Cymophorus Kirby, 1827

Xu, Hao & Qiu, Jian-Yue, 2020, An update on the distribution of the poorly known flower beetle genus Cymophorus Kirby, 1827 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) in Asia, Zootaxa 4877 (3), pp. 575-586 : 576-577

Cymophorus Kirby, 1827

Cymophorus Kirby 1827: 153 ; Schaum 1845: 53 (in synonymy); Schaum 1848: 60 (in synonymy); Lacordaire 1856: 544 (in synonymy); Harold in Gemminger & Harold 1869: 1334 (catalogue); Westwood 1873: 16; Bergé 1884: 157; Schoch 1894: 218 (in key); Schoch 1895: 132; Schoch 1896: 78 (catalogue); Péringuey 1907: 499 (South African species); Arrow 1910: 203 (Indian species); Schenkling 1921: 358 (catalogue); Schein 1954: 357 (revision); Paulian 1961: 4; Krikken 1977: 310 (in key); Krikken 1984: 44; Marais & Holm 1992: 20 (southern African species); Ma 1995: 150 ( China); Sakai & Nagai 1998: 153; Krajčík 1999: 35 (catalogue); Krajčík 2011: 68; Krajčik 2012: 85 (list); Bezděk 2016: 391 (list).

Type species Cymophorus undatus Kirby, 1827 , by monotypy.

Cymatophorus Burmeister in Burmeister & Schaum, 1840: 361 (unjustified emendation); Schenkling 1921: 358 (in synonymy); Marais & Holm 1992: 20; Krajčík 1999: 35 (in synonymy).

Ptychophorus Schaum in Burmeister & Schaum 1841: 271 (unnecessary replacement name); Burmeister 1842: 646; Schaum 1845: 53 (catalogue); Schaum 1848: 60 (catalogue); Lacordaire 1856: 544; Harold in Gemminger & Harold 1869: 1334 (in synonymy); Westwood 1873: 16 (in synonymy); Péringuey 1907: 499 (in synonymy); Arrow 1910: 203 (in synonymy); Schenkling 1921: 358 (in synonymy); Paulian 1961: 4 (in synonymy); Marais & Holm 1992: 70 (in synonymy); Ma 1995: 150 (in synonymy); Krajčík 1999: 35 (in synonymy); Bezděk 2016: 391 (in synonymy).

Nomenclature. The name Cymophorus has not been constantly used in early times that produced two junior synonyms. Schaum claimed that the generic name was preoccupied by Cymatophora Treitschke, 1825 ( Lepidoptera : Thyatiridae ), and introduced the name Ptychophorus as a replacement for this genus ( Burmeister & Schaum 1841). This replacement name was adopted in a few subsequent works ( Burmeister 1842, 1845; Schaum 1844, 1845, 1848). Later Lacordaire (1856) and Westwood (1873) pointed out that the spelling of Kirby’s Cymophorus is sufficiently different from Treitschke’s Cymatophora , and the original generic name should be resurrected. Actually, the replacement name Ptychophorus was not proposed for Kirby’s Cymophorus , and the spelling of Kirby’s name was already changed to Cymatophorus by Burmeister ( Burmeister & Schaum 1840: 361) without explanation. This modified name appears to be overlooked; nevertheless, Kirby’s Cymophorus remains the valid name of this genus, because Article 56.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ( ICZN 1999) indicates that two genus-group names are not homonyms even if the difference between them is only one letter. Hence, Ptychopho-rus Schaum, 1841 being an unnecessary substitute name. Besides, according to Article 33.2.3 ( ICZN 1999), Cy-matophorus Burmeister, 1840 is an unjustified emendation, and thus, as Schein (1954) stated, it should be treated as a junior objective synonym of Cymophorus . This junior synonym was listed in Krajčík (1999) but neglected in the new Palaearctic catalogue ( Bezděk 2016).

Remarks. When divided the genus Cymophorus into seven subgenera, Schein (1954) assigned four African species to the subgenus Pseudocymophorus Schein, 1954 with the Asian species C. pulchellus . However, Marais & Holm (1992) listed two of them, C. sexfoveatus Fairmaire, 1884 and C. limbatus Gestro, 1895 , in the nominate subgenus without explanation. Later Krajčik (1999, 2012) not only followed this arrangement but also incorrectly placed C. pulchellus in the nominate subgenus. To confirm the true placement of these species requires a detailed study of other congeners. It is beyond the scope of this study, and thus we adopt the arrangement in Schein’s (1954) revision.