An annotated checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Guianas
Author
Hielkema, Auke J.
Author
Hielkema, Meindert A.
text
Insecta Mundi
2019
2019-10-25
732
732
1
306
journal article
10.5281/zenodo.3678492
8e18452b-1d9d-462e-bac8-8c86eeb4ddc3
1942-1354
3678492
930EAB11-37FA-41B0-980A-1A4736527842
§
Isonychus variegatus
(
Germar, 1824
)
Melolontha variegata
Germar 1824: 128
(
Brazil
)
=
Melolontha deglupta
Germar 1824: 623
(
Brazil
)
=
Colporhina bifoveolata
Curtis 1844: 200
(
Brazil
)
Distribution.
Guyana
:
Bodkin 1919: 214
(as
Barybas bifoveolatus
).
Brazil
:
Germar 1824: 128
, 623 (as
Melolontha deglupta
; as
Melolontha variegata
);
Curtis 1845: 454
(as
Colporhina bifoveolata
);
Dalla Torre 1913: 327
;
Blackwelder 1944: 231
;
Frey 1970: 135
;
Evans and Smith 2009: 248
.
Other:
Curtis 1844: 200
(none - as
Colporhina bifoveolata
).
Note 1.
Germar (1824)
gives in the Corrigenda (p. 623) the replacement name
Melolontha deglupta
because of his
M. variegata
being a junior homonym of
M. variegata
Latreille, 1813
(p. 47).
Melolonta
deglupta
Germar, 1824
is now considered a synonym of
Isonychus variegatus
(
Germar, 1824
)
, while
M. variegata
Latreille, 1813
is now treated as a synonym of
Anomala undulata brasiliensis
(
Arrow, 1899
)
(1899a, p. 272). When establishing the latter synonymization,
Arrow (1899a)
was possibly assuming that Latreille’s description was published in 1833, while it was in fact published already in 1813 (see
Sherborn 1899: 428
). Given that Latreille’s description is thus older than that of
A. variegata
Hope, 1831
(p. 24), the seniority in this synonymization may have to be reversed. We have not further investigated this complex matter, but it seems imperative that this has to be done in the near future.
Note 2.
Curtis (1844: 200)
gives a very short description and no distributional data of
Colporhina bifoveolata
.
Curtis (1845: 454)
provides a more extensive description and the
type
locality.
Note 3.
Bodkin (1919: 214)
records
Isonychus variegatus
from
Guyana
. However, all other records we are aware of are from
Brazil
south of the Amazon River. We assume the record in
Bodkin (1919)
is based on a misidentified specimen and regard this species as not occurring in the research area.