Lepidiota negatoria Blackburn, 1912

Allsopp, Peter G., 2020, Clarification of the status of the types of Australian Melolonthini (Coleoptera Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae) described before 1950, Zootaxa 4885 (4), pp. 451-486 : 467

Lepidiota negatoria Blackburn, 1912

Lepidiota negatoria Blackburn, 1912: 63 .

Lepidiota deceptrix Blackburn, 1912: 59 ; Britton 1978: 57 (synonymy).

Lepidiota mungomeryi Britton, 1963: 4 ; Britton 1978: 57 (synonymy).

Lectotype of Lepidiota negatoria (here designated) male: aedeagus dissected out and mounted on card | Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7898 Mackay [21.14°S, 149.18°E] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | Lepidiota negatoria, Blackb. (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.

Blackburn’s (1912) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1) from Port Mackay. Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male from Macleay [sic] in NHML. Houston & Weir (1992) listed a male “ holotype (probable)” and Miller & Allsopp (2000) followed this interpretation. As Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, none of these mentions of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype.

Lectotype of Lepidiota deceptrix (here designated) female: Type H.T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7895 Qu. [Queensland] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | LEPIDIOTA deceptrix, Blackb. (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML.

Blackburn (1912) described this species after realising that what he had thought was a male syntype of Lepidiota caudata Blackburn was a female specimen. However, it is unclear how many specimens he had when he described it, so it is impossible to know the exact composition of the type series (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1). Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML, and Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” female from Queensland in NHML. Houston & Weir (1992) listed a “ holotype (probable)” and Miller & Allsopp (2000) followed this interpretation. As Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, none of these mentions of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype.