Sicoderus granatensis ( CHevrolat, 1879 )

Anderson, Robert S., 2021, The Status of Species of Erodiscus Schoenherr, 1825 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Curculioninae) Described by Elbert L. Sleeper, The Coleopterists Bulletin 75 (2), pp. 501-504 : 503-504

Sicoderus granatensis ( CHevrolat, 1879) ( Figs. 7–8 )

Erodiscus granatensis Chevrolat 1879: 11 . Wibmer and O’Brien 1986: 201. Vanin 1986: 526.

Erodiscus marshalli Sleeper 1954: 345 , new sYnonYmY. O’Brien and Wibmer 1982: 101. Described from a male holotype labeled Barro Colorado Island, C. Z., Panama, VI-10.

Sicoderus marshalli ; Vanin 1986: 558.

Based on characters listed in the description by Sleeper (1954), Vanin (1986) transferred Erodiscus marshalli to the genus Sicoderus , and specifically into the S. tringa species group. My examination of the male holotype agrees with placement in Sicoderus , but rather within the S. granatensis species group as a junior synonym of Sicoderus granatensis . Both occur in Panama, are of similar size, and comparison of the holotype with the images and description of S. granatensis in Vanin (1986) show no appreciable differences. The male holotype of S. marshalli was not dissected.

SOME COMMENTS ABOUT PERSONAL COLLECTIONS

Many present-day entomologists pursue taxonomy as an avocation and some are highly competent, making tremendous contributions to species discovery and classification through their publications, conducting extensive field work and maintaining large personal collections. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999) has a recommendation (Recommendation 16C) “Recognizing that name-bearing types are international standards of reference (see Article 72.10) authors should deposit type specimens in an institution that maintains a research collection, with proper facilities for preserving them and making them accessible for study (i.e., one which meets the criteria in Recommendation 72F)”. This recommendation is not always adhered to, and there is no rule that holotypes are required to be deposited in a public institution. The botanical code has similar recommendations [Recommendations 7A, 8B (algal and fungal cultures)], but again, no rule. It is also inconsistent that the zoological code requires that neotypes be deposited in a public institution as part of their validation process, but not other kinds of primary types. While the practice is on the decline, the placement of primary types in personal collections still occurs widely among some taxonomists. The argument has been made to me that since many European taxonomists pursue the science as an avocation, one of the primary means of securing compensation for their lifetime of investment in their work is the eventual sale of their collection, generally made significantly more valuable by the presence of primary types. Conflict of interest issues are obvious and science should not potentially be deprioritized by personal financial gain. It is in the best interest of science that primary types be unconditionally deposited in specific and reputable institutional collections as a condition of the name being validated. As the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is currently drafting Code 5 this gives the call for a rule change a timely focus.

The situation with the Sleeper collection perfectly illustrates the problem of deposition of holotypes in personal collections as the status of almost all of the Sleeper names have remained uncertain since their original description some 65 years ago. The Sleeper collection was also almost lost to science. It had been stored long-term in Sleeper’s pool-house, until after his death when his family moved it into the garage during renovations prior to selling the house. The collection was likely stored in the garage for a few months without temperature, humidity or pest control. Based on the condition of the collection and damage observed to the specimens, conditions in the pool-house and the garage were inadequate to properly preserve an insect collection. In addition, the Sleeper collection narrowly avoided disposal as trash by the family as they cleaned out all personal items to sell the property where it was kept. Upon being contacted by the Sleeper family in the summer of 2019 about a donation of the collection, the staff at the California Academy of Sciences had approximately a 30-day notice to remove the entire collection from the property. It is fortunate that the family was aware enough of how important the material was to science to contact the Academy, but it was made clear that the collection would be discarded if it was not salvaged right away. There was also supposed to be a wet portion of the collection but its whereabouts are still unknown, and Academy staff have been unable to contact any member of the Sleeper family since retrieving the pinned collection. While the holotypes and almost all of the collection survived these trying conditions undamaged, some of the larger (>10-mm-long) taxa, such as specimens in the genus Ophryastes Germar, 1829 , were almost fully consumed by dermestids ( Coleoptera : Dermestidae ), leaving little more than scattered body parts, pins and powder.

Figures

Figs. 5–8. Sicoderus hamburgi and Sicoderus marshalli holotypes. S. hamburgi: 5) Dorsal habitus; 6) Lateral habitus. S. marshalli: 7) Dorsal habitus; 8) Lateral habitus.