Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834

Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo & Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto de Lima, 2023, On Eryphus Perty, 1832 (Dichophyiini), Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 (Trachyderini, Trachyderina), and Eryphus Klug, 1829, with description of a new genus, and corrections on publication dates, Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 63, pp. 1-8 : 2-5

Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834

Perty (1832) has been wrongly credited as the author of the genus Eryphus (Dichophyiini) for the description of Eryphus bipunctatus ( Figs. 2 A-2C) from Brazil (Minas Gerais). However, Perty (1832) was only including a new species in Eryphus Klug, 1829 . It is evident that Perty (1832) was not describing a new genus because when he did so in the same work, he clearly indicated as in the description of Tropidosoma , Psygmatocerus, Homalopterus and Hypselomus .

Klug (1829) described Eryphus rubricollis as follows: "82. Eryphus rubricollis Dej. (i. litt.) niger, thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris.″ Accordingly, Klug (1829) was formally describing a new genus and a new species ( Trachyderini ), and both are available. Agassiz (1846), Sherborn (1926), and Neave (1939) correctly reported Klug as the author of Eryphus . Nevertheless, surprisingly, Eryphus Klug remained unknown to Cerambycidae researchers.

Eriphus (Trachyderini) has been reported as published in Audinet-Serville (1834b). However, the genus was described in Audinet-Serville (1834a), without the inclusion of species, but with description of the taxon (ICZN 1999:12.1).Audinet-Serville (1834b) included three species: Eriphus bisignatus (Germar, 1823) ; E. mexicanus Audinet-Serville, 1834 ; and E. immaculicollis Audinet-Serville, 1834 (ICZN 1999: 67.2.2). Both Audinet-Serville (1834a) and Audinet-Serville (1834b) were published in March 1834 (e.g., Sherborn (1926: 2189 – on Eriphus ; 2246 – on Eurymerus )). Unfortunately, it was not possible to know the day of each publication. However, even if they were published on the same day, it is more coherent to accept that the description of the genus occurred in the lower numbered volume.Chevrolat (1845: 404) designat- ed Callidium (Clytus) bisignatum Germar, 1823 as the type species of Eriphus Audinet-Serville.

White (1855) indicated Audinet-Serville (1834b) as the author of Eriphus . In the same work, he listed Eriphus sensu Dejean (1835; part) as a synonym of Callideriphus Blanchard, 1851 (Dichophyiini) , and included Eryphus bipunctatus in Callideriphus . Gemminger (1872) listed Callidium Fabricius,1775 (part), Batyle Thomson,1864 ,and Eriphus (part) as synonyms of Callideriphus . However, he did not indicate the author of Eriphus , and did not state that Perty had used Eryphus , although had included E. bipunctatus Perty in his list of species of Callideriphus . Aurivillius (1912) also did not mention Eryphus Perty ,and also includ- ed E. bipunctatus in Callideriphus . Napp & Martins (2002) considered Eryphus Perty as different from Callideriphus and revalidated and transferred some species to the former. Therefore, part of the species considered as belonging to Callideriphus by White (1855), Gemminger (1872), and Aurivillius (1912) are currently included in Eryphus Perty, 1832 according with Napp & Martins (2002).

Making everything even more complicated, according to Dejean (1835):" ERIPHUS, Serville. / Rubricollis Dej. Brasilia = Bisignatus . Germar. id. [Brasilia].″ Thus, Dejean (1835) synonymized Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829 (wrongly attributing the authorship to himself) with Eriphus bisignatus (Germar, 1823) . Dejean (1835) simply ignored the use of the name Eryphus by Klug (1829). Examination of a specimen of Eriphus rubricollis ( Figs. 1 A-1B) / Eriphus bisignatus from Dejean′s collection (label handwritten by Dejean himself) makes evident that Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean is really equal to E. bisignatus . However, the original description by Klug makes clear that the pronotum and elytra are reddish with the dorsal area black ("thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris.″), which does not agree with E. bisignatus . Therefore, the synonymy proposed by Dejean (1835) was not correct and made evident that E. rubricollis in Dejean (in litteris) collection is not equal to E. rubricollis Klug.

It is very likely that Joseph Anton Maximilian Perty had seen the specimens identified by Johann Christoph Friedrich Klug as Eryphus rubricollis . Klug′s brief description (1829) would not allow Perty to recognize the species and not even to which tribe it belonged. In fact, it would only be possible to infer the family, because Klug (1829) listed Eriphus rubricollis among known species of Cerambycidae .As Dejean′s catalog (1835) listing this species as equal to Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus Germar, 1823 had not yet been published, it would not be possible for Perty to make the association. In addition, it is very unlikely that Perty personally knew Dejean′s collection, and we were unable to find an indication that Dejean sent him material or a letter describing his Eriphus rubricollis .

As the general appearance of Eryphus bipunctatus Perty ( Figs. 2 A-2C) is similar to that of Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean (= Eriphus bisignatus (Germar) (see Bezark, 2022 and Fig. 1), it is possible to infer that Eryphus rubricollis Klug also has a similar overall appearance to them. Evidently, this does not allow us to know if the Klug′s species was actually of the same genus and tribe as the Perty species.

Although there are specimens identified as Eriphus bisignatus (designated as lectotype and paralectotypes by Monné& Monné,2015) at the ZMHB collection,they could not be present in this collection at the time of Klug if they really belonged to the private collection of Ernst Friedrich Germar. According to Horn & Kahle (1935):"Germar, Ernst Friedrich (1786-1853), Curculionid. an Zool. Univ. Mus., Halle a. S. – Restl. Ins.Via H. Schaum vereinzelt: I. Auswahl Coleopt. an Zool. Mus. Berlin [currently, Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universität in Berlin]; Rest ex parte via G. Kraatz an Deutsch. Entom.Institut,Berlin-Dahlem [currently, ZMHB].″ Germar died in 1853 and his nephew, Hermann Rudoph Schaum (who kept the collection after Germar′s death), died in 1865. Therefore, it is most probable that was only after 1865 that the types of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus were deposited at the ZMHB. One of the labels currently placed in the lectotype indicates that the specimen was collected by Olfers (see Monné & Monné, 2015: 392-393). This collector name appears in several species described by Klug in several works. This may suggest that the"types″ at the ZMHB collection are not the true "types″, or that they always belonged to this collection (loaned by Klug to Germar). According to Klug (1829) they were friends (translated):"For the curculionids, I have used the information I requested and received from my friend, Prof. Germar, with few exceptions, and also indicated his determinations where they did not agree with those I had received from Count Dejean.″ But apparently, Germar also received specimens from Olfers (see Germar, 1823: IX) (translated): "It remains to me as much as possible to thank my friends who have enriched this work by sharing the beauty that they have discovered … Bescke father and son, …, Olfers…″ These reasoning on the types of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus are important because if they were present at the ZMHB in 1829, Klug would hardly have described the species again, if Eryphus rubricollis Klug really was a synonym of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus Germar.

There are three possibilities to explain why Klug knew that there were specimens named as Eriphus rubricollis in the Dejean collection: Klug personally knew the Dejean collection;Dejean sent him specimens on loan;or Dejean gave him information about the species. In all three cases, it is not possible to know why Klug used Eryphus and not Eriphus (as was later published by Dejean and was probably written in the specimens of his collection).

There is no evidence that Dejean sent specimens to Klug or that Klug personally saw Dejean′s collection. Furthermore, the introduction in Klug (1829) suggests that they just exchanged letters (translated): "Therefore, in identifying the probable new species, I largely followed the advice of my respected correspondents and in particular that of Count Dejean, who was as forgiving as he was insightful and experienced…″

If the third option was the real one, Dejean would probably have described the species in such a way that it was possible for Klug to recognize it, which would undoubtedly include the two circular spots on the pronotum, the general color of the pronotum and elytra. Notwithstanding, he described it as "thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris″, which means that both the pronotum and the elytra are reddish with dorsal (central) area black. A quick comparison with photographs of the types of Germar′s species, as well as specimens of Eriphus rubricollis from Dejean′s collection reveals that the elytra are not so (and we never saw this type of variation in Eriphus bisignatus ). However, we already saw another description by Klug with contradictory information on these structures. For example, in the original description of Chlamys exarata Klug, 1824 ( Coleoptera , Chrysomelidae ), he informed: "thorace coleoptrisque rugosus, quadri-sulcatis.″ However, in the same description he also pointed out:"Thorax … sulcis quatuor apice coëuntibus nigris exaratus. Elytra … bi-sulcata.″ This may suggest that the original description of E. rubricollis was inaccurate. However, it is difficult to believe in this mistake, and it is easier to accept that the information from Dejean was inexact or that Klug wrongly interpreted them. Dejean did not write in German, as it is possible to see in a letter from him to Germar in 1818 (Dieckmann, 1986) (translated): "If you are not used to writing in the French, Italian and Latin languages, you can write to me in German, but using, please, the Latin characters. As for me, I beg your pardon, but I can only write to you in French; besides, I suppose that if you do not understand this language, you will easily find a translator.″

Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB) sent us precious information on historical specimens of Eriphus present in ZMHB, including photograph of the drawer ( Fig. 1F), and copy of some pages of Eryphus records section in the catalog of their historical collection ( Figs.1 D-1E). According to him, there is no specimen named " rubricollis ″ among the specimens of Eriphus (or Eryphus ), and also no record on the catalog using this name. As the work by Klug (1829) was a list of duplicates of specimens for sale, it is possible that there is at least one syntype specimen in some other museum which may allow recognizing the species. However, even if it(them) survived, it will be extremely difficult to find it(them).

In fact, the species that more perfectly matches the description by Klug (1829) is Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat , which is present in the ZMHB collection as " coccineus ″ ( Figs. 1C and 1F). Based on the fact that Eryphus coccineus Klug in litteris (= E.purpuratus ), Eryphus ruficollis Klug in litteris (= E. immaculicollis Audinet-Serville, 1834 , the specimens have a label with "N″ after the species name, meaning "Nobis″) were considered by Klug himself as belonging to Eryphus , it is logical to assume that Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 is a junior synonymy of Eryphus Klug, 1829 (type species Eryphus rubricollis ). However, as both conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2) are present, Eryphus Klug, 1829 is considered a nomen oblitum, and Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 a nomen protectum (for citations using Eriphus , exclusively for the genus or in its 23 species see, for example, Monné, 2005, 2022). According to Klug (1829) (translated): "Apart from a few Lepidoptera from Cuba, the present directory contains only Coleoptera , first from southern Brazil, collected by Sellow in the vicinity of Montevideo [ Uruguay], Cassapava [probably CaÇapava do Sul in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul], Porto Alegre [ Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul], then from Cuba from a year ago by a certain Maximil.″ At least six specimens identified as " coccineus ″ in the ZMHB collection were collected by Sellow. As the original description of Eryphus rubricollis and the collector (see Figs. 1D and 1F, and introduction in Klug (1829)) agree perfectly with the specimens labeled as " coccineus ″ in ZMHB collection, we think that they are the syntypes of the former. According to Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB, personal communication):"The historical specimens arranged un- der the purpuratus label (written by our former curator Kuntzen) have the manuscript name " coccineus N.″ obviously provided by Klug.″ It is not possible to know if there was an error in labelling the specimens as " coccineus ″ instead of " rubricollis ″ and, if so, if the error was that of the curator or Klug himself. But we think it is very likely that the specimens are the true syntypes of Eryphus rubricollis Klug. However , it is probable that Klug had changed the name of the species, from E.rubricollis to E. coccineus , after the publication of the catalogue of Dejean (1835). However, as Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean is equal to Eriphus bisignatus (Germar) and not equal to Eryphus rubricollis Klug , again, the synonymy is not correct, and the latter name is available. Accordingly, Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 is a junior synonym of Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829 . As only one of the conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article 23.9.1) is present (Article 23.9.1.1), Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 cannot be considered a nomen protectum.

According to ICZN (1999: 72.4.1.1):"For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series.″ As Klug (1829) mentioned "Dej. (i. litt.)″, we think it is necessary to consider the specimens from Dejean′s collection, identified as Eriphus rubricollis , as syntypes of Eryphus rubricollis . As E.rubricollis sensu Dejean is not equal to Klug′s species, this makes this species an amalgam of species. It is important to record that it is also possible that the specimens in Dejean′s collection are also syntypes of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatum , becoming them as syntypes of two species.This because Dejean offered specimens for study to Germar (Dieckmann,1986):"In answering me,have the kindness to let me know approximately what you want and I will have the greatest pleasure to send you everything that will be possible for me…″ Unfortunately, we have no evidence that Dejean sent specimens to him except, probably, specimens of Curculionidae .

It is important to mention that the southern region of Brazil, as well as southern Argentina and Uruguay are places where intensive collections of insects were carried out in the last 100 years and no species that agrees with the original description of Eryphus rubricollis was found, except Eriphus purpuratus , which occurs in the same region.

In short, we are proposing Eryphus Klug (1829) as nomen oblitum, and Eriphus Audinet-Serville (1834) as nomen protectum; synonymizing E. purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 with Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829 ; and transferring Eryphus rubricollis to Eriphus .

We are designating the specimen currently identified in the ZMHB collection as Eriphus purpuratus ( Figs.1C, 1F), first row, specimen located on the left and labeled, as lectotype of Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829 .The lectotype has the following labels: 1) white (printed) – 18806; 2) green (handwritten) – coccineus / N. / Bras. Sello.; 3) green (printed) – Hist.-Coll. ( Coleoptera ) / Nr. 18806 / Eriphus coccineus N. / Brasil / Sellow / Zool. Mus. Berlin; 4) red (printed) – Lectotype / Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829 .

Napp & Martins (2002) included 10 species in Eryphus Perty,1832 ,and reported (translated):"The name Eryphus was used by Perty (1832: 91) for E. bipunctatus , species described and illustrated, which makes it available. Eryphus is not a homonym of Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 , belonging to the tribe Trachyderini (ICZN 1999: 58, art. 56.2).″

Our conclusion is that Napp & Martins (2002) transferred several species from Callideriphus to Eryphus sensu Perty (1832) , a nonexistent genus. Therefore, it is necessary to erect a new genus in Dichophyiini Gistel, 1848 to include these 10 species.