Aprosopus d’Orbigny, 1842

Monné, Miguel A. & Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2020, On Aphies Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841, Amillarus Thomson, 1857, and Aprosopus sensu Guérin-Méneville (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae), Zootaxa 4816 (1), pp. 129-134 : 131-132

On Aprosopus d’Orbigny, 1842

Monné (2020) reported the descriptions in 1841 [sic, 1842] as being by Duponchel. Tavakilian & Chevillotte (2019) reported the descriptions in 1842 as being by Guérin-Méneville. However, the descriptions in 1842 are by Charles d’Orbigny: “APROSOPE. Aprosopus (ά priv.; πρόσωπον, face). INS.—Genre de Coléoptères longicornes, de la tribu des Lamiaires, établi par Guérin-Méneville (Icon. Règne anim., texte), très voisin des Hippopsis de Serville ... L’espèce unique, type de ce nouveau genre, vient du Brésil, c’est l’ A. Buquetii , Guer. ... (C. D’ O.).” According to d’Orbigny (1842): “CHARLES D’ORBIGNY, member de plusieurs societies savants, etc. [C. d’O.].”

According to Bousquet (2016), on the “ Iconographie du règne animal de G. Cuvier ”: “Each livraison had ten plates with black or color figures. The text was issued in 1844 [q.v.]. Several species were first made available through illustrations from the plates. The species depicted on the plates are listed in Appendix 12.” Apparently, there is no doubt about the dates of the “ Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle ” ( Evenhuis 1997, Bousquet 2016). For now, no one knows the true and precise dates of the text of the “ Iconographie ”. There is no doubt that parts of this work were published in 1844 (or more) because Guérin-Méneville mentioned that date more than once, in the course of the work. However, if we accept that the genus and species were published in the “ Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle ”, then the author of both, Aprosopus and A. buquetii , would be d’Orbigny.

On the same page of the “ Iconographie ” where Guérin-Méneville described Aprosopus and A. buquetii , he wrote: “Notre genre Centrura (Mag. Zool. et Voy. de Delessert, etc.) vient se placer ici…” It has been accepted that the description of Centrura is by Guérin-Méneville (1843) (in Souvenirs d’un Voyage dans l’Inde exécuté de 1834 à 1839 par M. Adolphe Delessert). This may suggest that Guérin-Méneville was written in the “ Iconographie ” about a genus that would be described by him in “ Souvenirs ”, or that the text in the “ Iconographie ” is really from 1843 (after “ Souvenirs. ” According to Bousquet (2016), the part of the “ Souvenirs ” where Centrura was described was published in 1843, and apparently there is no doubt about this date. Furthermore, Guérin-Méneville also reported the “ Magazin de Zoologie ” to Centrura . However, we could not find any citation of this genus in this magazine. Guérin-Méneville is more likely to have only mentioned a genus that had not yet been formally described.

However, according to Guérin-Méneville (1844) (translated): “It is easy to find in the course of this text, the date of the works I cited there, that of the observations I recorded, and it will be easy for scrupulous zoologists to recognize with certainty the date of those observations, especially those of the descriptions of genera and species that I included. Thus, for example, we can see that all the descriptions of insects inserted since page 116 are after 1842, since I quote, at the beginning of this page, the year 1842 of the “Revue Zoologique par la Société Cuvierienne.” This makes it clear that the text is not all from 1844, and that the pages 1–115 were, at most, published in 1842. But, following this reasoning, the pages from 208 would have been published in 1843 because Guérin- Méneville mentioned this year on that page; likewise, the pages from 286 onwards would have been published in 1844 because Guérin-Méneville mentioned this year on that page. If it is correct, then Aprosopus and A. buquetii appeared in 1843 (page 248) or, at least, between 1843 and 1844. According to Cowan (1971): ““On 3 October 1842 Guérin-Méneville submitted a work to go with the [plates] which he published in 1828[sic]–1837, and for which it will serve as a text.” ( C. r. hebd . Séanc. Acad. Sci. Paris 15: 684, appointing a committee to report on it.) The report strongly recommended its publication (ibid.: 937–940), provided that it was first indexed. The original remained on permanent open loan to the Academy while finishing touches were made to the typeset sheets through 1843, and while indexing was completed, until 1844 when the result, with “ 1829–1844 ” covering title-pages, finally appeared. Thus, Academicians undoubtedly had access to the whole text from October 1842. It is also possible that the text for the “early” Classes, and up to page 112 or even 144 of Insectes, may have been “circulated” from 1838 onwards. However, it is quite certain that valid publication under the International Code of Nomenclature did not take place until August or September 1844.” We do not agree with this reasoning. That is because there is clear evidence to refute this. For example, according to Guérin-Méneville (1844) (translated): “Circumstances beyond my control, and the countless inquiries that I had to make to bring my explanatory text, and especially the one that deals with articulated animals, up to date with science, caused the delay that I had to bring to the publication of this volume, nearly a third of which has been printed from the end of 1838.”

If the descriptions of Aprosopus and A. buquetii in the “ Iconographie ” were published in 1843 or 1844, and if there is no doubt about the dates of the “ Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle ” (1842), how would be possible to explain that d’Orbigny had formally mentioned the text in the “ Iconographie ”? This does not make sense to us, unless d’Orbigny had access to the work before the publication of this part of “ Iconographie ”. If this is true, then the authorship is by D’Orbigny in 1842. Using all information at our disposal, we think that the only possibility is to attribute the authorship of Aprosopus and Aprosopus buquetii to d’Orbigny (1842).

It is important to note that, if we are really right, all taxa described in the “ Iconographie ”, based only in the text (without a previous illustration), will need to be checked, not only regarding the date, but also regarding the authorship.