Cyclocephala tridentata ( Fabricius, 1801 )

Hielkema, Auke J. & Hielkema, Meindert A., 2019, An annotated checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Guianas, Insecta Mundi 732 (732), pp. 1-306 : 184

§ Cyclocephala tridentata ( Fabricius, 1801)

Melolontha tridentata Fabricius 1801b: 170 ( Guadeloupe)

= Cyclocephala tridentata dominicensis Cartwright and Chalumeau 1978: 25 ( Dominica) - Ratcliffe and Cave 2015: 113 (syn. nov.)

= Cyclocephala annamariae Dutrillaux et al. 2013: 64 ( Martinique) - Ratcliffe and Cave 2015: 113 (syn. nov.)

Distribution. Suriname: Endrödi 1966a: 321, 1985a: 99, 138; Moore et al. 2018b: 255. Other: Fabricius 1801b: 170 (Guadeloupe - as Melolontha tridentata ); Arrow 1937b: 16 (Guadeloupe, Martinique); Blackwelder 1944: 253 (Dominica, Guadeloupe, Martinique); Endrödi 1966a: 321 (Barbados, Colombia, Dominican Republic [> Dominica!], Guadeloupe, Martinique), 1985a: 99, 138 (Barbados, Colombia, Dominica, Guadeloupe, Martinique); Cartwright and Chalumeau 1978: 25 (Dominica - as C. tridentata dominicensis ); Ponchel 2011 (not mentioned); Dutrillaux et al. 2013: 64 (Martinique - as C. annamariae ; Dominica - as C. dominicensis ; Guadeloupe - as C. tridentata ); Dupuis 2016b (not mentioned); Moore et al. 2018b: 255 (Colombia, West Indies).

Note 1. Dutrillaux et al. (2013) split the populations of Cyclocephala tridentata from the islands of Martinique, Dominica and Guadeloupe (Lesser Antilles) into C. tridentata ( Guadeloupe) , C. dominicensis (was C. tridentata dominicensis Cartwright and Chalumeau, 1978 (p. 25)) ( Dominica) and C. annamariae ( Martinique) based on differences in their mitochondrial gene CO1. The publication does not include information regarding mainland specimens. Ratcliffe and Cave (2015: 113) reduce C. dominicensis and C. annamariae to synonyms of C. tridentata . The authors and year of description of C. tridentata dominicensis are discussed in Ratcliffe and Cave (2015: 116).

Note 2. Endrödi (1966a: 321, 1985a: 99, 138) records Cyclocephala tridentata for Suriname and Colombia, and these records are repeated in Moore et al. (2018b: 255). Ratcliffe and Cave (2015: 114) mention they have not seen specimens from Suriname or Colombia. There are also no other records for the mainland of South America that we are aware of, and it may well be that Endrödi’s record for Suriname is based on a mislabeled or misidentified specimen. We regard this species as not occurring in the research area.