Lepidiota rufa Blackburn, 1888

Lepidiota rufa Blackburn, 1888b: 854 .

Lectotype (here designated) male (Figs. 41–43): N.T. [Northern Territory] (handwritten) | Lepidiota rufa, Blackb. (handwritten) | Type (handwritten on orange label) | I.511 Lepidiota rufa Blackb N. Territory (handwritten) TYPE (handwritten in red, at right angle) | SAMA Database No. 25-035272 | my lectotype label | metatarsi in gel capsule on another pin and in same tray; in SAM.

Paralectotypes: 1 male: Port Darwin N. Territory (typeset) | 18210 Lepidiota rufa Blackb. N. Territory (handwritten) Cotype (handwritten in red, at right angle) | my paralectotype label | aedeagus on card ; 1 male, mounted on card: 1579 N. T . (handwritten in red with red and black transverse lines | Lepidiota rufa cotype (handwritten) | my paralectotype label; all in SAM.

Blackburn (1888b) saw three specimens that “appear[ed] to be of the same sex” but did not designate a ‘type’. Lea (1912) catalogued the ‘type’ as in SAM, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male and two “ paratype ” males in SAM all from the Northern Territory. Houston & Weir (1992) considered Britton’s (1978) incorrect reference to a holotype as being a lectotype designation. As Britton (1978) and Houston & Weir (1992) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in SAM, neither mention of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the specimen in SAM with the ‘TYPE’ label the lectotype. The other two specimens in SAM are paralectotypes.