Eburodacrys White, 1853

Botero, Juan Pablo, 2017, Review of the genus Eburodacrys White, 1853 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae), Zootaxa 4344 (3), pp. 493-521 : 494-495

Eburodacrys White, 1853

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 Eburodacrys for 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 Later, Thomson (1860) considered the genus unpublished (“373.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, 1853 as 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 Eburodacrys the 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 Eburodacrys to 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 ; Dioridium Zajciw, 1961 ; Eburodacrys ; Eburodacrystola Melzer, 1928 ; and Simplexeburia Martins & Galileo, 2010 . Cupanoscelis is distinguished by the pronotum without tubercles and by the apex of male’s tibiae thickened, while in Eburodacrys the pronotum has tubercles and the tibiae are not thickened. Dioridium is 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 Eburodacrys the 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). Eburodacrystola is distinguished by the urosternites of the males that are covered by dense pubescence; in Eburodacrys , the male urosternites do not have dense pubescence. Simplexeburia is distinguished by the lack of eburneous callosities; in Eburodacrys the callosities are always present.