White, 1853 : 93 Thomson, 1860 : 238 Lacordaire, 1868 : 296 Bates, 1870 : 267 Martins, 1970 : 45 Eburodacrys EBURODACRYS Eburodacrys longilineata White, 1853 Eburodacrys Review of the genus Eburodacrys White, 1853 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae) Botero, Juan Pablo Zootaxa 2017 2017-11-08 4344 3 493 521 49C8 White, 1853 White 1853 [151,463,1122,1149] Insecta Cerambycidae Eburodacrys Animalia Coleoptera 1 494 Arthropoda genus     Eburodacrys  White, 1853: 93;  Thomson, 1860: 238; 1864: 241;  Lacordaire, 1868: 296;  Bates, 1870: 267; 1880: 22; Chemsak & Linsley, 1963: 213; Zayas, 1975: 75; Martins & Napp, 1979: 93; Napp & Martins, 1980: 77 (key spp); Monné, &   Martins, 1992: 264 (syn.); Martins, 1997: 60 (key spp); 1999: 255 (rev.); Monné, 2005: 155 (cat.); Monné, 2012: 17.  Oncoptera Lacordaire, 1868: 297; Zajciw, 1956: 52; Martins & Moure, 1973: 80 (syn.); Martins & Napp, 1979: 93.  Eburogutta Gemminger, 1872: 2815(unnecessary replacement name).     Sarquinopus  Martins, 1970: 45.  White (1853)established the genus  Eburodacrysfor seven species but without any description or characterization. Later, Thomson (1860)considered the genus unpublished (“373. G. EBURODACRYS. (White, Cat. Long., B. M., p. 93, inedit.) Thomson.”), described it and allocated some of the species originally included by White ( e.g.the species which were in his collection). Thomson (1864)designated  Eburodacrys longilineata White, 1853as typespecies of the genus and considered the author of the genus to be Thomson (1860). After that, all the subsequent authors considered Thomson (1860)as author of  Eburodacrys. Chemsak & Linsley (1963)were the first authors to consider White (1853)as author of the genus and thereafter all authors followed.  It is likely that Thomson (1860)followed the “Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent, being the report of a committee for the consideration of the subject appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science” (BA, 1843), which in its article 11 considered that “A name may be changed when it implies a false proposition which is likely to propagate errors. […] Definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential characters, and in all cases we conceive this to be indispensable, although some authors maintain that a mere enumeration of the component species, or even of a single type, is sufficient to authenticate a genus.” Thomson (1860)probably considered that as White (1853)did not include a description of  Eburodacrysthe name should not be valid; but still at that time those rules were just recommendations and not mandatory. However, in light of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature’s Article 12 ( ICZN, 1999), since White (1853)included available species names in  Eburodacrys, there is no doubt that he gave availability to this latter name and, therefore, he retains its authorship. Furthermore, Thomson (1860)made it clear that the genus name he established referred to the same taxon as White. In other words, Thomson did not propose a new name, he just attributed authorship of  Eburodacrysto himself.  Redescription.Frons short, transverse. Frontal suture deep. Eyes coarsely faceted, superior lobes of eyes wellseparated, distance between them at least twice width of one upper lobe. Antennal tubercles projected. Gula not strongly depressed. Mandibles with outer margin curved. Antennae long, in males generally twice length of body, in females longer than body. Scape narrow at base, gradually widened to apex, or wide from base, with or without basal sulcus. Antennomere III with longitudinal sulcus, always longer than antennomere IV. Prothorax with lateral spine, variable in length, anterolateral tubercle present or absent. Pronotum with two antemedian tubercles (except in  E. pumila Monné & Martins, 1992), centro-basal gibbosity present or absent. Epipleura with tooth at base (variable in length). Mesoventral process with or without tubercle. Elytra always with eburneous callosities (In  E. vidua( Lacordaire, 1868), they can be reduced or absent), apex variable, but generally with spines. Meso- and metafemora with long inner spine (except in  E. bezarki  sp. nov.).   Remarks.In the tribe Eburiini, the presence of a longitudinal sulcus on antennomere III is exclusive to the genera  Cupanoscelis Gounelle, 1909;  DioridiumZajciw, 1961;  Eburodacrys;  EburodacrystolaMelzer, 1928; and  Simplexeburia Martins & Galileo, 2010.  Cupanoscelisis distinguished by the pronotum without tubercles and by the apex of male’s tibiae thickened, while in  Eburodacrysthe pronotum has tubercles and the tibiae are not thickened.  Dioridiumis differentiated by its pattern of eburneous elytral callosities, diagonals or of zigzag pattern and by the external spine of the meso- and metafemora, while in  Eburodacrysthe eburneous elytral callosities are longitudinal or slightly diagonal and the meso- and metafemora do not have an external spine (they can have the margin projected but without being spinose).  Eburodacrystolais distinguished by the urosternites of the males that are covered by dense pubescence; in  Eburodacrys, the male urosternites do not have dense pubescence.  Simplexeburiais distinguished by the lack of eburneous callosities; in  Eburodacrysthe callosities are always present.