Canthidium (Canthidium) barbacenicum Preudhomme de Borre, 1886

Cupello, Mario, 2018, On the types species of the New World dung beetle genus Canthidium Erichson, 1847 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae), with an annotated checklist of species, Zootaxa 4388 (4), pp. 451-486 : 456-457

Canthidium (Canthidium) barbacenicum Preudhomme de Borre, 1886

Canthidium barbacenicum Preudhomme de Borre, 1886: 113 [here transferred to the subgenus Canthidium ]. Type locality: Brazil: Minas Gerais (“Minas Geraes”). Type material: One male and one female syntypes (IRSN), one male syntype (MZSP) (Pereira 1953). Distribution: Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina (Pereira 1953; Martínez 1959, 1989).

Canthidium megathopoides Boucomont, 1928b: 205 [synonymized by Pereira 1953: 390. The validity of this name has been challenged. Having examined three syntypes of C. barbacenicum at the IRSN and “the type” of C. megathopoides (which was said to be housed at the MNHN), Pereira (1953) concluded that there were no differences among them and synonymized both nominal species. Vulcano & Pereira (1967), Martínez & Halffter (1986a), and Martínez (1989), however, cited C. megathopoides as valid without giving any taxonomic justification for such classification. Here, I decided to follow Pereira’s (1953) synonymy since he was the last author to present arguments on this matter]. Type locality: Brazil: Minas Gerais: Uberaba, Goiás: Mineiros; and Paraguay: Asunción (“Brésil, Minas Geraes: Uberaba; Goyaz: Mineiro [...]—Paraguay: Assomption [...]. Paraguay [...]”). Type material: Unknown number of syntypes (BMNH, MNHN—ex Boucomont collection, SDEI).

Canthidium pinotoides Balthasar, 1939: 135 [synonymized by Pereira 1953: 390. As discussed above for C.

megathopoides , the synonymy between C. barbacenicum and C. pinotoides is disputed. Pereira (1953) examined two specimens in the BMNH identified as C. pinotoides which were labelled “cotypes”. Interpreting that those two specimens were syntypes of C. pinotoides, Pereira (1953) said there were no differences between them and the C. barbacenicum and C. megathopoides type specimens and synonymized the three names. The problem is that those two specimens are certainly not part of C. pinotoides type series, since Balthasar (1939) made it clear that he had examined just a single male specimen from his personal collection for his description. Therefore, Balthasar’s specimen is the holotype of C. pinotoides , while the ones examined by Pereira (1953) are not from the type series. Then, Martínez & Halffter (1986a), without presenting any argument supporting their new classification, treated C. pinotoides as a valid name, but added that it was a possible synonym of C. megathopoides . Here, I chose to follow Pereira (1953) in the same way I have done for C. megathopoides , but it will be necessary to reassess the holotype of C. pinotoides in order to confirm this classification]. Type locality: Paraguay: Cordillera: San Bernardino (“ Paraguay, San Bernardino”). Type material: Holotype female (NMPC—ex Balthasar collection).