Antitrogus tasmanicus ( Burmeister, 1855 ), 1911

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 : 459

Antitrogus tasmanicus ( Burmeister, 1855)

Rhizotrogus (Antitrogus) tasmanicus Burmeister, 1855: 375 .

Antitrogus tasmanicus: Blackburn 1911: 181 .

Antitrogus nigricornis Blackburn, 1911: 199 ; Britton 1978: 17 (synonymy).

Type(s) of Rhizotrogus tasmanicus . Burmeister (1855) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1) from “Neu-Holland” [ Australia]. Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male in ZMH and Houston & Weir (1992) listed a “ holotype (probable) male”. No syntypes could be found in a search of ZMH and ZMB in 2020 (Karla Schneider and Bernd Jäger, personal communications).

Lectotype of Antitrogus nigricornis (here designated) male: Type H. T. (circular red ringed, typeset) | 7829 Tas. [Tasmania] (handwritten in red) T (handwritten) | Blackburn coll. 1910-236 (typeset) | Antitrogus nigricornis Blackb. (handwritten) | aedeagus dissected and mounted on card | my lectotype label; in NHML.

Paralectotype of Antitrogus nigricornis male: 7829 Tas (handwritten in red) | Antitrogus nigricornis Blackb. Co-type (handwritten) | I.4536 Antitrogus nigricornis Blackb. Tasmania (handwritten) Cotype (handwritten in red, at right angle) | my paralectotype label; in SAM.

Blackburn (1911) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (“In one of the specimens before me”) (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1). Lea (1912) noted that the ‘type’ had been sent to NHML. Britton (1978) referred to a “ holotype ” male from Tasmania in NHML but made no mention of other syntypes. Houston & Weir (1992) interpreted Britton’s (1978) incorrect reference to a holotype as a lectotype designation and listed a paralectotype of unstated sex in SAM. As Britton (1978) and Houston & Weir (1992) provided no discussion and did not label any specimen in NHML, neither mention of a holotype constitutes a valid lectotype designation (vide Article 74.5). To stabilise nomenclature, I designate the male in NHML the lectotype. The syntype in SAM is a paralectotype.