Ochraethes Chevrolat, 1860

Clytus (Ochraethes) Chevrolat, 1860: 454 .

Ochraethes; Aurivillius, 1912: 386 (cat.); Casey, 1912: 348, 356; Hopping, 1937: 453; Arnett, 1962: 868, 887; Linsley, 1964: 100; Monné, 1993: 17 (cat.); 2005: 106 (cat.); 2012: 14 (cat.); 2019: 143 (cat.); Bezark, 2019b: 74 (checklist).

Ochraesthes; Thomson, 1861: 219; 1864: 185; 1865: 424 (error).

Ochrestes; Lacordaire, 1869: 65 (error).

Ochresthes; Bates, 1880: 50 (error).

Clytopsis Casey, 1912: 350, 373; Monné, 1993: 24 (cat.); 2005: 77 (cat.); 2012: 13 (cat.); 2019: 108 (cat.); Bezark, 2019b: 69 (checklist). Syn. nov.

Chevrolat (1860) established Ochraethes as a division of Clytus Laicharting, 1784 . Thomson (1861) designated O. circuliferus Chevrolat, 1860 (= O. sommeri (Chevrolat, 1835)) (Fig. 1) as the type species of the genus. Later, Casey (1912) established Clytopsis to allocate C. nimbata Casey, 1912 (= C. dimidiaticornis (Chevrolat, 1860) (Figs. 13–14), the type species of the genus (see photograph of the holotype at Bezark 2019a). Casey (1912) separated Ochraethes from Clytopsis in his key by: “Basal process of the abdomen bluntly rounded or truncate at apex”, following to Ochraethes; “Basal process acute”, following to Clytopsis . However, the abdominal intercoxal process in nearly all species of Ochraethes (Figs. 3, 4, 7), which includes the type species of this genus, is identical or nearly identical to that of Clytopsis dimidiaticornis (Figs. 5, 6). Furthermore, even in Ochraethes citrinus (Chevrolat, 1860), incorrectly considered as the type species of the genus by Casey (1912), the abdominal intercoxal process (Fig. 7) is similar to that of Clytopsis dimidiaticornis (Figs. 5–6). Actually, there is no difference allowing one to consider Clytopsis as a genus distinct from Ochraethes, and it is considered a junior synonymy. Also, the abdominal intercoxal process in males is often distinctly more slender and has the apex more acute in males than in females of some species of Ochraethes .