identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CF87FEFFD3FFD6397C14268A9C0775.text	03CF87FEFFD3FFD6397C14268A9C0775.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthracalaus Fairmaire 1888	<div><p>AnTHRacaLaUS Fairmaire, 1888</p> <p>Type species: Alaus westermanni Candèze, 1857, designated by Hyslop (1921). Review of species: Calder and Hayek (1992).</p> <p>Anthracalaus bengalensis (Candèze, 1881) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Anthracalaus cirratipilis (Candèze, 1865) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Anthracalaus luzonicus (Candèze, 1865) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Anthracalaus morosus (Candèze, 1881) (Corymbites) Neopristilophus confusus Fleutiaux, 1936. Synonymized by Calder and Hayek (1992).</p> <p>Neopristilophus dissimilis Fleutiaux, 1936. Synonymized by Calder and Hayek (1992).</p> <p>Anthracalaus novaguinensis (Van Zwaluwenburg, 1951) (Neopristilophus) [see Comments below]</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CF87FEFFD3FFD6397C14268A9C0775	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	Etzler, Frank E.	Etzler, Frank E. (2024): Generic Changes for Some Nearctic Prosternini (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Dendrometrinae: Neopristilophus Buysson, 1894 and Pristilophus Latreille, 1834) to Align with Palearctic Concepts. The Coleopterists Bulletin 78 (2): 125-140, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-78.2.125, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-78.2.125
03CF87FEFFD3FFD63A8413EB8C1604AF.text	03CF87FEFFD3FFD63A8413EB8C1604AF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neopristilophus BUYSSON 1894	<div><p>Neopristilophus Buysson, 1894</p> <p>Neopristilophus Buysson 1894: 87; Buysson 1927: 211; Calder and Hayek 1992: 12; Cate 2007: 178; Fleutiaux 1936: 279, 283; Fleutiaux 1947: 329; Tarnawski 1996: 629; Tarnawski 2001: 293; Van Zwaluwenburg 1951: 325; Van Zwaluwenburg 1959: 401. Type species: Elater depressus Germar, 1823 (= Elater insitivus Germar, 1824), by monotypy.</p> <p>Brownia Johnson in Mathison 2021: 325 (not Brownia d’Orbigny, 1841 [Mollusca] and Brownia Nunberg, 1963 [Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae]). Etzler and Seibert 2022: 469. Type species: Corymbites coniungens LeConte, 1853, by original designation. New synonym.</p> <p>Billbrownia Johnson 2023: 252. Replacement name for Brownia Johnson. New synonym.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CF87FEFFD3FFD63A8413EB8C1604AF	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	Etzler, Frank E.	Etzler, Frank E. (2024): Generic Changes for Some Nearctic Prosternini (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Dendrometrinae: Neopristilophus Buysson, 1894 and Pristilophus Latreille, 1834) to Align with Palearctic Concepts. The Coleopterists Bulletin 78 (2): 125-140, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-78.2.125, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-78.2.125
03CF87FEFFD3FFDA389216238FAA02B9.text	03CF87FEFFD3FFDA389216238FAA02B9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudopristilophus Mequignon 1930	<div><p>Pseudopristilophus Méquignon, 1930</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus Méquignon 1930: 93; Fleutiaux 1930: 307; Laurent 1974: 20; Girard 2017: 10, 333, 361. Not exhaustive. Type species: Pristilophus sericans Germar, 1843, by original designation. Catalog of sub-Saharan species: Girard (2017). Madagascar species overview: Piguet (2005), majority not included here.</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus amaurus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus attenuatus (Boheman, 1851) (Pristilophus)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus badius Laurent, 1974 [not treated by Tarnawski 1996, 2001]</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus famulus (Germar, 1843) (Pristilophus)*</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus leptus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus longus (Candèze, 1889) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus macilentus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus madagascariensis (Fleutiaux, 1899) (Hemirrhaphes)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus mocquerysi (Fleutiaux, 1899) (Pristilophus)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus mucronatus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Corymbites aurulentus Candèze, 1863. Synonymized by Girard (2017).</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus pellos (Germar, 1843) (Pristilophus)*</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus peringueyi (Candèze, 1889) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus piciventris (Candèze, 1889) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus pseudalaus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus rhomalocerus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus sericans (Germar, 1843) (Pristilophus)*</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus servus (Germar, 1843) (Pristilophus)*</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus summus (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pseudopristilophus velutinipes (Candèze, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Diagnosis. Neopristilophus can be distinguished from other Prosternini genera by the following combination of characters: pronotum about as wide as long and with majority of setae directed laterally from midline (e.g., Fig. 1C), pronotal hind angles with dorsal carina (e.g., Fig. 1D), elytral setae not forming a pattern (e.g., Fig. 1A), and parameres with blunt or rounded apex without lateral projections or setae (Fig. 2D) or ovipositor with blunt, setose gonocoxites that are longer than paraprocts and with well developed proctiger (Fig. 2G).</p> <p>Genus Redescription. Length 8 to 22 mm. Body integument in most unicolorous, red-brown to black, a few with sides of pronotum paler; legs variable, paler to same color as body. Head: Mouthparts prognathous, mandible bidentate with outer tooth longer; labrum sclerotized, truncate to semicircular; supra-antennal carina directed toward posterior edge of labrum, incomplete medially; frons flat to impressed antero-medially; punctures subumbilicate with density correlated to puncture size; antenna with sensory elements beginning on third or fourth antennomere, third antennomere shape variable, subcylindrical to subtriangular, length variable, shorter than or equal in length to antennomere 4, antennomere 4–10 shape variable, nearly filiform (2× longer than wide) to strongly serrate (as long as wide), apex of antennomere 11 variable, constricted or not, antennal length variable, not reaching to surpassing posterior pronotal hind angles. Pronotum: Slightly wider than long to slightly longer than wide with most about as wide as long, majority of setae directed laterally from midline, medial impression length variable, limited to posterior part of pronotum to throughout entire length, punctures subumbilicate and similar in size to punctures on head, denser laterally than medially, pronotal hind angles unicarinate, sublateral plicae present or absent. Hypomeron with dense (nearly touching), subumbilicate punctures on anterior four-fifths; posterior edge with hind angle visible ventro-laterally, medial two-thirds thickened posteriad impunctate region of hypomeron, with two blunt tubercles medially, of which one is behind procoxa, remainder of thickened region variable, with additional tubercles, bumps, or ridges; without medial hypomeral bead. Prosternum with sides straight, pronotosternal sutures closed anteriorly, anterior lobe broadly rounded and on same plane as rest of prosternum, prosternal process straight posteriad procoxae, unidentate. Pterothorax: Mesocoxal cavity open to mesanepisternum and mesepimeron, mesosternal fossa with sides gradually sloping. Scutellar shield subrectangular, rounded anteriorly and posteriorly, sides concave. Elytra with striae punctate and impressed. Aedeagus: Parameres rounded apically and without subapical lateral expansion, without apical setae (Figs. 2D, F), median lobe variable, subparal- lel laterally and narrowing at apex to blunt point (Figs. 2D, F) or narrowing throughout entire length, or with medial lateral expansions, phallobase variable, one-third of total length (Fig. 2D) or one-half of total length. Ovipositor (o; Figs. 2C, E): Short and robust, paraprocts (pa; Fig. 2G) shorter than gonocoxite (g; Fig. 2G), gonocoxite broadly rounded apically and setose, without styli, proctiger (pr; Fig. 2G) well developed. Internal female genitalia: vagina (v; Figs. 2C, E) with lateral sclerotiza- tions (clearest in Fig. 2E), with two large colleterial glands (cg; Figs. 2C, E; shrunken in Fig. 2E) lateral of opening to bursa copulatrix; bursa copulatrix (bc; Figs. 2C, E) elongate and tubular, without scleroti- zations, accessory gland (acg; Figs. 2C, E) tubular and arising from end of bursa copulatrix, terminal element (te; Figs. 2C, E) corkscrew shaped (unrav- eled in Fig. 2C).</p> <p>Comments. Johnson (1992) originally compared Billbrownia (as Brownia, a manuscript name at the time) to Neopristilophus. These two genera were separated based on characters of the antennae (moderately serrate vs. strongly serrate, respectively) and characters of the elytral striae and inter- striae. Johnson (1992: 110) stated that Billbrownia had elytral intervals convex and punctures subequal to strial punctures, while Neopristilophus had elytral intervals flat with punctures larger than strial punctures. These characters of antennae and elytra are often difficult to use to distinguish divisions higher than the species level in other elaterid genera and are often subjective. Antennal serration can be highly variable within genera and often varies between sexes within a species. The elytral interval characters are also difficult to use (compare Figs. 1A and B to Figs. 1C and D). This is made all the more difficult in that, in the generic descriptions, Johnson (1992: 112; also in description in Mathison 2021: 326) stated that Brownia has the elytral intervals “flat to shallowly convex” and Neopristilophus has elytral intervals “shallowly convex” (Johnson 1992: 118). This difference between the key to species and the generic descriptions implies that the elytral interval character is not useful in defining these genera.</p> <p>An additional difficulty arises with N. signaticollis. This species was placed in Billbrownia, but the antennal serration is similar to that of North American species of Neopristilophus, with the third antennomere similar to that found in N. cribrosus. The generic description in Mathison (2021: 326) also states that the third antennomere in Billbrownia (= Brownia) is subcylindrical, which is immediately contrasted with N. signaticollis which has the third antennomere “similar to following antennomeres” which are described as serrate (Mathison 2021: 327). Brown (1935c) also considered N. signaticollis to be closely related to his cribrosus -group (= North American Neopristilophus). Additionally, LeConte (1853) compared N. coniungens, the type of Billbrownia, to N. aethiops in his original description. Together, this highlights the difficulty of utilizing the presented antennal characters to distinguish the groups of species that are placed in Billbrownia and Neopristilophus, as well as historical comparisons of species that have been placed in each genus.</p> <p>There are, however, many characters that can be used to unify these two groups. All species have a similar, somewhat dorso-ventrally compressed body (Figs. 2A, B). The aedeagi of all species have parameres with a blunt or rounded apex and without lateral expansions or points and lacking setae (Figs. 2D, F). Most importantly, they share similar internal female genitalia (Figs. 2C, E) with developed colleterial glands and an elongate, tubular bursa copulatrix with a corkscrew-shaped tubular extension, and an apparently unique ovipositor for Elateridae bearing a well developed proctiger.These characters all support a synonymy of Billbrownia with Neopristilophus, and a clear generic concept for North America.</p> <p>There are also some species that are listed in Neopristilophus in the Ctenicerini (= Prosternini and Selatosomini) catalogs by Tarnawski (1996, 2001) that had or have been moved to other genera and need cor- recting. Calder and Hayek (1992) moved the southeast Asian Neopristilophus to Anthracalaus in their revision of the latter genus, moves supported by multiple morphological characters. These generic transfers were missed by Tarnawski, who also listed some of the combinations with Neopristilophus as new in the 1996 catalog despite being used in combination with Neopristilophus in older works (e.g., Fleutiaux 1947). Anthracalaus novaguinensis was originally described in Neopristilophus, but was not present in any of Tarnawski’s catalogs. Calder and Hayek (1992) also synonymized two species described by Fleutiaux under A. morosus (see list above). Tarnawski (1996, 2001) also mentioned Pristilophus tonkinensis Fleutiaux, 1924, stating this species is distinct from Corymbitodes tonkinensis Fleutiaux, 1918 currently in the genus Gnathodicrus Fleutiaux, 1934 (Fleutiaux 1947; Tarnawski 2001). However, no species with the original combination of Pristilophus tonkinensis Fleutiaux, 1924 or with that species name was included in Neopristilophus when it was later reviewed by Fleutiaux (1947) for southeastAsia.Due to the confusion about its status and the fact that the author of the species did not include it in Neopristilophus, it is not included here. Additionally, Anthracalaus is in the subfamilyAgrypninae and the tribe Pseudomelanactini (Calder and Hayek 1992; Kundrata et al. 2019), very different from Neopristilophus, which is in the subfamily Dendrometrinae and the tribe Prosternini (Johnson 2002).</p> <p>Species from southern Africa and Madagascar that were in Neopristilophus in Tarnawski’s (1996, 2001) catalogs are currently in Pseudopristilophus (Girard 2017). Girard (2017) provided a list of species in Pseudopristilophus for continental Africa. Seven additional species are known from Madagascar (Piguet 2005), two of which appear on the list above. Pseudopristilophus is in the subfamily Dendrometrinae and the tribe Prosternini (Girard 2017, as Denticollinae and Ctenicerini, respectively), similar to Neopristilophus. However, it is possible that Pseudopristilophus is better placed in Parablacinae due to similarities of male genitalia (compare figures in Piguet 2005 and Calder 1996). However, this should be confirmed using morphological and molecular techniques. Evidently, the genus Neopristilophus is Holarctic in distribution, Pseudopristilophus is Afrotropical, and Anthracalaus is Indomalayan and Australasian with a lone exception in North America.</p> <p>The list of species provided above now correctly places all species in the appropriate genus for their region and should prevent confusion going forward. Additionally, photographs of the type specimen of Corymbites rupestris Germar were seen (Bernd Jaeger, in litt.). While the name C. rupestris was often associated with specimens currently in the genus Laneganus Johnson, 2021 due to misidentifications dating back to Van Dyke (1932), the type specimen evidently belongs to Neopristilophus. It is very close in appearance to N. coniungens and N. praeses and is likely confused in collections under the former name. Montana N. praeses populations show some variation of male genitalia, and due to possible cryptic species, are listed with county data in figure captions to aid in future study. The genus Neopristilophus will need revision, par- ticularly for North America.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CF87FEFFD3FFDA389216238FAA02B9	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	Etzler, Frank E.	Etzler, Frank E. (2024): Generic Changes for Some Nearctic Prosternini (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Dendrometrinae: Neopristilophus Buysson, 1894 and Pristilophus Latreille, 1834) to Align with Palearctic Concepts. The Coleopterists Bulletin 78 (2): 125-140, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-78.2.125, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-78.2.125
03CF87FEFFDFFFDC3B7613E48D4E01DA.text	03CF87FEFFDFFFDC3B7613E48D4E01DA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pristilophus LATREILLE 1834	<div><p>PRISTILOpHUS Latreille, 1834</p> <p>Pristilophus Latreille 1834: 151; Schimmel et al. 2015: 14, 36. Type species: Elater melancholicus Fabricius, 1798, designated by Erichson (1843).</p> <p>[As subgenus of Selatosomus Stephens, 1830]: Kishii 1966: 54; Dolin 1982: 228; Gurjeva 1985: 571; Gurjeva 1989: 226; Tarnawski 1995: 5; Tarnawski 1996: 632; Tarnawski 2001: 294.</p> <p>[As a synonym of another genus]: Schenkling 1927; Platia 1994.</p> <p>Tesolasomus Johnson in Mathison 2021: 346. Type species: Elater semivittatus Say, 1823, by original designation. New synonym.</p> <p>North American Species</p> <p>Pristilophus blanditus (Brown, 1936) (Ludius), new combination</p> <p>Pristilophus castanicolor (Fall, 1934) (Ludius), new combination</p> <p>Pristilophus deceptor (Brown, 1936) (Ludius), new combination</p> <p>Pristilophus edwardsi (Horn, 1871) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pristilophus festivus (LeConte, 1857) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pristilophus funereus (Brown, 1936) (Ludius), new combination</p> <p>Pristilophus lanei (Becker, 1949) (Ctenicera), new combination</p> <p>Pristilophus morulus (LeConte, 1863) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pristilophus pulcher (LeConte, 1853) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pristilophus semivittatus (Say, 1823) (Elater)</p> <p>Pristilophus sexguttatus (Brown, 1936) (Ludius), new combination</p> <p>Pristilophus sexualis (Brown, 1935) (Ludius)</p> <p>Pristilophus suckleyi olympiae (Van Dyke, 1932) (Ludius)</p> <p>Pristilophus suckleyi suckleyi (LeConte, 1857) (Corymbites)</p> <p>Pristilophus trivittatus (LeConte, 1853) (Corymbites), new combination</p> <p>KEY TO NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF PRISTILOPHUS, MALES ONLY (adapted from Brown 1935a, 1936, Tarnawski 1995, and Mathison 2021)</p> <p>1. Fifth abdominal ventrite modified, swollen or with a ribbed fold covered in dense ves- titure (Fig. 4D, Group II)........................ 2</p> <p>1′. Fifth abdominal ventrite not modified, with or without fringe of dense setae (Figs. 4B, C)...................................................... 3</p> <p>2(1). Length 11 to 16 mm; black or bicolored (Fig. 3D)................ P. morulus (LeConte)</p> <p>2′. Length 7 to 8 mm; brown or red-brown....................................... P. sexualis (Brown)</p> <p>3(1). Fifth abdominal ventrite with fringe of dense setae (Fig. 4C, Group III).............. 4</p> <p>3′. Fifth abdominal ventrite without fringe of dense setae (Fig. 4B, Group I).............. 10</p> <p>4(3). Elytra bicolored, black or brown and yellow...................................................... 5</p> <p>4′. Elytra black or brown, immaculate......... 9</p> <p>5(4). Antenna just attaining the apex of the posterior pronotal angle, flagellar antennomeres not longer than wide............................................................ P. semivittatus (Say)</p> <p>5′. Antenna extending beyond the apex of the posterior pronotal angle, flagellar antennomeres variable, longer than wide in most... 6</p> <p>6(5). Pronotum variable, most black with a broad sublateral vitta on each side pale red (similar to Fig. 3E), some entirely black; east of Rocky Mountains......................... 7</p> <p>6′. Pronotum entirely black; Rocky Mountains and west.......................................... 8</p> <p>7(6). Pronotum strongly convex; flagellar antennomeres nearly as long as wide........................................................ P. lanei (Becker)</p> <p>7′. Pronotum less strongly convex; flagellar antennomeres longer than broad............................................... P. trivittatus (LeConte)</p> <p>8(6). Third antennomere equal in length to fourth...................... P. blanditus (Brown)</p> <p>8′. Third antennomere shorter than fourth.................................. P. sexguttatus (Brown)</p> <p>9(4). Antenna surpassing posterior pronotal angle by a distance equal to length of two and one-half antennomeres................................................................ P. deceptor (Brown)</p> <p>9′. Antenna just attaining apex of posterior pronotal angle (Fig. 3C)............................................................. P. funereus (Brown)</p> <p>10(3). Anterior margin of scutellar shield arcuate in dorsal view (Fig. 5C); ninth elytral interval with supplemental stria at apical third (Fig. 5D)........................................11</p> <p>10′. Anterior margin of scutellar shield with medial tubercle in dorsal view (Fig. 5B); ninth elytral interval without supplemental stria........................................................ 13</p> <p>11(10). Posterior half of pronotum very finely and sparsely punctate................................... 12</p> <p>11′. Posterior half of pronotum moderately coarsely and closely punctate........................................................ P. edwardsi (Horn)</p> <p>12(11). Each elytron bimaculate with yellow (Fig. 5A).......... P. SUckLEyI SUckLEyI (LeConte)</p> <p>12′. Each elytron immaculate........................................ P. SUckLEyI OLympIaE (Van Dyke)</p> <p>13(10). Body unicolorous, red-brown (Fig. 3A)................................ P. castanicolor (Fall)</p> <p>13′. Body bicolored, pronotum with red lateral maculae and elytra yellow with black or dark brown maculae.............................. 14</p> <p>14(13). Pronotum with punctures separated by distance equal to own diameter at sides and about twice own diameters in middle; transverse black band of elytron never extended from lateral margin to apex, apex never dark except on sutural interval........................................ P. pulcher (LeConte)</p> <p>14′. Pronotum with punctures separated by distance less than own diameter at sides and about own diameter in middle; elytral markings variable, in many transverse band extended on margin to apex and elytral apex brown or black, in some markings reduced with transverse band reduced to spots or absent so apex of elytra also pale (Fig. 3B)................. P. festivus (LeConte)</p> <p>Diagnosis. Pristilophus will most often be confused with Selatosomus. Males can readily be distinguished from Selatosomus by the presence of either a modified and ridged last ventrite or a setal fringe for most. In males lacking these features or for females, they can be distinguished by an anterior tubercle on the scutellar shield (Fig. 5B) or a supplemental elytral stria (Fig. 5D). The male aedeagus will also have flattened parameres and a median lobe that narrows at the apex and is often subequal to or shorter than the length of the parameres. Larvae can be distinguished from those of Selatosomus by the presence of a tridentate nasale.</p> <p>Genus Redescription. Length 7 to 17 mm. Integument color variable, unicolorous brown to black or elytra paler, elytra with or without markings, pronotum unicolorous or with red bands on lateral edge of various widths, in some, head integument also bicolored; legs variable, similar in color to rest of body or paler. Head: Mouthparts prognathous, mandible bluntly bidentate; labrum sclerotized, semicircular; supra-antennal carina directed medially toward posterior edge of labrum, incomplete medially; frons flat to impressed antero-medially; punctures simple to subumbilicate, larger punctures denser; antenna with sensory elements beginning on antennomere 4, antennomere 3 subcylindrical, length variable, antennomere 4–10 shape variable, subtriangular to rectangular, as wide as long to 2× longer than wide, antennomere 11 oval, apex with slight constriction at most, antennal length variable, reaching to surpassing posterior pronotal hind angles. Pronotum: Wider than long, medial impression absent or on postero-medial third only; setae variable in length, direction variable with anterior half uniformly directed posteriorly, posterior half with mixed directions (e.g., Fig. 3C), short setae with orientation obscured, punctures simple to subumbilicate, density variable, lateral punctures similar in size to punctures on head, medial puncture size variable, smaller or equal in size to lateral punctures; pronotal hind angle unicarinate; sublateral plicae present. Hypomeron with dense, simple to subumbilicate punctures on anterior four-fifths; posterior edge with hind angle visible ventro-laterally, angulate in middle, blunt tubercle behind procoxae; medial hypomeral bead present, lateral edge of bead poorly defined in most. Prosternum with pronotosternal sutures straight; anterior lobe broadly rounded, on same plane as rest of pronotum to slightly deflexed (not more than 30 degrees); prosternal process straight to slightly directed dorsad (not more than 30 degrees from plane of prosternum) posteriad of procoxae, with medial area raised forming blunt tubercle before apex. Pterothorax: Mesocoxal cavity open to mesanepisternum and mesepimeron, mesosternal fossa with sides gradually sloping. Scutellar shield subquadrate, anterior margin broadly rounded or with medial tubercle (Fig. 5B), posterior margin broadly rounded. Elytra with striae punctate and impressed, some with supplemental stria on the ninth interstria (Fig. 5D). Abdomen: Apex of last ventrite variable, in some modified in males, with setose subapical ridge or fold (Fig. 4D), some with fringe of elongate setae at apex (Fig. 4C), or unmodified (Fig. 4B); apex of female with aspects of previous reduced. Aedeagus (Figs. 4F–H): Paramere shape variable, flattened dorso-ventrally or widening apically along medial edge, apex of paramere membranous, with or without setae, with subapical lateral expansions; median lobe constricted apically, in most length subequal to or shorter than length of parameres; phallobase variable in length, one-fourth to one-third of total length. Ovipositor and internal female genitalia not examined.</p> <p>Comments. Pristilophus was often considered a subgenus of Selatosomus (e.g., Tarnawski 1995). However, it was raised to the generic level by Schimmel et al. (2015).</p> <p>Johnson originally suggested Tesolasomus as a manuscript name in his 1992 dissertation, and the name was finally published in 2021 (Mathison 2021). In Johnson (1992: 122–123, couplet 3), he separated Tesolasomus from Selatosomus by the following adult characters: Tesolasomus having the pronotal disc and metaventrite with coarse to um- bilicate punctures, elytral striae with large and shallow punctures, and tarsomere 4 long, 0.8–0.9× length of tarsomere 1; versus Selatosomus having the pronotal disc and metaventrite with fine to moderately sized punctures, elytral striae with moderately sized punctures, and tarsomere 4 short, &lt;0.5× length of tarsomere 1. These characters are highly subjective, reducing their utility in defining groups [compare Figs. 3C and D to Figs. 3E and F; note: Figs. 3A, B considered part of Selatosomus by Johnson (1992; also in Mathison 2021)]. The character of the pronotal punctures has different interpretations possible which overlap with one another. The elytral strial character may be good but would not work with the species placements in Johnson (1992). For example, P. festivus (Fig. 3B) has the elytral striae with large and shallow punctures that Johnson (1992) used to define Tesolasomus but was placed by Johnson (1992) into Selatosomus. The tarsomere character would be better written as tarsomere 1 long or short, as the length of tarsomere 4 appears similar between the two genera. However, the character may not be applicable for all species included in each genus, with some species falling in the middle with tarsomere 4 around 0.5× length of the tarsomere 1. Johnson (1992) is discussed in detail here since it is the only work that justifies and gives characters to distinguish genera, even though it is unpublished (see Douglas and Laplante 2022). In summary, Johnson (1992) did not provide ade- quate characters to define his generic concepts and to justify how species are placed in each genus he recognized.</p> <p>Part of the issue of which genus to recognize is the confusion surrounding the author of Pristilophus as discussed above. Confusion concerning type species also arises in Johnson’s (1992) dissertation. In the remarks for Selatosomus, Johnson (1992: 135) stated that Elater cruciatus Linnaeus, 1758 was designated as the type of both Pristilophus Germar and Selatosomus by Hyslop (1921) and the former was treated as a subgenus of the latter, an impossible situation with shared type species. While Hyslop did state that the type of Selatosomus is E. cruciatus by elimination, he correctly indicated that the author of Pristilophus was Latreille and identified the correct type species, E. melancholicus, and listed it as a distinct genus. Méquignon (1930) corrected Hyslop and stated that Elater aeneus Linnaeus, 1758 was the type of Selatosomus. While this was noted by Johnson (1992), he did not list Pristilophus as a valid genus or a synonym of another genus in his dissertation. Because Johnson (1992) considered the same wrong species as the type of Selatosomus and Pristilophus, he treated them as synonyms. This error led him to erect Tesolasomus.</p> <p>There are, however, many characters that serve to synonymize Tesolasomus with Pristilophus. First, Tarnawski (1995) looked at eight North American species in his revision of Selatosomus and placed these species into Pristilophus (then treated as a subgenus of Selatosomus). Tarnawski was also the most recent author to compare specimens between regions in a publication. Two of them, P. morulus and P. sexualis, were placed into the same species group as the type species P. melancholicus, all of which share the modified fifth abdominal ventrite in males (Fig. 4D). This similarity of the type species is the strongest piece of evidence for synonymy (see also Douglas and Laplante 2022). Larval characters also unite these species. Glen (1950) looked at four species, P. spretus [= P. punctatissimus (Ménétriés)], P. festivus, P. sexualis, and P. semivittatus, in detail. The first three species were put together in a species group by Glen (1950), and the lone specimen of P. semivittatus was put into a separate group very close to the other three. Dolin (1978, 1982) also looked at larvae, and covered three relevant species, P. melancholicus, P. spretus (= P. punctatissimus), and P. cruciatus, which all formed a group in Dolin’s work. Both Glen (1950) and Dolin (1978, 1982) noted that these species had a tridentate nasale. This is another point of evidence that unites the different species groups and unites the North American and Palearctic faunas.</p> <p>Authors have often split Pristilophus into many subgroups, which serve as other lines of evidence to synonymize Tesolasomus with Pristilophus. Tarnawski (1995) split Pristilophus into three groups based on the fifth abdominal ventrite. Group I had an unmodified fifth abdominal ventrite (Fig. 4B), Group II had a ridged and modified fifth abdominal ventrite (Fig. 4D), and Group III had a dense setal fringe at the apex of the fifth abdominal ventrite (Fig. 4C). This grouping is followed here. Brown (1935a, 1936) also placed the species into three groups, although different from Tarnawski’s groups which are listed in parentheses following Brown’s groupings to compare. These were the cruciatus -species group, for P. cruciatus and allies (Group I), the edwardsi -species group, for species with a supplemental stria on the apex of the ninth interstria (Fig. 5D; Groups I and II), and the semivittatus -species group, mostly for species with a dense setal fringe at the apex of the fifth ventrite (Group III, with some Group I). The groups of Tarnawski (1995) followed here are likely artificial. For example, P. semivittatus (Group III) has the scutellar shield with an apical tubercle (Fig. 5B), similar to P. festivus and P. castanicolor (both Group I).</p> <p>Pristilophus will most easily be confused with the genus Selatosomus. The majority of species of Pristilophus will have males with either a modified terminal abdominal segment or an apical setal fringe on the last ventrite (Figs. 4C, D) that will readily distinguish them from species of Selatosomus. Species of Pristilophus with unmodified terminal abdominal segments (Fig. 4B) cannot be distinguished from species of Selatosomus (Fig. 4A) using this character. This lack of a modified terminal abdominal segment led Johnson (1992; also in Mathison 2021) to consider these species as part of Selatosomus. However, multiple characters place these species (couplets 11 to 14 in key above) in Pristilophus over Selatosomus, utilizing distinguishing characters discussed below. Species of Pristilophus have male genitalia with broad, flattened parameres and a narrow apex of the median lobe, with the median lobe in the majority of species equal in length to or shorter than the length of the parameres (Figs. 4F–H), while species of Selatosomus have rounded parameres and a broad median lobe that is always longer than the parameres (Fig. 4E; also Fig. 3E). Some species of Pristilophus have elytra with maculae (e.g., Figs. 3B, 5A), while species in Selatosomus always have immaculate elytra (Figs. 3E, F). Species of Pristilophus with immaculate elytra that could be confused with Selatosomus will have either a scutellar shield with an apical tubercle (Fig. 5B, compare to Fig. 5C), or have a supplemental stria at the apex of the ninth elytral interval (Fig. 5D, compare to Fig. 5E). Larvae of Pristilophus also have a tridentate nasale, while larvae of Selatosomus have a unidentate nasale (Dolin 1978; Glen 1950; Johnson 1992). It should also be noted that the characters used to distinguish Pristilophus from Selatosomus in the key to genera in Schimmel et al. (2015) only apply to the type species and not for all species in Pristilophus. The characters presented here better capture the diversity and should work on the global level to distinguish the two genera.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CF87FEFFDFFFDC3B7613E48D4E01DA	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	Etzler, Frank E.	Etzler, Frank E. (2024): Generic Changes for Some Nearctic Prosternini (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Dendrometrinae: Neopristilophus Buysson, 1894 and Pristilophus Latreille, 1834) to Align with Palearctic Concepts. The Coleopterists Bulletin 78 (2): 125-140, DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-78.2.125, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065x-78.2.125
