identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
0C6F4653FFE98331FF4AFA20FC32FA2F.text	0C6F4653FFE98331FF4AFA20FC32FA2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Trirachys salomeae (Jacquot 2019) Vitali 2022	<div><p>Trirachys salomeae (Jacquot, 2019) n. comb.</p><p>Aeolesthes salomeae Jacquot, 2019</p><p>Jacquot (2019) described this new species from Borneo comparing it to  Aeolesthes aurifaber (White, 1853) and noticing some differences in antennal length and punctures of the ventral side of the head.</p><p>Actually,  A. salomeae does not have spines at the apex of the meso and metafemora (a peculiar character of  Aeolesthes) but instead two short teeth, as in the genus  Trirachys Hope 1841 . Moreover, the pronotum is transverse and tapered anteriorly, while it is elongated and uniformly convex in all  Aeolesthes species, and the body size (49.5 mm) is larger than that of  A. aurifaber (29-41 mm).</p><p>These characters, especially those of the femoral apices support the transference of  A. salomeae to the genus  Trirachys .</p><p>This species might even be the female of  Trirachys achilles (Thomson 1865), a rare species described from Borneo; however, the author has not examined female specimens of this species to support this hypothesis.</p><p>Parolesthes Vitali, Gouverneur &amp; Chemin, 2017</p><p>(Fig. 1)</p><p>After the revision of  Trirachys and closely related genera (Vitali et al., 2017a), Jacquot (2020) published a study on the genus  Parolesthes, questioning its taxonomical validity.</p><p>According to this author, the type-species of  Parolesthes ( Aeolesthes laosensis Gressitt &amp; Rondon, 1970) was confused with an undescribed species from Vietnam that Vitali et al. mentioned among the examined materials. This confusion led Jacquot to erroneously modify the type-species; as  Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020 .</p><p>In fact, according to the ICZN Art. 70.3, “If an author discovers that a type-species was misidentified [omissis], the author may select, and thereby fix as type species, the species that will, in his or her judgment, best serve stability and universality, either (70.3.1.) the nominal species previously cited as type-species,</p><p>Reviewer s:</p><p>Larry G. Bezark (USA) - ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/ 25C35904-2035-4416-9534-8641C1551196 - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0165-552X</p><p>Xavier Gouverneur (France) - ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/ 5CDAA96F-77B8-40D8-90E1-A1AABFF9ECBD - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8958-2785</p><p>or (70.3.2.) the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification. If the latter choice is made, the author must refer to this Article and cite together both the name previously cited as type species and the name of the species selected.” Actually, Vitali et al. published a photo (Fig. 1) of the true holotype of  A. laosensis (as Jacquot himself stated) and did not represent any misidentified species.</p><p>However, the original diagnosis of  Parolesthes quoted “Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. Head with an interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space. Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally; antennae ectoapically toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes. Prothorax mutic or with a minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc delimiting a squared field; prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate; procoxae rounded. Elytra parallel-sided in both sexes, toothed at apex; elytral pubescence giving changing pattern. Femoral apex mutic.” According to Jacquot, the “interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space” does not belong to  A. laosensis but to an undescribed species:  Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020 . Nonetheless, failed to discuss several other diagnostic characters that do not correspond to such species: “scape wrinkled dorsally” (smooth in all females described by Jacquot), “elytra parallel-sided in both sexes” (tapered posteriorly in all males described by Jacquot) and “toothed at apex” (not toothed in  P. vietnamica and  P. macroculis).</p><p>Actually, the claim that Vitali et al. confused  A. laosensis with other still undescribed species is a speculation based on the fact that these authors described the interantennal carina of  Parolesthes as bifurcate. However, this speculation arose from an erroneous interpretation of the original description by Gressitt &amp; Rondon (“a less prominent ridge between antennal insertion where there is a stronger secondary ridge at each side”) and of the photo of the type (the same examined by Jacquot). Correspondingly, several characters of  Parolesthes do not fit  P. vietnamita but do agree with  A. laosensis .</p><p>According to the ICZN, “the author may fix as type-species the species [omissis] actually involved in the misidentification.” Additionally, Vitali et al. only showed the type of  A. laosensis, while the quoted specimens from Mt. Bato, Tam Dao, Vietnam and Yunnan, China were neither represented nor examined by Jacquot. Consequently, Jacquot’s claim that such specimens did not belong to  A. laosensis but to  P.vietnamita is another speculation.</p><p>This change of type-species may have been considered as valid only if Jacquot had examined such specimens from Vietnam and China and had used them as types of  P. vietnamita or, at least, mentioned them among the examined materials. Nevertheless, this did not occur and none of the three new species described by Jacquot comes from one of these Vietnamese localities or from China. Consequently, since Jacquot did not actually verify whether the supposed misidentified specimens belonged to  P. vietnamita, the Art. 70.3.2 could not be applied.</p><p>In case of doubt, Jacquot should have instead applied Art. 70.3.1: “the author may fix as type species the nominal species previously cited as type species”, i.e.  Aeolesthes laosensis, which “best serves stability and universality.”</p><p>In reality, this case is not applicable to ICZN Art. 70.3. either, since it is not about a misidentification of type-species (which was correctly shown and nearly exactly described) but about a case of multiple / sibling species, some of which were still undescribed. This case has occurred frequently in the past, but an old combination of names was never used to identify new species, still unknown at that moment.</p><p>Moreover, there are no articles of the Code supporting that partially incorrect descriptions affect the validity of a taxon. Otherwise, the original description of  A. laosensis might be questioned as well, since it refers to a female, while the holotype is a male. In conclusion, Jacquot’s taxonomic action is invalid.</p><p>Aeolesthes laosensis is restored as type-species of  Parolesthes, whose diagnosis has to be modified as follows:</p><p>Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. Head with an interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space. Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally; antennae ectoapically toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes. Prothorax mutic or with a minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc delimiting a squared area; prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate; procoxae rounded. Elytra parallel-sided in both sexes, toothed at apex; elytral pubescence giving changing pattern. Femoral apex mutic.</p><p>Considering the new elements provided by Jacquot, the author agrees that  A. laosensis shows many characters of  Trirachys, including the wrinkled scape and the pronotal smooth area (which Jacquot erroneously considered peculiar to  A. laosensis), differing from it only in the antennae without apical spines.</p><p>However, Vitali et al. (2017b) transferred or described in  Trirachys some other species having this peculiarity:  T. curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988),  T. trapezoidalis Vitali, Gouverneur &amp; Chemin, 2017 and  T. pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur &amp; Chemin, 2017 .</p><p>In my opinion,  Parolesthes should be conserved as a subgenus of  Trirachys, which results in new combinations for the following species:</p><p>Trirachys (Parolesthes) laosensis (Gressitt &amp; Rondon, 1970) n. comb. Trirachys (Parolesthes) curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988) n. comb. Trirachys (Parolesthes) trapezoidalis Vitali, Gouverneur &amp; Chemin, 2017 n. comb.</p><p>Trirachys (Parolesthes) pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur &amp; Chemin, 2017 n. comb.</p><p>Remark. – Vitali et al. (2017a) already considered  Aeolesthes curticornis as a member of  Parolesthes; another reason to consider  A. laosensis as the type-species for  Parolesthes .</p><p>Consequently, the genus  Parolesthes sensu Jacquot needs to be described.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0C6F4653FFE98331FF4AFA20FC32FA2F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vitali, Francesco	Vitali, Francesco (2022): Taxonomic notes onsomeAsianCerambycini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Faunitaxys 10 (46): 1-4, DOI: 10.57800/faunitaxys-10(46), URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00225-w
0C6F4653FFEE8331FBF9FA38FADFF7D8.text	0C6F4653FFEE8331FBF9FA38FADFF7D8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Furcaeolesthes Vitali 2022	<div><p>Furcaeolesthes n. gen.</p><p>ZooBank:http://zoobank.org/ ECFAFC2A-CDB5-4F31-B0F9-1502B0B22077</p><p>=  Parolesthes partim.</p><p>Type-species:  Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020 (Fig. 2)</p><p>Diagnosis. – Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. – Head with an interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space. – Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally in males, smooth in females. – Antennae ectoapically toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes. – Prothorax mutic or with a minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc delimiting a squared area. – Prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate. – Procoxae rounded. –  Elytra tapered posteriorly in males, parallel-sided in females, sometimes toothed at apex. – Elytral pubescence giving changing pattern. – Femoral apex mutic.</p><p>Furcaeolesthes vietnamita (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb. Furcaeolesthes magdalenae (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb. Furcaeolesthes macroculis (Jacquot, 2020) n. comb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0C6F4653FFEE8331FBF9FA38FADFF7D8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vitali, Francesco	Vitali, Francesco (2022): Taxonomic notes onsomeAsianCerambycini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Faunitaxys 10 (46): 1-4, DOI: 10.57800/faunitaxys-10(46), URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00225-w
0C6F4653FFEF8333FF95FACDFDEEFE09.text	0C6F4653FFEF8333FF95FACDFDEEFE09.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neocerambyx katarinae subsp. guangxiensis (Li, Lu & Chen 2020) Li, Lu & Chen 2020	<div><p>Neocerambyx katarinae guangxiensis Li, Lu &amp; Chen, 2020 n. status.</p><p>(Fig. 3)</p><p>Li et al. (2020) described  Neocerambyx guangxiensis from China comparing it with the Laotian  N. katarinae Holzschuh, 2009 (Fig. 4). The paratypes of this species (Fig. 3) came from Guangdong (Nanling Reserve) even if this locality was erroneously quoted as “ Guangxi.” Differential characters separating is from  N. katarinae were listed as shorter and more inflated antennomere III in males, the more transverse wrinkles of the pronotum, the different tergite VIII and in the longer antennae of females.</p><p>Holzschuh (2021) proposed that  N. guangxiensis was synonym of  N. katarinae and claimed that antennomere III is normally more inflated in small males of  N. katarinae, the pronotum shows a variable sculpture and the female antennae vary enormously.</p><p>Holzschuh based the synonymy on the examination of 20 specimens of  N. katarinae but only one female coming from Guangxi , and no males from Guangxi nor specimens from Guangdong.</p><p>Additionally, Holzschuh’s (2009) original description did not indicate this great variability but only relative characters (a bit shorter, a bit stronger, a bit longer, etc.) separating it from  Neocerambyx grandis Gahan, 1891 . Among the differential characters, Holzschuh also indicated the absence of the smooth area on the pronotal disc, which is actually absent in  N. grandis as well (cf. Gahan, 1906: 125-126, fig. 48; Miroshnikov, 2018: fig. 25).</p><p>Agreeing that the pronotal sculpture is a poor character to differentiate  N. guangxiensis from  N. katarinae (as it is for differentiating  N. katarinae from  N. grandis), no sufficient elements (two known specimens) allow understanding whether the antennal length of females is a constant character.</p><p>Nonetheless, the observation regarding antennomere III is completely unfounded. In fact, Holzschuh overlooked the fact that the paratype of  N. guangxiensis (Li et al., 2020: fig. 1d) is not at all a small specimen, but 72 mm long, and shows the same character as the small holotype (Li et al., 2020: fig. 1a). This paratype (Fig. 3) was also compared with a relatively smaller (67 mm)  N. katarinae (Fig. 4), which shows a less inflated antennomere III (Li et al., 2020: fig. 3b); thus, exactly the opposite of Holzschuh’s observation. Therefore, this character is in reality independent from body size.</p><p>Moreover, this paratype shows shorter antennae in comparison with this smaller specimen of  N. katarinae (antennomere VIII reaches the visible urite III in  N. guangxiensis, while it reaches urite IV in  N. katarinae). This contrasts with the well-known fact that there are allometric relationships between antennal length and elytra length in male cerambycids, i.e., larger conspecific specimens should show comparatively longer antennae (Rossi de Gasperis et al., 2018).</p><p>Another specimen from Guangxi (Wuming Co. Liangiang, coll. S. Trócoli, 64 mm long) confirms the same characters regarding length and size of antennomere III  .</p><p>Finally, Holzschuh completely ignored the different shape of tergite VIII: sinuate and strongly bilobed at the apex in  N. guangxiensis vs. nearly evenly rounded in  N. katarinae .</p><p>The type localities are separated by 570–1030 km and  N. katarinae is also widespread in northeast India, Vietnam and even in Guangxi (Miroshnikov, 2018). This last record might also be referred to specimens of  N. guangxiensis, which was still undescribed at that time, as well as the male depicted in Hua et al. (2009: pl. 43, fig. 506), originally identified as “  N. grandis ” or “  N. katarinae ” (Miroshnikov, 2018) . Nonetheless, Li et al. (2020) also depicted  N. katarinae from Guangxi.</p><p>In conclusion,  N. guangxiensis is a taxon smaller than  N. katarinae (53.8–72 vs. 68–76 mm), with more inflated antennomere III (independently from body size), shorter antennae (comparing specimens of the same body size), different shape of tergite VIII and north-eastern distribution (Guangxi, Guangdong). Both taxa are present in Guangxi (even though the exact local distribution is unknown) but not in other provinces.</p><p>In my opinion, there are not sufficient elements to prove neither that  N. guangxiensis is synonym of  N. katarinae nor that it is a well differentiated species, as for example  N. grandis is. Thus, waiting for further specimens, the provided elements suggest considering  N. guangxiensis a north-eastern subspecies of  N. katarinae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0C6F4653FFEF8333FF95FACDFDEEFE09	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vitali, Francesco	Vitali, Francesco (2022): Taxonomic notes onsomeAsianCerambycini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Faunitaxys 10 (46): 1-4, DOI: 10.57800/faunitaxys-10(46), URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00225-w
