Lepidiota laevis Arrow, 1932

Allsopp, Peter G., 2020, Clarification of the status of the types of Australian Melolonthini (Coleoptera Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae) described before 1950, Zootaxa 4885 (4), pp. 451-486 : 465

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.4.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2E69687C-74B4-4087-9BF6-039F5FE14A9E
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4340924
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C264702F-4534-3510-2BE7-9BB8FAFEFA71
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Lepidiota laevis Arrow, 1932
status

Treatment

Lepidiota laevis Arrow, 1932: 194 .

Lectotype (here designated) male: Type (circular red ringed, typeset) | Pest in dairying and maize-growing district (handwritten) | AUSTRALIA N. Queensland J.N. Smith (typeset) | ♂ (typeset) | Loc. Atherton [17.27°S, 145.58°E] 2.1.30 S (handwritten) | Pres. By Imp. Inst. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1931-469 (typeset) | Lepidiota laevis type Arrow (handwritten) | my lectotype label; in NHML. GoogleMaps

Paralectotypes. 1♂: Co-type (circular yellow ringed, typeset) | AUSTRALIA N. Queensland J.N. Smith (typeset) | Loc. Atherton S 7.3.31 (handwritten) | Pres. By Imp. Inst. Ent. Brit. Mus. 1931-469 (typeset) | Pest in dairying and maize-growing district (handwritten) | my paralectotype label; in NHML. 1♂: Loc Atherton 2.i.[19]30 S (handwritten) | AUSTRALIA N. Queensland J.H. Smith | [illegible word] in dairying & maize growing districts (handwritten) | C/5149 (handwritten) | Lepidiota laevis Arrow co-type (handwritten) | Lepidiota laevis Arrow (handwritten) | my paralectotype label; in QM.

Arrow (1932) described the antennal club and the last sternite of both males and females and gave ranges for length and width but did not define the type series (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1). He stated that the “type” was in NHML. Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male from Mareeba in NHML and a “ paratype ” female with the same data in ANIC. Houston & Weir (1992) interpreted Britton’s (1978) incorrect reference to a holotype as a lectotype designation. As Britton (1978) and Houston & Weir (1992) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, and Britton (1978) gave an incorrect type locality, neither mention of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML with the circular, red ringed ‘Type’ label the lectotype. The other syntype in NHML and the one in QM become paralectotypes.