Catharsius harpagus Harold, 1877
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5052.2.7 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D8949428-C305-4510-99BB-39498D4421F6 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5579076 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/865687A5-FF96-FFF8-2797-4E2C25A0FB4D |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Catharsius harpagus Harold, 1877 |
status |
|
Catharsius harpagus Harold, 1877 View in CoL
Edgar von Harold (1877) described this species from a vague locality of “ Afric. austral.” based on at least a male and a female specimen, giving a size range of 22–30 mm. Although Harold stated in his original description that the type specimens of C. harpagus were housed in ZMHB, the type series was found in the MNHN collections. This series consists of two males and one female, the larger male with a typical Harold type label ( Figs. 1–2 View FIGURES 1–9 ). Rather surprisingly, the two males pertain to the Asian Catharsius birmanensis Lansberge, 1874 , while the female specimen is a West African Catharsius phidias (Olivier, 1789) . In order to stabilise the taxonomy of this species by fixing the published name to a single specimen, the larger male with the following label data is here designated the lectotype:
“Afr. austr. / C. / Harpagus / Typ. Harold [cream-colored card with red border; handwritten] // Ex. Musaeo / E. Harold [cream-colored card with black border] // MUSEUM PARIS / ex coll. / OBERTHÜR / 1953 // LECTOTYPE / CATHARSIUS / harpagus / Harold / det. H Takano 2017 [white card with red border; partially handwritten]”.
Louis Péringuey (1901) synonymised C. harpagus under Catharsius laticeps Boheman, 1857 without giving any justification. Catharsius laticeps was described from a female specimen by Boheman and Péringuey incorrectly associated with it a male which belonged to a different species. The male specimen he described and figured as C. laticeps ( Fig. 3 View FIGURES 1–9 ) is unmistakably C. harpagus Harold and so, despite the incorrect assumption of this being the male of C. laticeps , he correctly synonymised C. harpagus under C. laticeps sensu Péringuey (nec Boheman).
Maria Corinta Ferreira (1971) re-examined the very male specimen upon which Péringuey based his description and correctly stated that this is not a male of C. laticeps nor is C. harpagus sensu Ferreira (nec Harold) a synonym of C. laticeps . She proceeded to describe this specimen as Catharsius parafastidiosus . The holotype in SANC ( Figs. 4–5 View FIGURES 1–9 ) with the following label data was examined:
“ no 3 / Copris laticeps / ♂ [cream-colored paper; handwritten in Péringuey’s hand] // HOLOTIPO ♂ / Catharsius parafas- / tidiosus n.sp. / M.C. Ferreira det., 1971 [partially handwritten in Ferreira’s hand] // HOLOTYPUS / ♂ [red card] // NATIONAL COLL. / OF INSECTS ( SANC) / Pretoria , South Africa [black border] // TYPH00479 [red card]” .
Both C. harpagus and C. parafastidiosus are here synonymised with C. birmanensis thus:
SANC |
Agricultural Research Council-Plant Protection Research Institute |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |