Rhopaea heterodactyla ( Germar, 1848 ), 1855

Allsopp, Peter G., 2020, Clarification of the status of the types of Australian Melolonthini (Coleoptera Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae) described before 1950, Zootaxa 4885 (4), pp. 451-486 : 479-480

Rhopaea heterodactyla ( Germar, 1848)

Melolontha heterodactyla Germar, 1848: 191 .

Rhopaea heterodactyla: Burmeister 1855: 421 .

Rhopea heterodactyla: Masters 1887: 65 (in error).

Rhopaea soror Blackburn, 1892: 112 ; Britton 1978: 42 (synonymy).

Rhodaea soror: Lea 1912 : xxxvi (in error).

Lectotype of Melolontha heterodactyla (designated by Britton 1978: 43) male: 42894 Heterodactyla Burm. Melol. heterodactyla Germ. Adelaide [34.93S, 138.60E]; in ZMH.

Germar (1848) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males and females (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1). Presumably, the specimens came from Adelaide, South Australia. Britton (1978) found one male and one female labelled “42894 Heterodactyla Burm. Melol. heterodactyla Germ.Adelaide ” in ZMH and designated the male the lectotype. Britton (1978) considered the female only as a syntype, but it was correctly listed by Houston & Weir (1992) as a paralectotype. Neither could be found in a search of ZMH and ZMB during 2020 (Karla Schneider and Bernd Jäger, personal communications).

Lectotype of Rhopaea soror (here designated) female: Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 4159 (handwritten in red) | N.S.W. (handwritten in red) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | Rhopaea soror, Blackb. T (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.

Blackburn (1892) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males and females (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1) from Tamworth [31.08°S, 150.93°E]. Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” from Tamworth in SAM. Houston & Weir (1992) interpreted Britton’s (1978) incorrect reference to a holotype as a lectotype designation. As Britton (1978) and Houston & Weir (1992) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, neither mention of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype. I could find no syntypes in SAM.