taxonID	type	description	language	source
03D8C979B24DFFDBFF023CF6FD70F56B.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 l) divided Poeciloxestia into two subgenera and reported: “ In the first group [Poeciloxestia (Poeciloxestia) Lane, 1965: 269], longitudinal dark band on suture of elytra distinctly irregularly bordered, the band clearly expanded both in basal and apical parts, and narrowed in the middle part, or clearly expanded only in basal or apical parts; ” and “ In the second group, longitudinal dark band on suture of elytra more or less regularly bordered. ” It’s really very difficult to say what we truly think about this subgenus; however it is completely absurd and without any scientific basis. Without any doubt, the shape of the dark area on the elytra is nothing more than a specific feature and could never be used as a generic feature. Fragoso (1978) made a serious and detailed study of Poeciloxestia and observed nothing that would allow it to be separated into subgenera. Furthermore, according to Fragoso (1978), “ The dark dorso-elytral vitta, which shows considerable intraspecific variation, defies definition, and it is extremely difficult to ascertain which pattern is ancestral. ” He also presented a hypothetical phylogenetic tree based on elytral length, prosternal shape, and pronotal sculpturing, not attributing any special value to the elytral dark macula. Therefore, we are synonymizing Poeciloxestia (Regularilinea) with Poeciloxestia.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24DFFDAFF023BA7FC30F1F1.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 i) divided Megacyllene into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Megacyllene (Megacyllene) Casey, 1912: 348, 351], the pronotum usually differing in being solidly and densely clothed with short pubescence, never transversally banded with light hairs except for a band only on posterior margin of pronotum; at least a post median, transverse band of light hairs always absent; antennae usually with antennomeres three to six or seven truly spinose or subspinulose externally at apex; ” and “ In second group, the pronotum always transversally banded with light hairs, bands usually complete or rarely interrupted on disc; at least a post median, transverse band of light hairs always present; antennomeres not spinose at apex, though sometimes very acutely angulate or subspinulose. ” Martins (2011) defined Megacyllene as follows (translated): “ Central area of frons elevated, or with a central elevation, always featuring a deep groove (frontal suture) on middle. Inner side of pedicel with clustered, sharp setae resembling a spine. Antennomeres III and IV subequal in length. Apical antennomeres with a projection on outer side, especially in females. Pronotum with rounded sides or notched at sides of base — when notched, the basal constriction is more pronounced than the apical one, and there is a lateral projection near the base. Elytra with a longitudinal carina. Metafemora generally with two apical spicules of equal length. Mesoventrite elevated toward mesoventral process. Prosternal process flat, posteriorly truncate and not overlapping mesoventral process. ” The pubescent pattern cannot be considered a generic feature, as it represents only a specific trait. As for the “ spine ” on the outer apex of some antennomeres, it is highly variable in Megacyllene, with a broad range of intermediate forms between the two extremes. Consequently, it cannot be used to divide the genus into subgenera. Therefore, we are synonymizing Megacyllene (Lineicollis) with Megacyllene.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24CFFDAFF023DEAFC3BF6F7.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 b) divided Beraba into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Beraba (Beraba) Martins, 1997: 67], pronotum always with two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum of same color as remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum uniformly colored; ” and “ In second group, pronotum always with two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum black contrasting in color from remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum not uniformly colored. ” This implies that the author divided the genus solely based on the color of the pronotal tubercles. Botero & Monné (2018) included three species of Beraba in his cladistic analysis of Eburiini: B. moema Martins, 1997; B. cheilaria (Martins, 1967); and B. erosa (Martins, 1981). The former was included by Özdikmen (2025 b) in Beraba (Martinsiella). According to Botero & Monné (2018): “ Finally, the present analysis was not able to recover the monophyly of the genera Beraba, Eburella, Eburia and Eburodacrys. Further investigations with expanded taxonomic sampling, especially of speciose genera such as Beraba, Eburia and Eburodacrys (18, 86 and 89 species, respectively), and different kinds of data (e. g. molecular data) are needed to gain a better understanding of questions regarding the relationships within the genera of Eburiini and propose any taxonomic change. ” Although these authors suspect that Beraba is not monophyletic, it is evident that the color of the pronotal tubercles could never be used — nor should it ever be used — to divide the genus, whether into genera or subgenera. This is a highly variable feature among species within the same genus of Eburiini and, in some cases, can even vary within a single species. Consequently, we are synonymizing Beraba (Martinsiella) with Beraba.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24CFFDAFF023C67FE6EF37D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. It is not very clear to us what he meant by that statement: “ It seems clear that the general form of pronotum and with or without two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles on pronotum can be regarded as important differential diagnostic characteristics to the genera in the tribe Eburiini, ignoring the other differential diagnostic characteristics of the genera. ” If “ ignoring the other differential diagnostic characteristics of the genera ” was meant to suggest that all other features should be disregarded in favor of those he pointed out, and then the only possible conclusion would be that this author considers himself above all the researchers who have studied this tribe over the past 150 years.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24CFFDDFF023963FF37F18D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 b) divided Eburella into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Eburella (Eburella) Monné & Martins, 1973: 152], pronotum always without two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles, and so pronotum almost uniformly colored; ” and “ In second group, pronotum always with two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum black contrasting in color from remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum not uniformly colored. ” As in Beraba, the author divided the genus solely based on the color of the pronotal tubercles. Regarding the uselessness of this feature, see “ remarks ” in Beraba. We are synonymizing Eburella (Galileoella) with Eburella, a genus that appears to be highly homogenous in its features.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24BFFDDFF023FBAFAE5F5F5.taxon	discussion	Remarks. According to Özdikmen (2025 b): “ The genus Eburia can be regarded as rather stable. ” This statement, without any doubt, reveals how little the author knows about Eburiini and, in this case, Eburia. This genus can be considered one of the least stable within Eburiini, as it includes species with features that are extremely aberrant compared to the type species (see also the comments by Botero & Monné (2018) in the remarks section under Beraba). Still according to Özdikmen (2025 b): “ In first group [Eburia (Eburia) Lacordaire, 1830: 177], pronotum with two distinct, discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum black contrasting in color from remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum not uniformly colored; ” and “ In second group, pronotum with two distinct, discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles, then these tubercles of pronotum of same color as ground color of pronotum; or sometimes with only indistinct (weakly), discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles, or almost without pronotal tubercles, and so pronotum uniformly colored. ” Refuting this feature using by Özdikmen (2025 b), see remarks in Beraba. We are provisionally synonymizing Eburia (Westindiesica) with Eburia. We are considering this ‘ provisional’ because the genus will be revised with the publication of an upcoming study currently in progress and authored by two of the authors of the present work. This will not change the synonym status of Eburia (Westindiesica) — only the genus of which it is effectively a synonym, subject to any future redesignation. In the same work, Özdikmen (2025 b) reported: “ Therefore, I think that new subgenus is needed for the group 2. Accordingly, I propose here a new subgenus, Eburia (Martiniqueca) subgen. nov. with the type species Eburia inexpectata Touroult, 2012 for the second group. ” However, he formally named the second group as Eburia (Westindiesica) and designated Eburia octomaculata Chevrolat, 1862 as the type species, including Eburia inexpectata in it. Consequently, this was an error, and Eburia (Martiniqueca) is a synonym of Eburia (Westindiesica), with both being synonyms of Eburia. This is yet another error that underscores the author’s lack of scientific rigor.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24BFFDCFF023862FB5EF091.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 b) divided Eburodacrys into three subgenera and reported on two of them: “ In first group [Eburodacrys (Eburodacrys) White, 1853: 93], pronotum always with two distinct, discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum of same color as remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum uniformly colored; ” and “ In second group, pronotum always with two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum black contrasting in color from remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum not uniformly colored. ” Refuting these statements, see remarks in Beraba. Although Botero & Monné (2018) found Eburodacrys to be non-monophyletic, it is evident that the color of the pronotal tubercles cannot, under any circumstances, eventually justify the division of the genus into separate genera and / or subgenera. Therefore, we are synonymizing Eburodacrys (Atrotuberculocollis) with Eburodacrys.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24AFFDCFF023F46FB15F410.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 b) also revalidated Oncoptera as a subgenus of Eburodacrys: “ Also, I propose here as another subgenus, Eburodacrys (Oncoptera) Lacordaire, 1869 [sic, 1868] rest. nov. with the type species Oncoptera vidua Lacordaire, 1869 [sic, 1868] from Uruguay (Montevideo) by original designation and monotypy; ” and “ Despite of all, the type species Oncoptera vidua Lacordaire, 1869 on which this subgenus is established does not resemble any of the species of Eburodacrys White, 1853 known so far an exception of Eburodacrys seabrai Zajciw, 1958 in terms of design of upperside of the body. Moreover, in my opinion, the most important differential diagnostic characteristic of this species and therefore the subgenus is to be very swollen of tarsal segments I and II at least in males. It is unique in this respect. ” However, this statement is incorrect as there are other species currently included in Eburodacrys with these features as, for example, E. pumila Monné & Martins, 1992. According to Monné & Martins (1992) (translated): “ Oncoptera is distinguished from Eburodacrys solely by the swelling of the first two tarsomeres in males. The features cited by Lacordaire (1869) [sic, 1868] to distinguish Oncoptera from other genera of Eburiini — considering the numerous species currently included in Eburodacrys — are limited to extreme variations in coloration, arrangement and size of elytral markings, and tarsal modifications. In our opinion, these characters do not justify the retention of Oncoptera as a separate genus. ” Therefore, in agreement with Monné & Martins (1992), we conclude that this feature should not be used to divide the genus. Consequently, we synonymize Eburodacrys (Oncoptera) with Eburodacrys. We believe that proposing subgenera requires a comprehensive revision of the genus. It is important to note that the cladistic analysis by Botero & Monné (2018) included a very limited number of Eburodacrys species. Therefore, it is also possible that the inclusion of a much larger number of species could result in a significantly different arrangement in the resulting tree.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24AFFDCFF023AC5FB59F739.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 b) divided Erosida into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Erosida (Erosida) J. Thomson, 1861: 242], pronotum always with two distinct, discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum of same color as remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum uniformly colored; ” and “ In second group, pronotum always with two discrete, medio-laterally, antero-discal tubercles; these tubercles of pronotum black contrasting in color from remainder of pronotum, and so pronotum not uniformly colored. ” For a rebuttal of these statements, see the remarks under Beraba. According to Martins (1999) (translated): “ The specimens that I assign to this species (elytral color pattern, fig. 101) do not have the curved basal eburneous macula as in Blanchard’s illustration, which I reproduce in figure 105. These specimens also have more brownish pronotal tubercles, which are likewise inconsistent with BLANCHARD’s (1843) figure. ” However, even more important is that the type species of Erosida (Plusformosa) — Eburia formosa Blanchard, 1847 — was described based on syntypes, which may or may not belong to the same species. Therefore, until a comprehensive revision of Erosida is done, with designation of a lectotype for E. formosa, it is absurd to create a subgenus with this species as its type species. It should be noted that Blanchard (1847) did not describe the color of the pronotal tubercles, which may suggest they are not black. We are synonymizing Erosida (Plusformosa) with Erosida.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B24AFFDFFF0239F7FB3EF621.taxon	discussion	Remarks. According to Santos-Silva et al. (2023): “ These issues [elytral shape; eye divided or not; size of lower eye lobes; size of ommatidia; length of the area between eye lobes, etc.] make it difficult to separate species of Proeme from those of Temnopis (group I). Therefore, the inclusion of Proeme (at least some species) in Oemina or Methioidina would be questionable. Furthermore, Proeme includes species with elytra parallel-sided (e. g. P. bucki, Figures 43 – 48) or distinctly expanded towards the posterior area (e. g. Proeme latipennis (Lane, 1973 )). Therefore, Proeme is composed of more than one genus. A full revision of Proeme, Temnopis, and some other genera will be necessary to be sure about the correct allocation of their species, and the actual features that truly set them apart. ” Without any revision, Özdikmen (2025 c), other than examining photographs of specimens on Bezark (2025), divided Proeme into P. (Proeme) and P. (Latipenna). According to him, in a paper full of grammatical problems, and orthographic errors, nonsensical sentences, or sentences that do not belong to the work in question (e. g. “ Consequently, a total of 10 species of the genus Gnatholea can be presented as below ”): “ However, it is clear that the genus is still polyphyletic, and there are two distinctly different groups within this genus, and in this regard, the genus needs still revision. A few stable and distinct differential diagnostic characters easily distinguish these two groups, ignoring other common distinguishing characters of the genus; ” “ In first group [Proeme (Proeme) Martins, 1978: 118], elytra elongated, parallel laterally along their entire length, or sometimes elytra elongated, parallel laterally at most part, slightly expanded only apically (Proeme bella, Proeme plagiata), lateral margins of elytra do not see in dorsal view of these parts; elytral apex slightly acuminate (Figs. 1, 2). In second group, elytra not parallel laterally after the basal third because of clearly widened after the basal third, so clearly expanded laterally along their apical half, lateral margins of elytra can be see in dorsal view of these parts; elytral apex unarmed (Figs. 3, 4). This differential diagnostic characteristic does not resemble any of Nearctic and Neotropical species of the genera of Oemini tribe known so far. This group is unique in this respect. Therefore, I think that new subgenus is needed for the group 2. ” The following species were included in Proeme (Proeme): P. bella Martins, 1978; P. bucki (Melzer, 1931); P. cyanescens (Aurivillius, 1910); P. plagiata (Buquet, 1860); P. rufoscapus (Aurivillius, 1910), and P. seabrai Martins, 1978. In Proeme (Latipenna) were included: P. asimoni Touroult, Dalens & Tavakilian, 2010; P. latipennis (Lane, 1973); and P. lyciformis Martins, 1978. The only feature used to separate the genus into two subgenera may or may not allow the division of the genus into two subgenera. However, this may also mean that some species belong to other genera within Oemini. Nevertheless, the most incomprehensible part is that not even the feature indicated by him was correctly followed. This is because, of the species he kept in Proeme (Proeme), only some actually have truly parallel-sided elytra. Furthermore, comparing the elytral shape in P. latipennis and P. bella, it is evident that they have very similar elytra, which somewhat link the two extremes of elytral shape: subparallel-sided and widened from near base. Therefore, the only viable option is to treat Proeme (Latipenna) as a synonym of Proeme, especially because the type species, Temnopis latipennis Lane, 1973, has the elytra as in Proeme bella. Regarding the etymology of the genus (“ It is a compound name derived from the words “ latus (large, wide, expanded) and pennus (elytra) ”), it should be noted that “ penna ” actually the feminine form of “ pennus, ” which is an adjective meaning “ sharp ” or “ pointed, ” or a feminine noun meaning “ wing ” — and not elytron.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B249FFDEFF0238DFFCF4F0D9.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 m) divided Tilloclytus into two subgenera and reported: “ In the first group [Tilloclytus (Tilloclytus) Bates, 1885: 303], elytra designed with more than one transverse or obliquely transverse, complete or interrupted, light colored bands; ” and “ In the second group, elytra designed as distinctly divided into two parts with a light colored, complete or interrupted (in the suture), transverse band in basal half (before of the middle of elytra) or in the middle of elytra. ” The division proposed by Özdikmen (2025 m) is based exclusively on specific features and lacks scientific foundation, particularly as morphological differences or similarities were entirely disregarded. Therefore, we are synonymizing Tilloclytus (Bipartitopennus) with Tilloclytus.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B248FFDEFF023F9FFB68F4FE.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 m) divided Purpuricenus into two subgenera and reported: “ Humeral calli always covered with distinctly light coloration, this light coloration sometimes as a continuation of a light colored large basal area of elytra (species group A), or sometimes humeral calli covered with light coloration completely as a continuation of a light ground color of elytra even if the basal part of elytra more or less covered with dark coloration from scutellum to near humerus (species group B), or sometimes humeral calli covered with light coloration in only one of the sexes, while they covered with dark coloration in the other sex (species group C) in the first group [Purpuricenus (Purpuricenus) Dejean, 1821: 105]; ” and “ Humeral calli always covered with distinctly dark coloration completely in both sexes as a continuation of a dark colored large or significantly large basal area of elytra (species group A), or sometimes elytra with a narrow dark colored basal line extends from scutellum to humerus in both sexes, this basal line usually more obvious in females than males (species group B) in second group. ” According to Bryan Eya (personal communication): “ There indeed are differences between the Palearctic and Nearctic Purpuricenus; however, this author’s proposal for subgenera and grouping is based on photographs and humeral coloration of the elytra only. ” We agree with these statements. Therefore, since no morphological feature other than the color pattern — a specific rather than a generic feature — supports the establishment of a subgenus, the only viable option is to consider Purpuricenus (Basiatropansexus) as a junior synonym of Purpuricenus, as recently established by Lazarev (2025). Whether Purpuricenus includes more than one genus or subgenus remains an open question. However, morphological and / or molecular features will be necessary to assess this.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B248FFDEFF023B84FDE8F784.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 h) divided Taeniotes into two subgenera and reported: “ In the first group [Taeniotes (Taeniotes) Audinet-Serville, 1835: 90], elytra never with a distinct sutural band of light colored pubescence along the suture; at most elytra with sparse or abundant, small and rounded pubescent spots near the suture but never forming a band; ” and “ In the second group, elytra with a distinct sutural band of light colored pubescence along the suture, this band usually complete, or rarely at least on basal and apical quarter (interrupted in the middle part); also sutural band combined with sparse or abundant, small and rounded pubescent spots in its entire length. ” It is truly very difficult to put into words what we think about this type of taxonomic group or grouping, which lacks any scientific basis and are founded solely on specific differences. Therefore, we are synonymizing Taeniotes (Suturalineopennis) with Taeniotes.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B247FFD1FF023E9BFAFCF5F0.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 j) divided Oncideres into four subgenera and reported: “ It is interesting that the members of this species-rich genus were not evaluated according to elytral design so far. ” In our view, Özdikmen’s (2025 j) generic concept is entirely artificial, relying merely on superficial morphological features. This pattern is consistent across the subgenera he established or revalidated in the studies referenced in the present work. Still according to Özdikmen (2025 j) on Oncideres: “ In first group [Oncideres (Oncideres) Lacordaire, 1830: 183], antennae without fringes of dense, long black hairs on the inner sides of first five antennomeres (especially 1 st, 3 rd and 4 th antennomeres); elytra always with prominent, few or many, more or less raised tubercles or granules only at the base, the remaining parts of elytra, ignoring the remaining elytral design, without raised tubercles, granules or dots; ” “ In second group, antennae without fringes of dense, long black hairs on the inner sides of first five antennomeres (especially 1 st, 3 rd and 4 th antennomeres); elytra with few or many, prominent tubercles or granules especially at the base, and few or many, more or less irregularly distributed, suferficial dots in the remaining parts of elytra (almost completely or at least to apical half); and therefore, ignoring the remaining elytral design, the basal decoration with tubercles, granules or dots always clearly larger than decoration of the remaining parts of elytra; ” “ In third group, antennae without fringes of dense, long black hairs on the inner sides of first five antennomeres (especially 1 st, 3 rd and 4 th antennomeres); elytra without prominently raised tubercles anywhere; elytra with few or many, small granules or dots especially at the base, and few or many, more or less irregularly distributed, suferficial dots in the remaining parts (almost completely or at least to apical half); therefore, ignoring the remaining elytral design, the basal decoration with granules or dots slightly larger or not (almost same) than the decoration of the remaining parts of elytra; ” and “ In fourth group, antennae with fringes of dense, long black hairs on the inner sides of first five antennomeres (especially 1 st, 3 rd and 4 th antennomeres); elytra without prominently raised tubercles anywhere; elytra usually completely with many, more or less irregularly distributed, suferficial [sic, superficial] dots; therefore, ignoring the remaining elytral design, the basal decoration with granules or dots almost same with the decoration of the remaining parts of elytra. ” Again, the division of Oncideres into subgenera has no scientific basis. Souza et al. (2024), based on molecular phylogeny, synonymized Psyllotoxus and Taricanus with Oncideres. We consider the proposal to treat Taricanus and Psyllotoxus as subgenera of Oncideres to be entirely unfounded, especially given the lack of consideration for the reasons behind the original synonymies proposed by earlier authors. Consequently, we reestablish the synonymy between these two genera and Oncideres. Due to the high variability in pubescence patterns, as well as the size and number of elytral tubercles within Oncideres, we are synonymizing Oncideres (Multicinctipenna) with it.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B247FFD0FF023865FEE8F13D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 k) divided Onocephala into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Onocephala (Onocephala) Sturm, 1843: 262], head above (vertex) and pronotum never with broadly longitudinal bands (vittae) of hairs medially; elytra always with a large, more or less rounded or irregularly margined, pale pubescent macula on each elytron placed a little towards the sides just before the middle; elytra never with a narrower sutural band of hairs, and long or short, more or less longitudinal bands of hairs at least laterally; ” and “ In second group, head above (vertex) and pronotum always with broadly longitudinal bands (vittae) of hairs medially; elytra never with a large, more or less rounded or irregularly margined, pale pubescent macula on each elytron placed a little towards the sides just before the middle; elytra always with a narrower sutural band of hairs, and long or short, more or less longitudinal bands of hairs at least laterally. ” Once again, Özdikmen (2025 k) based his justification for the new subgenus solely on the pubescent pattern, a specific rather than a generic feature. Therefore, we are synonymizing Onocephala (Medioclarovitta) with Onocephala.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B246FFD0FF023D83FF39F61B.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 g) divided Emphytoecia into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Emphytoecia (Emphytoecia) Fairmaire & Germain, 1859: 529], posterior margin of pronotum never with a transverse, narrowly white band; elytra always with a longitudinal, narrowly white band at the suture; light colored bands of hairs on pronotum and elytra always longitudinal, never transverse; ” and “ In second group, posterior margin of pronotum always with a transverse, narrowly white band; elytra never with a longitudinal, narrowly white band at the suture; light colored bands of hairs on pronotum and elytra both longitudinal and transverse, at least a narrowly white band in the posterior margin of pronotum and a medial or slightly postmedial white band of hairs on elytra always transverse. ” One more time, the features pointed out by Özdikmen (2025 g) are only specific differences. Furthermore, according to him, the elytral suture in E. (Dimidiatipenna) does not have a longitudinal narrow whitish pubescent band. However, it is present in the type species of the subgenus, Saperda alboliturata Blanchard, 1851 (Elitros … con una muy diminuta línea blanquizea cerca de la sutura [Elytra ... with a very narrow whitish line near the suture]).	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B246FFD0FF023F2AFD18F30F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 k) divided Stethoperma into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Stethoperma (Stethoperma) Lameere, 1884: 93], head above (vertex) and pronotum never with longitudinal bands of hairs medially; elytra never with a sutural band of hairs; ” and “ In second group, head above (vertex) and pronotum always with longitudinal bands of hairs medially; elytra always with a sutural band of hairs, as wide as with the bands of hairs on vertex. ” As with the other subgenera described by Özdikmen (2025 k), using pubescence as a subgeneric feature is unjustified, as it represents a species-level trait rather than a generic one. Consequently, we are synonymizing Stethoperma (Medioclarofascia) with Stethoperma.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B246FFD3FF0238C9FA86F335.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Fragoso & Monné (1984) revised Rhaphiptera, provided a key to the 21 species known at that time, and defined the genus as follows (translated): “ Rhaphiptera is characterized by the absence of granules on the basal third of the elytra (which may or may not present a single sub-basal swelling on each elytron), by moderately thickened femora, by the third antennal segment being longer than the fourth, and by the subapical and apical projections of the prothoracic tibiae. ” According to Özdikmen (2025 d), “ In first group [Rhaphiptera (Rhaphiptera) Audinet-Serville, 1835: 66], apex of elytra more or less bi-spinose, or sometimes obliquely truncate and so the outer apical lobe elongated and prominent but not pointed and spiny (Rhaphiptera alvarengai, Rhaphiptera lavaissierorum); elytra usually with distinct, black basal spots, or rarely reduced or absent; ” and “ In the second group, apex of elytra unarmed, almost rounded or slightly truncate straightly; elytra usually without distinct, black basal spots, if present, then black basal spots usually reduced. ” These definitions by Özdikmen (2025 d) encompass many mistakes. Firstly, it is interesting to note that the centrobasal crest of the elytra, present in some species of the genus (regardless of the shape of the elytral apex), was interpreted as spots (“ elytra usually with distinct, black basal spots, or rarely reduced or absent ”). Among the features that could potentially be used to divide Rhaphiptera (e. g. shape and size of the lateral tubercles of the prothorax; presence or absence of centrobasal crest on elytra, and when present, its shape, size, presence or absence of erect setae, etc.), the shape of the elytral apex would be the last and least reliable. This is because it is extremely variable within species: rounded (broadly or narrowly), truncate, uniformly acuminate, subtruncate with a spine at the outer angle, etc. These various forms of elytral apex link the species of the genus through this feature, clearly demonstrating the futility of using it to divide the genus into two subgenera. Therefore, the only viable option is to treat Rhaphiptera (Sinespinopenna) as a synonym of Rhaphiptera. It is interesting to note that the shape of the elytral apex was not even the first character used to separate the species in the key by Fragoso & Monné (1984). On the etymology of the subgenus, see remarks in Proeme.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B245FFD3FF023DEBFE02F603.taxon	discussion	Remarks. According to Özdikmen (2025 f), Mecas belongs to the tribe Tetraopini. However, it actually belongs to Saperdini because Souza et al. (2020) synonymized Phytoeciini with it. Still according to Özdikmen (2025 f): “ In first group [Mecas (Mecas) LeConte, 1852: 155], the disc of pronotum convex, without any black, glabrous callus or spot medio-laterally; ” and “ In second group, the disc of pronotum convex, always at least with two black, glabrous callus or spots medio-laterally, and with or without an elongate or longitudinal, linear median callus toward the base. ” We agree that Mecas appears to include at least two genera (not subgenera), especially by the inclusion of M. marmorata Gahan, 1892, which has slender body. Chemsak & Linsley (1973) also suggested the same opinion: “ The elongate body, apically produced elytra, and cylindrical pronotum appear sufficient to exclude this species from Mecas. ” However, we do not agree with the criteria proposed by Özdikmen (2025 f) for dividing Mecas into two subgenera, as they are based merely on specific features (with or without glabrous spots on the pronotum; with or without slightly elevated glabrous gibbosities on the pronotum). Therefore, we are synonymizing Mecas (Callusocollis) with Mecas.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
03D8C979B245FFD2FF0238FFFA91F161.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Özdikmen (2025 e) divided Phaea into two subgenera and reported: “ In first group [Phaea (Phaea) Newman, 1840: 13], elytra sublinear, more or less obviously expanded in apical quarter, and so the widest part of elytra is the apical part; ” and “ In second group, elytra angustissimus, almost linear, not or slightly expanded in apical quarter, and so the width between humeri or between margins of apical parts are almost equal each other. ” The division proposed by Özdikmen (2025 e) lacks a sound taxonomic basis and cannot be supported. In addition to the elytral shape being highly variable among Phaea species, with intermediate forms between the extremes, more important features, such as the presence or absence of the pronotal umbone, were disregarded. But even the umbone does not provide a reliable basis for dividing the genus, as intermediate forms are also present in the genus. Therefore, as there is no real support for the proposed division, we are synonymizing Phaea (Angustopenna) with Phaea.	en	Tavakilian, Gérard L., Santos-Silva, Antonio, Botero, Juan Pablo, Nascimento, Francisco Eriberto De Lima (2025): Re-classification of some American Cerambycidae (Insecta, Coleoptera): a critical review of bad taxonomic practices. Zootaxa 5696 (2): 233-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5696.2.3
