Dendropaemon (Eurypodea) Klages, 1906

François Génier & Patrick Arnaud, 2016, Dendropaemon Perty, 1830: taxonomy, systematics and phylogeny of the morphologically most derived phanaeine genus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae, Phanaeini), Zootaxa 4099 (1) : 41-42

Dendropaemon (Eurypodea) Klages, 1906

Eurypodea Klages 1906 , Privately Published: [1] (original description)

Tetramereia: Klages 1907 , Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 8: 141 (original description) new synonymy Eurypodea: Felsche 1908 , Deut. Ent. Zeit. 1908: 274 (comment taxonomy)

Eurypodea: Gillet 1911 , Col. Cat. 38: 88 (mentioned as synonym)

Tetramereia: Gillet 1911 , Col. Cat. 38: 88 (mentioned as synonym)

Boucomontius Olsoufieff 1924 , Insecta 13: 120 (original description) new synonymy Eurypodea: Olsoufieff 1924 , Insecta 13: 159 (mentioned as synonym)

Tetramereia: Olsoufieff 1924 , Insecta 13: 159 (mentioned as synonym)

Boucomontius: Blut 1939 , Arch. Naturg. (N.F.) 8: 296 (monograph)

Tetramereia: Janssens 1940 , Bull. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat . Belg. 16: 6 (comment taxonomy) Boucomontius: Janssens 1940 , Bull. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat . Belg. 16: 7 (synonymy) Eurypodea: Janssens 1940 , Bull. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat . Belg. 16: 7 (comment taxonomy) Tetramereia: Blackwelder 1944 , U.S. Nat . Mus. Bull. 185: 210 (mentioned as synonym) Eurypodea: Blackwelder 1944 , U.S. Nat . Mus. Bull. 185: 211 (checklist)

Boucomontius: Martínez 1944 , Rev. Arg. Ent. 2: 34 (comment taxonomy)

Tetramereia: Janssens 1954 , Vol. Jub. V. Van Stralen: 974 (comment taxonomy) Boucomontius: Edmonds 1972 , Univ. Kansas Sc. Bull. 49: 851 (mentioned as synonym) Eurypodea: Edmonds 1972 , Univ. Kansas Sc. Bull. 49: 851 (mentioned as synonym) Tetramereia: Edmonds 1994 , Nat . Hist. Mus. LA Co., Cont. Sc. 443: 17 (identification key) Tetramereia : Vaz-de-Mello & Génier 2009, Coll. Bull. 63: 364 (biology)

Type species: Eurypodea fredericki Klages. 1906 ; monotypy.

Diagnosis. Size moderate. Habitus oval in dorsal view; lacking metallic sheen on head, pronotum and elytra, few individuals with faint metallic sheen on pronotum. Body convex dorsally. Clypeal lacking emargination on external side of each clypeal tooth; clypeal teeth triangular. Pronotum with more or less coarse and large punctures on disc, punctures forming rugulae anteriorly; anterior margin unmodified lateral to eyes; lateral fossae rounded, simple. Elytral base lacking margin. Meso and metatarsi similar in shape, four segmented, metatarsal first segment as long as wide at apex to wider than long, last segment more or less triangular in frontal view, with setae apically.

Remarks. At this time we are not able to fully resolve the taxonomy of this subgenus. The external morphology, especially microsculpture, punctation and degree of development and impression of elytral striae, convexity of elytral interstriae, shape and development of cephalic and pronotal carina, which are in other species of the genus reliable characters fail to provide insight for Eurypodea . Therefore, we keep a more conservative approach and revalidate D. fredericki and consider that the 49 specimens at hand belong to either one of the previously described species. Unfortunately, the holotype of D. fredericki is a female and unless males from the same or nearby locality in Venezuela that correspond to it are collected it might not be possible to be sure of the identity of this species. The aedeagus of D. fredericki illustrated for the species is from a male collected in French Guiana and is only tentatively identified as such. In general, all the specimens collected from the Guiana shield have parameres more robust in shape and the specimens from cerrado have more slender and laterally compresses apical portions.

Nomenclature and taxonomy. An undated manuscript note from the hand of Klages attached to copies of the 1906 and 1907 publications is deposited in the library of the United States National Museum and reads:

“A Correction and Explanation. The following two papers are descriptions of the same specimen, but that published in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington is the one that must fall. This unintentional and unfortunate duplication of the description under another generic name, and with some minor change occurred as follow: The paper, as stated in a footnote, was proposed early in 1906 and accepted for publication by the Entomological Society of Washington. Before it could be published, the gentleman having charge of the manuscript was ordered to Guatemala and the paper could not be found. So, in order to avoid an indefinite delay, its publication was withdrawn by letter and another manuscript prepared and published at the author’s expense, using the more appropriate generic name Eurypodea *, this change being advisable on account of the existence of an allied genus from Africa, in which the tarsi are also tetramerous. Some months later the misplaced manuscript was found and, forgetful of my instructions, the Society had it published in its Proceedings. Hence the preferable name, Eurypodea , is the one that must stand. Edward A. Klages

* From the Greek, meaning wide foot.”

The nomenclatural problem concerning the validity of Tetramereia and Eurypodea was first discussed by Janssens (1940):

“Klages avait tout d’abord nommé ce genre Eurypodea , mais sa première description, qui était destinée à être publiée à la Société Entomologique de Washington, fut retirée par l'auteur et imprimée sur le recto non paginé d’un feuillet séparé ne faisant partie d’aucune publication régulière. Nous avons sous les yeux un exemplaire de ce feuillet appartenant au British Museum; il nous a été communiqué par notre honoré Collègue M. G.-J. Arrow, ce dont nous le remercions encore. Ce document rarissime ne présente pas le caractère d'universalité qu'on exige des publications scientifiques et ne pouvant être obtenu par la voie ordinaire du commerce, la description qu'il contient ne peut être considérée comme valablement publiée. Klages refit d'ailleurs la description de ce genre en 1907, mais il substitua à Eurypodea le nom de Tetramereia ”.

Edmonds (1972), add to Janssens (1940) argumentation:

“ Klages (1906) proposed the name Eurypodea fredericki (n. gen., n. sp.) in a single page article printed at his own expense. A series of errors resulted in the publication of another description of the same species proposing the name Tetramereia frederickii ( Klages, 1907) . Both descriptions were based on the same specimen. Olsoufieff (1924: 120), suspecting the duplication, nevertheless proposed still another genus name, Boucomontius , for Dendropaemon convexum Har. , later found to be a senior synonym of T. frederickii . I have elected for now to continue usage of the name Tetramereia for two reasons: 1) I have judged Eurypodea does not comply with Articles 7 and 8 (Chapter IV, Criteria of Publication) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and, hence, is unavailable (Art. 10) (see also Janssens, 1940); 2) Tetramereia is the name now of common usage. Nevertheless, I have requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature render an opinion on the availability of the name Eurypodea .” The opinion request to the ICZN was not sent (Dave Edmonds, pers. comm.).

Our interpretation is that Klages’ 1906 publication meets the minimum requirement (nonetheless very minimal!) of the code (Article 8) for the availability of the name Eurypodea . The argument of rarity and commercial availability of a work, used by Janssens, is not taken into consideration by the code. Evidences rather suggest that the description was printed (offset) in multiple copies and distributed in 1906, and available from public libraries and consequently has priority over the redescription published under a different name in 1907. A copy of the publication was received in 1906 by the library of the British Museum of Natural History (now The Natural History Museum) in London and was indexed by the Zoological Record for that year. At least another copy was also deposited in the Smithsonian library in Washington, DC as shown on the library stamp on the facsimile obtained throught the courtesy of David Edmonds. Therefore, Tetramereia Klages , which was published in 1907 is an objective junior synonym of Eurypodea Klages, 1906 , as both name are based on the same holotype. Eurypodea and Tetramereia were first proposed synonyms of Dendropaemon by Gillet (1911) in the Coleopterorum Catalogus. The name Eurypodea Klages is available and used here for the subgenus comprising the following two species.