Eupogonius pauper LeConte, 1852

Santos-Silva, Antonio, 2022, New species, new records, synonymy, and notes in Eupogonius LeConte (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Desmiphorini), Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (Pap. Avulsos Zool., S. Paulo) 62, pp. 1-12 : 3-5

Eupogonius pauper LeConte, 1852

Saperda vestita Say, 1827: 273 .

Eupogonius pauper LeConte, 1852: 159 .

Eupogonius fraxini Knull, 1918: 132 .

Dillon & Dillon (1953) correctly observed the homonymy between Saperda vestita Say, 1824 and S. vestita Say, 1827 , and used Eupogonius pauper LeConte, 1852 as a replaced name. Still according to them: “Other names, according to Knull (Ohio Biol. Surv. Bull. xxxix, 1946, p. 264), that might be available here are E. fulvovestitus Schaef. and E.fraxini Knull ,the ultimate solution depending on a revisional study of the genus.” Evidently, the two names cannot be used as a replaced name because they are younger than E. pauper . Furthermore, E. fulvovestitus is distinctly different from E. pauper . According to Mawdsley (1993) only 10 specimens of Cerambycidae from Say’s collection survived: Moneilema inaequalis Say, 1835 (one specimen) and nine undetermined specimens. Therefore, as the holotype of Saperda vestita did not survive, it is necessary to accept the current synonymy with E. pauper . According to Mawdsley (1993): “Following Say’s death in 1834, the collection was shipped by his widow, Lucy Say, to the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia,where it was advanced in 1836 toT.W.Harris of Cambridge, Massachusetts, for proper curation. Harris was at the time librarian of Harvard College, and his official duties prevented him from examining the collection for almost a year … When Harris finally was able to examine the collection, he found that many specimens had been destroyed or disarticulated by dermestid larvae.” It is possible that some specimens used by Thomas Say to describe new species did not belong to his private collection. However, there is no evidence of this in the description of Saperda vestita .

Knull (1946) synonymized Eupogonius fraxini , E. fulvovestitus Schaeffer, 1905 , and E. pauper with E. vestitus (Say) . Knull (1954) revalidated E.fulvovestitus . Comparing photographs of the holotype of E. fraxini with photographs of the holotype of E. pauper (see photographs on Bezark, 2021), it appears that they are not synonyms. In the holotype of E. pauper , the prothorax is distinctly narrower in the holotype of E. fraxini . However, I prefer do not revalidate E. fraxini without a detailed comparison of the holotypes and additional specimens. Eupogonius pauper is somewhat similar to E. arizonensis , but differs especially by the distance between upper eye lobes much wider: almost twice the maximum diameter of the scape in E.pauper ; equal or narrower than the maximum diameter of the scape in E. arizonensis .