Xylotrupes clinias clinias, 1885

Rowland, J. Mark, 2011, Notes on nomenclature in Xylotrupes Hope (Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae Dynastini), Insecta Mundi 2011 (176), pp. 1-10 : 6-7

Xylotrupes clinias clinias

Xylotrupes clinias Schaufuss 1885: 192 .

X. baumeisteri var. nicias Schaufuss 1885: 192 , (syn. Rowland 2003: 224).

X. baumeisteri Schaufuss 1885: 192 (syn. Endrödi 1951: 244).

X. baumeisteri, Paulian 1947: 485 .

X. baumeisteri, Silvestre 2003a: 98 .

X. gideon baumeisteri, Endrödi 1951: 244 ; 1976: 226; 1985: 624.

X. ulysses clinias, Rowland 2003: 224 ; 2006a: 8; 2006b: 8.

Note: Paulian, Silvestre and Endrödi regarded X. clinias as a junior synonym of X. baumeisteri , not vice versa. See Remarks, below.

Type. Male labeled “Clinias m. Süd Celebes ” “ Lectotype Xylotrupes clinias Schaufuss 1885 designator: J. M. Rowland” deposited at ZMHB. According to Schaufuss (1885), male and female syntypes of X. clinias were deposited in the collection of Ludwig Salvator which in large part now resides at the National Museum in Prague ( Rowland 2003). However, after more than 10 years the presence of these syntypes has still not been confirmed. Moreover, the male syntype of X. clinias at ZMHB could be the male of the pair above and I here designate this specimen the lectotype of X. clinias in order to enhance stability in the nomenclature of Xylotrupes .

Remarks. The complex history of usage of the name X. clinias and several associated names has yielded their nomenclatural status unclear and the underlying issues require further work to resolve. However here I explain the basis for using the name X. clinias in the present context.

First, Schaufuss (1885) described X. clinias from “ Celebes mer.”, X. baumeisteri from “ Celebes mer.,” X. baumeisteri var. nicias from “ Celebes ” and X. lorquini from “Molucc.”

Second, Paulian (1947), Endrödi (1951, 1976, 1985) and Silvestre (2003a) treated X. clinias as a subjective synonym of X. baumeisteri .

Third, Silvestre (2003a) cited Paulian’s action as ‘First Reviser’ in selecting the name X. baumeisteri in preference to X. clinias .

Fourth, Endrödi (1951) synonymized X. baumeisteri var. nicias under X. baumeisteri , and Silvestre (2003a) synonymized X. baumeisteri var. nicias under X. lorquini .

Fifth, Rowland (2003) examined from ZMHB the syntypes of X. clinias from “Sud Celebes ”, the syntypes of X. baumeisteri from “S. Celebes,” the syntypes of X. baumeisteri var. nicias from “ Celebes ” and the type of X. lorquini from “Molucc.” Rowland (2003) treated X. clinias and X. baumeisteri var. nicias under the operational taxon X. ulysses clinias and discovered on the basis of raspular morphology that the syntypes of X. baumeisteri belong to the Pubescens Species Group, however X. lorquini was left unplaced because the only type specimen of this taxon lacked raspulae.

Sixth, Rowland (2006a,b) determined that X. lorquini is a member of the Pubescens Species Group and is a synonym of X. baumeisteri , based upon the ZMBH syntypes of the latter taxon.

Seventh, Silvestre (2003a) purportedly found syntypes of X. baumeisteri and X. baumeisteri var. nicias in MNHN and designated specimens from Batjan Island and “Sud Celebes / Celebes Mer.” respectively, as lectotypes.

6

The foregoing events yield my placement of the name X. baumeisteri in the Pubescens Species Group and that of X. baumeisteri var. nicias in the Ulysses Species Group on the basis of the ZHMB syntypes an open issue because: 1, I have not been allowed by MNHN to examine the syntypes of X. baumeisteri and X. baumeisteri var. nicias that Silvestre (2003a) designated as the lectotypes; 2, it is possible that the ZMHB syntypes and the MNHN lectotype of X. baumeisteri represent different species; and, similarly, 3, it is possible that the ZMHB syntypes and the MNHN lectotype of X. baumeisteri var. nicias represent different species. It is certainly the case that the syntypes in ZMHB of X. baumeisteri and X. baumeisteri var. nicias that I examined clearly belong to different species. In fact they belong to different species groups: Pubescens and Ulysses Species Groups, respectively.

Moreover, depending upon the identity of Silvestre’s (2003a) lectotypes of X. baumeisteri and X. baumeisteri var. nicias the taxonomic treatment herein could be effected in the following ways: 1, if the MNHN lectotype and the ZMBH syntypes of X. baumeisteri are the same taxon, and thus members of the Pubescens Species Group, then my use herein of the name X. clinias , will be sustained; 2, if the lectotype of X. baumeisteri proves to be X. clinias herein, then the name X. baumeisteri should replace X. clinias in my system because Paulian (1947) as First Reviser selected the name X. baumeisteri over X. clinias ; 3, if the MNHN lectotype and the ZMHB syntypes of X. baumeisteri var. nicias are the same taxon, and thus members of the Ulysses Species Group, then my use of X. clinias herein will be sustained because I was the First Reviser of these two taxa ( Rowland 2003) and I established the name X. clinias in preference to X. nicias ; 4, if the lectotype of X. baumeisteri var. nicias proves to be the same taxon as the type of X. lorquini , then my use of the latter name will be sustained because Silvestre (2003a) synonymized these two taxa and as First Reviser established the name X. lorquini in preference to X. nicias . Further, should the latter author have destroyed the raspulae of the lectotypes - then actions through the ICZN might be required to resolve the nomenclature of affected taxa. Thus, I employ the name X. clinias in the present context because in the majority of the possible outcomes listed above this usage would prove correct.