Amillarus Thomson, 1857

Santos-Silva, Antonio & Galileo, Maria Helena M., 1857, OnAmillarusThomson, 1857 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): Types, Variation, and a New Synonym, The Coleopterists Bulletin 1857 (4), pp. 805-811 : 805-811

Amillarus Thomson, 1857

Dejean (1835) listed the genus Aphies and included three species not described: A. erythrodera Dejean from “Carthagena”; A. lebasii Dejean from “Carthagena”; and A. peruviana Dejean from Peru. Bousquet and Bouchard (2013) correctly pointed out: “ Aphies Dejean, 1835: 353 . Originally included available species: none.”

Thomson (1857) described Amillarus and reported “ Aphies Dej. Cat. 3 e édit. p. 379, nom déjà employé: Aphis . Linné Syst. Nat. 1748 Hemiptères.” There is

805

more than one mistake in this statement. Aphies was not listed for the first time in the third Dejean catalogue, but in the second catalogue on page 353. Aphies Dejean is not a homonym of Aphis Linnaeus, 1748 , because even in 1857 zoologists did not accept works published before the 12 th edition [currently 10 th edition] of the “Systema Naturae” ( Strickland et al. 1843), which is the work was widely accepted and is the base of the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). According to Strickland et al. (1843), Aphies Dejean is not a homonym of Aphis Linné because they are not identical. Also according to Strickland et al. (1843), Aphies in Dejean (1835) is not available. Although Thomson (1857) described Amillarus , he did not describe the species included in this genus, merely mentioning: “ Amillarus apicalis Guérin ?” Unfortunately, it was not possible to know if he was referring to a species described or mentioned by Guérin-Méneville. Thomson (1860) also recorded “ AMILLARUS APICALIS (Guérin M. S. S.?). Thomson.” According to Marinoni (1977), “Thomson described the genus Amillarus and quoted the species “ A. apicalis Guérin ?” The description of the genus applies to the species, heretofore undescribed.” ICZN (1964 [code in force in 1977], 1999) allow considering A. apicalis as a valid species.

Aurivillius (1922) described Didymonycha to include his new species, D. singularis Aurivillius , and placed the genus in a new tribe Didymonychini . Later, Aurivillius (1925) considered Didymonycha as different from Amillarus , because he wrongly interpreted the claws in A. apicalis , considering them as not fused at their base.

Breuning (1948) described Trichogrammopsis for a single species from Ecuador, T. ruficollis Breuning, 1948 . Breuning (1961) synonymized Trichogrammopsis with Didymonycha , and Breuning (1962) considered both as synonyms of Amillarus . After examining photographs and/ or specimens of the type species of each genus involved, we agree with the synonymies proposed by Breuning (1961, 1962).

Aphies was considered available by Chevrolat (1861) ( Monné 2016). However, we think that there is no doubt that Chevrolat (1861) was just mentioning the species ( A. erythrodera ) as reported by Dejean (1835): “ Amillarus apicalis, Th., 1860 . Syn. Aphies Lebasii, Dej. Cat. iii. p. 379. – L’ Aphies erythrodera, Dej. , que M. Thomson y raporte come variété, me parait être distincte.” Consequently, Aphies Dejean is not an available genus name. Notwithstanding, Amillarus erythroderus [species group name changed accordingly to gender of the genus] is available in Chevrolat (1861). Thus, the correct citation of the species is Amillarus erythroderus Chevrolat, 1861 and not A. erythroderus ( Chevrolat, 1861) . From what is possible to see, Aurivillius (1922) also agreed with this, because Aphies was not mentioned in the synonym of Amillarus .