Plocaederus (sensu Martins and Monne, 1835) Dejean, 1835

Botero, Antonio Santos-Silva Kimberly García Juan Pablo, 2021, A review of the history of the names Hamaticherus Dejean and Plocaederus Dejean and description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae), Insecta Mundi 2021 (887), pp. 1-32 : 2-4

On Plocaederus and Hamaticherus and their type species

According to Monné (2021): “ Hamaticherus Audinet-Serville, 1834 ”; “Type-species – Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 (original designation, of Pascoe, 1863: 559. “ Hamaticherus bellator must be confined to H. bellator ”).” And “ Plocaederus Dejean, 1835 ”; “Type-species – Cerambys [sic] plicatus Olivier, 1790 (monotypy).” According to Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2021): “ Hamaticherus Audinet-Serville, 1834 ”; Type species – Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 (designation by Pascoe, 1863: 559).” And “ Plocaederus Dejean, 1835 ; Type species – Cerambyx plicatus Olivier, 1790 (monotypy).”

Sama (1991: 122) and Martins and Monné (2002: 157) provided extensive historic information regarding Plocaederus and Hamaticherus . It is necessary to clarify some information and comments made by them on both genera:

Considerations regarding Sama (1991):

1. “= Hamaticherus Serville, 1835 nec Dejean, 1821 ”: the fact that Audinet-Serville (1834) excluded some species from Hamaticherus Dejean, 1821 , does not make Hamaticherus [A.-]Serville a different genus.

Therefore, the correct genus is Hamaticherus sensu Audinet-Serville, 1834 and it must be considered only as a posterior usage for Hamaticherus Dejean 1821 ;

2. “ Type species: bellator Dejean, 1837 [sic, 1836], nomen nudum ( = bellator Serville, 1834 ) (present designation).” Plocaederus bellator is not a nomen nudum in Dejean, 1836, even 1835, because the species was already described in Audinet-Serville, 1834, and despite the fact that Dejean (1835 and 1836) attributed the authorship to himself.

Considerations regarding Martins and Monné (2002):

1. “In a later edition of his catalog, Dejean (1835: 322) repeated the concept of 1821 [for Hamaticherus ]” In fact, Dejean did not repeat the concept of 1821, because Hamaticherus (written as Hammaticherus ) included only non-American species, while those from America were included in Plocaederus Dejean, 1835 , a new genus following the concept of Audinet-Serville (1834) for Hamaticherus Dejean, 1821 . It is important to note that Plocaederus is not a new name for Hamaticherus sensu A. -Serville (1834), because only available names that are later determined to be homonyms can have replacement names, and this is not the case of the A.-Serville’s name, an unavailable name;

2. “The South American species, inserted by A.-Serville in Hamaticherus , were included in Plocaederus Megerle in Dejean, whose synonym was “ Hammaticherus Serville. ” In fact, Dejean (1835) indicated Plocaederus as by his authorship;

3. “Now, in Plocaederus , attributed to Megerle, it is valid in Dejean (1835: 319) because P.plicatus Olivier was inserted, the only species described; all others are nomina nuda.” This is not true since Dejean (1835) also included Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 ;

4. “However, Plocaederus cannot be framed in this decision since it was mentioned by Dejean (1835) and attributed to Megerle.” The generic name Plocaederus was used several times after the publication of the catalogs by Megerle (1801 –1805). Furthermore, the generic name Hamaticherus (or Hammatichereus) does not appear in Megerle (1801 –1805);

5. “[with the following synonyms: Hamaticherus Stephens , Hamaticherus Servile [sic] …].” The correct name is Hamaticherus sensu Stephens and Hamaticherus sensu Audinet-Serville. In fact, there are several citations along the text suggesting Hamaticherus was described many times. Actually, they are only different posterior usages for Hamaticherus Dejean, 1821 ;

6. “(1) The genus Plocaederus Megerle is valid in Dejean (1835) since it was included a species already described, Cerambyx plicatus Olivier, 1790 , which is therefore the type species.” In fact, two previously described species had been included;

7. “(2) For Plocaederus Thomson, 1860 , with non-American species, a new name must be provided because it is the junior homonym of Plocaederus Dejean, 1835 .” In fact, Sama (1991) had already established the genus Neoplocaederus ;

8. “(5) As Hamaticherus A.-Serville is not a homonym of Haematicherus Germar, it must be revalidated. The type species is H. bellator , designation by Thomson (1864: 228)...” In fact, Hamaticherus A.-Serville or Haematicherus Germar never existed: the correct name is Hamaticherus Dejean, 1821 sensu A.-Serville; Haematicherus Dejean, 1821 sensu Germar (it is not an emendation, it is an incorrect subsequent spelling: see ICZN 1999: 33.2 and 33.3). Furthermore, Germar (1823) did not write “Haematicherus”: he wrote “ Hametaticheri Meg. Dej.” Hamaticherus sensu Audinet-Serville (1824) is at most a junior homonymy of Hamaticherus Dejean, 1821 , which is currently a junior synonym of Cerambyx Linnaeus, 1758 . But we think it must be considered a new concept for Hamaticherus Dejean, 1821 . There is no evidence that the intention of Audinet-Serville (1834) was to describe a new genus. In other cases, some genera in Audinet-Serville (1834), attributed by him to Dejean, cannot be attributed to this latter author because there were no available species originally included. If each time a concept of a genus is changed, we consider that the description of a new genus has occurred, we would have a chaotic nomenclatural situation.

According to Monné (2021) regarding Hamaticherus Audinet-Serville, 1834 : “ Type-species - Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 (original designation, of Pascoe, 1863: 559, “ Hamaticherus must be confined to H. bellator ”).” According to Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2021): “Espèce-type: Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 ”; and “Désignation: designation de Pascoe, 1863:559.” Pascoe (1863) reported: “ Cerambyx, Linn. , is now restricted to those Longicorns of which Cerambyx cerdo, Linn. , is the type. Many authors substitute for Hammaticherus (Meg., Dej.) , but the Hammaticherus, Serv. , must be confined to H. bellator and its allies, ( Plocaederus, Dej. )”. It is clear that Pascoe (1863) was not designating the type species, especially because he affirmed that Hammaticherus Audinet-Serville “must be confined to H. bellator and its allies.” Furthermore, it is evident that for him, Hamaticherus Audinet-Serville was equal to Plocaederus .

As cited before, Monné (2021) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2021) reported Cerambyx plicatus Olivier, 1790 as the type species of Plocaederus by monotypy. However, this is incorrect because Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 was already included in Plocaederus (also Cerambyx batus Linnaeus, 1758 , in doubt). As seen before, the type species of Hamaticherus is Cerambyx heros Scopoli, 1763 ( = cerdo Linnaeus, 1758 ) ( Chevrolat 1845). Currently, Hamaticherus it is a junior synonym of Cerambyx , and the type species cannot be changed, as indicated by Martins and Monné (2002).

The designation by Thomson (1864) of H. bellator as type-species for Hamaticherus sensu Audinet-Serville is incorrect, because an unavailable genus cannot have a type-species. Therefore, the type species of Plocaederus is Hamaticherus bellator Audinet-Serville, 1834 , as proposed by Sama (1991).

Brasilianus is an unnecessary substitute name and, as correctly pointed out by Martins and Monné (2002), the designation of Cerambyx batus as its type species is not valid. Macrobrasilianus Fragoso, 1971 has, as type species, Hamaticherus bellator . Accordingly, it is also a junior synonym of Plocaederus , since the type species of this latter is H. bellator (designation by Sama, 1991).

We were unable to find any work by Johann Karl Megerle von Mühlfeld in which he mentioned Hamaticherus . According to Dejean (1821) (translated): “The most difficult family is certainly that of the “ Curculionites ”; it is the least known to date. Mr. Germar and Megerle are very busy; I used their works, which are not yet published, but which they were kind enough to communicate to me … There were many new genera in the “ Lamellicornes ” and “ Capricornes ” families; I have kept some of those established by Mr. Schoenherr [sic, Schönherr], Mac-Leay [sic, MacLeay], and Megerle, and I’ve also created a few that I think are essential; but this work needs to be reviewed, and is still only an essay.” It is likely that Dejean (1821) also had used the unpublished works by Megerle, in which Hamaticherus and other generic names in Cerambycidae attributed by Dejean to this author were introduced.

The following references must be included for Plocaederus ( Hamaticherus in Monné 2021 and Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2021) in the current catalogues: