Chrysina Kirby, 1828

Moore, Matthew Robert & Jameson, Mary Liz, 2013, Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Changes in the Pelidnotine Scarabs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Rutelini), The Coleopterists Bulletin 67 (3), pp. 377-387 : 381-385

Chrysina Kirby, 1828 [1827]

Chrysina Kirby 1828 [1827]: 522.

Plusiotis Burmeister 1844: 417 (synonymy by Hawks 2001a: 2).

Plusiotina Casey 1915: 84 (synonymy with Plusiotis by Ohaus 1934: 59).

Pelidnotopsis Ohaus 1915: 257 (synonymy with Chrysina by Hawks 2001a: 2; new status by Soula 2010b: 11). New synonymy.

The monotypic taxon Pelidnotopsis was named for a rare, metallic green chafer that is endemic to the mountains of northeastern Mexico ( Morón et al. 1997). Morphological and molecular data provided definitive support that Pelidnotopsis plusiotina Ohaus was a member of the Chrysina adelaida species-group, and the genus was synonymized with Chrysina ( Hawks 2001a) . Krajcik (2007) did not acknowledge this synonymy in his catalog and maintained use of the genus Pelidnotopsis . Soula (2010b) acknowledged Hawks’ synonymy, but resurrected the genus Pelidnotopsis based on examination of the female lectotype. The basis for Soula’ s nomenclatorial act was the uniqueness of the taxon (“Ce genre est très singulier” ( Soula 2010b: 11)). In addition, Soula stated that the taxon was “closer” to Pelidnota based on the shared bidentate mandible rather than to Chrysina . He compared the form of the mandible in C. plusiotina (bidentate) and Chrysina adelaida (Hope) (rounded) and used this as justification for the resurrection of the genus Pelidnotopsis . Because Soula did not compare shared, derived morphological features among taxa, we reject Soula’ s status for the genus and again synonymize Pelidnotopsis , new synonym, with Chrysina .

Unavailable Names. The lack of synthesis and attention to detail in Soula’ s guides resulted in some names that were not validly described. These names appeared in diagnoses, comparisons, keys, discussions, or indices. The name “ Mecopelidnota willersi” ( Soula 2008) was discussed in the context of comparisons with other species of Mecopelidnota F. Bates. The name “ Pelidnota vladislavmalyi ” ( Soula 2010a) appeared only within an index. The name “ Epichalcoplethis vazdemelli ” ( Soula 2006) appeared only in a figure legend that compares male genitalia of other Epichalcoplethis species. The name “ Sorocha damasoi satipoensis ” ( Soula 2006) appeared only in an index. The name “ Pelidnota demergesi ” ( Soula 2010a) appeared in a figure legend that compares lateral habitus photos of holotype specimens of other Pelidnota species in the “ granulata - group”. The names “ Mecopelidnota willersi ”, “ Epichalcoplethis vazdemelli ”, “ Pelidnota demergesi ”, “ Sorocha damasoi satipoensis ”, and “ Pelidnota vladislavmalyi ” have never been associated with species descriptions, thus they are unavailable names (ICZN Article 13.1.1).

One unavailable name is currently in use in the genus Chrysina . The name Chrysina henrybatesi Hawks, 2001 is listed as a synonym of Chrysina macropus (Francillon, 1795) in the popular internet synopsis for the genus Chrysina (including catalog and species pages) ( Hawks 2001b; Thomas et al. 2006). The name Chrysina henrybatesi Hawks was not included in the published version of Hawks’ synopsis of the genus, wherein he synonymized the genus Plusiotis with Chrysina , provided a list of species in the genus, and clarified the classification and nomenclature in the genus ( Hawks 2001a). Because of the synonymy of Plusiotis with Chrysina , two names were in danger of homonymy: Chrysina macropus var. mniszechi H. W. Bates, 1888 and Plusiotis mnizechii Boucard, 1875 . Both species were named in honor of George Vandalin Mniszech, a well-known coleopterist from Paris who lived from 1824 to 1888. The original spellings of Bates’ and Boucard’ s names differ by inclusion (Bates 1888) or omission ( Boucard 1875) of the “s”. Because the original, valid spelling of Boucard’ s name omitted the “s”, these names are not homonyms, and the replacement name Chrysina henrybatesi is not needed. The name Chrysina henrybatesi has never been published with a formal explanation. Because the name does not conform to the ICZN (Article 13.1.3), we regard this name as a nomen nudum and an unavailable name.

Umlauts. According to ICZN Article 32.5.2.1, names published before 1985 based on a German word with an umlaut should have the umlaut deleted from the vowel and the letter “e” placed after the vowel. Plusiotis türckheimi Ohaus, 1913 was subsequently spelled as P. tuerckheimi by Machatschke (1972). Plusiotis was placed in synonymy with Chrysina by Hawks (2001a), who subsequently misspelled the name as Chrysina turckheimi .

Ohaus (1913) stated that the specific epithet türckheimi was used to honor the collector of the species, Herrn von Türckheim-Baden. Hans Freiherr von Türckheim was a German lawyer and naturalist active in Guatemala in the late 19 th century and who is most known for his botanical collections ( Kneucker 1922). The specific epithet türckheimi is unambiguously based on a German word or name. The different spellings of türckheimi were not explicitly stated to be emendations and should be considered incorrect subsequent spellings (ICZN Article 33.5). The spelling of the species name is corrected herein to Chrysina tuerckheimi (ICZN Article 32.5.2.1).

Incorrect Subsequent Spellings. Wi t h i n t h e pelidnotine scarabs, a few specific epithets are commonly misspelled. These names are presented in catalog format below with the valid, correctly spelled name first. These historical spelling changes should be considered incorrect subsequent spellings. None of the cited authors made a statement of intention or purpose when changing the original spellings (ICZN Article 33.2.1). We propose a justified emendation for the name Chalcoplethis kirbyi misionesensis Soula, 2010 . The correct original spelling of the specific epithet kirbyi is kirbii (see catalog entry below). This name should be emended to Chalcoplethis kirbii misionesensis Soula.

Catoclastus chevrolatii Solier, 1851

Catoclastus chevrolatii Solier 1851: 96–97 (original combination, valid name)].

Catoclastus chevrolati Solier (incorrect subsequent spelling by Harold 1869: 1226).

Chalcoplethis kirbii kirbii ( Gray, 1832)

Chrysophora kirbii Gray 1832: 516 (original combination, valid name).

Chalcoplethis kirbii (Gray) (new combination by Burmeister 1844: 410–411).

Chalcoplethis kirbyi (Gray) (incorrect subsequent spelling by Harold 1869: 1224).

Pelidnota (Chalcoplethis) kirbyi (Gray) (new combination by Ohaus 1918: 29); Özdikmen 2009: 144.

Chalcoplethis kirbyi (Gray) (new combination by Soula 2006: 99–100).

Chalcoplethis kirbii misionesensis Soula, 2010

Chalcoplethis kirbyi misionesensis Soula 2010a: 46–47 , 65 (original combination, valid name).

Chalcoplethis kirbii misionesensis Soula (justified emendation based on ICZN Article 33.2.1).

Chrysina woodi ( Horn, 1884)

Plusiotis woodi Horn 1884 : xxxi (original combination, valid name).

Plusiotis woodii Horn (incorrect subsequent spelling by Horn 1885: 124).

Chrysina woodii (Horn) (new combination by Hawks 2001a: 8).

Horn presented this new species at a meeting (9 November 1883), and in the minutes of the meeting the specific epithet is spelled “ woodi ” and accompanied by a brief description of this new species and a promise for an upcoming formal, complete description ( Horn 1884). This constitutes a valid description, thus making the name available. In Horn’ s formal description (1885: 124), the species epithet is spelled “ woodii ”.

Pelidnota dobleri Frey, 1967

Pelidnota dobleri Frey 1967: 375–376 (original combination, valid name).

Pelidnota (Pelidnota) doblerae (Frey) (new combination and incorrect subsequent spelling by Machatschke 1972: 22).

Strigidia doblerae (Frey) (new combination and incorrect subsequent spelling by Soula 2006: 19–20).

Pelidnota doblerae Frey (new combination and incorrect subsequent spelling by Krajcik 2007: 96 and by Soula 2009: 115).

Lapsus Calami. Soula’ s revisionary volumes were not well edited, and they suffer from many misspellings (e.g., scientific names, localities, descriptive characters). Misspellings of scientific names in Soula’ s keys, species descriptions, and indices are problematic because such errors may be propagated as subsequent incorrect spellings by future researchers. In some instances, a misspelling of a specific epithet is so different from the correct spelling that the error actually obscures the intended species identity. We consider it important to comprehensively list all spelling errors of scientific names in the Pelidnotina (sensu Soula) to limit confusion for future researchers. Özdikmen (2009) also contains misspellings that we include here. These names are listed alphabetically by incorrect spelling with the current classification and species name.

Epichalcoplethis chameleon (sic) (in Soula 2006: 175; Soula 2010c: 52, 54, 61) = Epichalcoplethis chamaeleon ( Herbst, 1789) .

Soula inconsistently applied either Voet (1769) or Herbst (1789) to “ E. chameleon . Soula (2006) correctly cited the author of this name to be Herbst (1789) and not Voet (1769), but incorrectly cited the author as Voet in a later work ( Soula 2010c). The name Scarabaeus chamaeleon appears in Voet (1769). Voet (1769) was not consistently binomial, and thus the names presented in that work are not considered valid (ICZN Article 11.4). Herbst (1789) was the first author to use the name in a new combination, Pelidnota chamaeleon , and Herbst should be considered the author of the name.

Heteropelidnota kunthi (sic) (in Soula 2008: 2) = Heteropelidnota kuhnti Ohaus, 1912 .

Homonyx digenarroi (sic) (in Soula 2010a: 8, 22) = Homonyx digennaroi Soula, 2010 .

Homonyx holiggeri (sic) (in Soula 2010a: 21) = Homonyx holligeri Soula, 2010 .

Homonyx uruguayensis (sic) (in Soula 2010a: 13) = Homonyx uruguayanus Ohaus, 1913 .

Pelidnota (Strigidia) adrianae (sic) (in Özdikmen 2009: 145) = Pelidnota bahiana adriani (Martínez, 1982) .

Pelidnota laeta (sic) (in Soula 2009: 83) = Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1789) .

The name Pelidnota laeta Sturm, 1843 is a synonym of Chrysina psittacina (Sturm, 1843) . These two names were synonymized by Boucard (1878). In a figure legend, Soula (2009) labeled a figure comparing male genitalia of several species including “ laeta ”, with no clear genus name (however, the figure appears with other members of the genus Pelidnota ). The figure labeled “ laeta ” ( Soula 2009) matches the image on the previous page showing the male genitalia of Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1789) . We consider “ laeta ” to be a corruption of “ lutea ”.

Pelidnota purpurea esperitosentensis (sic) (in Soula 2009: 115) = Pelidnota purpurea esperitosantensis ( Soula, 2006) .

Pelidnota santidomini (sic) (in Özdikmen 2009: 145; Soula 2009: 116; Soula 2010a: 57) = Pelidnota sanctidomini Ohaus, 1905 .

Pelidnota tibialsaenigmatica (sic) (in Soula 2009: 115) = Pelidnota tibialis aenigmatica ( Soula, 2006) .

Pelidnota xanthospyga (sic) (in Soula 2009: 116) = Pelidnota xanthopyga Hardy, 1975 .

Pelidnota yungasensis Soula 2009: 89 .

In the original description, Soula (2009) referred to “ P. yungasensis n. ssp.,” thus indicating that the taxon was considered a subspecies. In the index, key to species, and the images that accompany the taxon, P. yungasensis is treated as a species. We view P. yungasensis as a species, and treat the “n. ssp.” as a lapsus that should have read “n. sp.” (denoting a new species).

Plusiotis aurora var. chrysopelida (sic) (in Soula 2010a: 63) = Chrysina chrysopedila (H. W. Bates, 1888) .

Plusiotis chalchotea (sic) (in Soula 2010a: 63) = Chrysina chalcothea (H. W. Bates, 1888) .

Strigidia gracilis decaensis (sic) (in Soula 2008: 2) = Pelidnota gracilis decaensi ( Soula, 2008) .

Strigidia hirsutipenis (sic) (in Soula 2006: 78) = Pelidnota hirsutiphallica Ratcliffe and Jameson, 1989 .

Strigidia santidomini (sic) (in Soula 2006: 10, 13, 77, 78, 79, and 176) = Pelidnota sanctidomini Ohaus, 1905 .

Strigidia soederstremi (sic) (in Soula 2006: 10) = Pelidnota soederstroemi Ohaus, 1908 .

Varieties. Names that are published after 1960 that are explicitly proposed for infrasubspecific entities are unavailable and not regulated by the code (ICZN Articles 45.6.3; 1.3.4). The name Pelidnota aeruginosa citripennis Ohaus, 1905 was transferred into the subgenus Pelidnota (Pelidnota) ( Ohaus 1918) ( Fig. 1 ). Soula (2008) discussed “ P. aeruginosa var. citripennis ” as a means of comparison for H. kuhnti , and then the following year he proposed a new combination and a new status for the subspecies Pelidnota semiaurata var. citripennis (Ohaus) ( Soula 2009) . This change should be considered unambiguously infrasubspecific because Soula (2009) proposed both subspecies and a variety in the same work (ICZN Article 45.6.1). This new status by Soula (2009) is invalid based on the ICZN, and we propose a new status of Pelidnota semiaurata var. citripennis by elevating it to Pelidnota semiaurata citripennis .

Similarly, the name Parhoplognathus parvulus var. rubripennis ( Ohaus, 1930) was unambiguously infrasubspecific based on the content of Ohaus (1930), wherein he described both subspecies and varieties. Subsequent usage of this name ( Ohaus 1934) referred to it in an infrasubspecific manner ( var. rubripennis ) and the name remains unavailable. Machatschke (1972) referred to this name as a “forma”, thus establishing another unavailable name (Article 45.6.3). However, Soula (2006) elevated Parhoplognathus rubripennis to species status and attributed the name to Ohaus (1930). Because Parhoplognathus parvulus var. rubripennis Ohaus was an unavailable name, Soula (2006) should be considered the author of this name: P. rubripennis Soula, 2006 (Article 45.5.1). Krajcik (2007), not acknowledging Soula’ s work, synonymized P. parvulus var. rubripennis with Parhoplognathus parvulus (Ohaus) .

The varieties of Pelidnota cuprea ( Germar, 1824) named by Ohaus (1913) are also unavailable names. Based on the content of Ohaus (1913), wherein he described both subspecies and varieties, the names Pelidnota (Odontognathus) cuprea var. coerulea Ohaus , Pelidnota (Odontognathus) cuprea var. rufoviolacea Ohaus , and Pelidnota (Odontognathus) cuprea var. nigrocoerulea Ohaus are unambiguously infrasubspecific. Ohaus (1918) transferred P. cuprea into the subgenus Pelidnota (Ganonota) and maintained the varieties of P. cuprea that he named in 1913. Under ICZN Article 45.5.1, this change created a new set of unavailable variety names by Ohaus (1918): Pelidnota (Ganonota) cuprea var. coerulea Ohaus , Pelidonota (Ganonota) cuprea var. rufoviolacea , and Pelidnota (Ganonota) cuprea var. nigrocoerulea Ohaus. Ohaus (1918) also established a new combination and new status of an available name, Rutela fulvipennis Germar , as a variety of P. cuprea : Pelidnota (Ganonota) cuprea var. fulvipennis (Germar) .

Machatschke (1972) synonymized the subgenus Pelidnota (Ganonota) with Pelidnota (Strigidia) . Machatschke (1972) created another set of unavailable names by synonymizing these subgenera and applying a new status to the varieties of Ohaus: Pelidnota (Strigidia) cuprea forma coerulea Machatschke, Pelidnota (Strigidia) cuprea forma rufoviolacea Machatschke, and Pelidnota (Strigidia) cuprea forma nigrocoerulea Machatschke (ICZN Article 45.5.1). Soula (2006) treated the species Strigidia cuprea (Germar) but did not address the varieties of cuprea . Krajcik (2007) did not address the cuprea varieties of Ohaus (1913) but synonymized Rutela fulvipennis Germar with Pelidnota cuprea (Germar) .

An infrasubspecific name that was published prior to 1961 is deemed to be subspecific from its original publication if it was adopted as a valid name of a species or subspecies before 1985 (ICZN Article 45.6.4; 45.6.4.1). One pelidnotine name proposed by Ohaus should be treated in this manner. Ohaus (1913) described new species, subspecies, and varieties of Homonyx Guérin. In this publication ( Ohaus 1913), he described Homonyx chalceus ssp. uruguayanus , Homonyx chalceus ssp. santiagensis , and Homonyx chalceus var. fuscocupreus . In the context of this publication, it is unambiguous that Homonyx chalceus var. fuscocupreus is infrasubspecific and should be interpreted in this manner. Later publications appropriately treated the taxon as a subspecies ( Homonyx chalceus fuscocupreus ), thus within the purview of the code (ICZN Article 45.6.4.1). Homonyx fuscocupreus was later elevated to species status ( Soula 2011).

Pelidnotine Scarab Genera sensu Soula. Many of Soula’ s descriptions of new genera within the Rutelini lack information regarding higher-level classification (e.g., Patatra , Pachacama Soula , Homeochlorota Soula ). Each of his volumes included a mix of many genera from formerly accepted subtribes (pelidnotine, anticheirine) or accepted subtribes (Areodina, Lasiocalina ), and they were not arranged in a systematic fashion. Thus, Soula’ s tribal classification within the Rutelinae was not clear. Soula’ s most recent publication (2011) provided a tribal and subtribal classification within Rutelinae. Although he recognized that the classification was not based on monophyly (“La plupart des taxon supreagénériques, n’ étant pas monophylétiques…” [ Soula 2011: 3]), he maintained the classification pending further research. His list of Rutelinae omitted the tribes Alvarengiini and Adoretini, and it included subtribes that are not currently recognized (e.g., Anticheirina, Pelidnotina ) ( Bouchard et al. 2011; Smith 2006a). Nonetheless, this publication ( Soula 2011) aids in placement of some genera within the pelidnotine scarabs sensu Soula. This list contradicted some information in his previous publications, for example, the classification of Minilasiocala in the lasiocaline scarabs versus the pelidnotine scarabs ( Soula 2006). In addition, the list is internally contradictory. For example, the genera Pseudochlorota Ohaus and Lasiocala are classified as both pelidnotines and lasiocalines ( Soula 2011). We include two genera that are omitted from Soula’ s list and that formerly were included in the subtribe Pelidnotina , Oogenius Solier and Eremophygus Ohaus. Because Soula provided no characters or justification for his higher classification, we follow the classification of Bouchard et al. (2011). Thus, the pelidnotine scarabs sensu Soula (a non-monophyletic group) includes 25 genera:

Catoclastus Solier, 1851

Chalcoplethis Burmeister, 1844

Chipita Soula, 2008

Chrysina Kirby, 1828

Chrysophora Serville, 1825

Ectinoplectron Ohaus, 1915

Epichalcoplethi s F. Bates, 1904

Eremophygus Ohaus, 1910

Heteropelidnota Ohaus, 1912

Homeochlorota Soula, 2006

Homonyx Guérin, 1839

Hoplopelidnota F. Bates, 1904

Mecopelidnota F. Bates, 1904

Mesomerodon Ohaus, 1905

Minilasiocala Soula, 2006

Homothermon Ohaus, 1898

Oogenius Solier, 1851

Pachacama Soula, 2006

Parhomonyx Ohaus, 1915

Parhoplognathus Ohaus, 1915

Patatra Soula, 2008

Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819

Pseudogeniates Ohaus, 1910

Sorocha Soula, 2006

Xenopelidnota F. Bates, 1904

Figures

Fig. 1. Cotype of Pelidnota aeruginosa citripennis (valid name is Pelidnota semiaurata citripennis). A) Dorsal habitus, B) Lateral habitus, C) Cotype specimen labels, D) Parameres, lateral view, E) Parameres, dorsal view.