Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792

Jelínek, Josef, 2007, Nomenclatural changes in the family Ciidae (Coleoptera), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 47, pp. 135-141 : 137-139

Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792

Material examined. Two SYNTYPES ( ZMHB). One, well preserved specimen (one antenna missing) is selected as lectotype, labelled: ‘53134 [white, printed] // Hist.-Coll. ( Coleoptera ) / Nr.53134 (1 Ex.) / Cis nitida Fabr. / German / Zool. Mus. Berlin [white, printed] // SYNTYPUS / Anobium nitidum / Fabricius 1792 / labelled by MNHUB 2000 [red, printed] // Nitida / n. / Anob. Nitidum / Frib* Py. * [white, handwritten] // LECTOTYPUS / Anobium nitidum Fabricius 1792 / des. Jelínek 2006 [red, printed and handwritten] // Sulcacis nitidus (F.) / det. J. Jelínek, 2006 [white, printed and handwritten]’.

FABRICIUS (1792) described his Anobium nitidum among those species of Anobium corre- sponding to the current family Ciidae . However, HERBST (1793) with some hesitation applied this name to a species which differed from the original Fabrician description and which is now placed in the family Anobiidae . As demonstrated by MÜLLER et al. (2001), Herbst’s text is rather a misinterpretation of the Fabrician taxon than a description of a new species, which would be in any case a junior primary homonym of Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792 . Nevertheless, since that time the name ‘ nitidum ’ has been applied in parallel to two different taxa, currently named as Cis nitidus (Ciidae) and Hemicoelus nitidus (Anobiidae) . This duplicity was discovered already by PANZER (1793, Heft 10, no. 9), who wrote: ‘Da Hr.Prof. Fabric.[ius] Hr.Garn.[ison] Pr.[iest] Herbst und ich dieses Kaeferchen aus einer Hand erhalten haben, und ich für die Richtigkeit der Fabriciuschen Bestimmung mir zu stellen getraue, so isst es wahrscheinlich, dass bey Hrn. Herbst eine Verwechslung mit einem andern Anobio vorgegangen seyn mag, welches er selbst vorläufig zuzugeben geneigt scheint’ [= As professor Fabricius, garrison priest Herbst and me received this beetle from the same source, and I am prepared to trust the identification by Fabricius, it is probable that the confusion with another Anobium may have been initiated by Mr. Herbst, a situation that he himself has tentatively suggested might be the case]. It was repeatedly discussed by various authors ( SCHILSKY 1900, MÜLLER et al. 2001) but no appropriate solution was adopted, perhaps because the location and identity of the true Fabrician types of Ciidae were not known. Most recent authors resolved the duplicity by attributing the name Anobium nitidum ( Hemicoelus nitidus ) to HERBST (1793) in spite of the alleged homonymy mentioned above. On the other hand, SILFVERBERG (1991), considering the specimen of ‘ Anobium nitidum ’ in the Fabricius collection in Copenhagen as the type specimen (see below), proposed the replacement name Cis alter Silfverberg, 1991 , for ‘ Cis nitidus auctt. non Fabricius’. Unfortunately, this name does not meet the conditions of ICZN Article 13 and is therefore unavailable (nomen nudum) as realized by ORLEDGE & BOOTH (2006).

The specimen standing as ‘ Anobium nitidum’ in the Fabricius collection in the Zoological Museum of the University, Copenhagen, is a fragment of an anobiid identified as Anobium (A.) punctatum (DeGeer, 1774) by B. Buche, and apparently does not belong to the type series of Anobium nitidum ( MARTIN in litt.; MÜLLER et al. 2001). I examined two conspecific syntypes of Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792 , deposited in the Museum of Natural History of the Humboldt University, Berlin ( MÜLLER et al. 2001) in October 2006. One of them lacks the head and prothorax, but the second, apart from being faded out, is well preserved, with seriatepunctate elytra bearing erect seriate setae, and with one completely preserved antenna of nine antennomeres. This specimen is clearly conspecific with Sulcacis affinis ( Gyllenhal,1827) . In order to stabilize the nomenclature, this latter specimen was designated as the lectotype of Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792 , and appropriately labelled (see above). The identity of Anobium nitidum F. with Sulcacis affinis is not in conflict with the brief original description of the former (black with testaceous legs).

The history of the nominal taxon Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792 , was rather intricated from the beginning. Apart from the misinterpretation by HERBST (1793), the current concept of Cis nitidus goes back to PANZER (1793), whose figure of Anobium nitidum F. seems to represent Cis nitidus in the current sense. In fact, the name Anobium nitidum Fabricius, 1792 , is the oldest available name for Sulcacis affinis ( Gyllenhal,1827) , while the oldest available

name for Cis nitidus sensu PANZER (1793) is Cis castaneus ( Herbst, 1793) (see below).

Kateretes castaneus Herbst, 1793

Material examined. Two specimens, one of them fragmentary, labelled: ‘castanea / n. / Cateretes castaneus Ht. / Anobium nitidum Pk. Paykull [white, handwritten] // 53132 [white, printed] //? SYNTYPUS / Cateretes castaneus / Herbst 1793 / labelled by MNHUB 2000 [red, printed]’. The second, well preserved specimen is designated as the lectotype and labelled: ‘Hist.-Coll. ( Coleoptera ) / Nr. 53132 (2 Ex.) / Cis castaneus Hrbst. / Germania? / Zool. Mus. Berlin [white, printed] //? SYNTYPUS / Cateretes castaneus / Herbst 1793 / labelled by MNHUB 2000 [red, printed] // LECTOTYPUS / Kateretes / castaneus Herbst, 1793 , / des. J.Jelínek, 2006 [red, printed and handwritten] // Cis / castaneus ( Herbst, 1793) det. Jelínek, 2006 [white, printed and handwritten]’.

The latter, well preserved specimen clearly belongs to the species currently identified as Cis nitidus (sensu Panzer, 1793) . Kateretes castaneus Herbst, 1793 , was not mentioned in the basic works and catalogues of Ciidae ( MELLIÉ 1849, DALLA TORRE 1911, ABDULLAH 1973) except for JAKOBSON (1905: 953), who included ‘ castaneus (Herbst) ’ as a synonym of Cis nitidus . It is the oldest available name for Cis nitidus auct. (non Fabricius, 1792) but at the same time the senior secondary homonym of Cis castaneus Mellié, 1849 , which must be therefore replaced with its junior synonym Cis fusciclavis Nyholm, 1953 .

The resulting nomenclatural changes can be summarized as follows: