Trirachys salomeae ( Jacquot, 2019 ), 2022

Vitali, Francesco, 2022, Taxonomic notes onsomeAsianCerambycini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), Faunitaxys 10 (46), pp. 1-4 : 1-2

Trirachys salomeae ( Jacquot, 2019) n. comb.

Aeolesthes salomeae Jacquot, 2019

Jacquot (2019) described this new species from Borneo comparing it to Aeolesthes aurifaber (White, 1853) and noticing some differences in antennal length and punctures of the ventral side of the head.

Actually, A. salomeae does not have spines at the apex of the meso and metafemora (a peculiar character of Aeolesthes ) but instead two short teeth, as in the genus Trirachys Hope 1841 . Moreover, the pronotum is transverse and tapered anteriorly, while it is elongated and uniformly convex in all Aeolesthes species, and the body size (49.5 mm) is larger than that of A. aurifaber (29-41 mm).

These characters, especially those of the femoral apices support the transference of A. salomeae to the genus Trirachys .

This species might even be the female of Trirachys achilles (Thomson 1865) , a rare species described from Borneo; however, the author has not examined female specimens of this species to support this hypothesis.

Parolesthes Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017

( Fig. 1)

After the revision of Trirachys and closely related genera ( Vitali et al., 2017a), Jacquot (2020) published a study on the genus Parolesthes , questioning its taxonomical validity.

According to this author, the type-species of Parolesthes ( Aeolesthes laosensis Gressitt & Rondon, 1970 ) was confused with an undescribed species from Vietnam that Vitali et al. mentioned among the examined materials. This confusion led Jacquot to erroneously modify the type-species; as Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020 .

In fact, according to the ICZN Art. 70.3, “If an author discovers that a type-species was misidentified [omissis], the author may select, and thereby fix as type species, the species that will, in his or her judgment, best serve stability and universality, either (70.3.1.) the nominal species previously cited as type-species ,

Reviewer s:

Larry G. Bezark ( USA) - ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/ 25C35904-2035-4416-9534-8641C1551196 - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0165-552X

Xavier Gouverneur ( France) - ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/ 5CDAA96F-77B8-40D8-90E1-A1AABFF9ECBD - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8958-2785

or (70.3.2.) the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification. If the latter choice is made, the author must refer to this Article and cite together both the name previously cited as type species and the name of the species selected.” Actually, Vitali et al. published a photo ( Fig. 1) of the true holotype of A. laosensis (as Jacquot himself stated) and did not represent any misidentified species.

However, the original diagnosis of Parolesthes quoted “Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. Head with an interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space. Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally; antennae ectoapically toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes. Prothorax mutic or with a minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc delimiting a squared field; prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate; procoxae rounded. Elytra parallel-sided in both sexes, toothed at apex; elytral pubescence giving changing pattern. Femoral apex mutic.” According to Jacquot, the “interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space” does not belong to A. laosensis but to an undescribed species: Parolesthes vietnamita Jacquot, 2020 . Nonetheless, failed to discuss several other diagnostic characters that do not correspond to such species: “scape wrinkled dorsally” (smooth in all females described by Jacquot), “elytra parallel-sided in both sexes” (tapered posteriorly in all males described by Jacquot) and “toothed at apex” (not toothed in P. vietnamica and P. macroculis ).

Actually, the claim that Vitali et al. confused A. laosensis with other still undescribed species is a speculation based on the fact that these authors described the interantennal carina of Parolesthes as bifurcate. However, this speculation arose from an erroneous interpretation of the original description by Gressitt & Rondon (“a less prominent ridge between antennal insertion where there is a stronger secondary ridge at each side”) and of the photo of the type (the same examined by Jacquot). Correspondingly, several characters of Parolesthes do not fit P. vietnamita but do agree with A. laosensis .

According to the ICZN, “the author may fix as type-species the species [omissis] actually involved in the misidentification.” Additionally, Vitali et al. only showed the type of A. laosensis , while the quoted specimens from Mt. Bato, Tam Dao, Vietnam and Yunnan, China were neither represented nor examined by Jacquot. Consequently, Jacquot’s claim that such specimens did not belong to A. laosensis but to P.vietnamita is another speculation.

This change of type-species may have been considered as valid only if Jacquot had examined such specimens from Vietnam and China and had used them as types of P. vietnamita or, at least, mentioned them among the examined materials. Nevertheless, this did not occur and none of the three new species described by Jacquot comes from one of these Vietnamese localities or from China. Consequently, since Jacquot did not actually verify whether the supposed misidentified specimens belonged to P. vietnamita , the Art. 70.3.2 could not be applied.

In case of doubt, Jacquot should have instead applied Art. 70.3.1: “the author may fix as type species the nominal species previously cited as type species”, i.e. Aeolesthes laosensis , which “best serves stability and universality.”

In reality, this case is not applicable to ICZN Art. 70.3. either, since it is not about a misidentification of type-species (which was correctly shown and nearly exactly described) but about a case of multiple / sibling species, some of which were still undescribed. This case has occurred frequently in the past, but an old combination of names was never used to identify new species, still unknown at that moment.

Moreover, there are no articles of the Code supporting that partially incorrect descriptions affect the validity of a taxon. Otherwise, the original description of A. laosensis might be questioned as well, since it refers to a female, while the holotype is a male. In conclusion, Jacquot’s taxonomic action is invalid.

Aeolesthes laosensis is restored as type-species of Parolesthes , whose diagnosis has to be modified as follows:

Body convex, flattened, fairly stout. Head with an interantennal ridge posteriorly bifurcate and delimiting a triangular interocular space. Scape slightly convex externally, wrinkled dorsally; antennae ectoapically toothed and endoapically mutic in both sexes. Prothorax mutic or with a minuscule tubercle at sides, with two longitudinal furrows on the disc delimiting a squared area; prosternal intercoxal process not tuberculate; procoxae rounded. Elytra parallel-sided in both sexes, toothed at apex; elytral pubescence giving changing pattern. Femoral apex mutic.

Considering the new elements provided by Jacquot, the author agrees that A. laosensis shows many characters of Trirachys , including the wrinkled scape and the pronotal smooth area (which Jacquot erroneously considered peculiar to A. laosensis ), differing from it only in the antennae without apical spines.

However, Vitali et al. (2017b) transferred or described in Trirachys some other species having this peculiarity: T. curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988) , T. trapezoidalis Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 and T. pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 .

In my opinion, Parolesthes should be conserved as a subgenus of Trirachys , which results in new combinations for the following species:

Trirachys (Parolesthes) laosensis ( Gressitt & Rondon, 1970) n. comb. Trirachys (Parolesthes) curticornis (Hüdepohl, 1988) n. comb. Trirachys (Parolesthes) trapezoidalis Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 n. comb.

Trirachys (Parolesthes) pseudosinensis Vitali, Gouverneur & Chemin, 2017 n. comb.

Remark. – Vitali et al. (2017a) already considered Aeolesthes curticornis as a member of Parolesthes ; another reason to consider A. laosensis as the type-species for Parolesthes .

Consequently, the genus Parolesthes sensu Jacquot needs to be described.