Aphies Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841

Monné, Miguel A. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2020, On Aphies Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841, Amillarus Thomson, 1857, and Aprosopus sensu Guérin-Méneville (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), Zootaxa 4816 (1), pp. 129-134 : 130-131

On Aphies Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841

Chronology on the genus Aphies :

- Dejean (1835: 353) listed the generic name Aphies , with three species: A. erythrodera Dejean ; A. lebasii Dejean ; and A. peruviana Dejean. The genus and the three species are nomina nuda;

- Dejean (1836: 379) repeated information by Dejean (1835). Accordingly, the names remained as nomina nuda;

- Duponchel & Chevrolat (1841: 648) reported (translated): “ APHIES . Ins.—Genus of tetramers Coleoptera , family of the Longicornes, established by Mr. Dejean, but for which he did not publish the characters. According to the place that if occupies in his last catalog, it would belong to the family of the “Lamiaires” of Mr. Serville. He reported three species, named by him as Erythrodera, Lebasii, and Peruviana, the first two from Cartagena, and the third from Peru. This genus is close to Aerenica by its cylindrical pronotum, and differs from it by eyes more prominent and almost globose. We will quote as type the A. erythrodera Dej. , whose antennae and legs are black, head and pronotum reddish brown; the elytra are dark and slightly pubescent, and the abdomen with a silky reflection. Length, 5 lines [11.28 mm]; width 1 1/3 line [3 mm].”

- Thomson (1857: 312) replaced Aphies by Amillarus : “ Aphies Dej. Cat. 3 e édit. p. 379, non déjà employé: Aphis, Linné Sist. Nat. 1748 Hemipteres. ” In fact, as reported by Santos-Silva & Galileo (2016: 806), Aphies is not a homonym of Aphis Linnaeus. Thomson (1857) did not listed the species included in the genus, merely mentioning “ Amillarus apicalis Guérin ?” Still according to Santos-Silva & Galileo (2016: 806): “Unfortunately, it was not possible to know if he was referring to a species described or mentioned by Guérin-Méneville.” The type species of Amillarus has been mentioned as being A. apicalis Thomson, 1857 . However, as Thomson (1857) was just replacing Aphies , the type species remains Aphies erythrodera Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841 ( ICZN 1999: Article 67.8);

- Thomson (1860: 44) suggested that Aphies erythrodera and A. lebasii sensu Dejean (1835, 1836 ) are synonyms of Amillarus apicalis , a species that he claimed the authorship (translated): “The Aphies erythrodera and Lebasii (Dej., Cat., l.c.), from my collection, seem to me to be simple varieties of the species I have just described [ Amillarus apicalis ].”

- Thomson (1864: 115) affirmed that Amillarus apicalis is by Thomson, 1860, and synonymized the nomen nudum Aphies lebasii Dejean, 1835 with it. According to him, the type species of Amillarus was A. apicalis ;

- Aurivillius (1922: 524) described Didymonycha to house D. singularis Aurivillius, 1922 , and included the genus in Didymonychini Aurivillius, 1922 ;

- Breuning (1948: 42) described Trichogrammopsis for T. ruficollis Breuning, 1948 ;

- Breuning (1961: 198) synonymized Trichogrammopsis with Didymonycha ;

- Breuning (1962: 32) synonymized Didymonycha with Amillarus ;

- Monné (2018) revalidated Aphies (this work cannot be considered as published following the rules of ICZN (1999));

- The conditions required by Article 23.9 ( ICZN 1999) are not present to allow considering Aphies and A. erythrodera as nomina oblita.

Currently, Aphies includes the following species:

Aphies erythrodera erythrodera Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841 , revalidated;

= Amillarus apicalis Thomson, 1857 . Syn. nov.

= Amillarus mutabilis Bates, 1866

Aphies erythrodera nigroampliatus (Breuning, 1974) , comb. nov.

Aphies secunda (Tippmann, 1951) , comb. nov.

Aphies singularis ( Aurivillius, 1922) , comb. nov.

= Trichogrammopsis ruficollis Breuning 1948

Note 1: Amillarus apicalis nigroampliatus Breuning, 1974 has been wrongly listed as a synonym of Amillarus apicalis Thomson, 1857 (= Aphies erythrodera ). However, the subspecies was never formally synonymized. According to Santos-Silva & Galileo (2016): “It is probable that it is just another chromatic variation of A. apicalis . However, without examining the holotype, at least through photographs, we maintain it as a distinct subspecies.”

Note 2: As Monné (2018) is no longer available online, we are providing pictures showing the two pages on Aphies in this catalog ( Figs. 1, 2 ).

Figures

FIGURES 1–2. Catalog by Monné (2018): 1) Page 339; 2) Page 340.