taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
8E4B87A7FFCF0378FF4C40F54145E20D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/16601678/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16601678	FIGURE 3. Early illustrations of Australian scarabaeines. (A) The type specimen of S. novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775 as illustrated by Olivier (1789b) during his 1788–1789 visit to the Joseph Banks collection (see Cupello et al. 2023 for details). The larger drawing on the left (“117. b.”) is the enlarged view of the real scale drawing on the right (“117. a.”). (B) Reiche’s (1842) reproduction of Hope’s (1837) rendering of the same specimen, much more detailed and accurate than, though consistent with, Olivier’s. (C) Castelnau’s (1840) illustration of the specimen he misidentified as “Mentophilus hollandiae”, believing it to be Fabricius’s species, but now moved to his new genus Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840. (D) Reiche’s (1842) illustration of his Aulacium carinatum, which he argued was the correct identification of Castelnau’s specimen. Note the obvious differences between Tesserodon novaehollandiae (A and B) and Mentophilus carinatus (C and D) in body shape, especially the pronotum, in the shape of the clypeal teeth, the presence or absence of a mid-longitudinal carina on the pronotum, and the shape of the metatibiae, among other features.	FIGURE 3. Early illustrations of Australian scarabaeines. (A) The type specimen of S. novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775 as illustrated by Olivier (1789b) during his 1788–1789 visit to the Joseph Banks collection (see Cupello et al. 2023 for details). The larger drawing on the left (“117. b.”) is the enlarged view of the real scale drawing on the right (“117. a.”). (B) Reiche’s (1842) reproduction of Hope’s (1837) rendering of the same specimen, much more detailed and accurate than, though consistent with, Olivier’s. (C) Castelnau’s (1840) illustration of the specimen he misidentified as “Mentophilus hollandiae”, believing it to be Fabricius’s species, but now moved to his new genus Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840. (D) Reiche’s (1842) illustration of his Aulacium carinatum, which he argued was the correct identification of Castelnau’s specimen. Note the obvious differences between Tesserodon novaehollandiae (A and B) and Mentophilus carinatus (C and D) in body shape, especially the pronotum, in the shape of the clypeal teeth, the presence or absence of a mid-longitudinal carina on the pronotum, and the shape of the metatibiae, among other features.	2025-07-07	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.		Zenodo	biologists	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.			
8E4B87A7FFCE0379FF4C43974650E5FB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/16601682/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16601682	FIGURE 5. Hope’s vacillation. Hope (1837) vacillated about which name, spelling, and ranking to be applied to his new Australian genus-group taxon containing Fabricius’s Scarabaeus hollandiae. (A) In his table of Fabrician scarabs on page 34, he assigned the species to the would-be new genus Anisodon Hope. (B) In the text on page 55, however, he not only said the taxon was actually a subgenus of Ateuchus, but that the proposed name was Tesserodon, shifting the reference from the shape of the clypeal teeth to their number. (C) In the figure plate illustrating the hollandiae type from the Banks collection, a new change and Tesserodon is now treated as a genus (and the specific name is the two-word version from 1775 instead of the one-word modification from 1781 as cited in the table and text). (D) Finally, in the errata list, Hope adds a further modification: the name is neither Anisodon nor Tesserodon, but Tessarodon. See the text for the resolution of this conundrum.	FIGURE 5. Hope’s vacillation. Hope (1837) vacillated about which name, spelling, and ranking to be applied to his new Australian genus-group taxon containing Fabricius’s Scarabaeus hollandiae. (A) In his table of Fabrician scarabs on page 34, he assigned the species to the would-be new genus Anisodon Hope. (B) In the text on page 55, however, he not only said the taxon was actually a subgenus of Ateuchus, but that the proposed name was Tesserodon, shifting the reference from the shape of the clypeal teeth to their number. (C) In the figure plate illustrating the hollandiae type from the Banks collection, a new change and Tesserodon is now treated as a genus (and the specific name is the two-word version from 1775 instead of the one-word modification from 1781 as cited in the table and text). (D) Finally, in the errata list, Hope adds a further modification: the name is neither Anisodon nor Tesserodon, but Tessarodon. See the text for the resolution of this conundrum.	2025-07-07	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.		Zenodo	biologists	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.			
8E4B87A7FFD00367FF4C4188460EE01F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/16601676/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16601676	FIGURE 2. Coleoptera drawer number 2 of the Joseph Banks collection, housed since 1863 in the Natural History Museum, London. The beetles in the Banks collection are arranged according to the generic classification of Fabricius’s 1801 Systema Eleutheratorum, his last publication on Coleoptera. Properly placed among Fabricius’s Ateuchus, the sole known type specimen of Scarabaeus novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775 sits in the second drawer of the identified Coleoptera material.The identification label pinned with the specimen may be in Fabricius’s hand (see Cupello et al. 2023). Although the precise typification status of the specimen is controversial (see the text), there is no doubt about its condition as the sole name-bearing type, whether the holotype or the lectotype.	FIGURE 2. Coleoptera drawer number 2 of the Joseph Banks collection, housed since 1863 in the Natural History Museum, London. The beetles in the Banks collection are arranged according to the generic classification of Fabricius’s 1801 Systema Eleutheratorum, his last publication on Coleoptera. Properly placed among Fabricius’s Ateuchus, the sole known type specimen of Scarabaeus novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775 sits in the second drawer of the identified Coleoptera material.The identification label pinned with the specimen may be in Fabricius’s hand (see Cupello et al. 2023). Although the precise typification status of the specimen is controversial (see the text), there is no doubt about its condition as the sole name-bearing type, whether the holotype or the lectotype.	2025-07-07	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.		Zenodo	biologists	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.			
8E4B87A7FFD00367FF4C4188460EE01F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/16601678/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16601678	FIGURE 3. Early illustrations of Australian scarabaeines. (A) The type specimen of S. novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775 as illustrated by Olivier (1789b) during his 1788–1789 visit to the Joseph Banks collection (see Cupello et al. 2023 for details). The larger drawing on the left (“117. b.”) is the enlarged view of the real scale drawing on the right (“117. a.”). (B) Reiche’s (1842) reproduction of Hope’s (1837) rendering of the same specimen, much more detailed and accurate than, though consistent with, Olivier’s. (C) Castelnau’s (1840) illustration of the specimen he misidentified as “Mentophilus hollandiae”, believing it to be Fabricius’s species, but now moved to his new genus Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840. (D) Reiche’s (1842) illustration of his Aulacium carinatum, which he argued was the correct identification of Castelnau’s specimen. Note the obvious differences between Tesserodon novaehollandiae (A and B) and Mentophilus carinatus (C and D) in body shape, especially the pronotum, in the shape of the clypeal teeth, the presence or absence of a mid-longitudinal carina on the pronotum, and the shape of the metatibiae, among other features.	FIGURE 3. Early illustrations of Australian scarabaeines. (A) The type specimen of S. novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775 as illustrated by Olivier (1789b) during his 1788–1789 visit to the Joseph Banks collection (see Cupello et al. 2023 for details). The larger drawing on the left (“117. b.”) is the enlarged view of the real scale drawing on the right (“117. a.”). (B) Reiche’s (1842) reproduction of Hope’s (1837) rendering of the same specimen, much more detailed and accurate than, though consistent with, Olivier’s. (C) Castelnau’s (1840) illustration of the specimen he misidentified as “Mentophilus hollandiae”, believing it to be Fabricius’s species, but now moved to his new genus Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840. (D) Reiche’s (1842) illustration of his Aulacium carinatum, which he argued was the correct identification of Castelnau’s specimen. Note the obvious differences between Tesserodon novaehollandiae (A and B) and Mentophilus carinatus (C and D) in body shape, especially the pronotum, in the shape of the clypeal teeth, the presence or absence of a mid-longitudinal carina on the pronotum, and the shape of the metatibiae, among other features.	2025-07-07	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.		Zenodo	biologists	Cupello, Mario;Bouchard, Patrice;Hart, Maximillian;Barclay, Maxwell V. L.			
