identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
9C7E87D8FFD4FFF8FF45FF34A92BB1B4.text	9C7E87D8FFD4FFF8FF45FF34A92BB1B4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Caryedes clitoriae (Gyllenhal 1839)	<div><p>Caryedes clitoriae (Gyllenhal, 1839)</p> <p>Bruchus (Pachymeri) clitoriae Gyllenhal in Schoenherr 1839: 125 (description, distribution, host plant).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus clitoriae: Pic 1913b: 10 (catalog).</p> <p>Caryedes clitoriae: Kingsolver 1979: 341 (as senior synonym of Bruchus confinis); Johnson and Kingsolver 1981: 416 (checklist); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 71 (catalog); de la Cruz Pérez et al. 2013: 52 (diagnosis, key, host plant, distribution).</p> <p>Bruchus confinis Sharp 1855: 444 (description, distribution).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus confinis: Pic 1913b: 10 (catalog).</p> <p>Caryedes confinis: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist); Kingsolver and Whitehead, 1974: 406 (lectotype designation, redescription, male genitalia, species-group, key, figures, distribution, host plant); Kingsolver 1979: 341 (as junior synonym of B. clitoriae).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus multimaculatus var. paulonotatus Pic 1930: 36 (description, distribution); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 408 (speciesgroup, synonymy suggestion, notes); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 76 (catalog, as junior synonym of Caryedes multimaculatus). Synonymy confirmed.</p> <p>Caryedes bicoloripes var. paulonotata: Blackwelder 1946: 757.</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus multinotatus Pic 1931: 24 (description, distribution); Bondar 1936: 24 (biology, distribution, host plant); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 408 (lectotype designation, as junior synonym of Bruchus confinis).</p> <p>Caryedes multinotata: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist).</p> <p>Caryedes multinotatus: Zacher 1952: 467 (host plant).</p> <p>Type Material. Bruchus clitoriae (1, NHRS): Lectotype, here designated, undetermined sex: “[handwritten] in clitoria \ Steven.” “[red, printed] Typus” “NHRS-JONI \ 000000471” “ Lectotype / Bruchus clitoriae Gyllenhal, 1839 / design. I. R. Jorge ”.</p> <p>Gyllenhal (1839) did not indicate, in the original description of the species, the number of specimens studied by him. However, we received images of one specimen deposited at the NHRS with identical data to that given in the original description (“in clitoria”, the host plant), and the original description perfectly matches the characteristics of the specimen. This specimen, without a head, is designated herein as a lectotype according to Article 74.6. of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus multimaculatus var. paulonotatus (1, MNHN): Lectotype, here designated, female, “[green, printed] Jatahy \ Prov. Goyas. Brésil \ Sept. a Nov. 97” “[manuscript] V. paulonotatus \ Pic” “[printed, red] TYPE” “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC” “ Lectotype / Pseudopachymerus multimaculatus var. paulonotatus Gyllenhal, 1839 / design. I. R. Jorge ”.</p> <p>Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974) were the first to suggest the synonymy between B. clitoriae and P. multimaculatus var. paulonotatus, but they commented that the type material definitively must be examined for confirmation of this nomenclatural act. Later, Udayagiri and Wadhi (1989), in the catalog of the subfamily, listed B. clitoriae as senior synonym of P. multimaculatus var. paulonotatus and quoted Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974) as the authors of that synonymy. Udayagiri and Wadhi (1989) did not comment on whether the type was examined or not. We had the opportunity to study the type deposited in the MNHN. Based on our examination of the specimen, we confirm that the type locality given by Pic (1930) - namely, “Jatahy”, currently spelled as Jata´ı, a municipality in the Brazilian state of Goiás - matches the label data. More importantly, there are no morphological differences between the respective types. The synonymy of P. multimaculatus paulonotatus and B. clitoriae, first suggested by Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974) and published by Udayagiri and Wadhi (1999), is here confirmed after the study of the type material.</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus multinotatus (6, MNHN): Lectotype male designated by Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974) and five paralectotypes males, all of them glued to the same rectangular paper card with a letter “X” indicating the lectotype (Fig. 1) “[handwritten] 1707” “[handwritten] Bahia (Bondar) \ in legumineuse” “[handwritten] Pseudopachymerus \ n sp” “[handwritten, red] type” “[handwritten] multinotatus \ n sp” “[handwritten] G 114” “[handwritten] Lectotype ³ [red] \ x [red] Pseudopachy- \ merus \ multinotatus \ Pic \ [printed] det. \ J. M. Kingsolver ” “[manuscript] Caryedes \ confinis (Sharp) \ [printed] det. [handwritten] 73 \ [printed] J. M. Kingsolver ” “[handwritten] multimaculata \ Type ³ + 5 ³ Pt \ JK [black] x [red]” “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC”.</p> <p>In the original description, Pic (1931) did not indicate the number of specimens studied by him. We received six specimens from the MNHN, all mounted on the same pin, glued to the same rectangular paper card, and labeled with locality data identical to that by Pic (1931), viz., Bahia. The male specimen marked with the red “X” by Kingsolver is the lectotype of P. multinotatus. The red mark was likely made by the same pen that Kingsolver used to write “ Lectotype ³ x” on the determination label. The other five specimens are paralectotypes (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, Kingsolver did not detail the selection of his type material in his work (Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974). In the label sequence, it seems as though Kingsolver wrote three determination labels, which he signed. One of those labels has an error, possibly due to the similarity in the spelling of the names. The first label written by Pic corresponds to the original combination (Pseudopachymerus multinotatus), the second label corresponds to a synonymy proposed in Kingsolver (1979) (Caryedes clitoriae = C. confinis), while the third label refers to a gender inflection of C. multimaculatus (“ multimaculata ”), which refers to a different valid species in Caryedes. Despite the similarity between the spelling of both specific names, multinotatus and multimaculatus, the two species belong to distinct species-groups in Caryedes.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9C7E87D8FFD4FFF8FF45FF34A92BB1B4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jorge, Isaac Reis;Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare	Jorge, Isaac Reis, Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare (2019): New Synonymies and Lectotype Designations for the Neotropical Seed Beetle Genus Caryedes Hummel, 1827 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 73 (2): 321-328, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-73.2.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-73.2.321
9C7E87D8FFD7FFFEFF7BFA3BAF3CB16C.text	9C7E87D8FFD7FFFEFF7BFA3BAF3CB16C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Caryedes cristatus (Fahraeus 1839)	<div><p>Caryedes cristatus (Fåhraeus, 1839)</p> <p>“ Bruchus gibbicollis Faldermann, in litteris ”: Fåhraeus in Schoenherr 1839: 122. Nomen nudum.</p> <p>Bruchus cristatus Fåhraeus in Schoenherr 1839: 122 (description, distribution, host plant).</p> <p>Pachymerus (Falsobruchus) cristatus: Pic 1913a: 110 (as type species of Falsobruchus).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) cristatus: Pic 1913b: 10 (catalog).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus cristatus: Bondar 1931: 422 (host plant); Bondar 1936: 24 (host plant).</p> <p>Falsobruchus cristatus: Bridwell 1932: 105 (catalog).</p> <p>Caryedes cristata: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist).</p> <p>Caryedes cristatus: Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 398 (species-group, notes); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 72 (catalog).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus cristatus var. velutinotatus Pic 1936: 13 (description, distribution); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 72 (catalog, as junior synonym of Bruchus cristatus) Synonymy confirmed.</p> <p>Caryedes cristata var. velutinotata: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist).</p> <p>Bruchus godmani Sharp 1885: 444 (description, figure, distribution). New synonymy.</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) godmani: Pic 1913b: 11 (catalog).</p> <p>Caryedes godmani: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 401 (redescription, male genitalia, species-group, key, figures, distribution, host plant); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 73 (catalog).</p> <p>Type Material. Bruchus cristatus (4, NHRS): Lectotype, here designated, male (Fig. 2), “[handwritten] ³” “[red, printed] Paratypus ”</p> <p>“[handwritten] B: cristatus. \ Hoffmannseg. \ Para, Brasilia \ Klug.” “[printed] NHRS-JONI \ 000027566” “ Lectotype / Bruchus cristatus Fåhraeus, 1839 / design. I. R. Jorge”; 1 paralectotype female (Fig. 3) “[handwritten] ♀ ” “[red, printed] Paratypus ” “[handwritten] Brasilia. in \ sem: Bahuinia \ (Schnellia.) \ Faldermann.” “[printed] NHRS-JONI \ 000027567” “ Paralectotype / Bruchus cristatus Fåhraeus, 1839 / design. I. R. Jorge ”; 1 paralectotype male (Fig. 4) “[handwritten] ³” “[red, printed] Typus ” “[handwritten] Br: gibbicollis \ Fald.\ Brazil: Faldermann ” “[printed] NHRS-JONI \ 000000469” “ Paralectotype / Bruchus cristatus Fåhraeus, 1839 / design. I. R. Jorge ”; 1 paralectotype female (Fig.5) “[handwritten] Br: gibbicollis \ Fald. \ Brazil: Faldermann ” “[handwritten] ♀ ” “[red, printed] Allotypus ” “[printed] NHRS-JONI \ 000000470” “ Paralectotype / Bruchus cristatus Fåhraeus, 1839 / design. I. R. Jorge ”.</p> <p>In the original description, Fahraeus in Schoenherr (1839) indicated B. gibbicollis Faldermann as a name in litt. and a synonym of B. cristatus. No specimens were designated as types. We received four specimens from the NHRS. Bruchus cristatus: one male “ PARATYPUS ” (Fig. 2); one unidentified female “ PARATYPUS ” (Fig. 3); B. gibbicollis: one headless male as “TYPUS” (Fig. 4); and B. gibbicollis: one female “ ALLOTYPUS ” (Fig. 5). Label data of all specimens match the information given in the original description of B. cristatus: type locality (“ Brazil ”), collectors (“Klug”- B. cristatus, “Faldermann”- B. gibbicollis and unidentified specimen), and alleged authorship of the species names (“Hoffmannsegg” - B. cristatus, “Faldermann” - B. gibbicollis), host plants (“Bahuniae, Schnelliae”- unidentified specimen) (Figs. 2–5). Based on this information, we are confident that Fåhraeus in Schoenherr (1839) had all these four specimens to examine.</p> <p>The red type labels were probably inadvertently added later, probably not by Fåhraeus, since the red tone and letter font are different (Figs. 2–5). The labels “TYPUS” and “ ALLOTYPUS ” (Figs. 4, 5) are erroneous because B. gibbicollis is a nomem nudum, and those indicating “ PARATYPUS ” (Figs. 2, 3) are consequences of this previous procedure. Therefore, we selected the only male specimen labeled as B. cristatus, with the red label “ PARATYPUS ” and the only male with a head, to designate as the lectotype of B. cristatus (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus cristatus var. velutinotatus (2, BMNH): Lectotype, here designated, male, “[handwritten] Pseudopachymerus \ cristatus Fhr \ v. velutinotatus \ Pic” “[handwritten] 1908” “ BRAZIL \ bahia \ Dr. G. Bondar” “[facing down] Pres. by \ Imp. Inst. Ent. \ B. M. 1936-531.” “ Lectotype / Pseudopachymerus cristatus var. velutinotatus Pic, 1936 / design. I. R. Jorge”; 1 paralectotype male “[handwritten, illegible word]” “[handwritten] Pseudopachymerus \ cristatus Fahraeus ” “[handwritten] v. nov. \ velutinotatus” “[handwritten] 1908” “ BRAZIL \ bahia \ Dr. G. Bondar” “[facing down] Pres. by \ Imp. Inst. Ent. \ B. M. 1936-531.” “ Paralectotype / Pseudopachymerus cristatus var. velutinotatus Pic, 1936 / design. I. R. Jorge”.</p> <p>In the original description, Pic (1936) did not indicate the number of specimens he studied. However, two specimens were received from BMNH, which bear locality data identical to that given in the original description, viz., Brazil, Bahia. The color differences mentioned by Pic (1936) between P. cristatus and P. cristatus var. velutinotatus are considered herein intraspecific variation, and no other morphological differences were found. In Udayagiri and Wadhi (1989), the variety name was treated as a junior synonym of P. cristatus. However, the authors did not state if the type material was examined. We, however, had the opportunity to study firsthand two types of P. cristatus velutinotatus, and based on that, we confirm the synonymy. Thus, one well-preserved specimen is herein designated as the lectotype of P. cristatus velutinotatus.</p> <p>Bruchus godmani (1, BMNH): Holotype, male “[handwritten, with fixed specimen] Bruchus godmani. [on left vertical] \ Type D. S. [on left vertical] \ Bugaba. \ Panama. Champion.” “[circular label with red border, printed] TYPE” “[printed] sp. Fig.d.” “[printed] Bugaba. \ Panama. \ Champion.” “[printed] B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ godmani, \ Sharp.”.</p> <p>Sharp (1885) mentioned that he only studied one specimen, which was sent to us by the BMNH with collecting data labels identical to the information given in the original description (“ Panama, Bugaba, Champion”). We are confident that this specimen is the holotype. After studying this specimen, we conclude that B. godmani is a new junior synonym of B. cristatus, since no significant morphological differences between the two were detected.</p> <p>Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974) mentioned Pachymerus triquetrus Motschulsky, 1874 as a probable synonym of Caryedes cristatus. However, it was not possible to examine the type material for our study and, thereby, this possible synonymy needs to be confirmed in the future.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9C7E87D8FFD7FFFEFF7BFA3BAF3CB16C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jorge, Isaac Reis;Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare	Jorge, Isaac Reis, Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare (2019): New Synonymies and Lectotype Designations for the Neotropical Seed Beetle Genus Caryedes Hummel, 1827 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 73 (2): 321-328, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-73.2.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-73.2.321
9C7E87D8FFD1FFFFFCB5FA98A82FB6EF.text	9C7E87D8FFD1FFFFFCB5FA98A82FB6EF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Caryedes juno (Sharp 1885)	<div><p>Caryedes juno (Sharp, 1885)</p> <p>Bruchus juno Sharp 1885: 443 (description, distribution).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus juno: Pic 1913b: 11 (catalog).</p> <p>Caryedes juno: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 399 (lectotype designation, redescription, male genitalia, species-group, key, figures, distribution, host plant); Johnson and Kingsolver 1981: 416 (checklist); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 74 (catalog); Romero and Johnson 2004: 623 (checklist); de Lorea-Barocio et al. 2006: 517 (checklist); Mart´ınez-Sánchez et al. 2017 (checklist).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) gounellei Pic 1923: 15 (description, distribution) New synonymy.</p> <p>Caryedes gounellei: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 399 (species-group, notes); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 73 (catalog).</p> <p>Type Material. Bruchus juno (2, BMNH). Lectotype designated by Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974), male, “[handwritten, with fixed specimen] Bruchus boops juno \ Type (³) D. S. \ David. Chiriqui. \ Champion.” “[circular label with dark blue border, printed] LECTO- \ TYPE” “[circular label, red border, facing down, printed] TYPE” “[printed] David, Chiriqui. \ Champion.” “[printed] B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ juno, \ Sharp.” “[label facing down, printed] Sharp Coll. \ 1905-313.”; 1 paralectotype female “[circular label, light blue border, printed] PARA- \ LECTO- \ TYPE” “[printed] David, Chiriqui, \ Champion” “[printed] B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ juno, \ Sharp.”.</p> <p>Sharp (1885) mentioned that four specimens were studied for the description. However, we received only two specimens from the BMNH, with collecting label data identical to the information given in the original description (“ Chiriqui, Champion ”).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) gounellei (4, MNHN): Lectotype, here designated, male “[handwritten] Pernambuco \ (Bresil)” “[handwritten] Bresil \ (gounellei)” “[handwritten, red] type” “[handwritten] Falsobruchus \ gounellei \ n sp” “[printed, red] HOLOTYPE ” “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC” “gounellei [handwritten] \ det. [printed] 70 Pic [handwritten] \ J. M. Kingsolver [printed]” “ Caryedes [handwritten] \ juno [handwritten] \ (Sharp, 1885) [handwritten] \ Ribeiro-Costa, C. S. det. 200 [printed] 7 [handwritten]” “vial with genitalia” “ Lectotype / Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) gounellei Pic, 1923 / design. I. R. Jorge”; 1 paralectotype female “[handwritten] Pernambuco \ Bresil \ (gounellei)” “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC” “[printed, red] PARATYPE ” “ Paralectotype / Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) gounellei Pic, 1923 / design. I. R. Jorge”; 1 paralectotype female “[handwritten] Pernambuco \ (Bresil)” “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC” “[printed, red] PARATYPE ” “ Paralectotype / Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) gounellei Pic, 1923 / design. I. R. Jorge”; 1 paralectotype female “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC” “[printed, red] PARATYPE ” “ Paralectotype / Pseudopachymerus (Falsobruchus) gounellei Pic, 1923 / design. I. R. Jorge”.</p> <p>Four specimens were received from the MNHN, with locality data identical to the information given in Pic’ s original description (“ Brazil, Pernambuco ”) except for one of the specimens, which does not have locality labels associated with it. This specimen, which also does not have Pic’ s handwritten label, has the museum label recognizing it as part of Pic’ s collection (similar to Fig. 1, label “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC”), and was prepared in a similar manner as the other syntypes.</p> <p>While reviewing C. juno, Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974) reported that this species has a contrasting dark patch on the metepisternum, a characteristic that is less developed in C. gounellei, a representative of the South American fauna. This difference is considered by us to be intraspecific variation. Consequently, P. (Falsobruchus) gounellei is here deemed a new junior synonym of B. juno. The male with Pic’ s label “type” is here designated as the lectotype of P. gounellei.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9C7E87D8FFD1FFFFFCB5FA98A82FB6EF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jorge, Isaac Reis;Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare	Jorge, Isaac Reis, Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare (2019): New Synonymies and Lectotype Designations for the Neotropical Seed Beetle Genus Caryedes Hummel, 1827 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 73 (2): 321-328, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-73.2.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-73.2.321
9C7E87D8FFD0FFFCFD63FD16A960B176.text	9C7E87D8FFD0FFFCFD63FD16A960B176.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Caryedes longifrons (Sharp 1885)	<div><p>Caryedes longifrons (Sharp, 1885)</p> <p>Bruchus longifrons Sharp 1885: 440 (description, distribution, figure).</p> <p>Pseudopachymerus longifrons: Pic 1913b: 11 (catalog)</p> <p>Caryedes longifrons: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 404 (lectotype designation, redescription, male genitalia, species-group, key, figures, distribution, host plant); Johnson and Kingsolver 1981: 416 (checklist); Udayagiri and Wadhi, 1989: 75 (catalog); Romero Nápoles and Mar´ın Jarrillo 2013: 167 (key, figures, distribution, host plant).</p> <p>Bruchus diversipes Pic 1927: 32 (description, distribution) New synonymy.</p> <p>Caryedes diversipes: Blackwelder 1946: 758 (checklist); Kingsolver and Whitehead 1974: 403 (species-group, notes, figure); Udayagiri and Wadhi 1989: 72 (catalog).</p> <p>Type Material. Bruchus longifrons (4, BMNH): Lectotype designated by Kingsolver and Whitehead (1974), male: “[handwritten with fixed specimen] Bruchus longi- \ frons. Type D. S. \ David. Panama. \ Champion.” “[circular label with dark blue border] LECTO- \ TYPE” “[circular label with red border] TYPE” “David, Panamá. \ Champion.” “ B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ longifrons, \ Sharp.” “Sharp Coll. \ 1905-313.”; 1 paralectotype female “[handwritten with fixed specimen] Bruchus longi- \ frons. Type. Ex \ parte D. S. \ David. Panama. \ Champion.” “[circular label with light blue border] PARA- \ LECTO- \ TYPE” “David, Panama, \ Champion” “ B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ longifrons, \ Sharp.” “[label facing down] Sharp Coll. \ 1905-313.”; 1 paralectotype male “[handwritten with fixed specimen] Bruchus longi- \ frons D. S. \ Bugaba. Champion” “[circular label with light blue border] PARA- \ LECTO- \ TYPE” “Bugaba, Panama, \ Champion” “ B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ longifrons, \ Sharp.” “ Sp.Fig. d.”; 1 paralectotype of undetermined sex [without head] “[circular label with light blue border] PARA- \ LECTO- \ TYPE” “Bugaba, Panama, \ Champion” “ B. C. A. Col. V. \ Bruchus \ longifrons, \ Sharp.” “[handwritten] longifrons”.</p> <p>Sharp (1885) mentioned that four specimens were examined, and all of them were loaned to us by the BMNH. These specimens have labels with collecting data identical to the information given in the original description (“Panama, Bugaba, Champion ”). The male specimen labeled “type” is here designated as the lectotype and the other three specimens are now paralectotypes of B. longifrons.</p> <p>Bruchus diversipes (1, MNHN): Lectotype, here designated, male: “[printed, green] Jatahy \ Prov. Goyas. Brésil \ Sept. A Nov. 97” “[handwritten] diversipes \ n sp” “[printed, red] HOLOTYPE” “vial with genitalia” “[handwritten] diversipes \ Pic \ det. [printed] 70 [handwritten] \ J. M. Kingsolver [printed]” “[handwritten] Caryedes \ diversipes \ (Pic, 1927) \ Ribeiro-Costa, C. S. det. 200 [printed] 7 [handwritten]” “[printed] MUSÉUM PARIS \ 1958 \ Coll. M. PIC”. “Lectotype / Bruchus diversipes Sharp, 1885 / design. I. R. Jorge ”.</p> <p>Pic (1927) did not indicate the number of specimens studied, but we received on loan one specimen from the MNHN that matches the information given in the original description. The collecting label data is identical to the information given in the original description, viz., Brazil. This specimen is here designated as the lectotype. By comparing the type material of B. diversipes with that of B. longifrons, we found that the difference is in the presence/absence of a tooth at the base of the fourth elytral stria. This character varies intraspecifically (Romero Nápoles and Mar´ın Jarrillo 2013). It should be stressed that the male genitalia are identical in both males. Consequently, B. diversipes is a new junior synonym of B. longifrons.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9C7E87D8FFD0FFFCFD63FD16A960B176	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jorge, Isaac Reis;Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare	Jorge, Isaac Reis, Ribeiro-Costa, Cibele Stramare (2019): New Synonymies and Lectotype Designations for the Neotropical Seed Beetle Genus Caryedes Hummel, 1827 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 73 (2): 321-328, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-73.2.321, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-73.2.321
