Gibbifer Voet, 1806

Skelley, Paul E., 2020, Nomenclatural notes for the Erotylinae (Coleoptera: Erotylidae), Insecta Mundi 2020 (767), pp. 1-35 : 24-25

VIII. Gibbifer Voet and Cypherotylus Crotch

Concern discovered. Gibbifer Voet, 1806 , unavailable for nomenclatural purposes.

Discussion and results. Alvarenga (1970) accepted Voet (1806) as a valid publication and resurrected the genus Gibbifer Voet, 1806 , synonymizing Cypherotylus Crotch, 1873 . As noted above, Voet’s proposed names are unavailable (ICZN 1999, Article 11.4). Thus, the resurrection of Gibbifer is here reversed and Cypherotylus is again the valid name for the genus. As noted in the previous section, unavailable parts of synonymies and subsequent nomenclatural acts pertaining to Voet names placed in quote marks “ ” have no nomenclatural status.

As discussed above for “ Pseudochrysomela ”, Voet’s plate for “ Gibbifer ” was used by both Panzer (1798) and Voet (1806). A point of confusion centers around the illustrations of two different species or variations of a species. Panzer (1798) named them both Erotylus gibbosus (Linnaeus) with figure 2 as a “varietas”, while Voet (1806) described them both under the unavailable name “ Gibbifer tigrinus ”.

Panzer (1798; see Figure 9 ) and Duponchel (1825; see Figure 10 ) illustrate these species in the same order using the same figure numbers. Duponchel’s figure 1 is “ Erotylus sphacelatus Fabricius ” (which later became Cypherotylus duponcheli Arrow ), and his figure 2 illustrates E. gibbosus , but he cites Panzer’s figure I as E. gibbosus . It appears Duponchel’s error in figure citation was generally overlooked, as subsequent literature represents these species as presented by Duponchel, with the species in figure 1 as “ E. sphacelatus ” and figure 2 as E. gibbosus .

Gebien (1906) discovered the type of Erotylus sphacelatus Fabricius to be a species of Tenebrionidae . To correct this, Arrow (1937) renamed “ Erotylus sphacelatus ” of Duponchel (1825: 35, pl. 1, fig. 1) and subsequent authors as Cypherotylus duponcheli .

Alvarenga’s (1970, 1977) treatment of Voet’s “ G. tigrinus ” was confusing and incomplete. Following this, Alvarenga (1994) listed both illustrations of Voet (1806) (not citing Panzer 1798) as a valid “ G. tigrinus ” along with C. duponcheli and “ E. sphacelatus ” as synonyms. This synonymy is incorrect as one of the illustrations of “ G. tigrinus ” must be referred to Chrysomela gibbosa Linnaeus.

While researching the identity of these illustrations, I attempted to find the type of Chrysomela gibbosa . Unfortunately, no specimen of this genus is present in the Linnean Collection ( Linnean Society of London 2019). With C. gibbosa as the type species of the Cypherotylus , following current accepted concepts, and in the interest of stabilizing nomenclature, a neotype that matches Panzer’s figure II and Duponchel’s figure 2 should be designated when the genus is revised.

With the realization that the genus and species “ Gibbifer tigrinus Voet ” are unavailable, the primary nomenclatural issues are resolved, and the two valid species represented in Panzer (1798) and Voet (1806) are Cypherotylus gibbosus and C. duponcheli . Synonymies for all included species of “ Gibbifer ” are corrected below, most reverting their combinations back to Cypherotylus . Only two species names are presented here as new combinations with Cypherotylus .

Figures

Figure 9. Plate XLIV used by Panzer (1798) and Voet (1806), present identifications. I) Cypherotylus duponcheli Arrow. II) Cypherotylus gibbosus (Linnaeus). Image c/o Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Figure 10. Plate 1 of Duponchel (1825). 1) Originally cited as “Erotylus sphacelatus Fabricius”, now Cypherotylus duponcheli Arrow. 2) Cypherotylus gibbosus (Linnaeus). Image c/o Biodiversity Heritage Library.