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.