Euplatypus segnis ( Chapuis, 1865 )

Kirkendall, Lawrence R., 2017, New Synonymies in Neotropical Platypodinae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), The Coleopterists Bulletin 71 (1), pp. 95-98 : 96-97

Euplatypus segnis ( Chapuis, 1865)

Platypus pulicaris Chapuis 1865: 165 . New synonymy.

Euplatypus pulicaris (Chapuis) : Wood 1993: 275.

Platypus melanurus Chapuis 1865: 180 . Reichardt 1964: 88 (synonymy with E. pulicaris ).

Platypus schaumi Chapuis 1865: 181 . Reichardt 1964: 88 (synonymy with E. pulicaris ).

Platypus segnis Chapuis 1865: 166 .

Euplatypus segnis (Chapuis) : Wood 1993: 275.

Platypus poriferus Chapuis 1865: 168 . Schedl 1972: 234 (synonymy with E. segnis ).

Platypus viduus Chapuis 1865: 178 . Schedl 1972: 234 (synonymy with E. segnis ).

Platypus hians Chapuis 1865: 167 . New synonymy.

Platypus apertus Chapuis 1865: 169 . Schedl 1972: 231 (synonymy with P. hians ).

Platypus perpusillus Chapuis 1865: 171 . Schedl 1972: 231 (synonymy with P. hians ).

Euplatypus hians (Chapuis) : Wood 1993: 275.

Platypus bellus Schedl 1933: 172 . Schedl 1972: 233 (synonymy with Platypus parallelus Fabricius ). New synonymy.

Platypus bellus Schedl : Wood 1973: 52 (restored name)

Euplatypus bellus (Schedl) : Wood 1993: 275.

Platypus costaricensis Schedl 1936: 101 . New synonymy.

Euplatypus costaricensis (Schedl) : Wood 1993: 275.

Platypus nitidipennis Schedl 1949: 41 . New synonymy.

Euplatypus nitidipennis (Schedl) : Wood 1993: 275.

I compared the male Chapuis types of P. pulicaris and P. segnis in IRSNB and concluded they were conspecific in light of current knowledge of the variability of E. segnis . Independently, T. H. Atkinson (Austin, Texas) made the same comparison and came to the same conclusion. I also can confirm the earlier synonymies of Reichardt (1964) of P. melanurus (Chapuis male holotype in IRSNB) and P. schaumi (Chapuis male and female types in ZMHB). Similarly, I have verified Schedl ’ s synonymization of P. poriferus (Chapuis male syntypes in NHMUK) with E. segnis .

The holotype of P. hians in NHMUK is a female. Schedl (1972) established the appearance of the male when he synonymized P. hians with P. apertus and P. perpusillus , two other Chapuis species described in the same monograph ( Chapuis 1865); the syntypes of the latter two species include both sexes. I have examined type material of all three species as well as many South American specimens of both sexes identifed by Schedl or myself as Euplatypus hians , and I can find no differences between these specimens and Central American specimens identified as E. segnis .

The only known specimen of E. costaricensis (in NHMW) is the male holotype from Costa Rica. The only known specimen of E. nitidipennis (in NHMW) is the male holotype from French Guiana. I compared the holotype of E. costaricensis directly with the Chapuis types of P. apertus and P. perpusillus as well as with other males identified by Schedl as E. hians , P. apertus , or P. perpusillus in NHMW. I later compared the holotype of E. nitidipennis with the holotype of P. apertus and subsequently with all my other specimens in this complex. For now, these all should be considered one common, widespread species. The unique male of E. nitidipennis is distinguishable, but probably an aberrant individual, as I have seen no others like it among hundreds of male specimens of E. segnis sensu novo.

Now that many specimens are available from throughout the Americas, it is apparent that there are no consistent distinctions justifying retaining more than one name for them. Until genetic data are available, the null hypothesis should be that E. segnis , E. hians , E. pulicaris , E. bellus , E. costaricensis , and E. nitidipennis represent just one widespread species which is quite variable in size (3.0 – 4.3 mm from frons to posterior margin of elytra).

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not require one to follow page precedence when choosing among names published simultaneously in the same work ( International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1999: Article 24.2.2). Of the names published in the Chapuis (1865) monograph, P. pulicaris is first, but has rarely been used; the names E. bellus , E. costaricensis , and E. nitidipennis , too, have rarely been applied. As first revisor, I choose the name Euplatypus segnis over E. hians for this taxon, as the former has been used more actively in recent ecological and biogeographical research (e.g., Equihua M. and Atkinson 1987; Ødegaard 2004; Alvidrez-Villarreal et al. 2012). When we combine records for these species, we see that E. segnis is one of the most widespread and abundant 1Neotropical platypodines, having been repeatedly collected from nearly every country between Mexico and Argentina as well as from the West Indies ( Atkinson 2016; Kirkendall 2017).