Brasilaxia costifera ( Obenberger, 1913 )

Svatopluk, 2004, Taxonomic studies on Anthaxiina Gory & Laporte de Castelnau and Curina Ho y ski (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), Zootaxa 555, pp. 1-11 : 6-7

Brasilaxia costifera ( Obenberger, 1913)

Anthaxia costifera Obenberger, 1913: 194 .

Brasilaxia morretesi Théry, 1935: 294 ; Cobos 1956: 144 (synonymy).

As mentioned above, the genus Brasilaxia remains monotypic with close relations to the genus Bilyaxia Holyñski, 1989 .

Distribution: Brazil, Chile.

The nomenclatural situation in this group is rather complicated and needs the following comments: In 1989, Holyñski published “The content and systematic position of Cylindrophora Solier, 1851 ”. The introductory paragraph of this paper is the most crucial for the whole case: he misquoted the date of Solier´s monograph — Solier, 1849 and not 1851 (evidently having followed Cobos, 1956 who also synonymized in the same revision the genera Brasilaxia and Ctenoderus Germain, 1856 with the subgenus Cylindrophora Solier, 1849 of his widely accepted genus Anthaxia ); this problem was clearly explained by Bellamy (1999), i.e. there is no mention of Buprestidae in the volume dated 1851 of Solier’s work. In the same paragraph Holyñski mentioned ” Cylindrophora marginicollis Solier, 1851 (= A. verecunda Erichson, 1834 ) as the type species of the genus Cylindrophora Solier, 1851 .” As already explained by Bellamy (1999), A. marginicollis was described quite independently (before the description of Cylindrophora ) and cannot be, in this way, the type species of Cylindrophora . The genus Cylindrophora was described in the following text with two species included: Buprestis bella Guérin­Menéville, 1830 (junior synonym of Chrysomela maulica Molina, 1782 ) and ” Buprestis concinna Germar ”. The combination ” B. concinna Germar ” doesn´t exist ( Buprestis concinna was described by Mannerheim 1837); in this case Chrysomela maulica Molina, 1782 (with synonym Buprestis bella Guérin­Menéville, 1830 ) must be the type species of the genus Cylindrophora Solier, 1849 — a fact which changes the whole situation in Anthaxiina and Curina.

Because Holyñski (1989) supposed (and I do agree with him) ” A. verecunda (= A. marginicollis )” not to be congeneric with Anthaxia or with the rest of species included so far in the subgenus Cylindrophora sensu Cobos (1956) , and because he supposed it erroneously to be the type species of Cylindrophora , he created for the remaining species a new subgeneric name: Bilyaxia Holyñski, 1989 . He also recognized that two more species formerly included in the subgenus Cylindrophora sensu Cobos (1956) should have been shifted to a separate genus: A. oyarcei (described in the genus Curis Gory & Laporte, 1838 ) and A. chloris Germain, 1856 (described as the only species of the genus Ctenoderus ) and he suggested to treat them in a separate subgenus Ctenoderus of the genus Curis (now Selagis Dejean, 1836 — see Bellamy, 2003). The position of the next ”enigmatic” species mentioned by Holyñski (1989) — Curis cinctipennis Kerremans, 1913 was solved by Cobos (1971) who attributed it to the subgenus Cylindrophora . Having studied the holotype, I agree and find this species to be very near to Bilyaxia bucki ( Cobos, 1956) .

I consider the differences between Selagis , Ctenoderus and Cylindrophora to be sufficient for their treatment as separate genera of Curina Holyñski, 1988; moreover a new genus name must be created for the remaining species, Anthaxia verecunda ( Erichson, 1834) , which should be also included in the Curina as a rather isolated, monotypic genus. It cannot be the type species of Cylindrophora Solier, 1849 which has now quite different content, as explained above.