identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
163B87AD6228187C9E8FFC685AD1FBA3.text	163B87AD6228187C9E8FFC685AD1FBA3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d'Olsoufieff 1924	<div><p>Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924 .</p><p>Phanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924: 23, 75.</p><p>Type species: Scarabaeus lancifer Linné, 1767, by original designation (d’Olsoufieff 1924, p. 23).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD6228187C9E8FFC685AD1FBA3	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD6228187A9E8FFB5D5AF7FF3B.text	163B87AD6228187A9E8FFB5D5AF7FF3B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scarabaeus lancifer Linne 1767	<div><p>Scarabaeus lancifer Linné, 1767: 544 .</p><p>Type specimen: Neotype, here designated, (‘ BRASIL, Pará, Belém, Parque Estadual do Utinga / 1˚25'07.2'' S; 48˚25'47.6'' W / Pitfall c/ baço 19-26/I/15 / Col. Silva et al. ’, ‘ NEOTYPE ♂ / Scarabaeus / lancifer Linné 1767 / Maldaner et al. 2017 ’), BMNH (ex CEMT) (Figure 1).</p><p>Type locality: Brazil: Pará, Belém, Parque Estadual do Utinga, 1˚25'07.2'' S; 48˚25'47.6'' W.</p><p>Nomenclatural history: This name, the oldest that is today used to denote a species of Megaphanaeus, was described by Linné (1767) in the twelfth edition of Systema Naturae with a very simple, straightforward description: ‘ S. exescutellatus violaceus, capite cornu angulato, thorace inaequali, elytris sulcatis ’, with Brazil as its place of origin (‘ Habitat in Brasilia ’).</p><p>The majority of the insect specimens studied by Linnaeus are nowadays deposited in two European institutions: the Linnean Society of London, which has been owning Linnaeus private collection since 1783, when the society’s founder, the English botanist sir James Edward Smith (1759–1828), purchased it from Linnaeus widow and daughter ( Walker 1988; Gage &amp; Stearn 1988), and the Uppsala University Museum of Zoology, Sweden, which gathers material studied by Linnaeus while he was Professor of Medicine and Botany at that university and from other collections studied by him (e.g., the ‘ Museum Ludovicae Ulricae ’, Louisa Ulrika’s of Prussia, queen consort of Sweden, private collection of natural history specimens) ( Wallin 2001). Although we could not find in any of those collections a specimen that could be linked to the description of S. lancifer (Wallin [2001] for Uppsala University; MC personal observation at the LSUK on the 28th of April 2016), we believe that Linnaeus did examine physical specimens of Scarabaeus lancifer (not only illustrations), since he did not include a cross or dagger after this name, a mark that would indicate he had not seen any preserved or alive specimen of a given species1. However, as the whereabouts of those specimens are unknown to us, we had to rely on two literature references cited by Linné (1767) in his description of S. lancifer to figure out to which dung beetle species he was applying this name.</p><p>The first reference cited by Linnaeus was the beetle named ‘ Taurus ’ on page 247 of the second volume of the 1648 Historia Naturalis Brasiliae. This part of the book, one of the earliest accounts of the Brazilian natural history, was written by the German naturalist Georg Marcgrave (1610–1644), who studied first-hand the natural history of the areas occupied in the mid-seventeenth century by the Dutch republic in the then Portuguese colony of Brazil (Papavero 1971). Among some curiosities about this beetle, Marcgrave (1648) said that its ‘body, legs and wings [elytra] have a mixed, bright black, green and gold colouration’ (‘ Totum autem corpus, crura and alae sunt insignis splendentis coloris, ex nigro, viridi, and aureo mixti ’). Considering this description plus the information that Marcgrave was limited to an area in today’s northeastern Brazil (Papavero, 1971), we agree that his description and illustration do not correspond to the species currently known as Coprophanaeus lancifer, which usually has bright blue and purple colouration and lives in the Amazon forest, but rather to what we know today as C. ensifer, a species that commonly shows green colour and occurs in the area explored by Marcgrave.</p><p>The second reference listed by Linné (1767) was ‘ Lancifer violaceus ’, depicted in ‘ f. I, 2 ’ of the first volume, part 2, of the 1766 Catalogus Systematicus Coleopterorum, by the Dutch entomologist Johann Eusebius Voet. Voet (1766) described ‘ Lancifer violaceus ’ on page 36 and 37 of the Latin version of his book (and on pages 39 and 40 of the French version, under the name ‘ Le bousier phalangiste violet ’, and pages 38 and 39 of the Dutch version as ‘ violette piekdraager ’) and illustrated it on figure 1 of plate XXIII (Figure 2 A, left); figure 2 on that same plate refers to ‘ Copris violaceus major ’ (‘ le grand bousier violet ’, or ‘ groote violette mestkever ’) (Figure 2 A, right), and these images are probably the ones referred to by Linnaeus, even though he had not mentioned any specific plate. As already noted by d’Olsoufieff (1924) and Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2010), these figures illustrate clearly what we nowadays call Coprophanaeus lancifer . Nonetheless, the place of origin of ‘ Lancifer violaceus ’, a large male C. lancifer, was mistakenly reported by Voet as being the Cape of Good Hope (‘ Cap de Bonne-Esperance ’), in South Africa; the second ‘species’ described by him, ‘ Copris violaceus major ’, is a female C. lancifer and had no cited place of origin. As pointed out by d’Olsoufieff (1924) and Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2010), Voet (1766) presented a third illustration of a C. lancifer: figure 38 of plate XXVII (Figure 2 B), which is either (following d'Olsoufieff) a ‘chimeric’ specimen made up of the body of a male C. lancifer and the head of another unidentified scarab beetle, or more probably (in our opinion) a deformed hornless specimen. However, as Linné (1767) did not cite this illustration in the description of Scarabaeus lancifer, this specimen cannot be considered as part of the type series. This illustration is also reproduced on Jablonsky &amp; Herbst’s (1789) plate VIII identified as ‘ Scarabaeus Hamadrias ’.</p><p>As Linné (1767) cited the illustrations of both Marcgrave’s and Voet’s books, we should consider the specimens which those illustrations were based on as part of the type series of Scarabaeus lancifer along with the physical specimens that Linnaeus had on hands when he wrote its description (i.e., those illustrations are iconotypes as defined by Evenhuis, 2008; see Article 72.5.6 of the Code). Therefore, as Marcgrave’s and Voet’s illustrations depict two different species (Marcgrave depicts an individual of the species nowadays known as C. ensifer; Voet depicts the Amazon species of Megaphanaeus), S. lancifer type series is composite and a single specimen should be designated to fix the name to a sole species taxon. As said above, no syntypes are known to remain at any of the collections housing Linnaeus type specimens. At the same time, no Voet or Macgrave collections are known to exist (their name are not even mentioned by Horn &amp; Kahle [1936] and Horn et al. [1990b], as noted earlier by Krell [2012]). Therefore, following Article 75 of the Code, we judge that the best way to fix the name Scarabaeus lancifer to a single species taxon is to designate a neotype for it, what we do herein by choosing a male specimen of the species modernly called as Coprophanaeus lancifer (sensu d’Olsoufieff 1924; Edmonds 1972; Arnaud 2002b; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010) as the new name-bearing type of Scarabaeus lancifer (Figure 1). In accordance to Articles 75.3.2 and 75.3.6, we here designate a specimen from Brazil that corresponds 1. See footnote on page 613 of the tenth edition of Systema Naturae, where Linnaeus (1758) says: ‘ Signo Crucis ubique notavimus animalia nobis nec viva, nec in museis asservata vise, ut Naturae consulti ad ea attentius examinanda incitentur ’ (‘We have everywhere used the sign of the Cross to mark animals which we have not seen either in the living state or preserved in museums, that so Naturalists may be stimulated to examine them more closely’; translation by Heller, 1964). But it is important to have in mind that it was not always that Linnaeus used the cross with this meaning: in his Genera Plantarum (Linnaeus, 1754), for instance, it was the absence of an asterisk or a dagger, and not its presence, the indication that a given species was not examined first-hand by him (Moore and Dransfield, 1979).</p><p>morphologically to modern descriptions of C. lancifer (Arnaud 2002; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010) as the neotype. Although it was originally deposited at the CEMT collection, it is to be deposited in BMNH.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD6228187A9E8FFB5D5AF7FF3B	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622F18789E8FFF2E5B1CFEAF.text	163B87AD622F18789E8FFF2E5B1CFEAF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scarabaeus satelles Lichtenstein 1796	<div><p>Scarabaeus satelles Lichtenstein, 1796: 5 . Unavailable name.</p><p>Nomenclatural history: The name Scarabaeus satelles was proposed in a catalogue of specimens to be sold at auctions titled Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi, d III Februar 1796 ( Lichtenstein 1796). On page 5, Scarabaeus lancifer appears as the forty-seventh species in Lichtenstein’s list and is followed by the description of a beetle named by him as ‘ Scar. satelles; nobis ’, from ‘ America austr. ’ ( South America), which Lichtenstein thought was a ‘mere variety’ of S. lancifer (‘ Vix mera varietas Sc. lanciferi’). As a literature reference to this name, Lichtenstein (1796) cited figure 1 of plate 23 of Voet’s (1766) book ( Figure 2 A, left), one of the illustrations listed by Linné (1767) in his description of S. lancifer; figure 2 of the same plate ( Figure 2 A. right), also mentioned by Linnaeus, was identified by Lichtenstein as S. lancifer . In his description of S. satelles, Lichtenstein also referred to an illustration on plate XV of Jablonsky &amp; Herbst’s (1789) book Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausländischen Insekten 2, which is an exact reproduction of Voet’s (1766) figure 1 3. So, at least in part, the type series of S. satelles was mixed with that of S. lancifer, hence both names could potentially be considered as objective synonyms. Indeed, they were eventually synonymized by Harold (1870) (not Nevinson [1892], as stated by Edmonds &amp; Zídek [2010]) and so remained in all revisions and catalogues published so far (e.g., Gillet 1911; d’Olsoufieff 1924; Blackwelder 1944; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010).</p><p>Nonetheless S. satelles is not an available name, having been suppressed through Opinion 1820 of the ICZN (1995). Although Lichtenstein (1796) presented a brief description for S. satelles that satisfies the provisions of the Code, the ICZN (1995) used its plenary powers to suppress Lichtenstein’s (1796) catalogue (as well as its reprint from 1797) for nomenclatural purposes following a request by Kerzhner (1994). Kerzhner’s main argument was that Lichtenstein’s work was overlooked by most of the nineteenth-century zoologists and, therefore, the eventual 2. See Bousquet (2016) for dates and authorship of this work, which is sometimes erroneously cited as being authored by Herbst only.</p><p>3. Germar (1821) also stated that Voet’s figure 1 represented ‘ Copris satelles ’, a species that, following Voet (1766), he believed to be from Africa (‘ Ƒoets Figure 1 dürfte eine von C. ensifer und C. lancifer gleichmässig verschiedene africanische Art vorstellen, welcher der Name C. satelles Lichtenst. (vergl. Illig. Ausg. von Oliv.) bleiben kann ’).</p><p>discovery that some of the names proposed in that book were senior synonyms of names widely used as valid by modern authors would have caused unnecessary instability. By its decision, the ICZN (1995) decided to suppress the new names proposed by Lichtenstein (1796) with the exception of 23 names especially requested by Kerzhner (1994); Scarabaeus satelles was not among those exceptions and therefore it must be considered as unavailable by having been published in a work suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622F18789E8FFF2E5B1CFEAF	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622C18789E8FFE2D5D0DFD24.text	163B87AD622C18789E8FFE2D5D0DFD24.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus heros Castelnau 1840	<div><p>Phanaeus heros Castelnau, 1840: 80 . Available name.</p><p>Type specimen: Unknown to us.</p><p>Type locality: ‘ Cayenne ’ (Castelnau, 1840).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: To our knowledge, this name was first mentioned as a synonym of C. lancifer by Lacordaire(1856), who cited that as males of this species; this opinion was followed by all subsequent revisers and cataloguers (Nevinson, 1892; Gillet, 1911; d’Olsoufieff, 1924; Pessôa, 1934; Blackwelder, 1944; Edmonds &amp; Zídek, 2010). No syntypes of this name were found by us and, therefore, a lectotype designation is not possible at the moment. See the discussion on P. sylvanus for more details.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622C18789E8FFE2D5D0DFD24	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622C18789E8FFCA75F79FB95.text	163B87AD622C18789E8FFCA75F79FB95.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus miles Castelnau 1840	<div><p>Phanaeus miles Castelnau, 1840: 80 . Available name.</p><p>Type specimen: Unknown to us.</p><p>Type locality: ‘ Cayenne ’ (Castelnau, 1840).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: In the same way as for P. heros, to our knowledge, the first author to include P. miles among the synonyms of C. lancifer was Lacordaire (1856), who considered Castelnau’s description as referring to males specimens of C. lancifer . This synonymy was followed by all subsequent revisers and cataloguers (Nevinson 1892; Gillet 1911; d’Olsoufieff 1924; Pessôa 1934; Blackwelder 1944; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010). No syntypes were found and, therefore, a lectotype designation is not possible at the moment. See the discussion on P. sylvanus for more details.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622C18789E8FFCA75F79FB95	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622C18799E8FFB745AA0FDF7.text	163B87AD622C18799E8FFB745AA0FDF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus septentrionalis Pessoa 1934	<div><p>Phanaeus septentrionalis Pessôa, 1934: 291 . Available name (Lectotype designated).</p><p>Type specimen: Lectotype: here designated, male (‘ Anno / 1922 / Pará / Belem [one side]; Lima / leg. [other side]’ ‘TYPUS’, ‘19396’, ‘ LECTOTYPE ♂ / Phanaeus septentrionalis / Pessôa, 1934 / des. Maldaner et al. 2017’), genital capsule dissected and glued to a paper card, MZSP.</p><p>Paralectotypes: 1. Female (‘ Anno / 1922 / Pará / Belem [one side]; Lima / leg. [other side]’ ‘TYPUS’, ‘19394’, ‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ / Phanaeus septentrionalis / Pessôa, 1934 / des. Maldaner et al. 2017), MZSP . 2. Female (‘ Anno / 1922 / Pará / Belem [one side]; Lima / leg. [other side]’ ‘TYPUS’, ‘19395’, ‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ / Phanaeus septentrionalis / Pessôa, 1934 / des. Maldaner et al. 2017), MZSP .</p><p>Type locality: Brazil: Pará: Belém.</p><p>Nomenclatural history: In his revision of the genus Phanaeus MacLeay, 1819, Pessôa (1934) proposed the name Phanaeus septentrionalis to a supposedly new Amazon species of the subgenus Megaphanaeus . His description was based on what he believed to be five female specimens deposited at the MZSP (then called ‘Museu Paulista’) collected by ‘Mr. Lima’ in the city of Belém, capital of the Brazilian state of Pará. This species was mentioned as being closely related to both Phanaeus lancifer and P. bonariensis, but Pessôa (1934) listed some characters (such as overall size and shape of female pronotal carina) that he believed to be sufficient to differentiate these three taxa. In the following year, Lane &amp; Camargo-Andrade (1935) dissected Pessôa’s type series and found that one of the syntypes was actually a male. Three decades later, Martínez &amp; Pereira (1967) gave a confused judgement about the validity of P. septentrionalis: while they clearly established the synonymy between this name and P. lancifer by writing that ‘there is no morphological characteristic apart from the sexual ones in males and the reduction in the size of the body and of the cephalic and pronotal armature in both sexes that separates septententionalis from lancifer ’ (our translation), they also wrote that septentrionalis probably represented a subspecies of P. lancifer since ‘populations studied by us of both supposed species were never found together’ (our translation). Martínez &amp; Pereira (1967) referred to specimens collected in Bolivia as an example of a population of P. lancifer that would ‘correspond to the form septentrionalis ’. Finally, Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2010) argued that the features used by Pessôa (1934) and Martínez &amp; Pereira (1967) to support their hypotheses for the existence of a separated species or subspecies were actually intrapopulational variations of a single species, Coprophanaeus lancifer .</p><p>Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2010) stated that the name-bearing type of P. septentrionalis was a female holotype deposited at the MZSP. However, Pessôa (1934) never indicated one of his specimens as the name-bearing type; so no holotype was designated. All five specimens are syntypes and equally eligible to become the lectotype. Here, we choose the only male syntype to be designated as the lectotype. As for the female syntypes (now paralectotypes), only two were found by us at the MZSP; the whereabouts of the other two specimens are unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622C18799E8FFB745AA0FDF7	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622D18769E8FFD0B5F57FE1A.text	163B87AD622D18769E8FFD0B5F57FE1A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scarabaeus bellicosus Olivier 1789	<div><p>Scarabaeus bellicosus Olivier, 1789: 103 .</p><p>Type specimen: Lectotype: designated by Staig (1931, p. 53), male (‘10’, ‘139175’, ‘ Scarabaeus bellicosus Oliv. / Phanaeus bellicosus Oliv. / Type’, ‘Type’), HMUG.</p><p>Type locality: Brazilian Atlantic Forest (see comments below).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: In 1789, Olivier proposed the new species Scarabaeus bellicosus stating that it was very similar to the ‘ Scarabé porte-lance ’ (i.e., S. lancifer Linné, 1767), but smaller (‘ mais il est plus petit ’). The type locality cited by him was ‘ Cayenne ’, in today’s French Guiana, and the material upon which he based his description was deposited in the collection of Scottish anatomist and physician William Hunter (1718–1783) (‘ Du Cabinet de feu M. Hunter ’). Hunter bequeathed his zoological and geological collections and library to the University of Glasgow, where they arrived in 1807 and formed the base for the foundation of the Zoology Museum (Staig 1931), part of the today’s Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery. In his study of the Hunterian Insect Collection, Staig (1931) writes about S. bellicosus:</p><p>‘The type of this species is noted in the card-index of Dr Hunter’s Collection as missing; but in Cabinet E, drawer 32, there is a specimen (not labelled) which answers the description given by Olivier and which resembles his figure. It also closely matches the modern examples of this species […] and evidently it is the Olivier type’ (Staig 1931, p. 53).</p><p>At the museum’s online catalogue, we found a photograph of that specimen (catalogue number: 139175) and it is labelled (probably by Staig himself) as the ‘type’ of S. bellicosus . We agree that this specimen perfectly matches Olivier’s description and illustration (Figure 3 A) and, therefore, we conclude it is indeed a type specimen of this name. The kind of typification (i.e., whether this specimen is a holotype or a syntype), however, is not as clear: Olivier’s description refers to a single male specimen, since he did not indicate any sexual dimorphism or variation among different specimens nor cited more than one place in the type locality. Based on these facts, one could believe that he examined only one individual for his description and, hence, this single specimen would be the holotype of S. bellicosus . Nonetheless, Recommendation 73F of the Code states:</p><p>‘Where no holotype or syntype was fixed for a nominal species-group taxon established before 2000, and when it is possible that the nominal species-group taxon was based on more than one specimen, an author should proceed as though syntypes may exist and, where appropriate, should designate a lectotype rather than assume a holotype’ (ICZN, 1999, p. 80; bold by us).</p><p>Because Olivier (1789) did not explicitly cite the number of individuals he had examined, it is impossible to guarantee whether the Glasgow specimen is the holotype of S. bellicosus or one of the syntypes . Therefore, we should follow Code’s recommendation and assume the Glasgow specimen was originally part of a syntypic series rather than considering it as the sole specimen upon which Olivier based his description. However, no lectotype designation is needed: when Staig (1931) described and illustrated (Figure 3 B) that specimen as ‘the type’ of S. bellicosus, he unintentionally designated it as the lectotype of this name according to Article 74.6 of the Code.</p><p>The type locality cited by Olivier (1789, 1790), ‘ Cayenne’ is clearly wrong, since Coprophanaeus bellicosus does not occur in French Guiana nor in any other place in the Amazon forest, but rather solely along the Atlantic Forest of the Brazilian coast (Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010; Silva 2011). The only species of Megaphanaeus present in the Guiana Shield is C. lancifer, and Olivier certainly was not referring to this species when he described S. bellicosus given his description, illustration and comments. We do not know what was the origin for this error, but Hope (1838), who revised the scarab species described by Olivier (1789), cited several cases of wrong type localities given by the latter author (see also, for example, Cupello et al.’s [2016] discussion on the type locality of Chalcocopris hesperus (Olivier, 1789)) . To our knowledge, the first author to cite the correct distribution of C. bellicosus was MacLeay (1819), who mentioned ‘ Habitat in Brasilia ’ for this species. Here, following Recommendation 76A.2 of the Code, we correct the type locality of C. bellicosus from ‘ Cayenne ’ to the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, the most accurate location possible to indicate without knowing the particular history of the lectotype .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622D18769E8FFD0B5F57FE1A	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622218749E8FFB155CC0FE67.text	163B87AD622218749E8FFB155CC0FE67.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus sylvanus Castelnau 1840	<div><p>Phanaeus sylvanus Castelnau, 1840: 80 . Available name.</p><p>Type specimens: Unknown to us. Certainly, it was a syntype series (rather than just a holotype), since Castelnau (1840) described differences among sexes. See discussion below.</p><p>Type locality: ‘ Brésil ’ (Castelnau 1840).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: In Histoire naturelle des Insectes Coléoptères, Castelnau (1840) described four species related to the modern concept of Megaphanaeus: Phanaeus ducalis, from ‘ Brésil ’, which he recognized as being a new species described by him, P. sylvanus, from ‘ Brésil ’, P. heros and P. miles, both from ‘ Cayenne ’, the latter three names cited by him as from ‘ Dej. Coll. ’. Indeed, they are listed in both the second (Dejean 1833 – 1836) and the third (Dejean 1836 –1837) editions of Dejean’s catalogue of the Coleoptera present in his collection. The name sylvanus, in particular (which was spelled as silvanus in the catalogue’s last two editions), was cited also in the first edition in combination with genus Copris Geoffroy, 1762 (Dejean 1821) . Nonetheless, as Dejean (1821, 1833 – 1836, 1836 –1837) only listed names without any description, illustration or indication, he failed in giving availability to them in light of the modern Code (Article 12) and he cannot be deemed as their author. The first author to provide a proper description for those names was Castelnau (1840). For this reason, Castelnau was the person who gave availability to these names and who should be cited as their author, despite the fact that he himself has credited them to Dejean (see Bousquet &amp; Bouchard’s [2013] discussion on the authorship of Dejean’s names).</p><p>The whereabouts of Castelnau’s collection and type specimens are a tricky question. His first private collection and library, gathered by him until 1841, was donated by Castelnau himself to the National Institute for the Promotion of Science, forerunner of the today’s Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, D.C., United States of America, to where they arrived in January and February 1842 (Evenhuis, 2012). However, nowadays there is no trace of this collection at the Smithsonian. As argued by Evenhuis (2012), Castelnau’s specimens were probably consumed by the great fire occurred at the main hall of the Smithsonian Institution on the 24th of January, 1865.</p><p>Therefore, if the type specimens of Phanaeus sylvanus and of the other three names described by Castelnau (1840) have ever been deposited there, they were probably destroyed.</p><p>In 1848, Castelnau started an official diplomatic career for the French government and was sent as its consul to Bahia, Brazil . After other posts in Cape Town and Bangkok, he eventually moved to the then British colony of Australia as the consul general in Melbourne, and there he stayed for the rest of his life (Cambefort 2006; Evenhuis 2012). After his death in 1880, part of his final collection was left to the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. The portion remaining in Paris (probably formed between 1841, when he donated the first collection to the US, and 1848, when he left to Brazil) was auctioned in 1863 by the insect dealers Henri Deyrolle, in Paris, and Edward Wesley Janson, in London (Cambefort 2006), and, then, scattered throughout Europe (Horn &amp; Kahle 1935; Cambefort 2006; Evenhuis 2012).</p><p>The possibility that the type specimens of P. sylvanus and of the other three names are housed in the Melbourne museum is, in our opinion, almost null. Since Castelnau described them in 1840, therefore one year before the donation of his first collection to the National Institute, we do not believe they could be deposited in his Australian collection. In his revision of Phanaeus, Edmonds (1994) reached the same conclusion and wrote that, although ‘many phanaeines ( Phanaeus and related genera) exist in the Castelnau Collection at the National Museum of Victoria’, this collection does not include any specimen that ‘can reasonably be taken as typical’. In the revision of Oxysternon Castelnau, 1840, however, Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2004) went in a different direction and recognized some putative syntypes in Melbourne of two names described by Castelnau (1840): O. palemo (unjustifiably emended to palaemon by Nevinson [1892], but in prevailing usage with Castelnau’s authorship) and O. silenus; no supposed syntypes of the other name established by Castelnau (1840) in Oxysternon, i.e. O. spiniferum, were found by them. Nevertheless, we are sceptical about Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2004) recognition of those Melbourne specimens as Castelnau’s type specimens. We have no reason to believe that any phanaeine specimen in Melbourne museum was studied by Castelnau for his 1840 descriptions and the historical evidence, in our opinion, shows otherwise. Now that Evenhuis (2012) has published a detailed account of the history of Castelnau’s collections, we think that Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2004) lectotype designations for O. palemo and O. silenus should be readdressed and Arnaud’s (2003) neotype designation for them may be considered as pertinent.</p><p>As said above, the portion of Castelnau’s second collection that remained in Paris was sold to several different entomologists in 1863. According to Horn &amp; Kahle (1935), the ‘Lamellicornia’ part was purchased by Johan Wilhelm van Lansberge and, years later, the ‘ premier choix ’ (the first choice) of van Lansberge’s collection was bought by René Oberthür, while Jacob Rudolph Hendrik Neervoort van de Poll took the remaining specimens (Cambefort 2006). Oberthür’s Coleoptera collection was purchased in 1952 by the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and among its more than 5 million specimens, there were present tens of thousands of type specimens (Horn et al. 1990; Cambefort 2006), including some described by Castelnau (Arnaud 2002a, 2003; Horn et al. 1990; Puker et al. 2014). Van de Poll’s collection, in turn, was sold and divided into several smaller parts after its owner’s death and now specimens from it are encountered in most of the largest museums in Europe, including those in London, Manchester, Oxford, Paris, Berlin, Bonn, Leiden and Milan, and also in other continents (Horn &amp; Kahle 1936; Horn et al. 1990), and in private collections (FZVM personal observation) . FZVM, while visiting European collections between 2013 and 2014, was able to recognize Castelnau’s dung beetle types in four museums: Brussels, Paris, London and Oxford. However, in none of them syntypes of P. sylvanus or of any of the three Castelnau’s names related to Megaphanaeus were found.</p><p>Since Castelnau (1840) mentioned ‘ Dej. Coll.’ as his source of information for the description of P. sylvanus, P. heros and P. miles, it is possible that their type specimens were deposited in Dejean’s collection rather than in Castelnau’s (in fact, many Castelnau’s Scarabaeinae types were recognized by FZVM from the presence of Dejean’s labels). Even so, with just one possible exception, our searches were again fruitless. As happened to van de Poll’s, Dejean’s collection was sold in parts in 1840 and now its specimens are scattered throughout Europe (Horn &amp; Kahle 1935; Horn et al. 1990; Cambefort 2006; Bousquet &amp; Bouchard 2013). In none of the collections visited by us have we found a specimen that could be linked to Castelnau’s names of Megaphanaeus . Giachino’s (1982) catalogue of the Coleoptera collection of the Italian entomologist Massimiliano Spinola (1780–1857), however, listed the presence of three specimens identified as ‘ Phanaeus sylvanus ’, from ‘ Cayenne ’ (not ‘ Brésil ’, as cited by Castelnau [1840]). As explained by Giachino, Spinola’s collection, now housed in the Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Turin, is of special importance because, among other factors, it includes 28 boxes coming originally from Dejean’s collection. Although these boxes contain only Chrysomelidae specimens, specimens belonging to other groups in Spinola’s collection have labels indicating their origin from Dejean collection. However, those three specimens lack information about original collection (Giachino 1982: p. 224). For that reason, we decided not to designate one of the Spinola’s specimens as the lectotype of P. sylvanus and consider the whereabouts of the syntypes of this name as unknown.</p><p>The first author to cite P. sylvanus in synonymy with P. bellicosus was Harold (1869) and, since then, it has never been cited as a valid name again (e.g., Nevinson 1892; Gillet 1911; d'Olsoufieff 1924; Pessôa 1934; Blackwelder 1944; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622218749E8FFB155CC0FE67	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622018759E8FFD9A5F2DFF17.text	163B87AD622018759E8FFD9A5F2DFF17.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Copris ensifer Germar in Wiedemann & Germar 1821	<div><p>Copris ensifer Germar in Wiedemann &amp; Germar, 1821: 147 .</p><p>Type specimen: Lectotype: here designated, male (‘ LECTOTYPE ♂ / Copris ensifer Germar, 1821 / des. Maldaner, Cupello &amp; / Vaz-de-Mello, 2016 ’, ‘ 26692 ’, ‘ Brasilien / Sao Paulo’), ZMHB (Figure 4).</p><p>Paralectotype: 1. Male (‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♂ / Copris ensifer Germar, 1821 / des. Maldaner, Cupello &amp; / Vaz-de-Mello, 2016 ’, ‘ Brasil / v. Olfers ’, ‘ 26692 ’), ZMHB . 2. Female (‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ / Copris ensifer Germar, 1821 / des. Maldaner, Cupello &amp; / Vaz-de-Mello, 2016 ’, ‘ ensifer / germ. / Brasil. V. Olf ’, ‘26692), ZMHB . 3. Female (‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ / Copris ensifer Germar, 1821 / des. Maldaner, Cupello &amp; / Vaz-de-Mello, 2016 ’, ‘ Brasil / v. Olfers ’, ‘ 26692 ’), ZHMB . 4. Female (‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ / Copris ensifer Germar, 1821 / des. Maldaner, Cupello &amp; / Vaz-de-Mello, 2016 ’, ‘ Brasil / v. Olfers ’, ‘ 26692 ’), ZHMB . 5. Female (‘PARALECTOTYPE ♀ / Copris ensifer Germar, 1821 / des. Maldaner, Cupello &amp; / Vaz-de-Mello, 2016 ’), ZHMB.</p><p>Type locality: Brazil: São Paulo state.</p><p>Nomenclatural history: Copris ensifer was described in the paper titled Neue exotische Käfer co-authored by Wiedemann &amp; Germar (1821). In a footnote to the first page of that work, the authors stated that names followed by the letters ‘ Gr. ’ were authored by Germar alone, while those followed by a ‘ Wd.’ had Wiedemann as their sole author. The specimens upon which they based their descriptions were deposited in author’s respective collections. Since ‘ Copris ensifer ’ is followed by the ‘ Gr.’ abbreviation, Germar is to be deemed as the sole author of this name.</p><p>As a literature reference to the new species, Germar (1821) cited Voet’s (1766) plate 23, figure 2 (Figure 2 A, right), and, after a long discussion comparing C. ensifer and C. lancifer, he said ‘the illustration given by Voet shows the female of our beetle, certainly not that of C. lancifer […]’(‘ Voets angeführte Abbildung, stellt wahrscheinlich das Weibchen unsers Käfers, aus keinen Fall das von C. lancifer dar, nur find dann die Kanten der Deckschilde falsch ausgedrückt ’). This same figure was cited by Linné (1767) as a reference to Scarabaeus lancifer and, therefore, both Linnaeus’s and Germar’s descriptions were based in part on a same specimen (the one illustrated by Voet) and their type series are mixed. To settle this question, we needed to fix the name C. ensifer to a single specimen from its original type series.</p><p>According to Horn &amp; Kahle (1935), most of Germar’s insects are deposited in the Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität, Berlin . During a visit to that institution in June 2016, MC found six specimens that match Germar’s description of C. ensifer and show evidence of having been examined by Germar: as written in the ZMHB collection catalogue and in their labels, those specimens (originally seven, with register number 26692) were collected by the Prussian naturalist Ignaz Franz Werner Maria von Olfers (1793–1872) (‘ v. Olfers ’) in Brazil. One of the specimens bears also a label with a more precise information saying it was collected in ‘ Brasilien, São Paulo ’, which perfectly corresponds to the type locality ‘ St. Paulo in Brasilia ’ given by Germar (1821). Having arrived to Rio de Janeiro in 1816, von Olfers joined the German naturalist Friedrich Sellow (1789–1831) in an expedition through the provinces of Minas Gerais and São Paulo, in southeastern Brazil, from August 1818 to May 1819 (Papavero 1971). After this period, von Olfers returned to Rio and sent his collection (mainly insects and geological samples) to the museums in Vienna and Berlin . Therefore, the six specimens found in the ZMHB were collected between 1818 and 1819 and probably arrived in Berlin in time to be examined by Germar for the publication of C. ensifer in 1821. As last evidence that those specimens are true syntypes, one of them bears a green square label typical of old specimens studied by Germar, including some of his type specimens (Joachim Willers, curator at the ZMHB, personal communication to MC). Taking all this information into account, here we consider those six specimens as part of C. ensifer type series and designate one of them, the largest male, as the lectotype (Figure 4).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622018759E8FFD9A5F2DFF17	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622118759E8FF9D65D78F801.text	163B87AD622118759E8FF9D65D78F801.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Copris ajax Sturm 1826	<div><p>Copris ajax Sturm, 1826: 125 . Unavailable name (Nomen nudum).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: This name was published in the first edition of the catalogue of beetles present in the collection of Jacob Sturm. Sturm (1826) listed ‘ Ajax St. ’, from ‘ Brasilia ’, as the first species of genus Copris, but he gave no description for his new taxon. In the second edition of his collection’s catalogue, however, Sturm (1843) listed ‘ Ajax . St. Cat.’ as one of the synonyms of Phanaeus ensifer, fact that suggests that Sturm was not aware of Germar’s description of this latter name when he published the first edition of his catalogue. Since then, Copris ajax was always cited as junior synonym of C. ensifer (e.g., Harold 1869; Nevinson 1892; Gillet 1911; d’Olsoufieff 1924; Blackwelder 1944; Edmonds &amp; Zidek 2010), but, as this name was never published companied by a description, illustration or an indication as defined in Article 12 of the Code, it does not satisfy the criteria of availability and is here considered as an unavailable name.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622118759E8FF9D65D78F801	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622618729E8FFD345B46F834.text	163B87AD622618729E8FFD345B46F834.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus bonariensis Gory in Guerin-Meneville 1844	<div><p>Phanaeus bonariensis Gory in Guérin-Méneville, 1844: 79 .</p><p>Type specimen: Unknown to us (see discussion below). Certainly, the description was based on a syntypic series, since Gory (1844) gave several places in Argentina and Paraguay as type locality.</p><p>Type locality: ‘ Buénos-Ayres, Corrientes, le Paraguay ’ (Gory 1844).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: In Iconographie du régne animal de G. Cuvier, Guérin-Méneville (1844) discussed about the species today placed in Megaphanaeus and, following his discussion on Phanaeus ensifer, he said ‘Mr. Gory [the French entomologist Hippolyte Louis Gory (1800–1852)] possesses a new species related to this one, but it is quite distinct, we have seen several differences in both sexes; here follows the description he made of it’ (‘ M. Gory possède une espèce nouvelle voisine de celle-ci, mais bien distincte, nous en avons vu plusieurs variétés de sexes divers; voice la description qu’il en faite: ’), and then he presented the description of ‘ Phanaeus Bonariensis, Gory’, from ‘ Buénos-Ayres, Corrientes, le Paraguay ’. According to Article 50.1 of the Code, ‘the author of a name […] is the person who first published it in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability […]’, and Article 50.1.1 says ‘[…] if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible […] for the name […], then that other person is the author of the name […]’. With the phrase transcript above, Guérin- Méneville (1844) made it clear that Gory was the responsible both for the description and for naming Phanaeus bonariensis, making the latter entomologist its author.</p><p>After Gory’s death, his personal collection was scattered throughout different museums in Europe (Cambefort 2006), but even before some of his specimens seem to have been sent to other collections. For example, Smith (1986) cited a letter dated 1849 where Gory’s brother offered his collection by £300 to the English entomologist Reverend Frederick William Hope (1797–1762). Indeed, specimens coming from Gory’s collection were found in the Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, where they can be easily recognized by the presence of a small red square label handwritten ‘ G ’ attached to them (Figure 5 C shows an example) (Darren Mann, curator at the OUMNH, personal communication to MC on the 4th of September, 2016).</p><p>Nonetheless, we were unable to find a specimen of the species currently known as C. bonariensis bearing Gory’s label at OUMNH or at any other museum examined. Two apparently mid-nineteenth-century specimens of C. bonariensis from Hope-Westwood collection at OUMNH are potentially part of the type series (Figure5 A–B), but, as none of them bears a ‘ G ’ label, we prefer to be careful and, by now, we will not consider them as syntypes of Phanaeus bonariensis . Arnaud (2002b) mentioned that the type specimen of P. bonariensis was deposited in the MNHN (although it was not cited as being there in Arnaud’s [1982b] list of the Phanaeini type material housed in the Paris museum). Nonetheless, FZVM spent a year at the MNHN and did not find this putative type there. Therefore, the whereabouts of P. bonariensis type material are unknown to us.</p><p>The application of the name bonariensis to the Megaphanaeus species from the Chacoan habitats in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina has long been well established (e.g., d’Olsoufieff 1924; Edmonds 1972; Arnaud 2002b; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010) and is clear from the original description given by Gory (1844), making no neotype designation necessary at the moment. The fact that one of the places of the type locality is ‘ Buenos Ayres ’, which is, in the stricter sense of the word, out of the occurrence area of the species, is not considered by us as relevant, as it may indicate rather a departure port to Europe or a much wider area than a strict locality.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622618729E8FFD345B46F834	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622618729E8FFF2E5AA8FE1D.text	163B87AD622618729E8FFF2E5AA8FE1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus ducalis Castelnau 1840	<div><p>Phanaeus ducalis Castelnau, 1840: 79 . Available name.</p><p>Type specimens: Unknown to us, but certainly, the description was based on a syntypic series (rather than a holotype), since Castelnau (1840) described sexual dimorphism.</p><p>Type locality: ‘ Brésil ’ (Castelnau 1840).</p><p>Nomenclatural history: To our knowledge, the first author to cite P. ducalis among the synonyms of C. ensifer was Lacordaire (1856), who thought this name referred to male of this species; this synonymy was endorsed by all subsequent revisers and cataloguers (e.g., Nevinson 1892; Gillet 1911; d’Olsoufieff 1924; Pessôa 1934; Blackwelder 1944; Edmonds &amp; Zídek 2010). No syntypes of this name were found and, therefore, a lectotype designation is not possible at the moment. For more details, see the discussion above on P. sylvanus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622618729E8FFF2E5AA8FE1D	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622718709E8FF99D5EB0F831.text	163B87AD622718709E8FF99D5EB0F831.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus vicinus Martinez 1944	<div><p>Phanaeus vicinus Martínez, 1944: 187 . Available name.</p><p>Type specimen: Holotype: male (BOLIVIA / Dep. Sta. Cruz / Sta. Cruz de la Sierra / F.Monrós-leg. / Coll. Martínez: ’, ‘ Phanaeus (Meg.) / vicinus / ♂ / sp. n. / A.Martinez-det.19 44 ’, ‘ HOLOTIPO ♂ ’, ‘MACN-En / 1545’, ‘ FICHADO ’), genital capsule and right wing dissected and glued to paper card (wing not illustrated by us), MACN (Figure 6 A–B).</p><p>Type locality: Bolivia: Santa Cruz de la Sierra department.</p><p>Nomenclatural history: In 1944 Martínez published what he thought to be a new Bolivian species of Megaphanaeus closely related to C. bonariensis, which he named Phanaeus vicinus . Years later, Martínez &amp; Pereira (1967) synonymized Phanaeus vicinus with P. bonariensis, giving the same confusing explanation that they had given for the synonymy between P. lancifer and P. septentrionalis (see section above on Scarabaeus lancifer): while P. argentinus would certainly not represent a valid species, it could be proved in the future to be a valid subspecies of P. bonariensis . In their review of Coprophanaeus, Edmonds &amp; Zídek (2010) endorsed this synonymy without discussing it.</p><p>Martínez (1944) stated the holotype of P. vicinus, the only specimen on which his description was based, was deposited in his personal collection, which today is divided in two distinct institutions: Martínez’s holotypes and allotypes are deposited at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Buenos Aires, while paratypes and non-type material are housed at the Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, via Henry F. Howden’s collection. The holotype of P. vicinus (Figure 6 A) was found by us in MACN and its labels’ information are given above.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622718709E8FF99D5EB0F831	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
163B87AD622518719E8FFF2E5F2DFD24.text	163B87AD622518719E8FFF2E5F2DFD24.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phanaeus vicinus var. argentinus Martinez 1944	<div><p>Phanaeus vicinus var. argentinus Martínez, 1944: 187 . Available name.</p><p>Type specimen: Holotype: male (‘ Argentina / Prov. / La Rioja’, ‘ Phanaus (Meg.) / vicinus . var. / argentinus / n. / ♂ / A.Martinez-det.19 44 ’ ‘ HOLOTIPO ♂ ’ ‘MACN-En 845’ ‘ FICHADO ’), genital capsule dissected and glued to a paper card, MACN (Figure 6 C-D).</p><p>Type locality: Argentina: La Rioja.</p><p>Nomenclatural history: The name ‘ argentinus ’ was used by Martínez (1944) in the description of an Argentinian variety of Phanaeus vicinus . According to Article 45.6.4 of the Code, species-group names published before 1961 in the category of variety are deemed to be subspecific (in opposition of being infrasubspecific) and, hence, available. In his catalogue of the Argentinian dung beetles, Martínez (1959) listed ‘ var. argentinus ’ among the references of P. vicinus in a dubious way regarding whether he was considering them as synonyms. In the same way, Martínez &amp; Pereira (1967) did not explicitly discuss the validity of ‘ var. argentinus ’, but, as they synonymized P. vicinus and P. bonariensis listing ‘ var. argentinus ’ among the references to the latter name, it is clear that they considered these three names as referring to a single species taxon. The holotype of Phanaeus vicinus argentinus, the only specimen on which Martínez (1944) based his description, was found by us in the MACN (Figure 6 C).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/163B87AD622518719E8FFF2E5F2DFD24	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Maldaner, Maria E.;Cupello, Mario;Ferreira, Daniela C.;Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.	Maldaner, Maria E., Cupello, Mario, Ferreira, Daniela C., Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z. (2017): Type specimens and names assigned to Coprophanaeus (Megaphanaeus) d’Olsoufieff, 1924, the largest New World dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Phanaeini). Zootaxa 4272 (1): 83-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.1.4
