Melolontha variegata Germar 1824: 128
Melolontha deglupta Germar 1824: 623
Colporhina bifoveolata Curtis 1844: 200
An annotated checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Guianas
Hielkema, Auke J.
Hielkema, Meindert A.
Insecta Mundi
2019
2019-10-25
732
732
1
306
(Germar, 1824)
Germar
1824
[213,712,1767,1792]
Insecta
Melolonthidae
Isonychus
Animalia
Coleoptera
113
112
Arthropoda
species
variegatus
Melolontha variegata Germar 1824: 128( Brazil) = Melolontha deglupta Germar 1824: 623( Brazil) = Colporhina bifoveolata Curtis 1844: 200( Brazil)
Distribution. Guyana: Bodkin 1919: 214(as Barybas bifoveolatus). Brazil: Germar 1824: 128, 623 (as Melolontha deglupta; as Melolontha variegata); Curtis 1845: 454(as Colporhina bifoveolata); Dalla Torre 1913: 327; Blackwelder 1944: 231; Frey 1970: 135; Evans and Smith 2009: 248. Other: Curtis 1844: 200(none - as Colporhina bifoveolata). Note 1. Germar (1824)gives in the Corrigenda (p. 623) the replacement name Melolontha degluptabecause of his M. variegatabeing a junior homonym of M. variegata Latreille, 1813(p. 47). Melolonta deglupta Germar, 1824is now considered a synonym of Isonychus variegatus( Germar, 1824), while M. variegata Latreille, 1813is now treated as a synonym of Anomala undulata brasiliensis( Arrow, 1899)(1899a, p. 272). When establishing the latter synonymization, Arrow (1899a)was possibly assuming that Latreille’s description was published in 1833, while it was in fact published already in 1813 (see Sherborn 1899: 428). Given that Latreille’s description is thus older than that of A. variegata Hope, 1831(p. 24), the seniority in this synonymization may have to be reversed. We have not further investigated this complex matter, but it seems imperative that this has to be done in the near future. Note 2. Curtis (1844: 200)gives a very short description and no distributional data of Colporhina bifoveolata. Curtis (1845: 454)provides a more extensive description and the typelocality. Note 3. Bodkin (1919: 214)records Isonychus variegatusfrom Guyana. However, all other records we are aware of are from Brazilsouth of the Amazon River. We assume the record in Bodkin (1919)is based on a misidentified specimen and regard this species as not occurring in the research area.