosticti. In: Catalogue des Coléoptères de l’Île de France 6: Lucanoidea, Scarabae-
oidea. Association des Coléoptèristes de la Région Parisienne (ACOREP), Paris, pp. 38–61.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed. Interna-
tional Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, XXIX+306 pp.
Janssens, A. (1960) Faune de Belgique. Insectes Coléoptères Lamellicornes. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Bel-
gique, Bruxelles, 411 pp.
Jessop, L. (1986) Dung beetles and chafers. Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea. New Edition. Handbooks for the Identification of Brit-
ish Insects, 5(11), 1–53.
Köhler, F. & Klausnitzer, B. (1998) Verzeichnis der Käfer Deutschlands. Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte, Beiheft, 4,
1–185.
Kraatz, G. (1891) Die Varietäten des Trichius rosaceus Voë t. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1891, 193–195.
Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press · 67
NOMENCLATURE OF EUROPEAN TRICHIUS SPECIES
Kraj ík, M. (1999) Cetoniidae of the World. Catalogue – Part II. Published by the author, Most, 72+xxiii pp.
Král, D. (1993) Scarabaeidae. In: Jelínek, J. (ed.), Check-list of Czechoslovak Insects IV (Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana
Supplementum, 1, 68–71.
Krell, F.-T. (2010) Trichius sexualis Bedel, 1906 – nomen protectum (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae: Trichiinae). Deutsche Ento-
mologische Zeitschrift, 57, 219–222.
Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H. (1992) Familienreihe Lamellicornia. In: Lohse, G. A. & Lucht, W. H. (eds.), Die Käfer Mitteleuropas 13
(2. Supplementband mit Katalogteil). Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, pp. 200–252.
Lapiana, F. & Sparacio, I. (2006) I Coleotteri Lamellicornia delle Madonie (Sicilia) (Coleoptera Lamellicornia Lucanoidea et
Scarabaeoidea). Naturalista Siciliano (4), 30, 227–292.
Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau, [A.L.M.] & [Audinet-]Serville, [J.G.] (1828) Trichie. In: Latreille, [P.A.], Encyclopédie Method-
ique. Histoire Naturelle. Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes. 10. Agasse,
Paris, pp. 701–718.
Linnaeus, C. (1758) Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteri-
bus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus I. Edition Decima, Reformata. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm, 823 pp. Available
from: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/542#
Lucht, W. (1987) Philatelistische Koleopterologie. Mitteilungen des Internationalen Entomologischen Vereins, 12, 89–105.
Machatschke, J.W. (1969) Familienreihe Lamellicornia. In: Freude, H., Harde, K. W., & Lohse, G. A. (eds.), Die Käfer Mit-
teleuropas. 8. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, pp. 265–371.
Martin, O. & Pedersen, J. (2002) Fund af humlebillerne Trichius zonatus Germar og Trichius fasciatus (Linnaeus) i Danmark
(Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Entomologiske Meddelelser, 70, 41–46.
Martínez de la Escalera, M. (1914) Los coleópteros de Marruecos. Trabajos del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Serie
Zoológica, 11, 1–553.
Mertlik, J. (2009) Trichius rosaceus (Voet, 1769), pozoruhodný obyvatel železni ních nádraži (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea).
Elateridarium, 3, 137–144.
Micó, E. & Galante, E. (2002) Atlas Fotográfico de los Escarabeidos Florícolas Íbero-Baleares. Argania Editio, Barcelona, 81
pp.
Mikši , R. (1959) Dritter Nachtrag zur “Fauna Insectorum Balcanica – Scarabaeidae”. Godišnjak Biološkog Instituta, Sarajevo,
12, 47–136.
Mroczkowski, M. & Stefa ska, J. (1991) Coleoptera – Chrz szcze. In: Razowski, J. (ed.), Wykaz Zwierz t Polski. Tom III.
Cz XXXII/22, 23 Insecta: Coleoptera, Strepsiptera. Krakowskie Wydawnictwo Zoologiczne, Kraków, pp. 7–198.
Olivier, [G.A.] (1789) Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, avec leur Charactères Génériques et Spécifiques, leur
Description, leur Synonymie, et leur Figure Eluminée. Coléoptères. Tome Premier. Baudouin, Paris.
Panzer, G.W.F. (1802) Johann Euseb Voets Beschreibungen und Abbildungen Hartschaalichter Insekten Coleoptera Linn. Aus
dem Original getreu übersetzt mit der in selbigem fehlenden Synonymie und beständigem Commentar versehen. Palm,
Erlangen, 103 pp., 12 plates.
Paulian, R. (1941) Coléoptères Scarabéides. Faune de France, 38, 1–240.
Paulian, R. (1959) Coléoptères Scarabéides (Deuxième édition, revue et augmentée). Faune de France, 63, 1–298.
Paulian, R. & Baraud, J. (1982) Faune des Coléoptères de France II. Lucanoidea et Scarabaeoidea. Encyclopédie Ento-
mologique 43. Lechevalier, Paris, 477 pp.
Pesarini, C. (2004) Insetti della Fauna Italiana Coleotteri Lamellicorni. Natura, 93 (2), 1–130.
Przewo ny, M. (1999) Trichius zonatus Germar, 1831 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) – nowe stanowiska rzadkiego chrz szcza w
Polsce. Wiad Entomologiczne, 18, 190.
Reitter, E. (1894) Uebersicht der mir bekannten palaearctischen Arten der Coleopteren-Gattung Trichius F. Wiener Entomolo-
gische Zeitung, 13, 5–6.
Reitter, E. (1899) Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Melolonthidae aus der europäischen Fauna und den angrenzenden Ländern, enthal-
tend die Gruppen der Dynastini, Euchirini, Pachypodini, Cetonini, Valgini und Trichiini. Verhandlungen des Natur-
forschenden Vereines in Brünn, 37, 21–111.
Rößner, E. & Schulze, J. (1999) Verbreitung der Gattung Trichius Fabricius, 1775 in Ostdeutschland (Col., Scarabaeidae,
Trichiinae). Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte, 43, 59–66.
Sainte-Claire Deville, J. (1935) Catalogue raisonné des Coléoptères de France. L’Abeille, 36, 1–467.
San Martín, A.F., Recalde, J. I., & Agoiz, J.L. (2001) Corología de los cetónidos de Navarra (Coleoptera: Cetoniidae). Zapateri,
9, 65–74.
Schönherr, C.J. (1817) Synonymia Insectorum, oder Versuch einer Synonymie aller bisher bekannten Insecten; nach Fabricii
Systema Eleutheratorum etc. geordnet. 1. Eleutherata oder Käfer. 3. Theil: Hispa – Molorchus. Bruzelius, Upsala, 506 pp.
Sherborn, C.D. (1902) Index Animalium sive Index Nominum quae ab A.D. MDCCLVIII Generibus et Speciebus Animalium
Imposita Sunt. Sectio Prima. Clay and Sons, Cambridge, 1195 pp.
Sherborn, C.D. (1926) Index Animalium sive Index Nominum quae ab A.D. MDCCLVIII Generibus et Speciebus Animalium
Imposita Sunt. Sectio Secunda A Kalendis Ianuariis, MDCCI usque ad Finem Decembris, MDCCCL. Part CI. Index
funereus—gyzehensis. Trustees of the British Museum, London, pp. 2569–2880.
Smetana, A. (2006) Subfamily Cetoniinae Leach, 1815. In: Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. (eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera.
3. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, pp. 283–313.
KRELL
68 · Zootaxa 3278 © 2012 Magnolia Press
Smit, P., Sanders, A.P.M., & van der Veer, J.P.F. (1986) Hendrik Engel’s Alphabetical List of Dutch Zoological Cabinets and
Menageries. 2nd ed. Rodopi, Amsterdam, x+340pp.
Sparacio, I. (1995) Coleotteri di Sicilia. Parte Prima. L’Epos Società Editrice, [Palermo], 240 pp., plates.
Stebnicka, Z. (1983) Scarabaeidae. In: Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M., & Stefa ska, J. (eds), Katalog Fauny Polski XXIII
(9): Chrz szcze Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea, Dascilloidea, Byrrhoidea I Parnoidea. Pa stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
Warszawa, pp. 7–146.
Troukens, W. (2007) Bladsprietkevers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) aan de westrand van Brussel. Phegea, 35, 147–159.
Varendorff, [O.] von (1903) Entomologische Ergebnisse einer Reise nach Corsika im Hochsommer 1902. Entomologische
Zeitschrift, 17, 57–59.
Voet, J.E. (1766–1778) Catalogus Systematicus Coleopterorum. Tomus 1. Bakhuysen, La Haye, 104 pp.
Wiebes, J.T. (1968) Catalogue of the Coleoptera Cetoniidae in the Leiden Museum 1. Goliathus Lamarck, sensu lato. Zoolo-
gische Mededelingen, 43, 19–40, plates 1–2.
... Thousands of synonymic lists have been and are still being published in these works, in which the first pages of appearance of all nomina and nomenclatural acts are given. Krell himself (, 2012 Krell et al., 2012) published synonymic lists and papers which mention pagination. In such works, which may cover large Volumes or series of Volumes, hundreds or thousands of names, nomenclatural acts and references are cited, and having the reference not only of the work but also of the page where a precise information appears is a very important help for serious work. ...
Article
Full-text available
The question of the nomenclatural availability of preliminary electronic versions of taxonomic papers, distributed online ‘ahead of print’ by some journals and publishing companies, is addressed again. We disagree with Krell’s suggestion to ‘distinguish between content and bibliographical metadata’. The concept of ‘bibliographical metadata’ does not exist in the Code and should not be incorporated into it. The citation of publication date, issue and page numbers are part of the relevant information that is useful in bibliographic references, in text citations and in synonymic lists that appear in taxonomic publications (which have a much longer life than most other publications), and should be considered part of the ‘content’ of a taxonomic paper. In particular, the page of first appearance of a name or of a nomenclatural act is traditionally cited in taxonomic revisions, monographs, faunas and catalogues, whether printed or stored in online databases, and this information is very useful for serious taxonomists. Having two different sets of information in this respect, in a first version of the work first published online but then discarded from the website of the journal, and in a subsequent one included into a journal issue, would be an indisputable source of confusion, which would not be solved by calling artificially both these versions the ‘version of record’ as if they were identical. The fact that ‘pagination is not regulated’ by the Code is fully irrelevant here: many aspects of taxonomic works are not regulated by the Code but are of crucial importance for the discipline of taxonomy. Krell’s proposal is motivated, according to his own words, by some publishers’ desire to make their publications more ‘attractive as outlets of taxonomic research’. But the purpose of the Code is not to make some journals more attractive than others; it is to help working taxonomists in their daily work, to make it easier, more straightforward, efficient, reliable and useful, and less prone to ambiguity. We recommend rejecting Krell’s suggestion. On the other hand, we make the new proposal of the creation of a ‘label’ to which some online journals and publishing companies might adhere, taking the engagement to publish online only one single version of each paper, with its final date, issue number and pagination. Authors will then have the possibility to choose their publication outlet among those having this label or those following the practice of ‘early view’. Currently, such preliminary versions of papers are unavailable under the 2012 Amendment of the Code.
... La nomenclature utilisée suit celle du Catalogue paléarctique (Adlbauer et al. 2010, Bartolozzi & Sprecher-Uebersax 2006, Löbl & Smetana 2007, Smetana 2006) et ponctuellement d'articles récents (Jendek 2007, Krell 2012. ...
Article
Full-text available
A critical list of Swiss Lucanidae, Cetoniidae, Buprestidae and Cerambycidae is presented. This work is based on an extensive survey conducted on specimens deposited in museums and private collections or mentioned in the literature and notes available in the CSCF database. Seven species of Lucanidae, 18 Cetoniidae, 89 Buprestidae and 179 Cerambycidae are considered as valid for Switzerland. One species of Cetoniidae, one Buprestidae and 18 Cerambycidae are considered as imported. Finally, 74 species (three Cetoniidae, 44 Buprestidae, and 30 Cerambycidae) often misidentified in the litera- ture or for which available specimens are of doubtful origin, are listed and discussed.
Article
Full-text available
An ongoing study of the longhorned beetle fauna in the cloud forests of Cusuco National Park revealed multiple additions to the Honduran fauna. Four new species are described: Heterachthes caceresae sp. nov. (Cerambycinae, Neoibidionini), Oreodera kawasae sp. nov. (Lamiinae, Acrocinini), Phrynidius guifarroi sp. nov. (Lamiinae, Apomecynini), and Strangalia lunai sp. nov. (Lepturinae, Lepturini). Additionally, Lagocheirus parvulus Casey, 1913 (Lamiinae, Acanthocinini) is revalidated as Lagocheirus araneiformis parvulus Casey, 1913 (Lagochirus [sic]). We recorded Arixiuna varians (Bates, 1881) (Lamiinae, Hemilophini) for the fi rst time for Honduras. These fi ndings confi rm how poorly the invertebrate biodiversity of cloud forests is documented and hints at the large number of species we are losing with the ongoing deforestation.
Article
Full-text available
Currently 13 species-group names assigned to the subgenus Megaphanaeus of Coprophanaeus are deemed available (or 'potentially available'), four of which denote valid species. In the present work we review the nomenclatural history of those names and conclude that two of them, Scarabaeus satelles Lichtenstein, 1796 and Copris ajax Sturm, 1826, are unavailable. For the other 11 names, we found type specimens of five, Scarabaeus bellicosus Olivier, 1789, Copris ensifer Germar, 1821, Phanaeus septentrionalis Pêssoa, 1934, P. vicinus Martínez, 1944, and P. vicinus var. argentinus Martínez, 1944. Two lectotypes are designated, one for Copris ensifer and other for Phanaeus septentrionalis. We were unable to locate the type series of the four names described by Castelnau (1840), i.e. Phanaeus ducalis, P. sylvanus, P. heros and P. miles, and of P. bonariensis Gory, 1844 and Scarabaeus lancifer Linné, 1767. For the latter, based on some iconotypes, we found that its type series was composite, including specimens of two different Megaphanaeus species, and, in addition, it was mixed with Copris ensifer type series. In order to fix the name to a sole species, a neotype is designated for Scara-baeus lancifer. The history of the names are presented in detail, and the application of these names to species is briefly re-discussed.
Article
Full-text available
The valid name for the largest European species of Cetoniinae is Protaetia speciosissima (Scopoli, 1786), with Protaetia aeruginosa (Medvedev, 1964) as a junior synonym. The specimen illustrated by Scopoli in the original description is designated as the lectotype of Scarabaeus speciosissimus Scopoli, 1786. Since the lectotype is lost, a neotype from Piedmont, Italy, is designated and deposited in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Carmagnola, Italy. The name Scarabaeus aeruginosus Drury, 1773 is unavailable since Drury did not describe a new species but misidentified Scarabaeus aeruginosus Linné, 1767. A specimen figured by Gronovius in 1764 and cited by Linné is designated as the lectotype of Scarabaeus aeruginosus Linné, 1767. This species remains dubious, but it can be assigned to the ruteline subtribe Anticheirina.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names Cerambyx striatus Goeze, 1777 and Cerambyx striatus Fabricius, 1787. Cerambyx striatus Linnaeus, 1758, C. striatus Goeze, 1777 and C. striatus Fabricius, 1787 are primary homonyms, but the first name has never been congeneric with either of the other two because it was transferred to Callidium Fabricius, 1775 two years before the description of the first junior primary homonym. The other two nominal species have not been considered congeneric since 1817, when Fabricius’s species was transferred to Trachyderes Dalman, 1817. Finally, C. striatus Goeze was removed from Cerambyx Linnaeus, 1758 and placed in Dorcadion Dalman, 1817 in 1947. Currently, Cerambyx has no species with the specific name striatus and the three primary homonyms are in use in distinct generic combinations and are placed in three different subfamilies of CERAMBYCIDAE. It is proposed that the names Cerambyx striatus Goeze, 1777 and C. striatus Fabricius, 1787 be conserved by ruling that they are not invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of C. striatus Linnaeus, 1758.
Book
Full-text available
Scarabaeoidea of Central Europe was described (in German) and introduced on colour tabs. The male genitalia of each was added.
Article
Full-text available
Checklist of the beetles of Germany (Coleoptera) In the years 1995 - 1997, a checklist of German beetles was compiled by 20 authors in cooperation with numerous coleopterologists. Seperate faunistic catalogues were prepared for 18 regions and subsequently revised by approximately 100 specialists. The checklist is published both in print and in a database version. In addition to a detailed description of the methods and procedure, the print version includes a comprehensive account of the current state of faunistic research, and a brief statistical analysis. On 119 printed pages, the catalogue of the beetles of Germany is presented separately for 18 regions; systematic and nomenclature are based on "Die Käfer Mitteleuropas" including all the supplements. The entries distinguish between records prior to 1900, records prior to 1950, recent records since 1950, doubtful and erroneous records, as well as records of introduced species. A total of 6,479 species of beetles have been reliably recorded from Germany; a further 379 species are introduced, doubtful or based on misidentifications. An appendix contains a complete list of all the synonyms referred to in "Die Käfer Mitteleuropas", and an index of genera and families. In addition to the catalogue, which lists a total of 6,858 species, the database version provides a file with all the sources of the 76,639 entries of the checklist, a file containing the literature and collection references (1,658 data sets), an updated taxonomic catalogue of the beetles of Central Europe (8,887 species), and a compilation database with all the systematic and taxonomic changes in "Die Käfer Mitteleuropas" (2,305 data sets).
Article
Biogeographia - vol. XXI - 2000 (Pubb/icato il 30 giugno 2000) Biogeografia del|’Anato|ia The scarab beetles of Turkey: an updated checklist and chorotype analysis (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea)1 GIUSEPPE M. CARPANETO *, EMANUELE PIATTELLA**, RICCARDO PITTINO *** *Dz;zgartz'menr0 di Biologia, Urzizzerszra degli Stmli “Roma Tre”, Viale G. Marconi, 446 — I—00I46Roma (Italy) **Dz}7artiment0 di Biologia Animale e dell’Uom0 (Zoologia), Univerritiz degli Studi “La Sapienza ”, Viale a’ell’Unz'z/erritfz, 32 — I—00185 Roma (Italy) ***Muse0 Civico di Sroria Naturale, Corro Vmezia, 55 — I—20I2I Milarzo (Italy) Key words: Anatolia, Turkey, Near East fauna, zoogeography, diversity, endemics. SUMMARY A checklist of 625 species of Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea (281 Laparosticti and 344 Pleurosticti) occurring within the political borders of the Turkish Republic is presented. These species belong to 99 genera and 14 families. The high percent value oFPleurosticti (55%) respect to other Mediterranean scarab beetle faunas, can be explained with the high degree ofwildetness and habitat diversity of the Turkish territory which includes large areas ofwoodland and natural steppe. Usually, the richness of Pleurosticti is subject to a strong decrease whenever the land use is dominated by intensive agriculture or grazing. To each species a main chorotype was assigned in accordance with the most recent criteria. Two chorotypes are dominant: the SW—Asiatic (15%), the E—Mediterranean (12%). According to the current taxonomic arrangement, the number of endemic species appeared very high (234 species that is 37.4% of the whole scarab fauna of Turkey) but inequally distributed in the two above mentioned groups, as the Pleurosticti represent 75% of the endemics. Most endemics occur in southern Anatolian, which resulted to be the scenario of an adaptive radiation for some genera (mainly within Glaphyridae, Melolonthidae and Rutelidae), probably due to the high Horistic and habitat diversity. Nevertheless, precaution is due in this diversity assessment because several taxonomic groups of scarab beetles should be carefully revised before processing data for zoogeographical analysis. The highest number of endemics is referable to a S—Anatolian (=Taurian) pattern ofdistribution observed in 87 species (14%). Other major patterns are: the species widely spread throughout Anatolia (10.6%), and those restricted to the Armenian and Armeno— Caucasian areas (4.5%). INTRODUCTION The aim of the present work is to set—up the current knowledge on the scarab beetle fauna of Turkey, providing an updated checklist of the species till now 1 Zoological researches in the Near East by Universities of Rome: 192. This study was supported by grants from MURST 1999 (University of “Roma Tre”) “Variazione geografica e diversita a livello di specie, faune e zoocenosi: cause storiche ed ecologiche”.