Megaceras remus Reiche, 1859

Hielkema, Auke J. & Hielkema, Meindert A., 2019, An annotated checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Guianas, Insecta Mundi 732 (732), pp. 1-306 : 202

Megaceras remus Reiche, 1859

Megaceras remus Reiche 1859: 16 ( French Guiana - LECTOTYPE)

= Megaceras laevipenne Prell 1914: 214 ( Peru)

Distribution. French Guiana: Reiche 1859: 16; Dechambre 1975: 85 (designation LECTOTYPE Megaceras remus ); Endrödi 1976: 37 (as M. laevipenne ; designation NEOTYPE Megaceras remus ), 1985a: 568, 571 (as M. laevipenne ; as M. remus ); Gasca-Álvarez et al. 2008: 30 ( Guyana [> Fr. Guiana!] - as M. laevipenne ); Brûlé et al. 2011a: 191; Duranton 2011: 21; Gasca-Álvarez and Ratcliffe 2011: 30, 31 (as M. laevipenne ; as M. remus ); Ponchel 2011: 61; Brûlé and Dalens 2012b: 37; Dupuis 2016b: 110. “Guianas”: Arrow 1937b: 64; Blackwelder 1944: 256. Brazil (NA): Gasca-Álvarez et al. 2008: 30 (as M. laevipenne ) (NA); Gasca-Álvarez and Fonseca 2009: 721 (as M. laevipenne ) (NA); Gasca-Álvarez and Ratcliffe 2011: 30 (as M. laevipenne ). Other: Prell 1914: 214 ( Peru - as M. laevipenne ); Arrow 1937b: 64 ( Peru - as M. laevipenne ); Blackwelder 1944: 256 ( Peru - as M. laevipennis ); Endrödi 1976: 37 ( Colombia, Peru - as M. laevipenne ), 1985a: 568, 571 ( Colombia, Peru - as M. laevipenne ); Gasca-Álvarez and Ratcliffe 2011: 30 ( Colombia, Peru - as M. laevipenne ).

Note 1. It appears that many authors are unaware of the synonymization of Megaceras laevipenne with M. remus by Arrow (1941: 281), despite the confirmation of the correctness of this act by Dechambre (1975: 88).

Note 2. The designation of a lectotype of Megaceras remus by Dechambre (1975: 85) must have been unknown to Endrödi (1976: 37) when he designated a neotype.

Note 3. Gasca-Álvarez et al. (2008: 30) record Megaceras laevipenne for Guyana and Colombia, noting that they copied this information from Endrödi (1976). However, Endrödi (1976: 37) clearly records M. laevipenne only for French Guiana (as “Guayana, St. Laurent”), Colombia and Peru. As such, Gasca- Álvarez et al. (2008) have copied the distribution incorrectly. As we are unaware of any actual records for Guyana of either M. laevipenne or M. remus (the correct present name), we correct the record for Guyana in Gasca-Álvarez et al. (2008) to French Guiana. The species thus remains unrecorded for Guyana.