Content uploaded by Francesco Vitali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francesco Vitali on Oct 04, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ta xo no mi c no te s on s om e A s ia n Ce ra mb yc in i (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)
FRANCESCO VITALI
National Museum of Natural History, rue Münster 24, L-2160 Luxembourg, Luxembourg. – vitali@mnhn.lu
- ZooBank : http://zoobank.org/4E4C673A-6CB6-4935-A5FA-17686C686EF2
1
Faunitaxys, 10(46), 2022 : 1 – 4.
https://doi.org/10.57800/faunitaxys-10(46)
Introduction
The recent and greater availability of specimens from international
sources and the greater opportunity to access publications and
photographs of types have strongly increased the production of
papers with the description of new taxa. With an interesting supply
of new and interesting material, there is not always adequate
collaboration among specialists or adequate peer review of papers.
These factors sometimes lead to confusion or taxonomic and
nomenclatural problems. Some corrections from recently
published articles are proposed here.
Results
Trirachys salomeae (Jacquot, 2019) n. comb.
Aeolesthes salomeae Jacquot, 2019
Jacquot (2019) described this new species from Borneo
comparing it to Aeolesthes aurifaber (White, 1853) and
noticing some differences in antennal length and punctures of
the ventral side of the head.
Actually, A. salomeae does not have spines at the apex of the
meso and metafemora (a peculiar character of Aeolesthes) but
instead two short teeth, as in the genus Trirachys Hope 1841.
Moreover, the pronotum is transverse and tapered anteriorly,
while it is elongated and uniformly convex in all Aeolesthes species,
and the body size (49.5 mm) is larger than that of A. aurifaber
(29-41 mm).
These characters, especially those of the femoral apices support
the transference of A. salomeae to the genus Trirachys.
This species might even be the female of Trirachys achilles
(Thomson 1865), a rare species described from Borneo;
however, the author has not examined female specimens of this
species to support this hypothesis.
Parolesthes Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017
(Fig. 1)
After the revision of Trirachys and closely related genera
(Vitali et al., 2017a), Jacquot (2020) published a study on the
genus Parolesthes, questioning its taxonomical validity.
According to this author, the type-species of Parolesthes
(Aeolesthes laosensis Gressitt & Rondon, 1970) was confused
with an undescribed species from Vietnam that Vit ali et al.
mentioned among the examined materials. This confusion led
Jacquot to erroneously modify the type-species; as Parolesthes
vietnamita Jacquot, 2020.
In fact, according to the ICZN Art. 70.3, “If an author discovers
that a type-species was misidentified [omissis], the author may
select, and thereby fix as type species, the species that will, in
his or her judgment, best serve stability and universality, either
(70.3.1.) the nominal species previously cited as type-species,
Aeolesthes;
Trirachys;
Parolesthes;
Neocerambyx;
taxonomy;
systematics;
new genus;
n. comb.;
Asia.
Keywords :
Reviewers:
Larry G. Bezark (USA) - ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/25C35904-2035-4416-9534-8641C1551196 - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0165-552X
Xavier Gouverneur (France) - ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/5CDAA96F-77B8-40D8-90E1-A1AABFF9ECBD - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8958-2785
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Copyright 2022 The Authors. Faunitaxys published by Lionel Delaunay on behalf of the AFCFF (Association française de Cartographie de la Faune et de la Flore).
Abstract. – Aeolesthes salomeae Jacquot, 2019 is transferred to Trirachys Hope, 1841 as follows: Trir ach ys
salomeae (Jacquot, 2019) n. comb. The type-species for Parolesthes Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 was
originally designated as Aeolesthes laosensis G res si tt & Ron do n, 19 70 . Ja cquo t’s ( 20 20) m od if ica ti on o f ty pe -
species for Parolesthes is considered invalid. Parolesthes is considered as subgenus of Trirachys for the
following species: Tr ira chy s (Pa role sth es) laosensis (Gressitt & Rondon, 1970) n. comb.; Tr ira chy s
(Parolesthes) curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988) n. comb.; Trirac hys (P arol est hes ) trapezoidalis Vitali,
Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 n. comb. and Tr ira chy s ( Paro les the s) pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur &
Chemin, 2017 n. comb. Furcaeolesthes n. gen. (type-species: Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020) is
described with the following new combinations: Furcaeolesthes vietnamita (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.;
Furcaeolesthes magdalenae (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.; Furcaeolesthes macroculis (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.
Neocerambyx guangxiensis Li, Lu & Chen, 2020 is considered a subspecies of N. katarinae Holzschuh, 2009
as follows: Neocerambyx katarinae guangxiensis Li, Lu & Chen, 2020 n. status.
Vit ali F., 2022. – Ta xo nom ic n ot es o n som e Asi an C er am by ci ni (C ol eo pt er a, Ce ra mb yc id ae ). Faunitaxys, 10(46): 1 – 4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.57800/faunitaxys-10(46)
ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/CD212EFD-A2F8-4F54-AF6D-4C5101A94145
Received: 08/09/2022 – Revised: 26/09/2022 – Accepted: 27/09/2022
VITALI. – Asian Cerambycini
2
Moreover, there are no articles of the Code supporting that
partially incorrect descriptions affect the validity of a taxon.
Otherwise, the original description of A. laosensis might be
questioned as well, since it refers to a female, while the
holotype is a male. In conclusion, Jacquot’s taxonomic action is
invalid.
Aeolesthes laosensis is restored as type-species of Parolesthes,
whose diagnosis has to be modified as follows:
Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. Head with an interantennal ridge
posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space. Scape
slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally; antennae ectoapically
toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes. Prothorax mutic or with a
minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc
delimiting a squared area; prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate;
procoxae rounded. Elytra parallel-sided in both sexes, toothed at apex;
elytral pubescence giving changing pattern. Femoral apex mutic.
Considering the new elements provided by Jacquot, the author
agrees that A. laosensis shows many characters of Trirachys,
including the wrinkled scape and the pronotal smooth area (which
Jacquot erroneously considered peculiar to A. laosensis), differing
from it only in the antennae without apical spines.
However, Vita li et al. (2017b) transferred or described in Trirachys
some other species having this peculiarity: T. cu rtic or ni s
(Hüdepohl, 1988), T. t ra pe zo id al is Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin,
2017 and T. ps eu do si ne ns is Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017.
In my opinion, Parolesthes should be conserved as a subgenus of
Trira ch ys, which results in new combinations for the following
species:
Tri rac hys (Pa role sthe s) laosensis (Gressitt & Rondon, 1970) n. comb.
Trirachys (Parolesthes) curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988) n. comb.
Trirachys (Parolesthes) trapezoidalis Vitali, Gouverneur &
Chemin, 2017 n. comb.
Trirachys (Parolesthes) pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur &
Chemin, 2017 n. comb.
Remark. – Vi tali et al. (2017a) already considered Aeolesthes
curticornis as a member of Parolesthes; another reason to consider
A. laosensis as the type-species for Parolesthes.
Consequently, the genus Parolesthes sensu Jacquot needs to be
described.
Furcaeolesthes n. gen.
ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/ECFAFC2A-CDB5-4F31-B0F9-1502B0B22077
= Parolesthes partim.
Type-species: Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020 (Fig. 2)
Diagnosis. – Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. – Head with an
interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular
interocular space. – Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled
dorsally in males, smooth in females. – Antennae ectoapically toothed
and endoapically mutic in both sexes. – Prothorax mutic or with a
minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc
delimiting a squared area. – Prosternal intercoxal process not
tuberculate. – Procoxae rounded. – Elytra tapered posteriorly in males,
parallel-sided in females, sometimes toothed at apex. – Elytral
pubescence giving changing pattern. – Femoral apex mutic.
Furcaeolesthes vietnamita (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.
Furcaeolesthes magdalenae (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.
Furcaeolesthes macroculis (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.
or (70.3.2.) the taxonomic species actually involved in the
misidentification. If the latter choice is made, the author must
refer to this Article and cite together both the name previously
cited as type species and the name of the species selected.”
Actually, Vitali et al. published a photo (Fig. 1) of the true
holotype of A. laosensis (as Jacquot himself stated) and did not
represent any misidentified species.
However, the original diagnosis of Parolesthes quoted “Body
convex, flattened, fairly stout. Head with an interantennal ridge
posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space.
Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally; antennae
ectoapically toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes.
Prothorax mutic or with a minuscule tubercle at sides, with two
longitudinal furrows on the disc delimiting a squared field;
prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate; procoxae rounded.
Elytra parallel-sided in both sexes, toothed at apex; elytral
pubescence giving changing pattern. Femoral apex mutic.”
According to Jacquot, the “interantennal ridge posteriorly
bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space” does not
belong to A. laosensis but to an undescribed species:
Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020. Nonetheless, failed to
discuss several other diagnostic characters that do not
correspond to such species: “scape wrinkled dorsally” (smooth
in all females described by Jacquot), “elytra parallel-sided in
both sexes” (tapered posteriorly in all males described by
Jacquot) and “toothed at apex” (not toothed in P. vietnamica
and P. macroculis).
Actually, the claim that Vitali et al. confused A. laosensis with
other still undescribed species is a speculation based on the fact
that these authors described the interantennal carina of
Parolesthes as bifurcate. However, this speculation arose from
an erroneous interpretation of the original description by
Gressitt & Rondon (“a less prominent ridge between antennal
insertion where there is a stronger secondary ridge at each
side”) and of the photo of the type (the same examined by
Jacquot). Correspondingly, several characters of Parolesthes do
not fit P. vietnamita but do agree with A. laosensis.
According to the ICZN, “the author may fix as type-species the
species [omissis] actually involved in the misidentification.”
Additionally, Vitali et al. only showed the type of A. laosensis,
while the quoted specimens from Mt. Bato, Tam Dao, Vietnam and
Yunnan, China were neither represented nor examined by Jacquot.
Consequently, Jacquot’s claim that such specimens did not belong
to A. laosensis but to P. v ie t n a m i ta is another speculation.
This change of type-species may have been considered as valid
only if Jacquot had examined such specimens from Vietnam and
China and had used them as types of P. v i e t n a m i t a or, at least,
mentioned them among the examined materials. Nevertheless, this
did not occur and none of the three new species described by
Jacquot comes from one of these Vietnamese localities or from
China. Consequently, since Jacquot did not actually verify whether
the supposed misidentified specimens belonged to P. v i e t na mi t a ,
the Art. 70.3.2 could not be applied.
In case of doubt, Jacquot should have instead applied Art.
70.3.1: “the author may fix as type species the nominal species
previously cited as type species”, i.e. Aeolesthes laosensis,
which “best serves stability and universality.”
In reality, this case is not applicable to ICZN Art. 70.3. either,
since it is not about a misidentification of type-species (which
was correctly shown and nearly exactly described) but about a
case of multiple / sibling species, some of which were still
undescribed. This case has occurred frequently in the past, but
an old combination of names was never used to identify new
species, still unknown at that moment.
3
Faunitaxys, 10(46), 2022 : 1 – 4.
Agreeing that the pronotal sculpture is a poor character to
differentiate N. guangxiensis from N. katarinae (as it is for
differentiating N. katarinae from N. grandis), no sufficient
elements (two known specimens) allow understanding whether
the antennal length of females is a constant character.
Nonetheless, the observation regarding antennomere III is
completely unfounded. In fact, Holzschuh overlooked the fact
that the paratype of N. guangxiensis (Li et al., 2020: fig. 1d) is
not at all a small specimen, but 72 mm long, and shows the
same character as the small holotype (Li et al., 2020: fig. 1a).
This paratype (Fig. 3) was also compared with a relatively
smaller (67 mm) N. katarinae (Fig. 4), which shows a less
inflated antennomere III (Li et al., 2020: fig. 3b); thus, exactly
the opposite of Holzschuh’s observation. Therefore, this
character is in reality independent from body size.
Moreover, this paratype shows shorter antennae in comparison
with this smaller specimen of N. katarinae (antennomere VIII
reaches the visible urite III in N. guangxiensis, while it reaches
urite IV in N. katarinae). This contrasts with the well-known
fact that there are allometric relationships between antennal
length and elytra length in male cerambycids, i.e., larger
conspecific specimens should show comparatively longer
antennae (Rossi de Gasperis et al., 2018).
Another specimen from Guangxi (Wuming Co. Liangiang, coll.
S. Trócoli, 64 mm long) confirms the same characters regarding
length and size of antennomere III.
Finally, Holzschuh completely ignored the different shape of tergite
VIII: sinuate and strongly bilobed at the apex in N. guangxiensis vs.
nearly evenly rounded in N. katarinae.
The type localities are separated by 570–1030 km and N. katarinae
is also widespread in northeast India, Vietnam and even in
Guangxi (Miroshnikov, 2018). This last record might also be
referred to specimens of N. guangxiensis, which was still
undescribed at that time, as well as the male depicted in Hua et
al. (2009: pl. 43, fig. 506), originally identified as “N. grandis”
or “N. katarinae” (Miroshnikov, 2018). Nonetheless, Li et al.
(2020) also depicted N. katarinae from Guangxi.
In conclusion, N. guangxiensis i s a tax on smaller than N. katarinae
(53.8–72 vs. 68–76 mm), with more inflated antennomere III
Neocerambyx katarinae guangxiensis Li, Lu & Chen, 2020 n. status.
(Fig. 3)
Li et al. (2020) described Neocerambyx guangxiensis from
China comparing it with the Laotian N. katarinae Holzschuh,
2009 (Fig. 4). The paratypes of this species (Fig. 3) came from
Guangdong (Nanling Reserve) even if this locality was
erroneously quoted as “Guangxi.” Differential characters
separating is from N. katarinae were listed as shorter and more
inflated antennomere III in males, the more transverse wrinkles
of the pronotum, the different tergite VIII and in the longer
antennae of females.
Holzschuh (2021) proposed that N. guangxiensis was a
synonym of N. katarinae and claimed that antennomere III is
normally more inflated in small males of N. katarinae, the
pronotum shows a variable sculpture and the female antennae
vary enormously.
Holzschuh based the synonymy on the examination of 20
specimens of N. katarinae but only one female coming from
Guangxi, and no males from Guangxi nor specimens from
Guangdong.
Additionally, Holzschuh’s (2009) original description did not
indicate this great variability but only relative characters (a bit
shorter, a bit stronger, a bit longer, etc.) separating it from
Neocerambyx grandis Gahan, 1891. Among the differential
characters, Holzschuh also indicated the absence of the smooth area
on the pronotal disc, which is actually absent in N. grandis as well
(cf. Gahan, 1906: 125-126, fig. 48; Miroshnikov, 2018: fig. 25).
Fig. 1. Aeolesthes laosensis Gressitt &
Rondon, 1970, holotype ♂.
Fig. 2. Furcaeolesthes vietnamita (Jacquot,
2020), ♂.
Fig. 3. Neocerambyx guangxiensis Li, Lu &
Chen, 2020, paratype, ♂.
Fig. 4. Neocerambyx katarinae Holzschuh, 2009, ♂.
Hua L.Z., Nara H., Samuelson G. A. & Lingafelter S.W., 2009. –
Iconography of Chinese Longicorn Beetles (1406 Species) in
Color. Sun Yat-sen University Press, Guangzhou, 474 pp.
ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
1999. – International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Fourth Edition. The International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature, London, XXIX + 306 pp.
Jacquot P., 2019. – Description de deux nouvelles espèces de
Cerambycini d'Indonésie (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae,
Cerambycinae). Les Cahiers Magellanes NS, 32: 28-35.
Jacquot P., 2020. – Study of the genus Parolesthes Vitali, Gouverneur
& Chemin, 2017 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycini).
Faunitaxys, 8 (1): 1-5.
Li Z., Lu Y. & Chen L., 2020. – A new species of Neocerambyx
Thomson, 1860 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Zootaxa, 4852
(2): 582-585.
Miroshnikov A. I., 2018 – The longicorn beetle tribe Cerambycini
Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) in
the fauna of Asia. 2. A new or little-known species of the genus
Neocerambyx J. Thomson, 1861. Russian Entomological
Journal, 27 (1): 33-39.
Rossi de Gasperis S., Redolfi de Zan L., Romiti F., Hardersen S. &
Carpaneto G. M., 2018. – Sexual dimorphism and allometry of
secondary sexual character in Morimus asper (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae). Zoomorphology, 137: 119-130.
Vit ali F., Gouv ern eur X . & C hem in G. , 2017a. – Revision of the
tribe Cerambycini: redefinition of the genera Tr irachys Hope,
1843, Aeolesthes Gahan, 1890 and Pseudoaeolesthes
Plavilstshikov, 1931 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers
Magellanes NS, 26: 40-65.
Vit ali F., G ouv ern eur X. & Ch emi n G. , 2017b. – Revision of the
tribe Cerambycini: new Asian taxa with remarks on the genera
Trira ch ys Hope and Parolesthes Vitali et al. (Coleoptera
Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes NS, 28: 89-100.
(independently from body size), shorter antennae (comparing
specimens of the same body size), different shape of tergite VIII
and north-eastern distribution (Guangxi, Guangdong). Both taxa
are present in Guangxi (even though the exact local distribution is
unknown) but not in other provinces.
In my opinion, there are not sufficient elements to prove neither that
N. guangxiensis is synonym of N. katarinae nor that it is a well
differentiated species, as for example N. grandis is. Thus, waiting for
further specimens, the provided elements suggest considering N.
guangxiensis a north-eastern subspecies of N. katarinae.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Daniel Heffern, Houston (USA) for his
suggestions and his valuable linguistic revision of the text and
to Junsuke Yamasako, Ehime University, Tarumi, Matsuyama
(Japan), for sharing the photo of the type of Aeolesthes
laosensis Gressitt & Rondon, 1970 belonging to the Bernice
Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu (USA).
References
Gahan C. J., 1906. – Coleoptera Cerambycidae. The Fauna of British
India including Ceylon and Burma, I. Today & Tomorrow‘s
Printers and Publishers, New Delhi, 329 pp.
Gressitt J. L. & Rondon J. A., 1970. – Cerambycid-beetles of Laos
(Longicornes du Laos). Pacific Insect Monograph, 24.
Entomological department Bernice P. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu, 314 pp.
Holzschuh C., 2009. – Beschreibung von 59 neuen Bockkäfern
und vier neuen Gattungen aus der orientalischen und
palaearktischen Region, vorwiegend aus Laos, Borneo und
China (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Entomologica
Basiliensia et Collectionis Frey, 31: 267-358.
Holzschuh C., 2021. – Neue Synonymien, Neumeldungen für
China und Beschreibung von zehn neuen Bockkäfern aus
Asien (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes
NS, 41:84-105.
VITALI. – Asian Cerambycini
4
Résumé
Vit ali F., 2022. – Note taxonomique sur divers Cerambycini d’Asie (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Faunitaxys, 10(46): 1 – 4.
Aeolesthes salomeae Jacquot, 2019 est transféré dans le genre Trirac hys Hope, 1841 comme suit : Trirachys salom eae (Jacquot,
2019) n. comb. Aeolesthes laosensis Gressitt & Rondon, 1970 avait été originairement désigné espèce-type de Parolesthes Vitali,
Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017. La modification par Jacquot (2020) de l'espèce-type de Parolesthes est considérée invalide.
Parolesthes est considéré comme un sous-genre de Trirachys pour les espèces suivantes : Trirachys (Parolesthes) laosensis
(Gressitt & Rondon, 1970) n. comb. ; Trirachys (Parolesthes) curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988) n. comb. ; Trirachys (Parolesthes)
trapezoidalis Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 n. comb. et Trirachys (Parolesthes) pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur &
Chemin, 2017 n. comb. Furcaolesthes n. gen. (espèce-type : Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020) est décrite avec les nouvelles
combinaisons : Furcaeolesthes vietnamita (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb. ; Furcaeolesthes magdalenae (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb ;
Furcaeolesthes macroculis (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb. Neocerambyx guangxiensis Li, Lu & Chen, 2020 est considéré comme une
sous-espèce de N. katarinae Holzschuh, 2009 comme suit : Neocerambyx katarinae guangxiensis Li, Lu & Chen, 2020 n. comb.
Mots-clés. – Aeolesthes, Trirachys, Parolesthes, Neocerambyx, taxonomie, systématique, n. comb., nouveau genre, Asie.
