On Dec 5, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Paul Schoolmeesters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
looks good, except placing Anoplosiagum Blanchard, 1850 as a synonym of Stenocrates, I prefer leaving it a synonym of Philochloenia, while there were others described at the same time (pallidulum, sulcatula, villosicolle) which don't belong to the Dynastinae.
Hope you find the Germar species
Looking forward to any publication on this matter
Paul SchoolmeestersLangeveldstraat, 233020 HerentBelgiumScarabaeinae of the world
Thanks to all for pointing this out! This is really quite messy and requires further work to fix all of the problems. Here is the impact from the Melolonthinae perspective:
Philochloenia rufipennis (Fabricius) needs to be removed since it is actually a Dynastinae.
The generic name Anoplosiagum Blanchard, 1850: 119 (type species Melolontha rufipennis Fabricius) is a junior synonym of Stenocrates.
The true identity of Melolontha filitarsis Germar, 1824: 125 needs to be determined as it had been synonymized with Philochloenia rufipennis (Fabricius), but may actually be a Philochloenia not a Stenocrates.
The above will determine the correct classification of the generic name Philochloenia Dejean, 1833 (type species Melolontha filitarsis Germar).
Anyone know where the Germar types are? I found one of his Trogidae types in the Paris Museum (via Harold and Oberthur) but I don’t think the entire collection when there...
On Dec 4, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Brett Ratcliffe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The female Fabrician type is in Kiel (Zimsen 1963), and Endrodi designated it a lectotype in Stenocrates.
Blanchard, as was typical in those days, probably never saw the specimen but simply used the perfunctory Fabrician description to suggest this specimen was Anoplosiagum. Perhaps Fuhrmann and Vaz-de-Mello simply followed this designation and erroneously placed it in Blanchard’s concept of Anolosiagum (Philochloenia)? They were apparently not aware of the Fabrician specimen in Kiel, and so they designated a lectotype of rufipenis for a specimen in Paris (presumably NOT Stenocrates), but Endrodi had already designated a lectotype, and so it seems the designation of a lectotype for the Paris specimen is invalid. The Kiel and Paris specimens under consideration are not even in the same genus.
Fuhrmann and Vaz-de-Mello 2017
Most of Fabricius’ types are currently housed at Staten Naturrhistoriske Museum (Copenhagen, Denmark), but the type series of Melolontha rufipennis was part of the Lous Bosc collection, now housed in NMHN (Cambefort 2006). Fabricius’ original labels were identified using Horn (1990a, b).
Dear Matt,I have found the following already (but no conclusion)Philochloenia1850 Blanchard (119) Anoplosiagum rufipenne Syst.Eleuth II, 167 (1801)2017 Fuhrmann & Vaz-de-Mello (45) Anoplosiagum rufipenne -> Philochloenia rufipennis (Melolontha) Syst.Eleuth II, 167 (1801)Stenocrates1817 Schönherr Syn.Ins.I.3.187 Melolontha rufipennis Syst.Eleuth II, 167. 371847 Burmeister (86) Melolontha rufipennis Syst.Eleuth II, 187. 120 (no rufipennis found on page 187 or 120, probably type error for 167) Stenocrates1847 Burmeister (522) Melolontha rufipennis Syst.Eleuth II, 167. 37 + Schönherr Syn.Ins.I.3. 187.1201966 Endrödi (435) Stenocrates rufipennis Syst.Eleuth II, 167CheersPaul SchoolmeestersLangeveldstraat, 233020 HerentBelgiumScarabaeinae of the worldHi Paul,Not sure what to tell you, but Endrodi (1966) in his revision of Cyclocephalini designated a lectotype female for Stenocrates rufipennis (Fabricius). That lectotype is apparently in Kiel. Endrodi alse cites Systema Eleutheratorum II page 167 as the original description.Endrodi's lectotype female is from "Brit. Guayana: Essequibo".I hope this information helps. Maybe it doesn't.Best,Matt Moore