Psalidognathus testaceus Thomson, 1877

Santos-Silva, Antonio & Spooner, Amoret, 2021, On some species of Psalidognathus Gray, especially those of the group “ superbus ” (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Prioninae), Zootaxa 5023 (3), pp. 389-404 : 397-398

On Psalidognathus testaceus Thomson, 1877 , P. viridiobscurus Thomson, 1877 , P. violaceous Thomson, 1877 , P. subniger Thomson, 1877 , and P. ater Thomson, 1877

According to Thomson (1877a) (translated): “ PSALIDOGNATHUS FRIENDII , Gray, Griff. An. King. II, p. 115. Colombia. Type magnificent, but very common and very variable, especially in terms of the color which reaches, so to speak, to cross a real chromatic range. Among the 45 males and females specimens of P. Friendii from our collection, we distinguish, apart from the typical green-purple specimens, the following five sub-types: sub-type a. yellow testaceus: (P. Testaceus Th.) ; sub-type b. dark green: ( P. Viridiobscurus Th.); sub-type c. dark violaceous with greenish reflections: ( P. Violaceus Th.); sub-type d. blackish violaceous: (P. Subniger Th.) ; sub-type e. entirely black: ( P. ater Th. ).”

Lameere (1885: x) reported (translated): P. Friendi Gray. M. J. Thomson (Rev. Zool., 1877, p. 254) gave names to the different color variations that this species presents: I can cite two new ones, one of a beautiful blue, the other purple” Lameere (1910: 373) reported with irony: “He could have created many other names.” According to ICZN (1999: Article 45.6.4): “it is subspecific if first published before 1961 and its author expressly used one of the terms “variety” or “form” (including use of the terms “var.”, “forma”, “v.” and “f.”), unless its author also expressly gave it infrasubspecific rank, or the content of the work unambiguously reveals that the name was proposed for an infrasubspecific entity, in which case it is infrasubspecific.” Evidently, Thomson (1877a) did not use “var.” or “forma”. Even if we consider that he used “sub-type” in the sense of “var.”, it is very evident from reading the text that he was only giving names to the different colors presented by the species, and not considering them as something in the sense of subspecies. Accordingly, all these names are not available names.

Even so, it is important to take some considerations on them:

1. P. testaceus . Based on the study of the photographs of the “ lectotype ” male designated by Quentin & Villiers (1983), it would not be equal to P. friendii . This is because the head is proportionally smaller, the distance between upper eye lobes is shorter, the scape is shorter and thicker, the anterolateral angles of the prothorax are more projected forward, distinctly involving the base of the head, and the protibiae are distinctly more widened centrally. The same features of P. testaceus are present in the “ lectotypes ” male of P. viridiobscurus , P. violaceus , P. subniger , and P. ater .

2. The “ lectotypes ” female of P. violaceus and P. ater appear to be females of what Thomson (1877a) named P. testaceus . Accordingly, they would not be females of P. friendii too if we followed the characters present in the holotype of this species.

3. As P. testaceus , P. viridiobscurus , P. violaceous , P. subniger , and P. ater have no nomenclatural value, the designation of lectotypes also has no nomenclatural value. In the case of P. violaceous and P. ater , also because two lectotypes were designated.