User:Monster Iestyn/IRMNG and Dejean's catalogues

IRMNG it turns out has a lot of errors regarding genus-group names from Dejean's Coleoptera catalogues, mostly due to importing data from Nomenclator Zoologicus (which I'll call N.Z. for short) and Joel Hallan's Biology catalog. For instance, many of the names from N.Z. were recorded as "nomen nudum" even if they are now considered valid names. I don't know the full extent of errors in Hallan's catalog on the other hand, but some years need to be fixed among other things. Unfortunately there are even duplicate records in some cases, particularly in Chrysomelidae at least: typically one from N.Z. and one from Hallan's catalog! Here I attempt to note any corrections needed to said records on IRMNG, or at least mark which ones are essentially duplicates.

It is totally understandable that all of this is a mess though, as these names have apparently caused confusion historically, hence the creation of the two articles by Yves Bousquet & Patrice Bouchard in 2013.

Thanks @Monster Iestyn: for taking the time to look into these... as you note, in order to build IRMNG I started by importing everything in Nomenclator Zoologicus (correcting obvious errors only), plus some other sources, and later Hallan's Catalog for names I did not already have a record for... on the principle that acquiring the data was the first step, then any necessary cleaning can at least have a skeleton structure on which to build. Of course the Nom. Zool. records do not tell you which names are accepted/valid/current and which are not, or the family assignment; around 60% of such names now have this information, added from other sources (also species lists too, some already out-of-date) but this too is an ongoing process, hence the "I" in IRMNG, for "Interim" - I/we know it is not perfect, but a useful starting point for further improvement.

Also worth noting I initially envisaged building IRMNG to be a 3 month full time/6 months part time activity. That was in June 2006, still going as of now (including being retired from my formal work for the past 6 years!)... Best - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside - sometimes I think I have created a monster that will devour us all... But then I look at items such as this paper which can only be produced from IRMNG (at this time) and think that, warts and all, it has been a worthwhile effort to date (and which has served clients for the past 14 years or so, in the absence of anything more complete) so then I feel a little better :) Initially it was created because of the then deficiencies in the Catalogue of Life, as a "names resolving service" (e.g. to answer questions like, "just what is this critter??" - CoL was around 15% complete at that time). I met Frank Bisby (CoL originator and then prime mover) at a meeting of taxonomic database persons in 2007 and told him I was creating a stop-gap product, he was creating the Catalogue of Life, I was doing the Catalogue of Life and Death (fossils included). He did not seem particularly amused (perhaps the joke was too much at his expense...!) - Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Main references:

• Bousquet, Y. & Bouchard, P. 2013. The genera in the second catalogue (1833–1836) of Dejean’s Coleoptera collection. ZooKeys 282: 1–219. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.282.4401, PMC: 3677338 . PMID: 23794836. Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y. & Bouchard, P. 2013. The genera in the third catalogue (1836–1837) of Dejean’s Coleoptera collection. ZooKeys 282: 221–239. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.282.4402, PMC: 3677339 . PMID: 23794837. Reference page. 

Other references:

• Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 1999. A world catalogue of families and genera of Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) (excepting Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Entomopraxis, Barcelona. PDF. Reference page. 
• Blanchard, C.É. 1845. Histoire naturelle des insectes leurs moeurs, leurs métamorphoses et leur classification ou traité élémentaire d’entomologie. Tome premier. Paris, 398 pp.; pls. 1–10. DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.35820 BHL Reference page. 
• Blanchard, C.É. 1845. Histoire naturelle des insectes leurs moeurs, leurs métamorphoses et leur classification ou traité élémentaire d’entomologie. Tome second. Paris, 524 pp.; pls. 11–20. DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.35820 BHL Reference page. 
• Bouchard, P. & Bousquet, Y. 2020. Additions and corrections to “Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)”. ZooKeys 922: 65–139. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.922.46367 . Reference page. 
• Bouchard, P., Bousquet, Y., Davies, A.E., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Lawrence, J.F., Lyal, C.H.C., Newton, A.F., Reid, C.A.M., Schmitt, M., Ślipiński, S.A. & Smith, A.B.T. 2011. Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). ZooKeys 88: 1–972. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.88.807 . PMC: 3088472 . Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y. 2016. Litteratura Coleopterologica (1758–1900): a guide to selected books related to the taxonomy of Coleoptera with publication dates and notes. ZooKeys 583: 1–776. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.583.7084 . PMC: 4868922 . Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y. & Bouchard, P. 2017. Status of the new genera in Gistel’s “Die Insecten-Doubletten aus der Sammlung des Herrn Grafen Rudolph von Jenison Walworth” issued in 1834. ZooKeys 698: 113–145. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.698.14913 . Reference page. 
• Bousquet Y., Bouchard, P. & Campbell, J.M. 2015. Catalogue of genus-group names in Alleculinae (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). The Coleopterists Society Monograph 14: 131–151. DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-69.mo4.131 . ResearchGate . Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y., Thomas, D.B., Bouchard, P., Smith, A.D., Aalbu, R.L., Johnston, M.A. & Steiner Jr., W.E. 2018. Catalogue of Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) of North America. ZooKeys 728: 1–455. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.728.20602, PMC: 5799738 PMID: 29416389 Reference page. 
• Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1834. Coléoptères du Mexique. Strasbourg: G. Silbermann. BHL.
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 1 (pp. 1–96), Livraison 2 (pp. 97–176)]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. [pp. 177–256, Livraison 3 was published in 1834; pp. 257–360, Livraison 4 in 1835; pp. 361–442, Livraison 5 in 1836]. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1834. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 3]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 177–256. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1835. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 4]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 257–360. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 5]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 361–443. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Troisième édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. [Livraisons 1-4]. Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils, Paris, 1–384. Google Books.
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Troisième édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. [Livraison 5]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 385–503. BHL. Google Books. Reference page. 
• ICZN 1991. Opinion 1628. Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 48(1): 74–75. BHL.
• ICZN 1993. Opinion 1725. Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2): 169–170. BHL.
• ICZN 1996. Opinion 1825. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1): 57–59. BHL.
• ICZN 1996. Opinion 1838. Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2): 134–135. BHL.
• ICZN 2004. Opinion 2083 (Case 3205). Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61(3): 188–189. BHL. PDF.
• ICZN 2008. Opinion 2214 (Case 3366). Cisseis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1839 and Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Buprestidae) generic names not conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65(4): 325–326. DOI: 10.21805/bzn.v65i4.a1 . PDF.
• ICZN 2009. Opinion 2228 (Case 3393). Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): name not conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 66(2): 201–202. DOI: 10.21805/bzn.v66i2.a13 . PDF.
• Katovich, K. 2008. A generic-level phylogenetic review of the Macrodactylini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Insecta Mundi 23: 1–78. PDF. Reference page. 
• Krell, F.-T. 2007. Author, date, and type species of Adoretus (Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 61(1): 125-126. DOI: 10.1649/952.1 .
• Lacordaire, J.T. 1835. In: Boisduval J. & Lacordaire J.T.: Faune entomologique des environs de Paris; ou species général des insectes qui se trouvent dans un rayon de quinze à vingt lieues aux alentours de Paris. Tome premier. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis, 696 pp. BHL.
• Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. 2007. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 4. Elateroidea – Derodontoidea – Lymexyloidea – Cleroidea - Cucujoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 935 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004260894 . ISBN 978-90-04-26089-4. Google Books.
• Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. 2008. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 5. Tenebrionoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 670 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004260900 . ISBN 978-87-88757-69-9. Google Books
  • Iwan, D. & Löbl, I. 2020. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 5. Tenebrionoidea. Revised and Updated Second Edition. Brill. xxiv+945 pp. ISBN 978-90-04-43498-1 (paper), ISBN 978-90-04-43499-8 (e-book). DOI: 10.1163/9789004434998.
• Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. 2010. Catalogue of Palearctic Coleoptera. Volume 6. Chrysomeloidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark. 924 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004260917 ISBN 978-87-88757-84-2. Google Books. Index to species-group names (PDF). Reference page. 
• Löbl, I. & Löbl, D. 2015. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 2. Hydrophiloidea – Staphylinoidea. Revised and updated edition. (2 vols.) Brill, Leiden; Boston. 1736 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004296855 . ISBN 978-90-04-28992-5. Google Books
• Löbl, I. & Löbl, D. 2016. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 3. Scarabaeoidea – Scirtoidea – Dascilloidea – Buprestoidea – Byrrhoidea. Revised and updated edition. Brill, Leiden; Boston. 1012 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004309142 . ISBN 978-90-04-30913-5. Google Books
• Löbl, I. & Löbl, D. 2017. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 1. Archostemata – Myxophaga – Adephaga. Revised and updated edition. Brill, Leiden; Boston. 1480 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004330290 . ISBN 978-90-04-33028-3. Google Books.
• Motschulsky, V. de 1853. Lampyrides. Études Entomologiques 1 [1852]: 25–58. BHL.
• Mühle, H. 1993. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull,[1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius,[1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1): 27–30. BHL.
• Solier, A.J.J. 1833. Essai sur les Buprestides. Annales de la Société entomologique de France 2: 261–316. BHL Reference page. 

Web references:

• The World of Jewel Beetles - World Checklist

Notes

Column meanings:

• N.Z.: External link to the IRMNG record imported from Nomenclator Zoologicus, with stated name and authority. If name is stated as nomen nudum on IRMNG I mark it here.
• Hallan: Ditto, but for Joel Hallan's Biology catalog. (only if there is a duplicate record)
• Other: (To be used if there is a record from neither N.Z. nor Hallan's catalog involved)
• Correct name: Correct name and authority according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013). (only if the name needs correcting)
• Other corrections and notes: Here I list what else needs to be fixed on IRMNG, e.g.: if name is not actually a nomen nudum contrary to what IRMNG says, should be a synonym, etc. To put it another way though, if the name is meant to be a synonym of another and IRMNG has this correct information already, I don't need to state this here because it's not actually wrong! Other notes may also be placed here if necessary for context.
• Done?: If Y appears in this column, then these fixes have been made on IRMNG since the making of this list. If Y appears then as far as I can tell it was already fine beforehand (these may be changed to green ticks if they are fine). ? means it's probably fine but I'm not entirely sure or there may be personal guesses I've made related to the record(s).

Genera in this list are in the same order as in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013a, 2013b), where they are split into sections and ordered alphabetically within each section.

Second catalogue

Contents

• Pentamères
  • Pentamères: Hydrocanthares Y Done

    dytiscids, noterids, haliplids, gyrinids

  • Pentamères: Brachélytres Y Done

    staphylinids in part

  • Pentamères: Sternoxes Y Done (except Abrobapta)

    buprestids, elaterids, eucnemids

  • Pentamères: Malacodermes Y Done

    rhipicerids, ptilodactylids, scirtids, lycids, lampyrids, cantharids, melyrids, etc.

  • Pentamères: Terediles Y Done

    clerids, lymexylids, ptinids, etc.

  • Pentamères: Clavicornes Y Done

    silphids, nitidulids, cryptophagids, dermestids, histerids, byrrhids, heterocerids, etc.

  • Pentamères: Palpicornes Y Done

    hydraenids, hydrophilids

  • Pentamères: Lamellicornes Y Done

    scarabaeids, hybosorids, trogids, geotrupids, glaphyrids, lucanids, passalids

• Hétéromères
  • Hétéromères: Mélasomes Y Done

    tenebrionids in part

  • Hétéromères: Taxicornes Y Done

    tenebrionids in part, zopherids, leiodids in part, tetratomids

  • Hétéromères: Ténébrionites Y Done

    tetratomids, melandryids, pythids, tenebrionids in part, borids

  • Hétéromères: Hélopiens Y Done

    tenebrionids in part

  • Hétéromères: Trachélides Y Done

    tenebrionids in part, pyrochroids, anthicids, aderids, scraptiids, ripiphorids, mordellids, etc.

  • Hétéromères: Vésicants Y Done

    meloids

  • Hétéromères: Sténélytres Y Done

    oedemerids, mycterids, salpingids

• Tétramères
  • Tétramères: Curculionites Y Done

    Curculionoidea except scolytines and platypodines

  • Tétramères: Xylophages Y Done

    scolytines, platypodines, bostrichids, sphindids, latridiids, mycetophagids, cerylonids, monotomids, cucujids, etc.

  • Tétramères: Longicornes

    cerambycids

  • Tétramères: Chrysomélines

    chrysomelids, orsodacnids, megalopodids, erotylids, phalacrids, leiodids in part, corylophids

• Trimères

  coccinellids, endomychids, dasycerines

Pentamères

Pentamères: Hydrocanthares

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Cybister Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Cybister Curtis, 1827 senior synonym of Gyretes Brullé, 1835	Y
Cyclous Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum "Cyclous Melsheimer, 1844" in Neave	Y
Cymatopterus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epinectus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Graphoderus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Liopterus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Copelatus Erichson, 1832 Reinstated by Balke et al., 2004 Leiopterus Stephens, 1835 is a later misspelling	Y
Nogrus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y
Orectochilus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Orectochilus Lacordaire, 1835 (which is a later usage of the name; see Lacordaire (1835: 344)) and its synonyms Other related notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2017)): Patrus Aubé in Dejean & Boisduval, 1838 is a valid genus, and not a synonym of Orectochilus Dejean, 1833. Hydronectes Gistl, 1834 is a junior synonym of Orectochilus Dejean, 1833, and not a nomen nudum. Potamobius Hope, 1838 (another Oectochilus synonym) is missing in IRMNG Spelling and type fixed by ICZN (1954) in Opinion 289 (ICZN 1954).	Y
Rhantus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Scutopterus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum suppressed for the purposes of Principle of Priority by ICZN (1993) in Opinion 1725	Y
Thermonetus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Contra Bousquet & Bouchard, the emendation Thermonectus is universally used. They completely ignore that emendation (made in the third catalogue) in both their papers	Y
Trigonocheilus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Trochalus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Trochalus Laporte, 1832 replacement name is Scaphinectes Adam, 1993 Scaphinectes and Trochalus both synonyms of Cybister Curtis, 1827	Y

Pentamères: Brachélytres

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Astenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Astenus Stephens, 1833 (which is likely a later usage)	Y
Callictenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Also as Callictenus Chevrolat, 1848, a later usage	Y
Corynocerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed A complicated mess of diverging attributions around Carpelimus	Y
Lithocharis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Lyeidius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Macrostenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Megalops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Microphius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid subgenus	Y
Olisthaerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Ophiomorphus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phloeobium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y
Platytoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Plochionocerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Sauromorphus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Pentamères: Sternoxes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Abrobapta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) state that Abrobapta becomes available in the third edition of the catalogue as Abrobapta Dejean, 1836. This would mean it has precedence over Torresita Gemminger & Harold, 1869 (in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the authority is referred to as just "Harold, 1869"), which is currently used as valid (though according to IRMNG is it a nomen nudum and is a synonym of Torresita Thomson, 1878). Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Torresita Harold (Gemminger & Harold, 1869). Abrobapta Dejean, 1836 itself is missing from IRMNG. However, according to this page, Abrobapta Dejean, 1833 is instead a synonym of Melobasis Laporte & Gory, 1837. No mention of Dejean, 1836 in sight though. What a mess. The Harold/thomson thing is just Neave improperly listing a name as nom. nud again. Bellamy (2002) list Abrobapta as under the synonymy of both Torresita and Melobasis on the basis of Bellamy (1998; Fragm. Entomol. 29:379)... which mentions only Torresita (wtf). Both B. chrysoptera and viridinitens are mentioned in Levey (2012; Zootaxa 3464:4), implying they are indeed treated in that genus at the moment, but the relevant part has not yet been published: Part 2 only came out in 2018, talk about delays... I will wait until I have a definite placement to do anything with this. Circeus (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)	N
Actenodes Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Ampedus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Ampedus Germar, 1844 (which is likely a later usage) and its synonyms N Species need moving to Dejean's name.	Y
Analampis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Brachys Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Brachys Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833: 312).	Y
Callimicra Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Catoxantha Solier, 1833 is a junior homonym New acts in Löbl I. & D. (2016): [page 19] Catoxantha Solier, 1833 is renamed to Xanthocata Kubáň, 2016 (new name not on IRMNG) [page 23] Megaloxantha Kerremans, 1908 is a junior synonym of Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 [page 25] Epacmene Gistl, 1848 is a junior synonym and unnecessary new replacement name of Catoxantha Dejean, 1833, not Catoxantha Solier, 1833 Other related notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2016)): Demochroa White, 1859 is a valid genus, not a subgenus of Catoxantha Solier, 1833 Chrysochroa Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the name Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833 (see notes for Chrysochroa), which means it is not a subgenus of Catoxantha Solier, 1833 either Euchloris Billberg, 1820 is a synonym of Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833 Pyranthe Gistl, 1834 is not a nomen nudum and is a valid subgenus of Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chalcophora Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 77 Extra note based on my own observation: Chalcophora Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833:278), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville"	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chrysesthes Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 78 Extra note based on my own observation: Chrysesthes Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name, see Solier (1833:190), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville".	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 75 Extra note based on my own observation: Chrysochroa Carcel & Laporte in Solier, 1833 (import from N.Z.) and Chrysochroa Solier, 1833 (import from Hallan's catalog) are duplicates, though I'm not sure what the correct authority should be for these. They are together a later usage of Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833; see Solier (1833: 270), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Carcel". (also see notes for Catoxantha)	Y
Cratonychus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Being an unnecessary replacement name, this is not a nomen nudum N.Z. misattributes Melanotus which causes additional confusion, with Bousquet & Bouchard, 2017 mentioning both Melanotus Eschscholtz, 1829 and "Melanotus Erichson, 1829" at different points.	Y
Cylindroderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cyphonota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Buprestidae suppressed for the purposes of Principle of Priority by ICZN (2004) in Opinion 2083 accepted name is Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (source: Löbl I. & D. (2016))	Y
Diphucrania Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus, according to both Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) and Löbl I. & D. (2016) Cisseis Laporte & Gory, 1839 and Ethon Laporte & Gory, 1840 are junior synonyms (both authorities should also be Gory & Laporte, 1839, and they should have the same original publication) [source: Löbl I. & D. (2016)] ICZN (2008: 325) voted against the suppression of Diphucrania Dejean, 1833 in Opinion 2214 I do not know the status of the name Ethonion Kubán in Kubán, Majer & Kolibác, 2000 as Löbl I. & D. (2016) does not list it at all, though the other synonyms of Ethonion are all emendations of either Diphucrania Dejean 1833 or Ethon Laporte & Gory, 1840 it looks like. (later note) According to this, Ethonion appears to be a replacement name for "Ethon Lacordaire 1857:78 (not Ethon Gory & Laporte 1839)", so may be a totally unrelated genus to Diphucrania Dejean, 1833 (especially since it has its own page here on the same site). (another later note) Australian Faunal Directory on the other hand lists Diphucrania as a synonym of Ethonion, which I have a horrible feeling is actually a mistake on AFD's part. It's a little more complicated than that. Ethonion is not a replacement name as such. Not for a homonym anyway. It's a name for Ethon sensu Lacordaire. There is some extra confusion in Bellamy 2002 again (Diphucrania, prior to the 2008 decision, listed under both Cisseis and Ethonion)	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Euchroma Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 76 Extra note based on my own observation: Euchroma Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833: 284), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville".	Y
Eurhipis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) state that Eurhipis becomes available in the third edition of the catalogue as Eurhipis Dejean, 1836, where it becomes a junior homonym of Eurhipis Laporte, 1834 (Rhipiceridae). In the same article, they also propose that Eurhipis Dejean, 1836 is a junior subjective synonym of Phyllocerus Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, 1825. Eurhipis Dejean, 1836 itself is missing from IRMNG.	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Eurythyrea Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 78 Extra note based on my own observation: Eurythyrea Lacordaire, 1835 is a later usage of the same name; see Lacordaire (1835: 593).	Y
Evides Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Geronia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Hemiops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Hypocaelus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Lampetis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Lampetis Chevrolat, 1833 (which is a later usage; see Chevrolat (1844: 5); authority should actually be Chevrolat, 1834; description is actually on page 5) and its synonyms Other names found to be synonyms/subgenera of Lampetis Dejean, 1833 according to this page: Buprestodes Carter, 1924 (synonym) Eolampetis Pongrácz, 1935 † (synonym; fossil) Damarsila Thomson 1878 (synonym of genus) This is not Damarsila Thomson (=Oedisterna Lacordaire), but rather Damarsila sensu Kerremans, as pointed out by Kurosawa (1993) Spinthoptera Casey, 1909 (subgenus)	Y
Lampra Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Lampra Hübner, 1821 senior objective synonym of Lamprodila Motschulsky, 1860 Extra notes: Lamprodila Motschulsky, 1860 has priority over Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 and its synonyms Latipalpis Solier, 1833 is actually a valid genus according to Löbl I. & D. (2016) Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 is actually a replacement name for Lampra Dejean, 1833, not Dendrocharis Guérin-Ménéville, 1843 (source: Mühle (1993)) Palmar Schaefer, 1949 is a subgenus of Scintillatrix/Lamprodila.	Y
Lasionota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) Lasionota Dejean, 1833 is probably accepted as Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 is actually a junior synonym of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837, which is a valid genus (Dactylozodes's synonyms/subgenera likewise are synonyms of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837) Agrilozodes Théry, 1927 is a valid genus, not a subgenus of Dactylozodes/Lasionota, according to this page Lasionota Warren, 1912 (from Lepidoptera) is a junior homonym of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 and was replaced by Isatoolna Nye, 1975 (source: ICZN (2009) Opinion 2228) They're both placed in Acantholipes Lederer, 1857 now a proposal to conserve Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 by suppressing Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 was rejected by ICZN (2009) in Opinion 2228.	Y
Leptia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The accepted name for Leptia Dejean, 1833 is Spectralia Casey, 1909, not Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (source: this page) Extra notes (referring to this page): Leptia Chevrolat, 1838 is a senior synonym of Spectralia Casey, 1909, and is treated as a nomen oblitum It technically retains priority until a formal declaration to that effect is published. Leptia Dejean, 1837 is probably a duplicate or later usage of Leptia Dejean, 1833	Y
Lius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Macrodes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) (personal guess) the name probably became available as Macrodes Candèze, 1863 but I can't prove this at the moment Candèze certainly didn't make it available himself. Hyslop (1921) seems to imply no one treated it as valid (in which case it would be valid from 1863), which makes it a nomen nudum and later use of Dejean's name.	Y
Megacnemius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) Extra notes: Megacnemius Dejean, 1836 is a later usage according to N.Z.'s own record, though cited as a manuscript name by Eschscholtz Indeed. this is clearly the reuse from the third edition. The Silberman record confused the heck out of me until I took notice that the "Tableau" referred to is a foldout that is not scanned in BHL, only barely visible in transparency and undecipgerable. (personal guess) the name probably became available as Megacnemius Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 I believe that use validates it all the way back to 1834 through art 50.7 (dear God do I hate that provision), but it's still a synonym of Tomicephalus.	Y
Not Applicable	Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 91 Extra note: Melanoxanthus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833, especially since the type species of Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833 (Elater melanocephalus Fabricius, 1781 according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) is listed under the record for Melanoxanthus Eschscholtz, 1836	Y
Not Applicable	Microrhagus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 85 Extra notes: (personal guess) Microrhagus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of Microrhagus Dejean, 1833	Y
Oomorpha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	family Buprestidae this is treated as a synonym of Sponsor Laporte & Gory, 1839 according to this page	Y
Perotis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra notes: Aurigena Laporte & Gory, 1838 is a junior synonym according to Löbl I. & D. (2016) as well as this page. (personal guess) Perotis Spinola, 1837 is likely a later usage	Y
Phaenops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Phaenops Chevrolat, 1838 is likely a later usage, especially since the misspelling Phoenops Chevrolat, 1838 is already apparently a synonym of Phaenops Dejean, 1833 on IRMNG. I can't find any traces of the o- misspellings/variants anywhere in the original publications. If they were in use, it's not because of Chevrolat or Dejean.	Y
Polybothris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This is treated as a synonym of Polybothris Spinola, 1837 according to this page according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), Polybotris Dupont, 1833 was the first valid use of the name; however, Dupont used the spelling Polybotris instead of Polybothris, the latter of which is in prevailing usage. ICZN (2015) in Opinion 2366 ruled that the spelling "Polybothris" be conserved, so the valid name for the genus should be Polybothris Dupont, 1833. Extra notes: Polybothris Spinola, 1837 Dupont, 1833 is a valid genus, not a synonym of Psiloptera Solier, 1833, according to this page The following so-called synonyms/subgenera of Psiloptera Solier, 1833 on IRMNG are in fact synonyms/subgenera of Polybothris Spinola, 1837 Dupont, 1833: Amphisbeta Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Aplax Thomson, 1878 (synonym of genus) Carcinias Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Cassidabothris Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Coccinellopsis Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Cornelia Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Enharpya Thomson 1878 (synonym of subgenus Cornelia Thomson, 1878) Erebodes Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Euharpya Kerremans, 1892 (misspelling of Enharpya Thomson 1878) Hemisobothris Thomson 1878 (synonym of subgenus Laconides Thomson, 1878) Laconides Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Palaeobothris Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Phobetodes Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Pseudophthalma Thomson, 1878 (synonym of genus) Pycnobothris Thomson, 1878 (synonym of subgenus Cornelia Thomson, 1878) The following synonyms actually belong to Apateum Spinola, 1837: Alampetis Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Apatea Thomson, 1879 (synonym of genus; note: year should be 1878) The following actually belong to Lampetis Dejean, 1833 (also see notes for Lampetis above) Damarsila Thomson 1878 (synonym of genus) Spinthoptera Casey, 1909 (subgenus) Unclear synonymy: Lampetis Thery, 1905 and Lampetis Spinola, 1837 are either later usages of Lampetis Dejean, 1833 or synonyms of Apateum Spinola 1837 Psiloptera Solier, 1833 itself is a later usage of Psiloptera Dejean, 1833; see notes for Psiloptera	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Polycesta Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 78 Extra note based on my own observation: Polycesta Solier, 1833 is a later usage; see Solier (1833: 281), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited it as by "Serville".	Y
Polychroma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The status of this one is a bit unclear; according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) there are definitely valid species but there is no type species, and the name was suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority in Opinion 1628 (ICZN 1991) anyway. On the other hand, this page just claims it is an unavailable name, but gives a type species of Polychroma septemmaculata Mannerheim 1837. At the very least from the above (and from this page) I can infer: Polychroma Dejean, 1833, regardless of nomen nudum or not, is treated as a synonym of Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1838 (as Castiarina Laporte & Gory, 1837 on IRMNG) Polychroma Mannerheim, 1837 is almost certainly a later usage of the name, and is also a synonym of Castiarina rather than Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829, which is a separate genus Phlydaena Gistl, 1847 is a synonym of Castiarina as well Themognatha Solier, 1833 is also a separate, valid genus, not a synonym of Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829, according to this page Actually, this one seems to be the IOS for Temognatha Solier, 1833.	Y
Prionophora Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: (personal guess) Prionophora Kerremans, 1908 is likely a later usage, which would mean it is also a synonym of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 Not a later usage. like "Macrodes Candèze", it is the first place the name could have become available from (through at. 11.6.1)... it never did. This record has no business floating around and I deleted it. The date would be wrong anyway as Kerremans published the synonymy years before. Leptia Dejean, 1833 and Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 are not synonyms of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837	Y
Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 An application to the Commission is needed to conserve Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 as the valid name. Extra notes: (personal guess): Pristiptera Mannerheim, 1837 is likely a later usage	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Psiloptera Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 76 Extra note based on my own observation: Psiloptera Solier, 1833 is a later usage; see Solier (1833: 283), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited it as by "Serville". (also see notes in Polybothris regarding synonyms)	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Ptosima Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 79 Extra note based on my own observation: Ptosima Solier, 1833 is a later usage; see Solier (1833: 277), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited it as by "Serville".	Y
Rhigmaphorus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though family is possibly Eucnemidae if below note is correct) Extra note: (personal guess) Rhigmaphorus Guérin-Méneville, 1843 is possibly a later use, which would also make Rhigmaphorus Dejean, 1833 a synonym of Eucalosoma Laporte in Brullé, 1840	Y
Selagis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) state that Selagis becomes available in the third edition of the catalogue as Selagis Dejean, 1836 (which has priority over Selagis Mannerheim, 1837). Selagis Dejean, 1836 itself is missing from IRMNG.	Y
Sericosomus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Being an unnecessary replacement name, this is not a nomen nudum Extra note: (personal guess) Sericosomus Stephens, 1839 is possibly a later usage	Y
Sphenoptera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Sphenoptera Solier, 1833 (which is a later usage, see Solier (1833: 299)) and its synonyms	Y
Steatoderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Extra note: (personal guess) Steatoderus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage	Y
Steraspis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Steraspis Solier, 1833 (which is a later usage, see Solier (1833: 267)) and its synonyms	Y
Strigoptera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Strigoptera Chevrolat, 1841 is almost certainly a later usage, especially since the type species of Strigoptera Dejean, 1833 (Buprestis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758) is included under that record	Y
Xyloecus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Being an unnecessary replacement name, this is not a nomen nudum Extra note based on my own observation: Xyloecus Boisduval & Lacordaire, 1835 is a later usage; see Lacordaire (1835: 627)	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Cardiotarsus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 91]
  • accepted name is Cardiotarsus Eschscholtz, 1836
  • Y Done
• Ctenonychus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 87]
  • accepted name is Melanotus Eschscholtz, 1829
  • Y done
• Cyria Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 75]
  • Cyria Serville in Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833: 269), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville".
  • Y Done
• Dirhagus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • (personal guess) possibly name became valid as Dirhagus Laporte, 1834 (a synonym of Microrhagus Dejean, 1833)?
  • Y Done
• Oophorus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 93]
  • junior subjective synonym of Aeolus Eschscholtz in Thon, 1829
  • (personal guess) Oophorus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of the same name
  • Y Done
• Oxycleidius Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 89]
  • (personal guess) Oxycleidius Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of the same name
  • Y Done
• Perothops Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 87]
  • (personal guess) possibly name was reused as Perothops Eschscholtz, 1836 or Perothops Laporte de Castelnau, 1838; don't ask me which of those is the actual accepted name though, I have absolutely no idea as of writing
  • Y Done
• Physorhinus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 86]
  • (personal guess) Physorhinus Eschscholtz in Silbermann, 1836 is likely a later usage of the same name
  • (personal guess) possibly name became valid as Physorhinus Germar, 1840
  • Y Done
• Pterotarsus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • it is unclear to me which of Pterotarsus Guérin-Méneville, 1831 or Pterotarsus Latreille, 1834 is the "accepted" name, if either of them are at all related to Dejean's name. What doesn't help matters is that both of these later uses of the name are apparently in two different beetle families, Elateridae and Eucnemidae, making it impossible for me to figure out even which family the Dejean, 1833 name should go under at present.
    • That would be because "Pterotarsus Latreille" is apparently a sensu name. Although eschscholtz is mentioned alot in relation to this name, I'm given to understand Eschscholtz 1829 (the likely source) does not make the name available.
  • Y Done
• Sphaerocephalus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • (personal guess) possibly name was reused as Sphaerocephalus Eschscholtz, 1838 and/or Sphaerocephalus Laporte de Castelnau, 1838; since both are synonyms of Nematodes Berthold in Latreille, 1827, figuring out which of them was the first "valid" use is a little moot
    • If the source is correct, Eschscholtz is the author and the date is wrong since that's the 1836 tableau I mentioned above under Megacnemius (it's actually listed as 1836 in N.Z., too).
  • Y Done

Pentamères: Malacodermes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Actenista Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Lampyridae (species split between Calyptocephalus and Ethra)	Y
Anisocera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Atela Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Auge Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Calendyma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Callianthia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Cantharidae junior synonym of Chauliognathus Hentz, 1829 ("Hentz, 1830" according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) Callianthia Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845b: 52)	Y
Charactus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Lycidae senior objective synonym of Calopteron Laporte, 1836 Actually, Bocakova (2003) moved L. limbatus to Metapteron Bourgeois, 1905 and changed the type of Calopteron to L. apicalis, a change which appears to be accepted (cf. Alves do Nascimento, 2013). Charactus Dejean, 1833 has precedence over Calopteron Laporte, 1836 Metapteron Bourgeois, 1905 which is currently used as valid. Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Calopteron Laporte. Extra notes: Charactus Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; see Blanchard (1845b: 55) Charactes Haldeman, 1843 is also linked according to N.Z. see Haldeman (1843: 303), where a single species Charactes duplicatus is described Charactes duplicatus Haldeman, 1843 is a synonym of Calopteron terminatus Say 1823, according to here I'm pretty sure Charactes has to be treated as a separate available name, with a synonymy different (given the above) from Charactus.	Y
Cladon Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Colophotia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra note: Colophotia Motschoulsky, 1853 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Motschulsky (1853: 51)	Y
Ctenidion Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Dadophora Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Ellychnia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Ellychnia Blanchard, 1845 (which is a later usage according to N.Z.; see Blanchard (1845b: 54))	Y
Epicyrtus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epiphyta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	We appear to have somehow overlooked this name back then (or the line got deleted by accident). It belongs in Prionoceridae per Geiser, 2015.	Y
Eurycerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum (?) current status is unknown according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) Listed it as taxon inquirendum.	Y
Geopyris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Geopyris Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845b: 54)	Y
Lychnuris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus according to Bousquet & Blanchard (2013); should take precedence over Pyrocoelia Gorham, 1880, though apparently Pyrocoelia has also been used as valid instead sometimes Extra note: Lychnuris Blanchard, 1845 a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845b: 54) (however, this page references synonymy with Lucidota Laporte, 1833, which is to my knowledge a separate and valid genus. Meanwhile, Lychnuris Motschulsky, 1853 [original description: Motschulsky (1853: 28)] is listed as a synonym of Lucidota on IRMNG. It's a bit unclear what exactly belongs to what here) Lychnuris has been synonymized under Lucidota in the past, when it was thought that Motschulsky fixed the type species (hence the authorship too). Lychnuris klugii Motschulsky was indeed until recently a member of Lucidota, and was removed to the new genus Costalampys last year. Additionally, "Lychnuris Olivier" is unavailable whether you cite it from 1899 as Hallan did (where it is just Lychnuris Motschulsky = Dejean) or from 1911 (where it is explicitly a misapplication/recircumscription of Lychnuris Motschulsky = Dejean, contra the citation as available in Keller & Branham, 2021). Circeus (talk)	Y
Lygistopterus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Lygistopterus Mulsant, 1838 (which is a later usage according to N.Z.)	Y
Nematophora Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Nyctocharis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Nyctophanes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Nyctophanes Motschoulsky, 1853 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Motschulsky (1853: 34)	Y
Photuris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Photuris Curtis, 1839 (which is a later usage according to N.Z.) and its synonyms	Y
Not Applicable	Pygolampis Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Extra note: according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013), this is not the same genus as Pygolampis Kirby & Spence, 1828. Keller & Branham treat Pygolampis Motschulsky as available and a synonym of Heterophotinus Olivier, 1894. I disagree with that.	Y
Pyractomena Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Though, that said... what is with even the accepted name, Pyractomena Melsheimer, 1845 also being "unaccepted" on IRMNG? What is the accepted name instead then?!? Looking around, Pyractomena LeConte 1845 (not on IRMNG) might be a possible answer, but this is still very weird Unaccepted names without accepted names are very unusual on IRMNG indeed, but Melsheimer, 1845 is clearly (with correction to 1846: Keller & Branham, 2018) considered the correct author. Far as I can tell, Leconte did not write on that genus until the 1850s. No idea why wikipedia ascribes authorship to "Leconte, 1845". The various versions of this name, the earliest by Sturm, 1843:76, are discussed in details by Barber, 1851:14-16	Y
Rabdota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Selas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Lampyridae junior objective synonym of Lamprocera de Laporte, 1833
Spenthera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Xanthestha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Podabrus Dejean, 1833 [original description: Dejean (1833: 105)]
  • family Cantharidae
  • valid genus according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013); therefore takes priority over Podabrus Westwood, 1838 (which is likely a later usage) and its synonyms
  • on the other hand, an earlier use of the name exists as Podabrus Fischer de Waldheim, 1821, though according to IRMNG (and of course N.Z.) it is a nomen nudum. Unfortunately, Fischer's "Entomographia Imperii Russici" ("Entomographie de la Russie" in French) does not seem to be accessible on the internet to double check this. Though, according to this article the original description was never found in any of Fischer's published papers (apparently the same article cites Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus for the "nomen nudum" status, which is a little awkward considering my motivations for making this list)
    • Actually, that article cites Lacordaire (1857[:352]) as the source. Since B&B cited the Entomographie with detailed bibliographical details in their Catalogue of Geadephaga, I think they probably consulted it. Although I do wish they'd have been more thorough in dealing with possible homonyms predating Dejean's names (while I believe that Eurycerus 1807 is also almost certainly a nomen nudum, it would be nice to have an explicit statement to that effect).
      • Thanks to Litteratura Coleoptrologica (thank you so much Dr. Bousquet!), I have been able to cross-reference the name to here and definitely confirm its nomen nudum status.
  • Y Done

Pentamères: Terediles

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Aegialites Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Callitheres Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) Extra note: Callitheres Spinola, 1841 is a later usage according to N.Z. and is probably the valid name (?), though I've still no idea what family either belong to I've put both in Coleoptera incertae sedis with "taxon inquirendum" status. Though likely a Clearidae of some sort (as all the genera of this section are), it seems to be essentially a nomen oblitum.	Y
Epiphloeus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Notostenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Notostenus Spinola, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Phyllobaenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra notes: Phyllobaenus Spinola, 1844 is a later usage according to N.Z., but then again on IRMNG it is accepted as Madoniella Pic, 1935, and as of writing I have no idea if Madoniella is a synonym of Phyllobaenus Dejean or a separate genus altogether (probably best to leave it) Definitely different. Not even in the same subfamily (Phyllobaenus is Hydnocerinae, Madoniella is Epiphloeinae). Hydnocera Newman, 1838 is a synonym of Phyllobaenus Dejean, 1833 according to Bouchard et al. (2011) Seems to be borne out by the literature.	Y
Stemmoderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Xystrophorus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Pentamères: Clavicornes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Cylistus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Platysoma Leach, 1817 Extra note: (personal guess) Cylistus de Marseul, 1853 is likely a later usage	Y
Dermophagus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Encaustes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Episcapha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Episcapha Lacordaire, 1842 (a later usage, according to N.Z.) Also see Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)'s notes on the type species.	Y
Haeterius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Haeterius Gistel, 1834 (likely a later usage) and Hetaerius Erichson, 1839 (a misspelling according to N.Z.) Extra note: Eupelogonus Gistel, 1856 is an unnecessary replacement name for Haeterius Dejean, 1833 (source: Löbl I. & D. (2015))	Y
Hyporhagus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Hyporhagus Thomson, 1860 and its synonyms (all of which are likely later usages or incorrect subsequent spellings)	Y
Lasioderma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Leionota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Hololepta Paykull, 1811 Extra note: Leionota Marseul, 1853 is likely a later usage, going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)	Y
Monoplius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Omalodes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Omalodes Erichson in Klug, 1834 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Oxysternus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra note: Oxysternus Erichson, 1834 is likely a later usage, especially since it is already listed as a synonym of Oxysternus Dejean, 1833 on IRMNG	Y
Platyderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Selenoderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Thyreosoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Pentamères: Palpicornes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) Extra notes: (from Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) type species is Sphaeridium abdominale Fabricius, 1792 by monotypy the name is usually (incorrectly) used as Cyclonotum Erichson, 1837, with type species Hydrophilus orbicularis Fabricius, 1775 and given as a junior synonym of Coelostoma Brullé, 1835 (for example in Löbl I. & D. (2015)) "To promote nomenclatural stability a request to the Commission is necessary to suppress Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 and conserve Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 as the valid name. Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.9) cannot be used to suppress Cyclonotum since the name was used as valid after 1899 (e.g., Régimbart 1906: 269)."	Y

Pentamères: Lamellicornes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Ablabera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Ablabera Erichson, 1847 (a later usage according to N.Z) and its synonyms	Y
Acallus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Acerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Acerus Burmeister, 1847 is a later usage according to N.Z, and is probably the first available use of the name. However, apparently IRMNG has two identical records for "Acerus Burmeister, 1847", which are here and here this appears to be because N.Z. also has two identical records for the same name for some reason. On N.Z. they both have the note "(See Aceratus Prell 1936.)", so they must be referring to the same thing at least. Actually, N.Z. has three records. The paper version has two records: one is the Dejean+Burmeister (hence "supplementary record created"), the other is a later addition to document the replacement name, but for some reason that later one is present twice in the database version. I'll merge these when I get to this name. Y	Y
Adelops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Aegidium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Aegostheta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Aegostheta Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845a: 216) Aegostetha Agassiz, 1846 is an (unjustified) emendation of Aegostheta Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z.	Y
Amphicrania Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Liogenys Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838 Extra note: Katovich (2008) confirms that Amphicrania Burmeister, 1855 is a synonym of Clavipalpus Laporte, 1833, and indicates that it is not the same Amphicrania that is a synonym of Liogenys. So Amphicrania Burmeister, 1855 is not a later usage of Amphicrania Dejean, 1833 (which is already the case on IRMNG, this is just in case there was any confusion).	Y
Ancylonycha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae senior objective synonym of Holotrichia Hope, 1837, which is currently considered valid "Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) cannot be used because Ancylonycha Dejean was used as valid after 1899 (with Holotrichia as synonym) at least once by Saylor (1942: 157). Therefore an application to the Commission is necesssary to conserve usage of the name Holotrichia Hope." Extra note: Ancyclonycha Dejean, 1833 is possibly a incorrect subsequent spelling Ugh. Hallan has that misspelling listed twice for some reason... Turns out it was also in as Ancyclonycha Faldermann, 1835, presumably the first user of that spelling	Y
Anisonchus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Hoplopus Laporte, 1832 Extra notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2016)): Y Hoplopus Laporte, 1832 is a valid genus, not a synonym of Anomala Samouelle, 1819 Y Pachystethus Blanchard, 1851 and Zaspilota Casey, 1915 are synonyms of Callistethus Blanchard, 1851, not Anomala Samouelle, 1819	Y
Aplonycha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become available as Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 (record not on IRMNG) according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 is now considered an invalid synonym of Colpochila Erichson, 1843 (as "Haplonycha Dejean, 1836") but has priority. Reversal of Precedence or an application to the Commission is necessary to retain Colpochila Erichson as the valid name. according to Bouchard et al. (2011), the spelling "Haplonycha" is an unjustified emendation of "Aplonycha" by Agassiz (1846), which is in prevailing usage and so deemed to be a justified emendation. (personal guess) Combined with the infotmation from Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), this possibly means that "Haplonycha Boisduval, 1835" is actually the available name to be used... though it seems nobody has used this particular name and authority together yet. If this were true though, Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 would then be an incorrect original spelling, and Haplonycha Agassiz, 1846 would be a justified emendation. (personal guess) Haplonycha Blanchard, 1851 is likely a later usage of Aplonycha/Haplonycha Boisduval, 1835 as well Later note: B&B seem to completely waive the whole Aplonycha/Haplonycha spelling thing except in passing, does that mean they don't consider Haplonycha a justified emendation anymore?? I'll leave you to figure this out Circeus, I'm not sure what's best here. Later note 2: Bouchard & Bousquet (2020) fortunately resolve the Aplonycha/Haplonycha spelling confusion: From pages 82 and 83 in the article: Page 250. Replace the entry “Haplonychidae H. C. C. Burmeister, 1855: 224…” with: “Haplonychidae H. C. C. Burmeister, 1855: 224 [stem: Aplonych-]. Type genus: Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 [as Haplonycha, unjustifed emendation of type genus name by Agassiz (1846b: 29)]. Comment: the unjustified emendation Haplonycha Agassiz, 1846 is in prevailing usage but attributed to Dejean (1836), not to Boisduval (1835) who first made the name Aplonycha available and therefore, Art. 33.2.3.1 (ICZN 1999) cannot be used to consider Haplonycha as a justified emendation; incorrect original stem formation, not in prevailing usage; the junior homonym Aplonychini De Stefani, 1908 (type genus Aplonyx De Stefani, 1908) is available in Diptera; this case is to be referred to the Commission to remove the homonymy (Art. 55.3.1).” So: Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 is the first available use of Aplonycha (and invalid synonym of Colpochila Erichson, 1843?) Haplonycha Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation, contrary to Bouchard et al. (2011), because, despite being in prevailing usage, it was incorrectly attributed to Dejean, 1836 rather than Boisduval, 1835. No, it's because it was (as far as I can tell, amyway) attributed to Blanchard, 1851 or Agassiz, 1846. Haplonycha Blanchard, 1851 is a later usage most likely	messy, but Y
Arctodium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Arctidium Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation according to N.Z., though I am not sure if it is valid or not either It's available and valid as Arctodium Burmeister, 1844, which is missing in IRMNG (it's a pretty recent restoration, though it'd been pointed out as early as 1938). Agassiz' emendation is unjustified.	Y
Aulacium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Mentophilus Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 "An application to the Commission is necesssary to conserve usage of the name Mentophilus Laporte" Aulacium Reiche, 1841 is a later usage of Aulacium Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z. Extra notes: Mentophilus Blanchard in Brullé, 1840 is probably a duplicate of Mentophilus Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 but with a different authority, though the only "proof" of this I have at the moment is that "Brullé, H. N. Anim. Artic. (Col.), 2 page(s): 74" turns out to be a page in Laporte (1840)'s Histoire naturelle des insectes Coléoptères ...Tome deuxième (this page in particular), which is apparently Tome troisième in Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés, annelides, crustacés, arachnides, myriapodes et insectes.	Y
Barybas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Barybas Blanchard, 1850 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus Katovich (2008) confirms that Barybas is a valid genus in family Scarabaeidae Microcrania Burmeister, 1855 is listed as a synonym, and the article assigns three new synonyms: Ctilocephala Burmeister, 1855, Eubarybas Gutiérrez, 1952 and Pseudohercitis Moser, 1921 a "Barybas sensu Burmeister" (presumably Barybas Burmeister, 1855) is also mentioned in Katovich (2008), but not much more info is given unfortunately (maybe this is cleared up in another article?) It's an homonym, the replacement valid name is Byrasba Harold, 1869 (Fuhrmann & Vaz-de-Mello, 2017)	Y
Brachysternus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Bubas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Bubas Mulsant, 1842 (likely a later usage)	Y
Caelidia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	according to Kuijten (1992), Caelidia Dejean, 1833 is a synonym of Parastasia Westwood, 1841 Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become valid as Caelidia Boisduval, 1835 (record not on IRMNG) More specifically 1835:187 (personal guess) Caelidia Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage of Caelidia Dejean, 1833 on N.Z, so it is also likely a later usage of Caelidia Boisduval, 1835 Indeed, his treatment wouldn't even make the name available, as pointed out by Kuijten (1992:69)! if the above connections are correct, this causes problems for Parastasia Westwood, 1841, since Caelidia Boisduval, 1835 would now have priority over it. Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) don't seem to make a comment on this at all apparently! I'm not surprised: they were only interested with whether Dejean' name predated any existing ones, after all. Kuijten, however, IMO has no excuse whatsoever after treating Boisduval's Caelidia marginata as available (p. 104), and then immediately referring elsewhere in the paper for a discussion of said generic name as unavailable (p. 69)! Caelidia might well qualify as a nomen oblitum, though, so it's not a big threat. The misspelling Coelidia Blanchard, 1850 is missing from IRMNG. N	Y
Caelodera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae replacement name for Pachypus Dejean, 1821, a junior homonym of Pachypus Billberg, 1820 following Bouchard et al. (2011), Pachypus Billberg, 1820 is a nomen oblitum and Pachypus Dejean, 1821 is a nomen protectum, so Caelodera Dejean, 1833 is now a junior synonym of Pachypus Dejean, 1821 Pachypus Billberg, 1820, meanwhile, is now a senior synonym of Pachycnema Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 according to Cupello & Ribeiro-Costa (2019) (note: authority cited as "Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828")	Y
Callichloris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to N.Z., both Callichloris Burmeister, 1844 and Callichloris Curtis, 1844 are later usages, but I am not sure which is valid (or even if they are related to each other) Burmeister's name (Handbuch 4(1):455) is treated as Platycoelia Dejean, 1833 (Smith, 2003. On the other hand, Curtis' Callichloris perelegans (Trans. Proc. Linn. Soc. London 19:445, dated 1845, not 1844) is a species of Hylamorpha Arrow, 1899 (Ratcliffe & Ocampo, 2002). Just to make it REALLY messy, though, Burmeister treats Dejean's species under Aulacopalpus, and nowadays it's (apparently) the type of Hylamorpha.	Y
Carteronyx Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Those are generally accepted to be Dicrania, as far as I can tell	Y
Catalasis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Anoxia Laporte, 1833 Catalasis Sturm, 1843 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Chalconotus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Somnius Gistl, 1848 is an emendation according to N.Z. Clearly it should be a replacement name, not an emendation, though his reason (if any!) for proposing it is unclear at best. Extra notes: until Branco (2011: 12), Chalconotus (as Chalconotus Reiche, 1841) was considered a junior synonym of Anachalcos Hope, 1837; being unable to see the work for myself, does this mean that now Anachalcos Hope, 1837 is a junior synonym of Chalconotus Dejean, 1833 and Chalconotus Reiche, 1841 is a later usage? That's what Cupello et al., 2020:58 would seem to imply, yes.	Y
Chloenobia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chlaenobia Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation according to N.Z. I have no idea if Chlaenobia Blanchard, 1850 is related or not I'd wager not. Blanchard would mention Dejean if it were. Looking at the original description for Chlaenobia Blanchard, 1850, you're correct in that it doesn't mention Dejean at all. However, looking around on Google Books, I found Burmeister (1855)'s Handbuch der Entomologie, which mentions Dejean's only named species ("Chloenobia fastidita", see here) on this page. He seems to be comparing it with Tostegoptera Blanchard, 1851 , with a note that translates to "Note. This genus is probably the same as Count Dejean's Chloenobia fastidita". Interestingly, both Chlaenobia Blanchard, 1850 and Testegoptera Blanchard, 1851 are currently synonyms of Phyllophaga Harris, 1827 if IRMNG is correct. So a link *could* be made to Dejean's name, but then again this is just speculation.	Y
Chlorota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Coprobas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This is actually Macroderes Westwood, 1842	Y
Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae name suppressed by ICZN (1996) in Opinion 1838, and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for the Principle of Homonymy Extra note: Coptorhinus Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838 (a junior homonym of Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833) was also placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 1838. I'm not actually sure what the current names for either Coptorhinus are now, though the ICZN case/opinion seems to be about conserving Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (accepted as Temnorrhynchus Hope, 1837 on IRMNG)... so maybe Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 is a synonym of that now? yes, yes it is.	Y
Cryptodon Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Cryptodontes Burmeister, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Oh, this is a fun one. Dejean used Cryptodon, based off a Manuscript name of Latreille, then Westwood published it as Leptognathus because he thought Latreille's name was too similar to Latreille's own earlier Cryptodus, another lamellicorn. But Leptognathus Westwood is itself a junior homonym (of Leptognathus Swainson, 1838), so Burmeister, agreeing about the Cryptodon vs. Cryptodus thing, publishes it as Cryptodontes instead. Ironically, Westwood later commented how he didn't think the homonymy justified taking up Burmeister's name!	Y
Dasysterna Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Stratiomanes Gistl, 1848 is an emendation, according to N.Z. Available as Dasysterna Rambur, 1844 (see this very nice historical summary of Pachydeminae in French by Marc Lacroix), and as such a synonym of Pachydema Laporte, 1832 (Löbl & Löbl, 2016). Stratiomanes is not an emendation, but a replacement name.	Y
Dorysthaetus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Dorysthetus Blanchard, 1845 is a misspelling/emendation, according to N.Z. Seeing as Dejean's name is not available and Blanchard's is (and valid too, apparently; see also Moore et al., 2004 regarding its type species), the spelling of Dejean's name and whether Blanchard changed it is irrelevant. Also as Dorystethus Agassiz, 1846	Y
Encya Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Encya Blanchard, 1845 (which is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845a: 216))	Y
Epicaulis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Never synonymized. Will list as Scarabaeidae nonetheless as the few mentions have always been in the context of Macrodactylini	Y
Epichloris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Brachysternus Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838 Taleitha Gistl, 1848 is an emendation of Epichloris Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z. N.Z. is really loose with "emendation"... An emendation is a name asserted as a corrected spelling (ICZN Art. 19). A new name (as are all of Gistl's proposals) falls under Art. 60. Further down I'll just correct the notes.	Y
Epirinus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus The following names are related to Epirinus Dejean, 1833: Anisopus Hope, 1838 (a substitute name according to N.Z.) I rather read it as an unavailable name published in synonymy (Hope, 1838:328): "Now of the genus Epirinus, De Jean [sic!]. In my MSS. I have given to the species allied to [Scarabaeus granulatus Olivier] the generic name of Anisopus [Editor notes that this is a homonym in a footnote]. As it is doubtful if the characters are published by [?Dejean], I defer adding them at present." Epirinus Reiche, 1841 (a later usage) Epirhinus Agassiz, 1846 (unjustified emendation, according to N.Z and Daniel (2019)) Epirrhinus Bedel, 1903 (incorrect subsequent spelling, according to N.Z. and Daniel (2019))	Y
Eriesthis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Eriesthis Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus	Y
Eucranium Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This is a nomen nudum this time! This name became valid as Eucranium Brullé, 1834 according to Ocampo (2010) Extra notes: also according to Ocampo (2010), Anomiopsis Westwood, 1837 and Psammotrupes Guérin-Ménéville, 1838 are junior synonyms of Eucranium Brullé, 1834 Don't forget Cyclodema :P	Y
Geobatus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become available as Geobatus Boisduval, 1835 (now a synonym of Maechidius Macleay, 1819)	Y
Gromphas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Gymnogaster Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Gymnoloma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Gymnoloma Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Heteronychus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Heteronychus Burmeister, 1847 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Hoplites Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	senior synonym of Enema Hope, 1837	Y
Hybalus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Hybalus Germar, 1838 (a later usage, according o N.Z.) Extra note: Hybalus Brullé, 1834 is likely a later usage too, as according to Löbl I. & D. (2016) Geobius Brullé, 1832 (or Geobius Brullé in Bory de St. Vincent, 1832 on IRMNG) is a synonym of Hybalus Dejean, 1833. Geobius Brullé, 1832 is also listed as a homonym in the same source.	Y
Hyperis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid subgenus of Hoplia Illiger, 1803 Hyperis Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845a: 211) Clandestinus Gistl, 1848 is an emendation, according to N.Z.	Y
Hyporhiza Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior subjective synonym of Rhinaspis Perty, 1830 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Blanchard (2013a)) Extra note: Ulomenes Blanchard, 1850 is also a junior synonym of Rhinaspis Perty, 1830	Y
Lagosterna Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Lagosterna Erichson, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; see also Erichson (1847: 653) Extra notes: according to Evans (1989), Lagosterna Dejean, 1833 was synonymized with Sparrmannia Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 (though it doesn't make clear if it still is one by this point). This would also mean Lagosterna Dejean, 1833 is in family Scarabaeidae. For some reason, evans seems to be is failing to note that Lagosterna Erichson is an available name... I'll still put them as synonym. Sparmannia Laporte, 1840 synonymized too, Sparrmannia Gemminger & Harold, 1869 is an incorrect authorship under ICZN rules and has been deleted, note added to Sparrmannia Laporte instead.	Y
Lasiopus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: the name became available as Lasiopus Leconte, 1856 (replaced by Podolasia Harold, 1869 because of homonymy); see LeConte (1856: 282) and the following page	Y
Leocaeta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Sparrmannia Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 according to Bouchard et al. (2011), Leocaeta is a nomen oblitum and Sparrmannia a nomen protectum	Y
Leptopus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Synonymized with Elaphocera Gené, 1836 according to Lacroix (see above under Dasysterna)	Y
Leucopholis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Extra notes: Leucopholis Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; see Blanchard (1845a: 216) Leucopholis Chevrolat, 1841 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Machona Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name, according to N.Z.	Y
Macrothops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become valid as Macrothops Boisduval, 1835 [original description: Boisduval (1835: 210) Macrothops Dupont in Boisduval, 1835 is very likely a duplicate of Macrothops Boisduval, 1835, since the cited original description on IRMNG refers to Boisduval (1835: 212), just a few pages ahead of where Macrothops Boisduval, 1835 is described Macrothops Macleay, 1864 is not the same as Macrothops Boisduval, 1835 according to here	Y
Mallogaster Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed =Rhinaspis Perty, 1830 according to Fuhrmann & Vaz-de-Mello, 2017.	Y
Microplus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Microplus Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably the valid name for the genus; see Burmeister (1844: 174)	Y
Myoderma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Myodermum Burmeister & Schaum in Germar, 1840	Y
Onthocharis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Onthocharis Westwood, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably the valid name for the genus Nope. The valid name is Anomiopus Westwood, 1842 (Luzia Canhedo, 2006)	Y
Onthoecus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This is a synonym of Dendropaemon (Crassipaemon) Cupello & Génier Chamorro et al., 2019 cite this as available from Lacordaire, 1856:103, which seems incorrect to me as it clearly fails Art. 11.5 of the code: "To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed". If there is availability, it is from Génier & Arnaud, 2016, who cite it as Lacordaire's name, making it a seniorobjective synonym of subgenus Crassipaemon.	Y
Ootoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Ootoma Blanchard, 1850, is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus. This would mean Ootoma Dejean, 1833 could be put in family Scarabaeidae. Nope and nope. Fuhrmann and Vaz-de-Mello (2017:6) put Dejean's name as a synonym of Clavipalpus Laporte, 1832, but Blanchard's name is a synonym of Pachydema (Löbl & Löbl, 2016:242)	Y
Orthognatus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed A synonyum of Sphaenognathus Buquet, 1838 (Paucar-Cabrera, 2001). Orthognathus Schönherr, 1838 is a Curculionidae genus unrelated to Dejean's name (cf. Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999), with the very unfortunate unnecessary replacement name of Sph(a)enognathus, just to confuse things further!	Y
Oxyomus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Pachylus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	I know this is a nomen nudum name, but, well ...I think there was some horrible mixup here, since this doesn't appear even to be in the right subphylum! According to N.Z. itself, Pachylus Dejean, 1833 *should* be in order Coleoptera, but instead on IRMNG this record seems to place it in subphylum Crustacea, order Mysida, family Mysidae. How on earth did this happen? A second "Pachylus Dejean, 1833" record exists which instead places it in Arachnida, but at least I can attribute that to being mixed up with Pachylus Kollar in Koch, 1839 possibly. And maybe we can also blame Hallan for that one. Extra notes: according to N.Z.'s record, Pachylus Dejean, 1833 became valid as Pachylus Burmeister, 1847 (...which has a duplicate record on IRMNG) according to Bouchard et al. 2011, Pachylus Burmeister, 1847 is a hononym of Pachylus Kollar in Koch, 1839 (stated as just "Koch, 1839") and is a synonym of Ottokelleria d'Andretta & Martínez, 1957. Bouchard et al. 2011 lists Pachylus Burmeister, 1847 as the type genus of an invalid tribe name within family Scarabaeidae, so likely Pachylus Dejean/Burmeister and Ottokelleria are all in that family. Seriously though, this one is a mess guys. Ok, I think I got it all sorted out	Y
Philochloenia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Anoplosiagum Blanchard, 1850 is a junior synonym Extra notes: Philochlaenia Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage and incorrect subsequent spelling of "Philochloenia" (see Blanchard (1845: 215)), and likely so is Phyllochlaenia (no authority given) and its other synonyms this was formerly considered a junior synonym of Dichelonyx Harris, 1826 (e.g.: in Evans & Smith (2005)), but because of an earlier valid type species found, this made Philochloenia a senior synonym of Anoplosiagum instead The valid name for "Phyllochlaenia sensu Blanchard" is Deuterocaulobius Dalla Torre in Schenkling, 1912 (Smith & Evans, 2005:40-41)	Y
Phytolaema Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The following names seem to be related to Phytolaema Dejean, 1833: Phytolaema Blanchard, 1850 (later usage according to N.Z.) Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851; see Blanchard (1851: 251) and the following page I'm not sure what the valid name currently is, though according to Evans & Smith (2005) and Smith & Mondaca (2015) it is Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851 "Phytolaema Blanchard, 1850" is an error in both dating and spelling. The volume was issued in two livraisons, and although I can't find a source detailing the dating, the second livraison (pp. 129ff) is always cited as 1851, and clearly has the name spelled with two h's. I'm turning that one into "Phytolaema Neave, 1940", incorrect subsequent spelling to Phytholaema Also according to Evans & Smith (2005) and Smith & Mondaca (2015), the following are synonyms of Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851: Lacris Fairmaire & Germain, 1860 Melicurus Germain, 1904, which should have a year of 1905 [also see Smith (2002) on the former synonymy of Melicurus with Aulacopalpus Guérin-Ménéville, 1838] if it counts (since it is not on IRMNG), Areoda Solier, 1851, a misapplication of Areoda Macleay, 1819	Y
Platycheira Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Can't find a current placement. Lacordaire (1856:382, see footnote 1) places it in Geniatini, but Jameson & Hawkins (2005) only mention Rhizobia. Although Ohaus at one point argued for Platycheira as a valid ganus (Deutch Entomol. Z. 7:327), I can't find actual material (it doesn't help that Philyra platycheira, a common species of crabs, heavily pollutes search results). Platychira Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation, and no help. (Note weird authority because Agassiz actually had two different Platychira in his nomenclator, and Aphia coughs up duplication errors if two names have the same spelling and authority)	Y
Platycoelia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Platycoelia Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; see Burmeister (1844: 452))	Y
Podalgus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed To the synonymy of Podalgus Burmeister we must add the objective synonyms Vertumnus Reiche, 1859 and Crator Semenov, 1890 (Krell, 2002, Podalgus conserved in Opinion 2066)	Y
Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 (name not on IRMNG, see notes), which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Leptinopterus Hope. Extra notes: according to Bouchard et al. (2011), "Leptinopterus" is an unjustified emendation of Leptynopterus Hope, 1838 by Hope (1845), but the emended spelling is in prevailing usage and so deemed to be a justified emendation this means that Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 is the valid name Leptynopterus Hope, 1838 is an incorrect original spelling Leptinopterus Hope, 1845 is a justified emendation Psalipocerus Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation of Psalicerus Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z.	Y
Pygurus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This appears to be Uroxys Westwood, 1843 (a name that turns out to be threatened by Uroxys Rafinesque, 1818:272, a validation of the 1815 nomen nudum)	Y
Rhinyptia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Rhizobia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed As alluded to above s.v. Platycheira, this is Rhizogeniates Ohaus, 1909	Y
Ryparus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The following names seem to be related to Ryparus Dejean, 1833 on IRMNG and N.Z.: Ryparus Westwood, 1844 (synonym of Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 on IRMNG) Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 (treated as valid genus on IRMNG) Rhyparus Agassiz, 1846 (treated as valid genus on IRMNG, emendation of Ryparus Dejean, 1833 on N.Z.) Rhypaus Agassiz, 1847 (synonym of Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 on IRMNG) This one is a misspelling in Hallan, which I'm deletiing According to Bouchard et al. (2011), Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 is the valid name for this genus "Rhyparus is an unjustified emendation of Ryparus Westwood, 1845 by Agassiz (1846b: 328), in prevailing usage, and so deemed to be a justified emendation (Article 33.2.3.1); the emended spelling avoids homonymy with Ryparus Spinola, 1844 [Coleoptera: Cleridae] (see A. B. T. Smith 2006: 159) this probably means that Ryparus Westwood, 1844 is probably the incorrect original spelling (abeit with the wrong year?) for Rhyparus Westwood, 1845, and Rhyparus Agassiz, 1846 is a justified emendation. Rhypaus meanwhile just seems to be a separate misspelling Kakizoe et al., 2019 also has a detailed summary.	Y
Schizonycha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Schizonycha Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845: 215)	Y
Sciuropus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae senior subjective synonym of Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835.	Y
Sericesthis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name became valid as Sericesthis Boisduval, 1835, which would give it precedence over Sericesthis Hope, 1842	Y
Spilota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Spilota Burmeister, 1844 (now Callistethus Blanchard, 1851) is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably first valid use of the name; see Burmeister (1844: 266)	Y
Streptocerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Strigidia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Strigidia Burmeister, 1844 (now Pelidnota Macleay, 1819) is a later usage, according to N.Z.; see Burmeister (1844: 388) Orodina Gistl, 1848 is a substitute name according to N.Z.	Y
Strigoderma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Tarandus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Tarandus Billberg, 1828 junior objective synonym of Ceruchus Macleay, 1819 Extra notes: Tarandus Megerle in Dejean, 1837 is likely a duplicate or later usage	Y
Thyridium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Trichops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Trichops Borre, 1886 is a later usage, according to N.Z. ...though that said, is Trichops Val in de la Sagra, 1853 anything to do with this name? Val is the correct author for availability. Remember that much of Neave's base work is based on the code and scholarship as it was in the 30s! There's a significant amount of cases where later volumes (as here: Val's publication was recorded in Volume 8, in 1993) or Hallan have a more accurate date or place of publication. Trichops Val is the available version of Dejean's name, and is a synonym of Apalonychus Westwood 1846, but Trichops Borre is a separate homonym. As Borrochrus (its replacement name), it is as far as I can tell a valid subgenus of Chaetodus Westwood 1846	Y
Trigonostoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior homonym of Trigonostoma Blainville, 1825 (known as Trigonostoma Blainville, 1827 on IRMNG) senior objective synonym of Adoroleptus Brenske, 1893 (a valid genus in Scarabaeidae) Wow. I have the hardest time finding anything online about Adoroleptus, but Montreuil, 2010 has a tiny offhand mention implying it's valid.	Y
Trionychus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Trionychus Burmeister, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus; also see Burmeister (1847: 140 According to this, Trionychus Burmeister = Rhizoplatys Westwood, 1842, but there is apparently also a Trionychus Fairmaire, 1898 missing from IRMNG, which is a synonym of Eophileurus Arrow, 1908!	Y Ignoring the Fairmaire name
Xylonichus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become valid as Xylonichus Boisduval, 1835	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Adoretus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Dejean (1833: 157)]
  • valid genus
  • Adoretus Laporte in Brullé, 1840 is a later usage; see Krell (2007)
    • Y Corrected authorship
• Eucheirus Dejean, 1833 nomen nudum [Original description: Dejean (1833: 140)]
  • Y This appears to be a synonym of Scatonomus Erichson
• Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Dejean (1833: 147)]
  • family Scarabaeidae
  • senior subjective synonym of Ceratocanthus White, 1842
  • Sphaeromorphus Germar, 1843 is a later usage (apparently Germar, 1843 was the first to provide species with available names for the genus)
  • Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to retain Ceratocanthus White as a valid taxon.
    • Y Corrected authorship

Hétéromères

Hétéromères: Mélasomes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Acisba Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior objective synonym of Pachychila Eschscholtz, 1831	Y
Aethales Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior synonym of Epitragus Latreille, 1802 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013))	Y
Amatodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae senior synonym of Oncosoma Westwood, 1842, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Oncosoma Westwood, 1843. Amatodes Solier, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Amathodes Erichson, 1845 is a misspelling of Amatodes Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.	Y
Amphysus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Erichson puts this as a synonym of Heliofugus	Y
Arctylus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Arctylus Dejean, 1834	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Praocis Eschscholtz, 1829 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013))	Y
Blacodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The name became available as Blacodes Blanchard, 1845 according to N.Z. (now a synonym of Blenosia de Laporte in Brullé, 1840); also see Blanchard (1845b: 13) Turns up by Duponchel in D'Orbigny, 1842 (Bouchard et al., 2022). Circeus (talk)	Y
Brachygenius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Assigned to Gyriosomus by later authors	Y
Brachyscelis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Pachyscelis Solier, 1836 Brachyscelis Dejean, 1833 is a nomen oblitum and Pachyscelis Solier, 1836 a nomen protectum Extra note: (personal guess) Brachyscelis Fischer de Waldheim, 1837 is possibly a later usage of Brachyscelis Dejean, 1833 Can't confirm what Fischer's name is, so leaving it as uncertain	Y
Bradytes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed, though I'm not convinced this actually now accepted as Amara Bonelli, 1810 (as recorded on IRMNG currently), since Amara is in Carabidae (but that's just me) Incorrect. Confusion/misspelling in Hallan due to the similar-sounding subgenus Bradytus Stephens, 1827 (cf. Bousquet, 2012). Identity of Bradytes Dejean unknown.	Y
Bradyus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus	Y
Cacicus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Cacicus Lacepède, 1799 (Aves) senior synonym of Megelenophorus Gebien, 1910 (a valid genus) Cacicus Solier, 1837 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Caedius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bouchard et al. (2011) and Löbl & Smetana (2008), the name probably became available (and valid) as Caedius Blanchard, 1845 (which is missing from IRMNG). Coedius Blanchard, 1845 (which is a later usage/misspelling of Caedius Dejean, 1834 according to N.Z.) is probably an incorrect original spelling of Caedius Blanchard, 1845; see Blanchard (1845b: 13). according to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Caedius Mulsant & Rey, 1859 is both a junior hononym and synonym of Caedius Blanchard, 1845 Isarida Pascoe, 1866 is also a synonym of Caedius Blanchard, 1845 Adavius Mulsant & Rey in Mulsant, 1859 and Cyptus Gerstaecker, 1871 are valid genera, not synonyms of Caedius	Y
Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The following records on IRMNG appear to be related to Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834: Calymmophorus Solier, 1840 (treated as valid in IRMNG) Calymmaphorus Solier, 1841 (later usage of Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834 according to N.Z., treated as synonym of Calymmophorus Solier, 1840 in IRMNG) Calymmophorus Burmeister, 1875 (misspelling of Calymmaphorus Solier, 1841 according to N.Z.) I'm guessing that Calymmophorus Solier, 1840 is probably the actual valid name for the genus All evidence (e.g. Flores et al., 2011) seems to point in that direction, yes. What we have here, it seems, is an unjustified emendation in prevailing usage (just as with Coedius), as Solier clearly uses "Calymmaphorus" (the date is 1840, not 1841, so same name as the Calymmophorus of Hallan). He clearly intends to include Dejean's "Calymmaphorus cucullatus" (and indeed he mentions him by name), so that's allone and the same.	Y
Cephalostenus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cilibe Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Colposcelis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus Extra notes: this is not a synonym of Pagria Lefèvre, 1884 in Chrysomelidae; there is actually a second genus named Colposcelis in Dejean's second catalogue, Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836, which is a junior homonym of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834 and is the actual Colposcelis in synonymy with Pagria! Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 is missing from IRMNG at the moment Y [Original description: Dejean (1836: 408); family Chrysomelidae; senior objective synonym of Pagria Lefèvre, 1884] the Australian Faunal Directory record is actually referring to Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836, not Colposcelis Dejean, 1834 (see here) according to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the following are subgenera of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834: Colposceloides Schuster, 1940 Colposcythis Reitter, 1889 Scelocolpis Reitter, 1900 Turcmenicola (no authority given) [authority is Bogatchev, 1952] Colposcelis Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.	Y
Coronus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae senior synonym of Phligra Laporte in Brullé, 1840, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Phligra Laporte, 1840. It appears that workers have decided Phligra has not seen enough use in recent years for this to be worth the hassle, and are simply taking up Cyrtoderes (Alonso-Zarazaga, 2014; Kaminski et al., 2019) There exists a Cyrtoderes Solier (overlooked by Neave), of which I'm not entirely clear if it ought to be a separately available name.	Y
Dicrossa Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed apparently this is Notiophygus, in Discolomatidae	Y
Echinotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Entomoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epilasium Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Epilasium Curtis, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the first valid use of the name; see Curtis (1844: 201) Extra notes: Epilasium Blanchard, 1845 is probably a later usage of Epilasium Dejean/Curtis; see Blanchard (1845b: 14) Epilasium Curtis, 1844 is a synonym of Trichoton Hope, 1840 according to this	Y
Epiphysa Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Epiphysa Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; see Blanchard (1845b: 4)	Y
Hadrus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Hadrus Wollaston, 1854 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus Nope, it is Wolladrus Iwan & Kaminski, 2016. Hadrus is a junior homonym of Hadrus Perty, 1833, a name not currently in use (=Lepiselaga, Diptera:Tabanidae) because dipterologists assumed it to be the junior homonym. I am emailing Sixto Coscarón about this (he is the main author on the 2009 Catalog of Neotropical Tabanidae).	Y
Heliopates Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	valid genus Extra notes: this name was originally a replacement name for Heliophilus Dejean, 1821 (a junior homonym of Heliophilus Meigen, 1803), which is now an invalid synonym of Phylan Dejean, 1821. this means that Heliopates Dejean should also be a synonym of Phylan Dejean, though Heliopates Dejean is considered a valid genus anyway. (e.g. in Löbl & Smetana (2008)) "To promote stability, we believe the best avenue would be to submit an application to the Commission to retain Tenebrio lusitanicus Herbst as type species of Heliopates Dejean, 1834." according to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the following are synonyms or subgenera of Heliopates Dejean, 1834: Heliocrates Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Heliocaes Bedel, 1906 (synonym); Heliocaës Bedel, 1906 is the incorrect original spelling according to IRMNG Heliopathes Mulsant, 1854 (an unjustified emendation according to this) No ICZN case. I'm pretty sure less than half the issues were ever attempted to be dealt with. (personal guess) Heliopathes Dejean, 1853 is probably some kind of weird duplicate by Hallan that somehow combined the authorities of "Heliopates Dejean, 1834" and "Heliopathes Mulsant, 1854" together by accident. Though it'd be strange if it was a later usage, since Dejean died in 1845! I agree. Record deleted	Y
Herpiscius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Hipomelus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Trachynotus Latreille, 1828 (name not on IRMNG, unless it is the same as Trachynotus Latreille in Cuvier, 1829?) [new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)] I very much believe that 1828 is in error (cf. also Bousquet, 2016 regarding the date of that work)	Y
Lasiostola Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Lasiostola Solier, 1836 (a later usage according to N.Z.) and its synonyms	Y
Leichenum Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Leichenum Blanchard, 1845 (a later usage according to N.Z.)	Y
Leptodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Leptodes Solier, 1838 (a later usage according to N.Z.) and its synonyms	Y
Macrotis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed I cannot seem to find where (if anywhere) this name is currently treated Bouchard et al. confirms it as a tenebrionidae.	Y
Melancrus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Melancrus Reiche & Saulcy, 1857 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Targesius Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name of Melancrus Dejean, 1834	Y
Melanesthes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus Melanesthes Faldermann, 1835 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the following are synonyms/subgenera of Melanesthes Dejean, 1834: Hemitrichestes Reitter, 1904 (synonym) Hemitrichesthes Gebien in Schenkling, 1911 is an emendation of Hemitrichestes Reitter, 1904, according to N.Z. Lesbidana Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Mongolesthes Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Opatronesthes Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Melanesthes Lacordaire (year missing) is probably a later usage of Melanesthes Dejean, 1834 as well Myladanesthes Skopin, 1961 is actually a subgenus of Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 according to Löbl & Smetana (2008) and Iwan, Ferrer & Raś (2010), not a synonym of Melanesthes Opatropis Reitter, 1904 is also a subgenus of Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 Dasus Motschoulsky, 1845 is a synonym of Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 Gonocephalum Chevrolat, 1849 is probably a later usage (all species listed within should be under Solier, 1834)	Y
Melanostola Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Melanostola Sénac, 1887 is a later usage, according to N.Z., which would make it the first available use of the name however, according to Löbl & Smetana (2008) [page 42], "Melanostola Dejean, 1836" is available (probably from the third edition of Dejean's catalogue?), since it claims the first species name ("simplex. Dej.") is actually available as "Pimela simplex Solier, 1836" however to that however though, Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) doesn't mention Melanostola at all, let alone list Melanostola Dejean, 1836 as a valid name, so I can't actually tell if Löbl & Smetana (2008)'s note is correct or not I have no idea why the name is missing entirely from Bousquet & Bouchard, but Löbl & Smetana are correct that Pimelia simplex Solier 1836:123 was available prior to publication of Melanostola Dejean, 1836:198 (Bousquet & Bouchard explicitly state that paper preceded Dejean's catalogue), making that name available. All evidence points to Dejean's M. blapsoides and oblonga being nomen nudum, so that the designation by Löbl et al. is unavailable, as Pimelia simplex is then the type by monotypy. Balius Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name for Melanostola Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z. Bouchard & al., 2021 add another layer to this cake: Dejean ended up merely made available his own name, which Solier, 1836:123 had published in synonymy a month or so earlier! Melanostola Solier, 1836 added Y	Y
Metopocerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Microzoum Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior objective synonym of Melanimon Steven, 1829 Microzoum Motschoulsky, 1839 is a later usage, according to N.Z. (personal guess) Microzoum Redler, 1845 is probably also a later usage	Y
Morica Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Morica Solier, 1837 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Nosoderma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Nosoderma Guérin-Ménéville, 1838 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: According to García-París, Coca-Abia & Parra-Olea (2006), the following are synonyms of Nosoderma Solier, 1841: Homaloderes Solier, 1834 (as "Homaloderes Solier, 1831") Noserus Leconte, 1862 Phloeodes Leconte, 1862 Ageonoma Pascoe, 1866 Noserosus Doyen & Lawrence, 1979 (lapsus for Noserus) Actually, Nosoderma Guérin-Ménéville is the valid name for Meralius Casey, 1907, while Verodes Casey, 1907 becomes the valid name for Nosoderma Solier (Foley & Ivie, 2007). The article's writing style is a bit winding and confused IMO, making no proper attempts to clarify that there are two homonymous Nosoderma until after figuring out that N. morbillosum is not the type of Gérin-Méneville's name (which fact is self-evident if you start by establishing the these are clearly two separate names!).	Y
Notha Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	listed as an invalid synonym of Scotera Dejean, 1834 (also a nomen nudum), so this name is not available The Scotera gibbosa of Eschcholtz is a Cibdelis. It is available from Motschulsky, 1845 as a synonym later considered valid.	Y
Notocorax Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Notocorax Mannerheim, 1844 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Nyctipates Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Nyctipates Gebler, 1841 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: According to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Nyctipates Gebler, 1841 is a synonym of Prosodes Eschscholtz, 1829 Nyctipates Solier, 1848 is junior homonym of Nyctipates Gebler, 1841, and a synonym of Prosodopria Reitter, 1909 (a subgenus of Prosodes Eschscholtz, 1829)	Y
Oncotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Oncotus Solier in Baudi & Truqui, 1848 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 is probably also a later usage Oncote Blanchard, 1845 is a misspelling of Oncotus Dejean, 1834 according to N.Z. (also see Blanchard (1845b: 13)) and is probably an incorrect original spelling for Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 Which name is valid, Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 or Oncotus Solier [in Baudi & Truqui], 1848? according to Bouchard et al. (2011), Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 is the valid name according to Kamiński (2016), Oncotus Solier, 1848 should actually be the valid name: "[...] , Blanchard’s reference does not fulfill the criteria laid down in Art. 12.2. of ICZN (1999), therefore Solier (1848) is considered here to be the author of Oncotus." It is absolutely Blanchard. Kamiński's argument conveniently ignores the clear presence of a description in Blanchard, which obviates the need to examine whatever indication(s) may be present. On second thought I believe his argument may be (and if so, terribly worded!) that the name is unavailable because it's not actually Latin and instead a vernacular transcription (the page include several names that clearly fall into such a category). Amusingly enough, the ICZN does not include any such provision that I can find aside from banning accented letters! I'm sure that's going to bite them in the ass some day... the ICZN is basically written so as to avoid having to change accepted dates of publication as much as possible through a variety of means (and end up really complicating things in a variety of creative methods in the process...), and otherwise minimize the need for the commission's interventions as much as possible (given how ridiculously long cases linger, and frequently are just... completely forgotten, I can't blame them)... except for article 55.3 which maximizes it. By contrast the ICBN emphasizes being able to tell from examination of the protologue whether a name is validly published or not. It's also worth noting that "Oncotus" later appears in page 25 in Blanchard's work, though without a description. I noticed that. It's why I put down both pages for Oncotus Blanchard. Subgenera included under Oncotus, according to Kamiński (2016): Cilioncotus Koch, 1954 Menoncotus Koch, 1954 Quadroncotus Koch, 1954	Y
Pachycoelia Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Pachycoelia Boisduval, 1835 was the valid name, not Lepispilus Westwood, 1841. | Y
Pachypterus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Pachypterus Lucas, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Pelecyphorus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Philoscotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed No idea what it's placed under. No apparent connection to Philoscotus Sawada, 1957. The "Asida silphoides" of Sturm mentioned given here unlikely to be Tenebrio silphoides Linnaeus (currently in Alphasida), as that is a Maghrebine species. Circeus (talk)	Y
Physosterna Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Physosterna Allard, 1885 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Pilioloba Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Investigation reveals this to be a synonym of Salax Guérin-Méneville, 1834	Y
Platyholmus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Platyholmus Solier, 1841 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Prionotheca Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Prionotheca Solier, 1836 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Psorodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Wait, as a replacement name, is it not by definition available and thus gaining priority over Psorodes Solier, 1848? Confirmed by Bouchard et al., 2021. I've updated all the entries Circeus (talk)	Y
Pterocoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Pterocoma Solier, 1836 (a later usage, according to N.Z.) Extra notes: what's the source for N.Z. listing Mongolopterocoma Skopin, 1974 and Pseudopterocoma Skopin, 1974 (subgenera of Pterocoma) as extinct exactly? Apart from the lack of evidence for being extinct at all, I also suspect this is wrong because, so far at least, I have found at least one article mentioning P. reitteri as being "abdundant under shrubs", which sounds like it is an extant species. P. reitteri is listed as under Pterocoma subgenus Mongolopterocoma in Löbl & Smetana (2008). Make of that what you like. IRMNG often has that sort of errors, in both directions. They were not necessarily in N.Z.	Y
Pterolasia Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Sciaca Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Sciaca Solier, 1835 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra note: I cannot say for certain if the genus is valid as Solier, 1835 or not, but according to d'Orbigny (1848: 423) (which of course could be completely wrong now), Sciaca Dejean, 1834 is a synonym of Hylithus Guérin, 1834 Solier's publication as a synonym could be a source of availability, but the conditions do not appear to have been met (hence Sciaca) not being in Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013b. He put it as a syn. of Hylithus and no one has bothered to contest it. The tentyrioides they mention is indeed an Hylithus. Circeus (talk) Could and is, it turns out. Bouchard et al. (2021) note that the third edition of the catalogue's entry makes Solier's name available. Even if we HAD covered the names from the third catalogue, it wouldn't have helped because unlike, say, Caelidia, Sciaca was not mentioned. Still a synonym of Hylithus. Circeus (talk)	Y
Sclerum Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Sclerum Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: Synonyms according to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Anticlia Gistl, 1847 (unnecessary replacement name) Chlamydion Gistl, 1848 (unnecessary replacement name) Scleron Hope, 1840 (an incorrect subsequent spelling) (synonymized in Bouchard et al. (2005))	Y
Scotera Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Scotera Eschscholtz in Motschoulsky, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z. I have no idea if this name ever became used validly or not. See above sub. Notha	Y
Selenomma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Selenomma Solier, 1838 is a later usage, according to N.Z. According to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), this name became available as Selenomma Dejean, 1836 (record not on IRMNG), as an unnecessary replacement name for Ammophorus Guérin-Ménéville, 1830 [with year "1831" in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b)]. Kamiński et al. (2019) does not list Selenomma Soiler, 1838 (or Dejean for that matter) as a synonym of Uniungulum Koch, 1962, though that may just mean it is not an available name No, it's because Selenomma Dejean, 1836, the only available one, has no apparent connection with Uniungulum (no idea where the heck Hallan got that synonymy from): it's an objective synonym of Ammophorus, and Ammophorus is currently treated as a valid genus in Scotobiini.	Y
Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Eurynotus Kirby, 1819 valid genus in Bousquet et al. (2021) Extra notes: are Selenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 and Solenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 related to the name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 at all, considering their very close spelling? according to Kamiński (2016), Solenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 is a subgenus of Eurynotus, and it has a different type species to Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 as given in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013). Better hope they can be considered different sense of the name (if they are linked), otherwise this is going to be a mess, oh dear. If we consider that Solenopistoma is an incorrect subsequent usage, it must be reverted because it is not being properly attributed to Dejean, making it not protected by Art. 33.3.1. The type designation by Bouchard and Bousquet is problematic because the current placement of O. acutum Wiedemann is unclear (to me at least)! The "Eurynotus acutus" of Mulsant and Rey is a Zadenos (Kaminski, 2015)! On the other hand, the designation by Koch, 1854 is inadmissible because E. denticosta is not an originally included species! This is indeed a mess... Update: Obviously, Bousquet and Nouchrd were working off the system used prior to Kamiński, who was in turn unaware of the type designation. Proper action was taken by Bouchard et al. (2020), synonymizing Euzadenos under Selenepistoma, with the the later used as a valid subgenus. @Circeus:: According to {{Bouchard et al., 2021}}, Solenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 (and Selenepistomus, but they don't mention Selenopistoma) is a incorrect subsequent spelling of Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 (and therefore unavailable), and they proposed a new subgenus Neosolenopistoma with the type species Eurynotus denticosta Mulsant & Rey, 1854. Meanwhile Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 is now considered a valid genus in the same article. Lastly, it appears IRMNG still needs to be actually updated! Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Ooops, my bad! I'm only up to Falsocaedius and and the entry for Euzadenos is worded in a rather misleading way: "Euzadenos Koch, 1956 was recently treated as a valid subgenus of Zadenos Laporte, 1840 (Kamiński 2015: 549); however, the type species of the older available genus name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 is currently placed in Euzadenos and therefore Selenepistoma has priority." So I did not realize the genus level swap.	Y
Stenholma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Tetromma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831	Y
Thalpophila Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Thalpophila Solier, 1835 is a later usage of the name, according to N.Z. a duplicate exists of Thalpophila Solier, 1835 (thanks to N.Z.) Thalpophilodes Strand, 1942 is a replacement name for Thalpophila Solier, 1835, according to N.Z.	Y
Zophius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Zophius de Brême, 1842 (which is a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Zophobius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Zophobius Dejean, 1837 is linked to this name according to N.Z. However, it is not listed in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) so it is presumably not available even in the third edition of Dejean's catalogue. (Also, it should probably be cited as "Dejean, 1836")	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Y Pandarus Dejean, 1834 (original description: Dejean (1834: 191))
  • This is treated as an unjustified emendation of Dendarus Dejean, 1821
  • According to Löbl & Smetana (2008) [page 41], Dendarus Dejean, 1821 includes two available species-group names, so it is not a nomen nudum
    • This would mean Dendarus Dejean, 1821 takes priority over Dendarus Latreille, 1829 and takes all its synonyms/subgenera
• Y Trigonoscelis Dejean, 1834 (original description: Dejean (1834: 179))
  • valid genus
  • family Tenebrionidae
  • Trigonoscelis Solier, 1836 is probably a later usage, since both of its synonyms (Chinotrigon Skopin, 1973 and Echinotrigon Skopin, 1973) are subgenera of Trigonoscelis Dejean, 1834 according to Löbl & Smetana (2008)

Hétéromères: Taxicornes

(To Circeus: I'll try not to mix up "valid" and "available" from here on if I can help it!)

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Aniara Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Aniara Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably an available use of the name? It is definitely referring to Dejean, as he mentions "anthracina Dej.". However, the first available use appears to be by Melsheimer 1853:139. I'm more concerned about Melsheimer making available the name "Centronipus Dej.", as Centronipus Melsheimer is monotypic and an objective senior synonym of Menechides Motschulsky, 1872, a subgenus of Centronopus Solier (Bousquet et al., 2018) I have emailed Patrice Bouchard about this, and he seemed thrilled about the information	Y
Anisocheira Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Anisocrepis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Apsida Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Basanus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Calymmus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Calymmus Pascoe, 1871 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably an available use of the name? The correct authority is Doué (in Monrouzier, 1860:289), not Pascoe, 1871. Calymmus is a valid genus, not a synonym of Wattius Kaszab (Kergoat et al., 2014, Smith & Sanchez, 2015). Nom. Zool. considers that Pascoe is creating a new name homonym of Doué. IMO, this is clearly not the case, as he refers to Calymmus of Dejean and Doué assigning a species of Monrouzier to that genus. It is correct, however, that Calymmus sensu Pascoe = Wattius Kaszab.	Y
Cataphronetis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Cataphronetis Lucas, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably an available use of the name? According to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Cataphronetis Lucas, 1846 is synonym of Phtora Germar in Germar, 1835 Pseudostene Wollaston, 1861 is also a synonym of Phtora Clypeophtora Soldati & Soldati, 2003 is a subgenus of Phtora Phthora von Seidlitz, 1891 is probably an incorrect spelling or emendation of Phtora That record was duplicated, too, just to fuck things up even further. It is indeed an incorrect subsequent spelling of Germar's name. The duplicate is from Seidlitz ALSO citing Phtora Mulsant, 1854 with the wrong spelling, but Phthora Mulsant, 1854 is in fact an incorrect original spelling, saving us from having to cite two homonyms with the same authority.	Y
Cerandria Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y
Cheirodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cosmonota Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Delognatha Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed, though see notes Extra notes: According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), Delognatha Agassiz, 1846 is an "unjustified emendation" of Dailognatha Stevens, 1829 (not on IRMNG), a valid genus in Tenebrionidae. the original description for Dailognatha Stevens, 1829 is: Steven, C. von. 1829. Tentyriae et Opatra collectionis Stevenianae nunc Musei Universitatis Mosquensis. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 1 : 81–100. [Available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33157988], page 88 According to Bouchard & Löbl (2008), Dailognatha Stevens, 1829 has been misattributed as Dailognatha Eschscholtz, 1831 (or "Stevens in Eschscholtz, 1831"), since Steven's paper was little known by his contemporaries ICZN (2010)'s Opinion 2250 conserves the name Delognatha Lacordaire, 1859 by suppression of the name Delognatha Agassiz, 1846. Though according to one of the voters, Agassiz did not use Delognatha as valid (or even as an emendation of Dailognatha Stevens at all possibly), therefore Delognatha Agassiz, 1846 is not an available name and no action was necessary (he still voted for the case regardless).	Y
Endophloeus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Endophloeus Erichson, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Epicalla Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Epicalla Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage, according to N.Z. (personal guess) the name probably became available as Epicalla Champion, 1886, as it is listed as "Epicalla Champion" in Doyen (1989)	Y
Epicamptus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epilampus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Ceropria Laporte & Brullé, 1831 Extra notes, according to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Epilampus Blanchard, 1845 is a junior homonym (of Epilampus Dejean, 1834 probably?) The original description for Epilampus Blanchard, 1845 is found at Blanchard (1845b: 30), as "Épilampe. Dalm." to be fair in this case it could equally be just a later use of Dejean's name Aside from the fact the correct page is probably 223 (on p. 30, the name is in French form and unavailable), it is indeed clearly the same name as Dejean (although attributed to Dalman as Dejean did). Epilamprus Gistl, 1848 is an "unjustified emendation"	Y
Eucyrtus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Eunotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Heterocheira Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), this name became available as Heterocheira Dejean, 1836 (no record for this on IRMNG) in the third catalogue. Heterocheira Dejean, 1836 is a valid genus in family Tenebrionidae (personal guess) Heterocheira Lacordaire, 1859 is probably a later usage of Heterocheira Dejean, 1834/1836	Y
Heterophaga Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Heterophaga Lucas, 1846 and Heterophaga Ludwig Redtenbacher, 1845 are later usages of Heterophaga Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.	Y
Hylonoma Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This time, this is a nomen nudum! But it turns out to be available as Hylonoma Macquart, 1850. Circeus (talk)	Y
Hypogena Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Hypsoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Margus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior objective synonym of Tribolium Macleay, 1825 Margus Redtenbacher, 1842 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Phloeonemus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phtora Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Platycrepis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Scaptes Eschscholtz in Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Scaptes Dejean, 1834	Scaptes Champion, 1886 is a later usage, according to N.Z., which would make this a synonym of Ammodonus Mulsant & Rey, 1859	Y
Xyloborus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	I have no idea if Xyloborus Kirby & Spence, 1828 is related at all It's definitely a nomen nudum. Xyloborus Motschulsky, 1858 is probably a later usage though, going by Motschulsky (1858: 64–65); if so this would make Xyloborus Dejean, 1834 a synonym of Rhipidandrus Leconte, 1862 in Schwarz & Barber (1914: 175), where they talk about the confusion of Xyloborus and Xyleborus and give some history on Xyloborus, they conclude that Motschulsky made the name available For the clarification: Xyloborus Motschulsky is a Tenebrionidae. Xyleborus Eichhoff is a Curculionidae. however, according to Merkl & Kompantzeva (1996) the name Xyloborus is a nomen nudum even in Motschulsky's usage! They don't put any argument whatsoever toward that, and I believe them to be wrong in that regard. I cannot find any other material only about the current placement of X. crenipennis Motschulsky though. I am emailing Dr. Bouchard about this and leaving this unresolved. Dr. Bouchard has kindly confirmed my analysis, even adding information to the specific effect that Xyloborus cannot be made a nomen oblitum because it "was used as valid after 1899 (e.g., Swezey 1942: 167)" (this seems to be Bernice P. Bishop. Mus. Bull. 172 and I am amazed they dug that up!).	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Eleoma Dejean, 1834: 195
  •  Unnecessary This would be adding a later usage of Eleoma Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829
  • was originally listed as an invalid synonym of Lithophilus Frölich, 1799
    • Lithophilus is currently a synonym of Tetrabrachys Kapur, 1948 according to Löbl & Smetana (2007)  Done
    • Lithophilus (no authority given) appears to be a duplicate record for Lithophilus Frölich, 1799 from Hallan's catalog. Y Deleted
    • Also according to Löbl & Smetana (2007), Lithophilus Frölich, 1799 is a junior homonym and Tetrabrachys Kapur, 1948 is a replacement name
  • unavailable name
  • Eleoma Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829 was also proposed as a invalid synonym of Lithophilus Frölich, 1799  Done
    • According to N.Z., Eloma Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829 is another spelling of the same name  Done
• Phylethus Dejean, 1834: 196 (nomen nudum)
  • (personal guess) most likely linked to Phylethus Dejean, 1821 and Phylethus Redtenbacher, 1849, which would make this a synonym of Alphitophagus Stephens, 1832
  •  Unnecessary Same reason as above.

Hétéromères: Ténébrionites

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Anaedus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	What's the correct authority for Anaedus Blanchard, 1845??? According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the authority of Anaedus is "Blanchard, 1843: 198" However, according to Bouchard et al. (2011), "Blanchard, 1845" is the authority However again, according to Wei & Ren (2020) the authority is actually "Blanchard, 1842: pl. 14"! Same is stated in Bousquet et al. (2018) If the dates in Bousquet, 2016 are to be trusted, then the year in 1845. Plate 14 was issued in 1847. The accompanying text is from 1853, not 1843 (which I assume to be due to a typo appearing at some point in the process). I am surprised to see the wrong date in Bousquet et al., 2018! I was wrong about this. I misread something in the Litteratura. Plate 14 is firmly dated to 1842, which is the correct date and place of publication. According to N.Z., Anoedus Blanchard, 1845 is an incorrect spelling or emendation of Anaedus Blanchard, 1845 It's an incorrect original spelling and should be dated 1842.	Y
Anthracias Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Anthracias Dejean, 1834	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Cryphaeus Klug, 1833 The following names are linked to this one on N.Z. and may be later (or earlier) usages, etc: Anthracias Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829 ("nomen nudum") Anthracias Mulsant & Rey, 1859 Ardelio Gistl, 1848 (unjustified emendation) I'll throw in the additional Anthracias Redler, 1858, an antedating from Mulsant & Rey that was already synonymized.	Y
Aspisoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to Wei & Ren (2020), Aspisoma is available as "Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1841: 210" It's actually page 240. Name added. According to the same article, Aspidosoma Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation of Aspisoma Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1841, though N.Z. apparently says it is an emendation of "Aspisoma Laporte 1833 & Dejean 1834" (so both Aspisoma Laporte, 1833 and Aspisoma Dejean, 1834 ???) Same is stated in Bousquet et al. (2018) Yes, Agassiz was a very liberal emender, and if two names were homonyms, he would happily emend them to the same but different homonym. He would also shamelessly create wholly new homonym pairs through his emendations: he also emended Anaides Westwood to Anaedes, for example.	Y
Baryscelis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This likely became available (and valid?) as Baryscelis Boisduval, 1835 Yes, that's pointed out in Bouchard & Bousquet, 2013b:table 1. Baryscelis is a taxon inquirendum in AFD.	Y
Bius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus, therefore takes priority over Bius Mulsant, 1854 and its synonyms	Y
Bucerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Seems to be Tauroceras Hope, 1840	Y
Camptobrachys Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This name likely became available and valid as Camptobrachys Kaszab, 1941	Y
Centronipus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed As noted above, this name became available as Centronipus Melsheimer, 1853, which is a senior objective synonym of Menechides Motschulsky, 1878	Y
Charinotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed, though see notes Extra note: Charinotus Agassiz, 1846 appears to be a misspelling of Charinotes Dupont in Audinet-Serville, 1834, and is probably unrelated to the Dejean name (I think) Yes, yes it is	Y
Chariotheca Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cholipus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Dendronomus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Eleutheris Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Euphron Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae senior subjective synonym of Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858, which is currently used as valid (new synonymy by Bousquet & Blanchard (2013a)) Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858 Reversal of precedence was enacted for Euphron vs. Derosphaerus and Adelphus vs. Praeugenus by Bouchard & Bousquet in Iwan & Lôbl, 2020:6.	Y
Geoborus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Geoborus Blanchard in d'Orbigny, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and also probably the first available use of the name The correct date according to Bousquet, 2016 is 1842 (pl. 13) According to COLEOPTERA NEOTROPICAL's page for Tenebrionidae in Chile, Deroplatus Solier in Gay, 1851 (as "Deroplatus Solier, 1851") is a synonym of Geoborus Blanchard, 1843 (which is likely the same as Geoborus Blanchard in d'Orbigny, 1846) This makes Geoborus Lacordaire, 1859 likely a later usage of Geoborus Blanchard Yes. Lacordaire only revalidated the name.	Y
Haemerophygus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Nomenclator Zoologicus (and this IRMNG) is missing Haemerophygus Baudi di Selve, 1876: 266, which is a synonym of Ceratanisus Gemminger, 1870 (Iwan & Löbl, 2020:156)	Y
Hylobates Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Hylocurus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Hypocalis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Hypocalis Lacordaire, 1859	Y
Ichthydion Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to N.Z., Ichthidion Haldeman, 1843 is a misspelling (though is it available maybe?) and Ichthydium Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation Ichthydion Melsheimer, 1853, from Hallan's catalog, is also labelled as a misspelling "Ichthidion Haldeman" has universally been considered an incorrect original spelling, making Melsheimer's name just a later usage. Depending on the species placement, Ichthydion is the correct name for either Retocomus Casey, 1895 or Eurygenius Ferté-Senectère, 1849. Extra note: Weirdly enough, by chance from a Google search I just found there's a Wikidata item for a "Ichthydion Dejean, 1833", which appears to be placed within family Buprestidae. This is clearly meant to be the same taxon as this one dealt with here, but with the wrong year cited. On the other hand, as there are no references used anywhere, I have no idea where the parent taxon choice came from. Yeah, Wikipedia puts it as a Retocomus, firmly in Anthicidae (Eurygeniinae)	Y
Imatismus Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	valid genus according to N.Z., Himatismus Erichson, 1843 is an emendation according to Löbl & Smetana (2008), Curimosphena Gebien, 1920 is a synonym from first glance, it would look like Curimosphena Haag-Rutenberg, 1870 should be the first available use of "Curimosphena", not Gebien, 1920, but being a name from Hallan's catalog there is some doubt. Plus I can't find anyone else citing the name with that authority anywhere. I personally suspect Hallan got its authority mixed up with that of its type species (Himatismus villosus Haag-Rutenberg, 1870) and other "Himatismus" species with the same authority. Also see Bouchard, Löbl & Merkl (2007), where Imatismus is made valid and Himatismus and Curimosphena become junior synonyms of it	Y
Iphicerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed looks to be a synonym of Pycnocerus Westwood, 1841	Y
Iphius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Iphius Schönherr, 1823 [Curculionidae] senior subjective synonym of Prioscelis Hope, 1840	Y
Iphthinus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior objective synonym of Mylaris Pallas, 1781 Iphthinus Melsheimer, 1846 is a later usage of the name, according to N.Z. Other synonyms of Mylaris Pallas, 1781, according to Bousquet et al. (2018): Cecrops Gistl, 1834 (this is not a nomen nudum either; see Bousquet & Bouchard (2017)) Nyctobates Guérin, 1834 (author should be named Guérin-Méneville) Milaris Motschoulsky, 1872 appears to be a misspelling of "Mylaris", though this does not seem to be acknowledged anywhere, except by Charles O. Waterhouse in 1876 ("Notes on some heteromerous coleoptera belonging to the true Tenebrionidæ", page 288	Y
Mycetoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Oligorus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Luprops Hope, 1833 According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), Etazeta Fairmaire, 1889 is also a syonym of Luprops Hope, 1833 Also in Löbl & Smetana (2008), the name "Syngona" (an emendation of Syggona) is cited with the authority "Rye, 1893" rather than "Champion, 1898" as in Syngona Champion, 1898	Y
Oplomerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	replacement name for Odontopus Silbermann, 1833 family Tenebrionidae senior objective synonym of Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889, which is currently treated as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889.	Y
Phobelius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum name suppressed for the purposes of the Principles of Homonymy and Priority in Opinion 1525 (ICZN 1989) synonym of Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867, according to Bousquet et al. (2018) Phymatodes Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage of the name, according to N.Z.	Y
Plateia Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Plateia Laporte, 1840 is a later usage of the name, according to N.Z.	Y
Zophobas Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Zophobas Dejean, 1837 Zophobas Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage of the name, according to N.Z. Zaphobas Papp, 1965 appears to be an incorrect spelling Macrozophobas Pic, 1913 is a subgenus of Zophobas Dejean, 1834, according to Bousquet et al. (2018)	Y

Hétéromères: Hélopiens

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Adelphus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Praeugena Laporte in Brullé, 1840, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Praeugena Laporte, 1840 Reversal of precedence was enacted for Euphron vs. Derosphaerus and Adelphus vs. Praeugena by Bouchard & Bousquet in Iwan & Lôbl, 2020:6. according to Bouchard et al. (2011), "Praogena" is actually an unjustified emendation of Praeugena, and is not in prevailing usage. So this means Praogena Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 and all its synonyms should be synonyms of Praeugena Laporte in Brullé, 1840 on IRMNG. according to Löbl & Smetana (2008), Ergenna Fairmaire, 1897 and Lamprobothris Fairmaire, 1887 are also synonyms of Praeugena You kinda forgot to cover Adelphus Germar, 1848 in there.	Y
Agapetus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Amacarus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Anorops Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tetratomidae senior synonym of Penthe Newman, 1838 Anorops Dejean, 1834 is a nomen oblitum, Penthe Newman, 1838 is a nomen protectum	Y
Atractus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Atractus Dejean, 1834	Going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), Dejean's name likely became available as Atractus Boisduval, 1835:283 (not on IRMNG) Done This would make Atractus Lacordaire, 1859 a later usage However the name also is a junior homonym of Atractus Wagler, 1828 according to Bousquet, Bouchard & Campbell (2015) Also according to Bousquet, Bouchard & Campbell (2015), Atractus Boisduval, 1835 as well as many other names (see below) should be synonyms of Lepturidea Fauvel, 1862. Lepturidea is currently used as the valid name as of last year in Australian Beetles Volume 2 (see this page) Full synonymy for Lepturidea Fauvel, 1862: Atractus Dejean, 1834 (nomen nudum) Atractus Bouchard, 1835 Aethyssius Pascoe, 1863 (replacement name for Atractus Bouchard, 1835) Chromomaea Pascoe, 1866 Alcmeonis Bates, 1868 Licymnius Bates, 1868 Anaxo Bates, 1868 Neoatractus Borchmann, 1909 (replacement name for Atractus Bouchard, 1835) Chromomoea Carter, 1915 (probably on IRMNG as Chromomoea (authority missing)) Other notes: Eutrapela Dejean, 1834 (a synonym of Chromomaea Pascoe, 1866 on IRMNG) is actually not related to the above list at all (see entry in Hétéromères: Trachélides when I get around to it later) possibly same with Eutrapela Bohemann, 1858 unless it is one of those "sensu" names To be precise, Bohemann published Eutrapela australica [=Lepturidea australica]. I guess there's some argument for considering this a separate new genus, but no one except Hallan seems to have interpreted it that way. Note that despite the statement in AFD, nothing related to Eutrapela australica appears anywhere in Bousquet et al. (2015). Lepturidea Fauvel, 1905 is likely a later usage of Lepturidea Fauvel, 1862 Chromomaea Borchmann, 1910 is likely a later usage of Chromomaea Pascoe, 1866	Y
Cymatothes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Synonyms according to Bousquet et al. (2018): Physignathus Gistl, 1834 (not a nomen nudum either, see Bousquet & Bouchard (2017); also a junior homonym of Physignathus Cuvier, 1829) Pyanisia Laporte in Brullé, 1840 Pyganisia Hope, 1840 (authority cited as "Hope, 1841") They also treat it as a separate name, but I with Spilman, 1973 that this is better treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling. As for the date, Bousquet (2016) puts the latest possible date—which must be taken according to the code—as somewhere in early 1841. I might not correct this on IRMNG though	Y
Dicyrtus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Dicyrtus Lacordaire, 1859 is probably an available usage of the name Indeed. Took me a while to figure it out b/c material about the genus is almost nonexistence online, but it is from Histoire Naturelle des Insectetes. Genera des Coléoptères 5:482 More last year's catalogue shows the correct place of publication is Duponchel in d'Orbigny, 1844:5. For some reason I had not connected Dejean and Lacordaire,s names in IRMNG...	Y
Eucamptus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	I suspect this could possibly be made a synonym of Hegemona de Laporte in Brullé, 1840, but if this doesn't make sense to you then it's fine as it is. Bear with me while I explain why I think it should be: According to Bousquet et al. (2018), Hegemona Laporte 1840 has two synonyms, neither of which have records on IRMNG: Eucamptus Germar, 1842: 444 (junior homonym of Eucamptus Chevrolat, 1833)Y Done Eusarca Chevrolat, 1845: 526 (Eusarca Agassiz, 1848 is possibly a later usage, since on N.Z. "(Chevrolat MS.)" is given in the notes) Y Done Digging up the original description for Eucamptus Germar, 1842 (which is from a volume of the unfinished German encylopaedia Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste as it turns out), I eventually found it on Google Books here, where it is clearly referencing Dejean's name. This would mean Germar made Dejean's name available, if I'm correct (though it became a junior homonym of Chevrolat's name as a result). I agree with your analysis	Y
Eupezus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore has precedence over Eupezus Blanchard, 1845 (a later usage)	Y
Homocyrtus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum replacement name for Cyphonotus Guérin-Méneville, 1830 (1831?); this also means that it has precedence over Homocyrtus Reitter, 1902	Y
Hybonotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Tetraphyllus Laporte & Brullé, 1831 Actually, this is an objective senior synonym of Damatris Laporte, 1840 according to Bouchard et al., 2021 (junior homonym, though) Circeus (talk)	Y
Nephodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Nephodes Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage	Y
Omophlus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus Omophlus Solier, 1835 is a later usage according to N.Z and Löbl & Smetana (2008), and all four of its synonyms on IRMNG are subgenera according to the latter. Paurodontomophlus Muche, 1979 is another subgenus of Omophlus, according to Löbl & Smetana (2008)	Y
Oplocheirus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Penichrus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phlaegmatus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Physocoelus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This is a synonym of Meracantha Kirby, 1837 (and is available as Physocoelus Haldeman, 1850 per Bousquet et al., 2018)	Y
Paecilesthus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	"Poecilesthus" is an incorrect subsequent spelling in prevailing usage and so deemed to be the correct original spelling See also: Poecilesthus Blanchard, 1845 (emendation of Pae- Dejean 1834 according to N.Z.) Poecilesthus Agassiz, 1845 (later usage?) Technically, these are both later uses of the emended Poecilesthus Dejean, 1834 (though which would be considered the emending author is unclear). Dinax Gistl, 1848 (an unjustified emendation of Poecilesthus Agassiz, 1845 according to N.Z., though is probably really meant to be an emendation of Dejean's name) Confusingly though, according to Blank et al. (2009), Dinax Gistl 1848 is deemed to be a nomen nudum because of it being used to replace "Poelilesthus (Dej.)" (which appears to be a misspelling to me, though that seemed to be excuse enough for them to keep the Hymenoptera name valid). It does confirm that Agassiz's name is just a citation of Dejean's name though. I agree this overly flimsy argument does not saves Dinax Konow, 1897, but thankfully this is beyond our scope.	Y
Saerangodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Saerangodes Gistl, 1848 is a later usage according to N.Z. in Löbl & Smetana (2008), Saerangodes Gistl, 1848 itself is listed as a synonym of Strongylium Kirby, 1819 in Bousquet et al. (2018), a "Saerangodes Sturm, 1843", which is not on IRMNG, is listed under Strongylium as a synonym. N.Z. didn't have Sturm as the correct authority.	Y
Talanus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Talanus Jacquelin du Val, 1857 is probably the available use of the name going by Bouchard et al. (2011), though on IRMNG it seems to go by the authority Talanus Jacquelin in Ramon de la Sagra, 1856 instead Full info on that name is to be found in Bousquet et al., 2018 Talanus Mäklin, 1878 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Thecacerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Sphenosoma Dejean, 1834: 212
  • unnecessary replacement name for Acropteron Perty, 1832
  • However, Sphenosoma Dejean, 1830 apparently exists on IRMNG/N.Z, and this is the original page cited by them; unfortunately I have no idea whether this name can be considered valid or not. It seems as if either B&B missed this earlier use of Sphenosoma by Dejean, or they knew of it but either considered it nomen nudum or unrelated to the Dejean, 1834 name?
    • Unhelpfully Sphenosoma is not listed under Acropteron in Bousquet et al. (2018) so I can't confirm if they still think it a synonym or not
      • It's a nomen nudum (S. angustatum is mentioned as being a new species.)

Hétéromères: Trachélides

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Acosmus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This name became available as Acosmius, Walker 1858:286 (apparently a synonym of Geoscopus, Rhipiphoridae) and also shows up as Acosmus Lacordaire, 1859:625 (unclear if emendation or incorrect spelling). Both are missing in IRMNG.  Done	Y
Eutrapela Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus, but junior homonym of Eutrapela Hübner, 1809 (in Lepidoptera) Eutrapela Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; Eutrapela Bohemann, 1858 might be one too but I can't really tell Eutrapela Boheman is just describing a species of Eutrapela. It's difficult to argue (as Hallan believes) in favor of this establishing a new genus. It is at best a sensu name and should not be in IRMNG. in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013), the replacement name Neoeutrapela Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013 is proposed IRMNG claims this name and variants to be synonyms of Chromomaea Borchmann, 1910 or Chromomaea Pascoe, 1866 or Chromomoea but as far as I can tell these seem to be unrelated, mostly because of the absence of "Eutrapela" from the synonymy of Lepturidea in Australian Beetles Volume 2 (see this page) (also see entry for Atractus Dejean, 1833 [1834] in Hétéromères: Hélopiens)	Y
Isotoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Isotoma Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Metoecus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Metoecus Gerstaecker, 1855	Y
Ochthenomus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Ochthenomus Schmidt, 1842 is a later usage	Y
Ptilophorus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Ptilophorus Gerstaecker, 1855 is a later usage	Y
Trigonodera Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Trigonodera Gerstaecker, 1855 is a later usage	Y

Hétéromères: Vésicants

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Causima Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum invalid subjective synonym of Epicauta Dejean, 1834 (also see entry further down the list for this section) Causima Klug, 1850 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Dacnodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Indications are that this is a synonym of Tetraonyx Gray	Y
Eletica Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Eletica Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Epicauta Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus (therefore takes precedence over Epicauta Mannerheim, 1843 (a later usage according to N.Z.) also mentioned on N.Z. is a Epicauta Redtenbacher, 1845, which is not on IRMNG. However, N.Z. reports a misspelling of it which is on IRMNG, Epiacuta Wellman, 1910. Epicauta Redtenbacher is just Epicauta Dejean/Mannerheim (as made clear on p. 156 of Redtenbacher, 1845, where he cites Dejean as the author)	Y
Pyrota Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Pyrota Chevrolat, 1834 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Spastica Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Synamma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Can't find what, if any, is the accepted name	Y

Hétéromères: Sténélytres

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Anogcodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Anogcodes Gistl, 1848 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Asclera Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Asclera Stephens, 1839 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Ichnodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Treated as a synonym of Cephaloon Newman, 1838	Y
Nacerdes Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Nacerdes Faldermann, 1836 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Microps Dejean, 1834: 228
  • invalid synonym of Ditylus Fischer, 1817
  • unavailable name: "It has not been treated before 1961 as an available name and adopted as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym. Therefore Microps Dejean, 1834 is unavailable."
    • Not done This is a later usage of Microps Dejean, 1821 (in IRMNG as Microps Megerle, 1821), also in synonymy. The name would be made available by Dahl, 1823, but that work is suppressed.

Tétramères

Tétramères: Curculionites

A number of Hallan's catalog-sourced entries may be duplicates or later usages from the third catalogue, I can't really tell which they are. You decide if they need merging I suppose.

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Acentrus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Acentrus Dejean, 1836 N Deleted	Not Applicable	Acentrus Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Not Applicable	Aclees Dejean, 1835	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	nomen nudum	Y
Not Applicable	Amalactus Dejean, 1835	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	nomen nudum	Y
Not Applicable	Anchylorhynchus Djean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Anchylorhynchus Dejean, 1835	Anchylorhynchus Schönherr, 1833 and Anchylorhynchus Schoenherr, 1835 can't both be the accepted name!?! Either the 1833 one is a nomen nudum, the 1835 is a later usage, or somehow they're separate genera (in which case one needs a rename if it hasn't already). According to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) the current name is "Anchylorhynchus Schönherr, 1836" The name first appears as a nomen nudum in a genus list in vol. 1 of Genera et species Curculionidum, it is not available until its description in volume 3, part 1, for which the correct dating (mentioned both in Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013a and Bousquet, 2016) is late 1835, not the generally used 1836 of the title page (which applies only to pp. 500-858).	Y
Not Applicable	Aporhina Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Apotomoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum replacement name for Apotomus Schönherr, 1834, a junior homonym based on above it is the currently valid name for the genus Indeed.	Y
Arhynchus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Atractomerus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Atractomerus Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum") N Deleted	Not Applicable	Atractomerus Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Axestus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Axestus Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum") N Deleted	Not Applicable	Axestus Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Botrobatys Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Brachypterus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Not Applicable	Byrsopages Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	I am not sure if Byrsopages Dejean, 1836 (also from Hallan's catalog) is a duplicate or even a later usage from the third catalogue. N Deleted It's irrelevant as we have no reason to list the same nomen nudum from multiple separate sources in IRMG.	Y
Camarhinus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Camptocheirus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Carpodes Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Centemerus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cephalosphaerus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Chalcodermus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Chalcodermus Schönherr, 1837	Y
Chloropholus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Coccosomus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Coelostethus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Coelostethus Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum")N Deleted	Not Applicable	Coelostethus Dejean, 1835	Coelostethus Leconte, 1861 is possibly a later usage See note before list; though Coelostethus Dejean, 1836 is for some reason placed in a different family to Coelostethus Dejean, 1835 on IRMNG, despite being placed as a synonym of it on the database Leconte's name is a synonym of Hadrobregmus Thomson, 1859 (the type is Hadrobregmus notatus), and all names should be in Ptinidae.	Y
Conotrachelus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Conotrachelus Schönherr, 1837	Y
Corysosps Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Corysosps Dejean, 1836 N Deleted	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted	Y
Cratocnemus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Cratocnemus Dejean, 1836 N Deleted	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted	Y
Cratoparis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Euparius Schönherr, 1823 Cratoparis Schönherr, 1839 is possibly a later usage It is, and it is available as well as the type genus of the tribal name Cratoparini LeConte, 1876 (Bouchard et al., 2011).	Y
Cycnorhinus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cyphipterus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Dactylocrepis Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Dactylocrepis Schönherr, 1844 is possibly a later usage It is, but of the available Dactylocrepis Dejean, 1836, missing in N.Z. (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999:98)	Y
Desmidophorus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Desmidophorus Schönherr, 1837 is possibly a later usage	Y
Diaprosomus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Diurus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Diurus Schönherr, 1840 is possibly a later usage	Y
Doryaspis Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted	Y
Eudocinus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Eutyrhinus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Glyphideres Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted	Y
Hadrotomus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted	Y
Hypsophorus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Ichnorhinus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted	Y
Ischnocerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed duplicate from third catalogue deleted as well as misdated duplicate of Ischnocerus Schönherr, 1839 from Hallan that was listed in Brentidae as synonym of Aulacoderes. There sems to have been some confusion between Ischnocerus and Ischnomerus Schönherr, 1842, an actual synonym of Aulacoderes according to Aloson-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999. OH GAWD. Ischnocerus Schönherr, 18340 is an incorrect original spelling for Ischnomerus Schönherr, 1840, which is twice in N.Z. because of the errata in Schönherr, 1842, this duplicate (unavailable, and not even an actual emendation: the misspelling is in a page header!) being misattributed as an emendation of Ischnocerus Schönherr, 1839.	Y
Ithyporus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Lagopezus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Lagopezus Schönherr, 1839 is possibly a later usage	Y
Leptonemus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Leptoschoinus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Leptoschoinus Dejean, 1836	Not Applicable	Leptoschoinus Dejean, 1835	not a nomen nudum valid genus See note before list Moved all sources from Dejean, 1835 to 1836 and transformed that into the correct 1835	Y
Leucolopus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	invalid synonym of Lophotus Schönherr, 1834 (which is also listed as a synonym of Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828 on IRMNG) unavailable name	Y
Not Applicable	Lignyodes Dejean, 1835	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This takes priority over Lignyodes Schönherr, 1836 [year should be 1835] according to B&B	Y
Not Applicable	Madopterus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Not Applicable	Micronyx Dejean, 1835	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	From B&B's notes this sounds like another nomen nudum. Though apparently on IRMNG it's a "synonym at subgenus rank", according to the descriptive notes. I've no idea about the validity of Micronyx Schönherr, 1833 meanwhile... All versions of Micronyx except Micronyx Boisduval (which is the senior and valid name for Stethaspis Hope, 1837) are objective synonyms of Smicronyx Schönherr, 1843, which is a replacement name for Schönherr, 1835. "Smicronyx (Micronyx)" is therefore impossible nonsense under the code. See Alonso-Zaragaza & Lyal, 1999:82. It's only a "synonym at subgeneric rank" if you consider that the type subgenus can have synonyms of its own (which is a weird area of nomenclature that neither ICZN nor ICBN really cover). Ultimately the issue was that IRMNG is missing Micronyx Schönherr, 1835. That name is missing in IRMNG, hence the confusion: N.Z. lists it in a supplementary record as "Schönherr, 1836".	Y
Nemotrichus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Notosomalus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Onchoscelis Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Onchoscelis Dejean, 1836 N Deleted	Not Applicable	Onchoscelis Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Ophrylophus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Oplocnemus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Oplocnemis Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum") N Deleted	Not Applicable	Oplocnemus Dejean, 1835	Oplocnemis Dejean, 1835 (from Hallan's catalog) appears to be a misspelling, but it seems doubtful that Dejean himself made this misspelling. Checking N.Z., Oplocnemis Fairmaire, 1849 is listed as an error/emendation of the name. It seems likely then that Hallan somehow decided to mix the Dejean name with Fairmaire's spelling, for whatever reason. I agree with that interpretation	Y
Otideres Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Otideres Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum") N Deleted	Not Applicable	Otideres Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Pachydermus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Perolopus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Petalochilus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Not Applicable	Phiternus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phyllonomus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phytophilus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phytotribus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Phytotribus Dejean, 1836 N Deleted	Not Applicable	Phytotribus Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Not Applicable	Piesocorynus Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Pimelocerus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Plocamus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Plocamus Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum") N Deleted	Not Applicable	Plocamus Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Prionomerus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Not Applicable	Psometes Dejean, 1835	Not Applicable	Psomeles Dejean, 1835	I'm not sure where the spelling "Psometes" comes from, but it's definitely incorrect. Just checked, the third catalogue uses Psomeles, so the "Psometes" spelling can't be from Dejean at all. I don't know of any emendations after Dejean though. Yeah. Spelling fixed.	Y
Pteracanthus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Pteracanthus Schönherr, 1843 is possibly a later usage Yeppers!	Y
Pterodontus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Pyssematus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed =Ryssematus Dejean, 1836 = Rhyssomatus Schoenherr	Y
Raphirhynchus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Raphirhynchus Schönherr, 1840 is possibly a later usage	Y
Schimatocheilus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Schimatocheilus Fåhraeus in Schönherr, 1839 is the possible source of availability, but never used as valid.	Y
Sporus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Stenops Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Systellocerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Systellocerus Dejean, 1836 N Deleted	Not Applicable	Systellocerus Dejean, 1834	See note before list	Y
Systolus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Actually a later usage of Systolus Dejean, 1821	Y
Taxicerus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Taxicerus Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum") N Deleted	Not Applicable	Taxicerus Dejean, 1835	See note before list	Y
Teinocorynus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Teinocrynus Dejean, 1836 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Teinocorynus Dejean, 1834	See note before list, though in this case there is apparently a misspelling in Hallan's name (where does it come from?) Just checked, the third catalogue uses Teinocorynus, so the "Teinocrynus" spelling can't be from Dejean at all. I don't know of any emendations after Dejean though. Agassiz emended it to Tinocorynus, but the Teinocrynus misspelling may have been imported/originated from Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal (1999:56).	Y
Tophoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Tophoderes Schönherr, 1839 is possibly a later usage
Toxophorus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior objective synonym of Erodiscus Schönherr, 1825	Y
Toxorhinus Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Trachelizus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus name is preoccupied by Trachelizus Gyllenhal, 1833 Trachelizus Schönherr, 1840 is possibly a later usage of the Dejean name	Y
Trypetes Dejean, 1835 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Uterosomus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Uterosomus Schönherr, 1839 is possibly a later usage	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Brachysoma Dejean, 1834: 246
  • invalid synonym of Gonipterus Schönherr, 1833
  • unavailable name
  • B&B mention the name was first used in 1821 (see Brachysoma Dejean, 1821), though this use was not available either; I'm not sure if that means Brachysoma Dejean, 1821 is therefore also an invalid synonym of Gonipterus but it's a possibility?
    • Not done This is clearly the same as Brachysoma Dejean, 1821, which seemingly became available as Brachysoma Schoenherr, 1833.
• Comasinus Dejean, 1835: 283
  • invalid synonym of Styphlus Schönherr, 1825 [year should be 1826]
  • unavailable name
    • Not done Later usage of Comasinus Dejean, 1821
• Cyclopus Dejean, 1834: 247
  • invalid synonym of Syzygops Schoenherr, 1826
  • unavailable name
    • Not done Later usage of Cyclopus Dejean, 1821
• Eusomatus Dejean, 1834: 249
  • invalid synonym of Eusomus Germar, 1824
  • unavailable name
    • Not done Later usage of Eusomatus Dejean, 1821. Sturm, 1826:141 accidentally made it available, though I believe both names may be better treated as incorrect spellings, an assessment that Alonso-zarazaga & Lyal (1999:177) agree with, as it is necessary to maintain Eusomatus Krynicki, 1834.

Tétramères: Xylophages

Trying out a different format here to make things simpler and reduce clutter. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Name	IRMNG record(s)	Corrections and notes	Done?
Adelina Dejean, 1835	Adelina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Adelina Wollaston, 1858 and all its synonyms Todo: find out if Adelina Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 a later usage or an error maybe? I can't find anything online for this name and authority so far. I will bring it up with Pr. Bouchard, but I suspect it to be some sort of misspelling of Adelonia Laporte, 1840 I may have narrowed it to Statistics of the state of Georgia, Appendix:28 (1849), but I am not confident about that. If so it is clearly a later usage.	Y
Biophloeus Dejean, 1835	Biophloeus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Pediacus Shuckard, 1839; Biophloeus is nomen oblitum and Pediacus is nomen protectum Phloeobius Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation or incorrect spelling	Y
Bothrideres Dejean, 1835	Bothrideres Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Bothrideres Haldeman, 1843 and all its synonyms	Y
Camptognathus Dejean, 1835	Camptognathus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I can tell According to later authors, this is a synonym of Palaestes Perty (Cucujidae)	Y
Damicerus Dejean, 1835	Damicerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to WTaxa, this is a synonym of Tesserocerus Saunders, 1837	Y
Dendrophtorus Dejean, 1835	Dendrophtorus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I can tell	Y
Epilophus Dejean, 1835	Epilophus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I can tell Seems to be Acropis Burmeister, 1840	Y
Eutomus Dejean, 1835	Eutomus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Eutomus Lacordaire, 1866 is possibly a later usage of this name, which would make it a synonym of Rhipidandrus Leconte, 1862 Definitely meant to be the same genus. Both genera were also misplaced in Curculionidae in IRMNG, probably due to confusion with Eutomus Wollastion (=Conarthrus, according Alonzo-Zaragaza & Lyall, 1999).	Y
Gymnocheilis Dejean, 1835	Gymnocheilis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Gymnochila Klug in Erichson, 1844 (authority given as "Erichson, 1844" in B&B) and all its synonyms Lepidopteryx Hope, 1840 is a junior objective synonym	Y
Laemophloeus Dejean, 1835	Laemophloeus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Laemophloeus Laporte in Brullé, 1840 and all its synonyms	Y
Melalgus Dejean, 1835	Melalgus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Monopis Dejean, 1835	Monopis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I can tell Surprisingly, Löbl & Smetana quote it as an available, but homonymic, synonym of Aglenus	Y
Nemicelus Dejean, 1835	Nemicelus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	The only species name listed for this record on IRMNG is currently accepted as a synonym of a species name in Hemipeplus Berthold in Latreille, 1827; it's probably not a stretch of imagination to suggest that Nemicelus Dejean, 1835 is a synonym of Hemipeplus therefore (even if Nemicelus Leconte, 1854 wasn't already listed as a synonym) This is confirmed by Thomas, 1985 Nematicelus Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation or incorrect spelling
Ogcoderes Dejean, 1835	Ogcoderes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I can tell Gemminger and Harold place it as Distaphyla Pascoe (= Colydodes Motschoulsky)	Y
Pathoderma Dejean, 1835	Pathoderma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	B&B state that the current status of this name is unknown, so it seems there's not much we can do about this for now, unless a later article has found any information on Peltis orientalis? Marking it a taxon inquirendum	Y
Rhagodera Dejean, 1835	Rhagodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	The abstract of Krinsky (2015) apparently mentions "Rhagodera Dejean", suggesting to me that it's a synonym of Rhagodera Mannerheim, 1843 maybe? The website for N.Z. doesn't seem to be working properly for me as of writing, but Rhagodera Erichson, 1845 I assume was made as a supplementary record for this name Now that the website is working again, yes, I can confirm this is the case	Y
Teredus Dejean, 1835	Teredus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Teredus Shuckard, 1840	Y
Xylographus Dejean, 1835	Xylographus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I can tell	Y
Xylolaemus Dejean, 1835	Xylolaemus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus family Zopheridae Xylolaemus Redtenbacher, 1858 and Xylolaemus Reitter, 1882 are both later usages or incorrect author citations This one gave me some trouble because Neave does cite the correct edition of Fauna Austriaca for Xylolaemus, but that is absolutely Dejean's name being referred to. Reitter in turn attributes the name to Redtenbacher.	Y
Xylophtorus Dejean, 1835	Xylophtorus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Xylophthorus Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation or incorrect spelling	Y
Xylotrupes Dejean, 1835	Xylotrupes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Xylotrypes Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation or incorrect spelling	Y

Tétramères: Longicornes

Useful references:

• Danilevsky, M.L. 2020. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 6/1. Chrysomeloidea I (Vesperidae, Disteniidae, Cerambycidae). Updated and Revised Second Edition. Brill. xxvii + 712 pp. ISBN 978-90-04-42916-1 (paper), ISBN 978-90-04-44033-3 (e-book). DOI: 10.1163/9789004440333 . Index to species-group names (PDF). Reference page. 
• Monné, M.A. 2005. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the Neotropical Region. Part I. Subfamily Cerambycinae. Zootaxa 946: 1–765. Abstract & excerpt. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.946.1.1 . Reference page. 

Useful web refs for this section:

• Lamiines of World website (lamiinae.org) by Jean-Philippe Roguet [especially their page on Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)!)
• cerambycidae.net by M.L. Danilevsky
• The World of Prioninae (prioninae.org) by Norbert Delahaye

Name	IRMNG record(s)	Corrections and notes	Done?
Acharidis Dejean, 1835	Acharidis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to the Lamiines of World website, "Acharidis Dejean, 1837" is a synonym of Psenocerus Leconte, 1852 (see this page)	Y
Acmocera Dejean, 1835	Acmocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Acmocera Thomson, 1858	Y
Aegomorphus Dejean, 1835	Aegomorphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to Santos-Silva, Botero & Wappes (2020), Psapharochrus Thomson, 1864 is now a synonym of Aegomorphus Haldeman, 1847 (also see Lamiinae.org page) To say that figuring out what the heck was going on with Psapharochrus and the two distinct instances of "Psapharochus" was hard would be an understatement. Circeus (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)	Y
Aegoprosopus Dejean, 1835	Aegoprosopus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Unnecessary replacement name for Closterus Audinet-Serville, 1832	Y
Aerenaea Dejean, 1835	Aerenaea Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Aeronaea Agassiz, 1846 (and its spelling variant Aëronaea Agassiz, 1846) is an emendation or incorrect spelling According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Aerenica Dejean, 1835 (see below) Actually, it indicates that Thomson made it available (as Aerenea Thomson, 1857) and makes no mention of Aerenica. Thomson clearly spells it as Aerenaea at first, then makes what can only be considered an unjustified emendation to Aerenea, which is now in prevailing usage. This situation is misleadingly characterised by Roguet as "Aerenea Thomson • Arch. ent. • 1857 • 1: 298[ nov div syn] \\ Aerenea = Aerenaea ; Thomson • Arch. ent. • 1857 • 1 : 298." even though the "Aerenea" spelling does not actually appear until 1860.	Y
Aerenica Dejean, 1835	Aerenica Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus Aeronica Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation or incorrect spelling, though it is currently listed as a synonym of Aerenica Thomson, 1857 (= Recchia Lane, 1966) on IRMNG	Y
Alcidion Dejean, 1835	Alcidion Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Alphitopola Dejean, 1835	Alphitopola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	This name probably became available as Alphitopola Thomson, 1857 According to the Lamiines of World website, Alphitopola Thomson, 1857 is a subgenus of Prosopocera Blanchard, 1845 (see this page) Previously dealt with while handling unsorted coleopterans	Y
Alphus Dejean, 1835	Alphus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum)	Year should be cited as 1835	Y
Amallocerus Dejean, 1835	Amallocerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	This name probably became available as Amallocerus Guérin-Ménéville, 1844 I'd tend to agree	Y
Amblesthis Dejean, 1835	Amblesthis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	This name probably became available as Amblesthis Thomson, 1860 Yep. odd that it's not listed by Roguet, tho. According to the Lamiines of World website, Amblesthis Thomson, 1860 is a subgenus of Deroplia Bedel, 1889 (see this page) The same website states Stenidea Mulsant, 1842 is a synonym of Deroplia Dejean, 1835 (see entry for Deroplia further down in this section when I've made it; also see this page) This would mean Deroplia Bedel, 1889 (currently listed a synonym of Stenidea on IRMNG) is a synonym/later usage of Deroplia Dejean, 1835 Yes. It seems like Hallan might've imported it from this publication. This is somewhat puzzling as Hallan usually list antedating relative to Neave. It's not a sensu case either (as was the case with "Psapharochus Casey, 1913" also imported from Hallan), but rather Brustel et al. are clearly unaware of Rosenhauer's name. Amblyesthes Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation or incorrect spelling	Y
Amniscus Dejean, 1835	Amniscus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Amniscus Haldeman, 1847	Y
Amphionycha Dejean, 1835	Amphionycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum junior synonym of Adesmus Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1825, which does not currently have a record on IRMNG (however, there exists records for Adesmus Dejean, 1821 and Adesmus Latreille, 1829, which are very probably synonyms) Wow. What an obscure case. It's published here in synonymy, and Latreille, 1829 appears to be the first validating author. I hate ICZN art. 11.6.1. It is easily my least favorite provision of this code. Amphionycha Chevrolat, 1838 and Amphionycha Thomson, 1860 are later usages Amphyonycha (no authority given) is an incorrect spelling or emendation I'm listing it from Monné & Bezark.
Anaesthetis Dejean, 1835	Anaesthetis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Anaesthetis Mulsant, 1839 and its synonyms Not done The name trigger the homograph detectors (bc of Anæsthetis Mulsant, 1839) and I cannot synonymize it (or edit either of the pair) in any way. Email sent to Tony.
Anaetia Dejean, 1835	Anaetia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum junior synonym of Tetrops Kirby, 1826 (?) (authority stated as "Stephens, 1829") The Lamiines of World website also gives "Kirby, 1826" as the authority, so it is probably correct (see this page) Tetrops Stephens, 1831 is probably a later usage since Lamiinae.org lists Polyopsia Mulsant, 1839 as a synonym of the Kirby name Actually, I wonder now if Tetrops Stephens, 1831 might actually be supposed to be Tetrops Stephens, 1829? Actually, this might be a bit more confusing than I thought... according to Özdikmen (2008) and Danilevsky (2012) Tetrops as used by Kirby, 1826 should be a synonym of Tetraopes Dalman [in Schönherr], 1817 (which on IRMNG is known as Tetraopes Schönherr, 1817) because the only included species in the former is now included in the latter. I get the impression there is some pending ICZN opinion on the matter (is there anything on BZN about this?); however, Danilevsky (2012) says it is better to use the authority "Kirby, 1826" with type species Leptura praeusta Linnaeus, 1758 until Tetrops Kirby, 1826 is suppressed in favour of Tetrops Stephens, 1829. I think what happened is that Vives and ödikmen & Turgut (Özdikmen has a somewhat patchy record with the code and ltierature searches) misinterpreted Tetrops Kirby, which can be reasonably construed as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Tetraopes Dalman, thus not threatening Tetrops Stephens because it is unavailable. And so no case was ever made in the Bulletin. If this is so, Danilevsky, Hoskovec et al. (Cerambyx) and Roguet (Lamiaire du monde) are messing up the entire record by taking Kirby, 1826 (which Danilevsky even registered in Zoobank AAAARGH) as the correct authority for Stephens, 1831. After writing what I said earlier, I have since discovered similar comments on Tetrops's authority in both {{Bousquet et al., 2009}} (see pages 38-39) and Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera volume 6, the latter of which is a comment written by Bousquet himself, though the catalogue itself uses Tetrops Stephens, 1829 (see page 332 if you have access to the full thing, it's not visible on Google Books right now I think). This probably doesn't make things any better though. I'm not allowed to see the page in Löbl & Smetana, but Bousquet et al.'s explanation is much, much clearer than Özdikmen, at least. In a strict application of the code, Tetrops Stephens is not available because Stephens indubitably intends it to be Tetrops Kirby, so you can't say there is homonymy. I suspect the interpretation that people followed is rather that the mention of Leptura praeusta by Kirby wasn't done is such a way as to violate ICZN Art. 67.2, so it can considered an originally included species and thus an eligible type for Tetrops Kirby, removing that name from the synonymy of Tetraopes and turning it into the correct authorship for Tetrops Stephens instead. And here's the Smoking gun from Danilevsky arguing exactly that! According to Danilevsky (2018) (which uses the "Kirby, 1826" authority, see note above), Mimosophronica Breuning, 1943 is now a subgenus of Tetrops (whichever authority you prefer, at this point I can't decide) In summary (by Circeus): Regardless of all the arguing, Stephens intended to refer to Tetrops Kirby It is possible that "Tetrops Kirby" is in fact a misspelling of Tetraopes Dalman, though very few people have argued in favor of this, for some reason Lamia tornator is the only indubitably originally included species in Tetrops Kirby Saperda praeusta is the only species listed by Stephens L. tornator and S. praeusta do not belong to the same general L. tornator is a Tetraopes Dalman, S. praeusta belongs to whatever "Tetrops Stephens" is. Really, if Tetrops Kirby is available, the correct name for Tetrops "sensu" Stephens (again, very much intended by Stephens as Tetrops Kirby) is Polyopsia Mulsant. People really, really do not want to lose Tetrops, and this leads to a lot of arguing over authorship and the application of the code. Especially about whether Saperda praeusta can be considered an originally included species and designated type of Tetrops Kirby. A moot point as doing so requires intervention form the committee anyway, because L. tornator was explicitly designated type by Thomson in 1869. Personally, I believe the sensible approach is to consider Tetrops Kirby a misspelling. It is thus unavailable and its potential type irrelevant. Tetrops Stephens can be interpreted as an available name without requiring any intervention. Case closed. I don't understand why some authors seem to insist on fing=ding a way to credit Kirby as the author.	Y
Anancylus Dejean, 1835	Anancylus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Ancistroderus Dejean, 1835	Ancistroderus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware Gemminger put it as a synonym of Dectes Leconte, 1852	Y
Ancylonotus Dejean, 1835	Ancylonotus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus Ancylonotus Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 is a later usage	Y
Anhammus Dejean, 1835	Anhammus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Anammus Gemminger in Gemminger & Harold, 1873 is an incorrect spelling or emendation	Y
Anisarthron Dejean, 1835	Anisarthron Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus Anisarthron Redtenbacher, 1845 is a later usage	Y
Anoplomerus Dejean, 1835	Anoplomerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to Monné (2005), Anoplomerus Thomson, 1860 is a later usage of Anoplomerus Guérin-Méneville, 1844	Y
Anoplosthaeta Dejean, 1835	Anoplosthaeta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Prosopocera Blanchard, 1845 An application to the Commission is necessary to preserve Prosopocera, the type genus of the valid tribe Prosopocerini Thomson, 1864 other related names/synonyms: Anoplosthaeta Reiche in Ferret & Galinier, 1850 is also a synonym of Prosopocera according to lamiinae.org (though it is spelled as "Anoplostheta" instead according to the website?) That is indeed the spelling used by Reiche, probably following Agassiz. Anoplostetha Agassiz, 1846 is an incorrect spelling or emendation	Y
Aphanasium Dejean, 1835	Aphanasium Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Aphanasium Thomson, 1860	Y
Aphies Dejean, 1835	Aphies Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	The name probably became available as Aphies Chevrolat, 1861 The authority of Aphies Chevrolat, 1861 should be "Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1841", according to lamiinae.org, giving it priority over Amillarus Thomson, 1857 Aphyes Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation	Y
Aplectrus Dejean, 1835	Aplectrus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	The name probably became available as Aplectrus Chevrolat, 1842 According to Monné (2005), the authority is actually "Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1844", though oddly it quotes both "Chevrolat, 1844" or "Chevrolat, 1849" as the authority for the type species (Aplectrus lepturoides) [see page 17 vs 18]. Presumably 1849 is the error, though IRMNG in fact uses the 1849 date for the species already, which makes this confusing. When in doubt, IRMNG is most likely to be the one in error. For insects, the Hallan/Brands and N.Z. records have basically not really been touched, so are likely between 50 to 20 years old for all intents and purposes (though Hallan significantly less likely to be in error if the difference is in date or authorship).	Y
Asemnis Dejean, 1835	Asemnis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware A synonym of Serixia Pascoe	Y
Astynomus Dejean, 1835	Astynomus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Unnecessary replacement name for Aedilis Audinet-Serville, 1835 Lamia Gistl, 1848 itself is an unnecessary replacement name for Astynomus No idea about Astynomus Faldermann, 1837 nor Astynomus Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 at the moment, though the latter is presumably unrelated to Aedilis at least Astynomus Faldermann is Neave's presumed place of availability (though the species Falderman describes is apparently an Exocentrus). Astynomus Laporte = Eutrypanus Erichson, 1847 (the N.Z. record for it is missing in IRMNG, that's why there's no source) and quite a few species listed under Ast. Falderman belong under Laporte's genus.	Y
Atelodesmis Dejean, 1835	Atelodesmis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, Atelodesmis Buquet, 1857 is a synonym of Atelodesmis Chevrolat, 1841 (name not on IRMNG)	Y
Axinopalpis Dejean, 1835	Axinopalpis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Axinopalpis Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1842 and its synonyms	Y
Batocera Dejean, 1835	Batocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Batocera Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 and its synonyms	Y
Batrachorhina Dejean, 1835	Batrachorhina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Bebelis Dejean, 1835	Bebelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Cacostola Dejean, 1835	Cacostola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org the authority of Cacostola Fairmaire, 1859 should be "Fairmaire & Germain, 1859"	Y
Callimation Dejean, 1835	Callimation Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Right now, according to IRMNG the available and valid name for this is Callimation Guérin-Méneville, 1844. However, according to this page on lamiinae.org it is actually Callimation Blanchard, 1844 that is valid. I don't know which of these is actually supposed to be correct at a glance, but given lamiinae.org is still being kept up to date I'm inclined to believe Blanchard, 1844 is the correct authority. Looks like both references are in fact to the same work and that Blanchard was responsible (though uncredited in the work itself) for the Coleoptera of Iconographie du règne animal de G. Cuvier (Cowan, 1976, DOI: 10.3366/jsbnh.1976.8.1.32). The better format is Blanchard in Guérin-Méneville, 1844.	Y
Carterica Dejean, 1835	Carterica Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Similar situation as with Callimation above: according to IRMNG the available and valid name is Carterica Thomson, 1860 according to this page on lamiinae.org the valid name is Carterica Pascoe, 1858 (which has no IRMNG record) At least this time it looks like Pascoe, 1858 should be clearly the valid name by date priority, though no reference for Pascoe's description is given on lamiinae.org's bibliography. Going by Santos-Silva, Galileo & McClarin (2018), however, this appears to be page 263 in: Pascoe, F.P. (1858) On new genera and species of longicorn Coleoptera. Part III. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, Series 2, 4, 236–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1858.tb01823.x This is confirmed if you look under the "Taxa, synonyms" section on the Lamiinae page, where that paper is precisely the one cited. Lamiinae.org is sometimes a little oddly structured with regard to references...	Y
Centrocerum Dejean, 1835	Centrocerum Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Cephalophis Dejean, 1835	Cephalophis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Fornix Gistl, 1847 is a replacement name, but it is likely a nomen nudum too (unless Gistel gave a description with it) I can't quite tell whether Gistel is assigning Prionus depsarium Linnaeus to Cephalophis or just publishing a replacement in passing. THe latter seems a little more likely though prioninae.org's catalog of the subfamily Anoplodermatinae in Vesperidae briefly notes "Cephalophis Dejean, 1837" as a synonym of Mysteria Thomson, 1860.	Y
Ceropogon Dejean, 1835	Ceropogon Dejean, 1835	Junior synonym of Cerasphorus Audinet-Serville, 1834 (though according to IRMNG it is a "misspelling") in family Cerambycidae The misspelling part comes from Nomenclator Zoologicus, but this seems clearly inaccurate as Dejean explicitly mentions Cerasphorus as the original genus for C. histicorne. Now whether that makes Ceropogon a replacement name or merely an Objective Synonym is harder to determine (oddly enough, Bousquet & Bouchard fail to note the "objective" part...)	Y
Cerosterna Dejean, 1835	Cerosterna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Cerosterna Redtenbacher in Huegel, 1844	Y
Chaetosoma Dejean, 1835	Chaetosoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Aspidocera Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name, but it is likely a nomen nudum too (unless Gistel gave a description with it) He did not. Chaetosoma was eventually published by Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1843:367 (was missing in IRMNG), but that name was rejected in 2011 (Opinion 2287) to protect Chaetosoma Westwood, 1851 and so the valid name is Apodasya Pascoe, 1863	Y
Choeromorpha Dejean, 1835	Choeromorpha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Cloniocerus Dejean, 1835	Cloniocerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Cloniocerus de Laporte in Brullé, 1840	Y
Closteromerus Dejean, 1835	Closteromerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Hylomela Gahan in Distant, 1904 (Closteromerus Lacordaire, 1869 is a later usage) "Closteromerus Dejean, 1835 has precedence over Hylomela Gahan, 1904 which is currently used as valid (e.g., Veiga Ferreira 1966: 721). If the name Hylomela Gahan is to be conserved as valid, an application to the Commission is necessary." Looks like people didn't want to bother over a single species and Closteromerus is now treated as the valid name (page was created based of the TITAN cerambycid database) Closteromerus Thomson, 1860 is used in a different sense to that of Dejean B&B say that Homaloceraea Schmidt, 1922 is available for Closteromerus senus Thomson (once again IRMNG is saying this entry is a "misspelling", when it clearly isn't?)	Y
Closteropus Dejean, 1835	Closteropus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Coccoderus Dejean, 1835	Coccoderus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Corethrogaster Dejean, 1835	Corethrogaster Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Both Corethrogaster White, 1855 and Corethrogaster Chevrolat, 1855 are linked to this name in N.Z, the latter probably being the first available use of the name. I agree	Y
Cosmocerus Dejean, 1835	Cosmocerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Cosmotoma Dejean, 1835	Cosmotoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Criocephalum Dejean, 1835	Criocephalum Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum Junior synonym of Arhopalus Audinet-Serville, 1834 Criocephalum Motschoulsky, 1845 is likely a later usage given that two of its species on IRMNG are already in Arhopalus (as well as its record in N.Z. being linked to the Dejean name)	Y
Criomorphus Dejean, 1835	Criomorphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Cyclopeplus Dejean, 1835	Cyclopeplus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Cyrtognathus Dejean, 1835	(Not on IRMNG)  Done	valid subgenus of Dorysthenes Vigors, 1826 in Danilevsky (2020) (B&B state it to be a valid genus, but as far as I'm aware even the original Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera volume 6 treats it as a subgenus) takes priority over Cyrtognathus Faldermann, 1835	Y
Delocheilus Dejean, 1835	Delocheilus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Deltosoma Dejean, 1835	Deltosoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Deroplia Dejean, 1835	Deroplia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Deroplia Rosenhauer, 1847 Handled as part of dealing with Amblesthis	Y
Diastocera Dejean, 1835	Diastocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus; takes priority over Diastocera Thomson, 1857 and its synonyms According to lamiinae.org, Analeptes Gistl, 1847 (authority should be "Gistel, 1848") is a synonym Yes. An objective one (Gistel appears unaware of Diastocera). Lamiinae.org also treats Diastocera Thomson as a later homonym of Dejean's name with type tricincta (and thus a synonym of Thysia Thomson, 1860), but that seems wholly unjustifiable to me.
Dicranoderes Dejean, 1835	Dicranoderes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Dicranops Dejean, 1835	Dicranops Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware According to Gemminger & Harold as well as the TITAN database, this is a synonym of Bardistus Newman, 1841	Y
Dorcacephalum Dejean, 1835	Dorcacephalum Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this is considered a synonym of Moneilema Say, 1824 (See Bibliography) Tropipleurites Dejean, 1836 (no IRMNG record) from the third catalogue is treated therein as an invalid synonym of this name, and is therefore not available. Tropipleurites Agassiz, 1845 is a citation of Dejean's name, see page 167 in the Coleoptera section of Agassiz's 1845 Nomenclator zoologicus (as "Tropipleurites Chevr.", also shown as a synonym of "Dorcacephalum")	Y
Dorcaschema Dejean, 1835	Dorcaschema Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, both this and Dorcaschema Haldeman, 1847 are synonyms of Dorcaschema Chevrolat, 1844 (which is not on IRMNG) That's Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1844:110. Also Hetoemis Dejean, 1835/Haldeman, 1847 is to placed in synonymy here.	Y
Entelopes Dejean, 1835	Entelopes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Erioderus Dejean, 1835	Erioderus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to the Prioninae catalogue (see page 58) on prioninae.org, this genus became available and valid as "Erioderus Thomson, 1861" (Y added); meanwhile the Blanchard name is quoted as "Erioderes Blanchard, 1845" and apparently is not used. Whatever the actual authority though, this does mean this IRMNG record can be linked to Erioderus Blanchard, 1845 (as all the species under the Dejean name should be under the valid genus) "Erioderes" Blanchard, 1845:141 is unavailable because Blanchard treats it as a vernacular name. Although widely assumed, such a provision is (amusingly enough!) part of neither the ICBN nor ICZN.	Y
Euchaetes Dejean, 1835	Euchaetes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware a synonym of Ischnolea Thomson	Y
Eudoxilus Dejean, 1835	Eudoxilus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	page 172 of Lacordaire, 1869 seems to indicate that Eudoxilus Lacordaire, 1869 is just a quote of Dejean's name, but as a synonym of Deltaspis Audinet-Serville, 1834 As far as I can tell, Eudoxilus was never treated as valid, and even if it had been, the correct author would be Thompson, 1864:199.	Y
Eumathes Dejean, 1835	Eumathes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Eurycephalus Dejean, 1835	Eurycephalus Dejean, 1835	junior homonym of Eurycephalus Gray, 1832	Y
Eurypygon Dejean, 1835	Eurypygon Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Euryscelis Dejean, 1835	Euryscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Eusebis Dejean, 1835	Eusebis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Nyctimenius Gressitt, 1951	Y
Euteles Dejean, 1835	Euteles Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this and Euteles Breuning, 1940 are both synonyms of Anobrium Belon, 1902	Y
Eutheia Dejean, 1835	Eutheia Dejean, 1835	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Eutrypanus Dejean, 1835	Eutrypanus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Evethis Dejean, 1835	Evethis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Eunidia Erichson, 1843	Y
Exocentrus Dejean, 1835	Exocentrus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Gnaphalocera Dejean, 1835	Gnaphalocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware Actually, this name turns out to be available as Gnaphalocera Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1845:245  Done. I have sent a message to Roguet for help. He has referred me to Gérard Takavilian at MNHN...	Y
Grammoptera Dejean, 1835	(no record on IRMNG)  Done	valid genus in Cerambycidae has priority over Grammoptera Audinet-Serville, 1835	Y
Hammoderus Dejean, 1835	Hammoderus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Hastatis Dejean, 1835	Hastatis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Hathlia Dejean, 1835	Hathlia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Hebecerus Dejean, 1835	Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Ancita Thomson, 1864 Roguet accept it as the valid name, so I'll go with that.	Y
Hebestola Dejean, 1835	Hebestola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Hesperophanes Dejean, 1835	Hesperophanes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Hesycha Dejean, 1835	Hesycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Heterogaster Dejean, 1835	Heterogaster Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Heterogaster Schilling, 1829	Y
Hetoemis Dejean, 1835	Hetoemis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Imantocera Dejean, 1835	Imantocera Dejean, 1835	According to lamiinae.org, Imantocera Thomson, 1857 is just a citation/later usage of Dejean's name	Y
Isarthron Dejean, 1835	Isarthron Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority in Opinion 1473 (ICZN 1988) According to prioninae.org's catalogue for Spondylinae, this is a synonym of Tetropium Kirby in Richardson, 1837	Y
Lagocheirus Dejean, 1835	Lagocheirus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Lasiodactylus Dejean, 1835	Lasiodactylus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Leprodera Dejean, 1835	Leprodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Leprosoma Dejean, 1835	Leprosoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Leptocnemus Dejean, 1835	Leptocnemus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware Corrections to entries with same names: According to Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga, 2011, Leptocnemus Koch, 1839 was wrongly stated to be a homonym of Dejean's name and to be replaced by Leptocnema Koch, 1839, whereas in fact it is not a homonym and should be used as valid According to Chang, Kirejtshuk & Ren, 2011, Leptocnemus Hong & Wang, 1990 † as well as Idiomerus Dolin in Dolin & Pritykina, 1980 † are synonyms of Necromera Martynov, 1926 †, and they are all now placed under family Cerophytidae	Y
Leptoplia Dejean, 1835	Leptoplia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Microplia Audinet-Serville, 1835	Y
Leptoscelis Dejean, 1835	Leptoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Anisopodus White, 1855; intended as a replacement name for Anisopus Audinet-Serville, 1835 (junior homonym of Anisopus Meigen, 1803), but is itself a junior homonym of Leptoscelis Laporte, 1832 as a side note, what on earth is Anisopus Meigen, 1803 doing listed as a synonym of Anisopodus White, 1855?!?! It's supposed to be placed in (and is clearly the type genus of) the Diptera family Anisopodidae Knab, 1912! Misplaced homonym. You see these sometimes in IRMNG (and other databases)	Y
Lypsymena Dejean, 1835	Lypsymena Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Lypsimena Haldeman, 1847 Also Lipsymena Agassiz, 1846	Y
Macronemus Dejean, 1835	Macronemus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Maschalodonta Dejean, 1835	Maschalodonta Dejean, 1835	this is a nomen nudum! According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Ischioloncha Thomson, 1860	Y
Mastigocera Dejean, 1835	Mastigocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Mallonia Thomson, 1857 not a junior homonym of Mastigocera Berthold in Latreille, 1827, since Berthold's name is unavailable Synonymized that one with Xyela Dalman while I was at it	Y
Milothris Dejean, 1835	Milothris Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Monohammus Dejean, 1835	(no record on IRMNG)	unjustified emendation of Monochamus Dejean, 1821 Monochamus Dejean 1821 itself is not a nomen nudum and is valid according to lamiinae.orgY	Y
Myoxinus Dejean, 1835	Myoxinus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Myzomorphus Dejean, 1835	Myzomorphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Nosophloeus Dejean, 1835	Nosophloeus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Cryptobias Dupont in Audinet-Serville, 1834	Y
Nyphona Dejean, 1835	Nyphona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Hecyra Thomson, 1857 Nyphona Dejean, 1835 is a nomen oblitum and Hecyra Thomson, 1857 a nomen protectum Correction to entries with same names: Nyphona Mulsant, 1839 is most likely a later misspelling of Niphona Mulsant, 1839, as the references for both lead to the same page, page 169 in volume 1 of Histoire naturelle des Coléoptères de France, Longicornes. The spelling there is clearly "Niphona", not "Nyphona". "Nyphona Mulsant" does not exist. Neave is misspelling Niphona Mulsant.	Y
Oberea Dejean, 1835	Oberea Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Oedecnema Dejean, 1835	Oedecnema Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name Senior synonym of Oedecnema Thomson, 1857	Y
Onchomerus Dejean, 1835	Onchomerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Curtomerus Stephens, 1839 Onchomerus Dejean, 1835 is a nomen oblitum and Curtomerus Stephens, 1839 a nomen protectum	Y
Onocephala Dejean, 1835	Onocephala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this became valid as Onocephala Sturm, 1843, and Onocephala Thomson, 1857 is a citation/later usage	Y
Ophistomis Dejean, 1835	Ophistomis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Capito Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name this name became available as Ophistomis Thomson, 1857 (see page 319 in Thomson's 1857 Archives entomologiques)	Y
Opsimus Dejean, 1835	Opsimus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Orion Dejean, 1835	Orion Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Ornistomus Dejean, 1835	Ornistomus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Pachystola Dejean, 1835	Pachystola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum junior objective synonym of Lamia Fabricius, 1775 Pachystola Reiche in Ferret & Galinier, 1850 is a junior homonym of Dejean's name (not a later usage) and is valid as Neopachystola Marioni, 1977, which is confirmed by lamiinae.org	Y
Penthea Dejean, 1835	Penthea Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid available name well, valid until Australian Longhorn Beetles volume 1 synonymized it with Rhytiphora Audinet-Serville, 1835, anyway; see also lamiinae.org's page on the genus also beware that Rhytiphora now has ~50 synonyms, according to lamiinae.org, many of which were synonymized also by Australian Longhorn Beetles volume 1 and many more by Tavakilian & Nearns, 2014! I'm not going to dive through IRMNG to find them all, you can decide whether you want to deal with them now or not.  Done	Y
Phacellocera Dejean, 1835	Phacellocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Phacellus Dejean, 1835	Phacellus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Phaula Dejean, 1835	Phaula Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Phidola Dejean, 1835	Phidola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Phidola Chevrolat, 1862, which appears to be treated as a valid genus, rather than a synonym of Eupogonius Leconte, 1852 Looking through the page for Eupogonius on lamiinae.org, the best I can guess is that Phidola Chevrolat, 1862 was confused with Phidola Thomson, 1864, which for whatever reason is spelled as "Phydola" on lamiinae.org. Though checking the original page on BHL shows that Thomson spelled it "Phidola" and was quoting Dejean's name... must be two different senses of the name involved here? Absolutely not. Despite Thomson listing his name as "N.G.", it is clearly the same name as Chevrolat, 1862. How else could he refer to Chevrolat's species as type, and how else could others analyse it as a subsequent type designation? That this is attributed as "Phydola" to Thomson in both Lôbl & Smetana (2010) and the updated edition by Danilevsky (2020) is a frustrating mystery as Art. 33.3.1 certainly does not apply. I will email Drs. Danilevsky and Tavakilian (Actually Dr. Tavakilian is currently on a 2-month trip in ecuador so I won't ask him) regarding this. For now, I've entered it as an incorrect subsequent spelling. Circeus (talk) ...oh wow I can't actually remember what exactly I was thinking anymore when I wrote the above months ago, but yes I too cannot find any instance of the "Phydola" spelling before the chapter in Löbl & Smetana (2010) even in a quick Google Books search. Very strange. Danilevsky has confirmed in email that both the spelling and attribution to Thompson in CPC are in error. Circeus (talk)	Y
Phrissoma Dejean, 1835	Phrissoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Phryneta Dejean, 1835	Phryneta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Phymasterna Dejean, 1835	Phymasterna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum status unknown according to Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013; two of its species are available, but are placed in genera Solymus Lacordaire, 1872 and Frea Thomson, 1858. Phymasterna Laporte in Brullé, 1840 appears to be a separate name with a type species not originally included under Dejean's name. B&B suggest involving the commission to suppress Dejean's name (for the Principles of Homonymy and Priority) in this case, but as far as I can tell nothing has happened yet in the 8 years since their article. Meanwhile, lamiinae.org just lists the name as a synonym of Solymus Lacordaire, 1872. This makes some sense but it doesn't exactly solve the homonymy+priority problem at all.	Y
Phymatoderus Dejean, 1835	Phymatoderus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Physobrachys Dejean, 1835	Physobrachys Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware Appears to be a synony of Eupromera Westwood, 1846	Y
Phytoecia Dejean, 1835	Phytoecia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Platyarthron Dejean, 1835	Platyarthron Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Platysternus Dejean, 1835	Platysternus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Plectrocerum Dejean, 1835	Plectrocerum Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Plectrodera Dejean, 1835	Plectrodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Plectromerus Dejean, 1835	Plectromerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847 seems to be the first available use of this name, which seems to be generally treated as valid (such as in p. 53 of Bousquet et al., 2009) It is published here, the type is Obrium dentatum Leconte, 1824 (=Callidium dentipes Olivier, 1790) Circeus (talk) I'm not sure where Plectromerus Leconte, 1862 comes from (indeed the page number seems to be nonsense, as there is no page 304 in LeConte's "Classification of the Coleoptera of North America"), but it's likely a later usage or synonym of the Haldeman name. This turns out to be a separate availability of Dejean's name with type Curius scambus Newman, 1841 (also a synonym of C. dentipes), but the date is incorrect. It's actually from Leconte (1873).Circeus (talk) On an unrelated note, I just noticed ZooBank's record for Plectromerus roncavei Nearns & Miller, 2009 has Plectromerus Dejean, 1835 as its parent, rather than the intended Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847 (which is not on ZooBank). Even though the species record was registered in 2009 and the genus one was registered in 2020!	Y
Plectrura Dejean, 1835	Plectrura Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Plocaederus Dejean, 1835	Plocaederus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name Not done I haven't been able to make heads nor tail out of Santos-Silva et al. (2021), and have not even created an entry for Hamaederus as a result. Circeus (talk)
Podius Dejean, 1835	Podius Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum (I assume this is a copypaste error Circeus (talk)) invalid synonym of Deilus Audinet-Serville, 1834 name is not available	Y
Poeciloderma Dejean, 1835	Poeciloderma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Poecilopeplus Dejean, 1835	Poecilopeplus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Polyzonus Dejean, 1835	Polyzonus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name Calliblepharus Gistl, 1847 is a replacement name	Y
Praonetha Dejean, 1835	Praonetha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Pterolophia Newman, 1842	Y
Probatius Dejean, 1835	Probatius Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this is a synonym of Alcidion Sturm, 1843 Became available as Probatius White, 1855 Circeus (talk)	Y
Prosopocera Dejean, 1835	Prosopocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Psectrocera Dejean, 1835	Psectrocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Pteroplatus Dejean, 1835	Pteroplatus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Pterostenus Dejean, 1835	(no record on IRMNG)	junior objective synonym of Stenoderus Dejean, 1821 (which is valid, not a nomen nudum) according to Scambler, 1993 and Australian Faunal Directory, Pterostenus Lacordaire, 1869 and Stenocentrus McKeown, 1945 are also synonyms of Stenoderus Dejean, 1821 on page 264 of Sturm, 1843, Pterostenus MacLeay in Sturm, 1843 is listed as a synonym of "Stenoderus. Dejean." in much the same way, on page 499 of Laporte, 1840, Pterostenus Laporte, 1840 is listed as a synonym of "STENODERUS" in other words all three "Pterostenus"s on IRMNG are synonyms of Stenoderus Dejean, 1821 most likely	Y
Pyrobolus Dejean, 1835	Pyrobolus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum invalid synonym of Amphionycha Dejean, 1835 (see entry from earlier in this section) unavailable name This turns out to be more complicated. The name was used as the basis for two different genera: Pyrobolus Chevrolat in Guérin-Méneville, 1838:284 and Dylobolus Thomson, 1868:195. I have changed its status to nomen nudum, unsynonymized. Circeus (talk) @Circeus: Going by the original page in Dejean's catalogue it was possibly Chevrolat who coined the name Pyrobolus to begin with. So Chevrolat himself was reusing his own name Pyrobolus for a valid genus in Guérin-Méneville, 1838? (But because it was proposed in synonymy with Amphionycha possibly Article 50.7 applies here and it has to be credited to Dejean anyway?) Also notably, Hemilophus Audinet-Serville, 1835 was also listed under the synonymy of Amphionycha in Dejean's catalogue. Not sure if any of this information helps you at all though. Monster Iestyn (talk) Crap, you are totally right! Talk about irony. I sent Dr. Tavakilian a minor spelling correction (I was going to include the Embryon thing, but see Talk:Embryon) just earlier today... Circeus (talk)	Y
Schoeniocera Dejean, 1835	Schoeniocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware According to Gemminger and Harold, this is a synonym of Olenecamptus Circeus (talk)	Y
Sclerocerus Dejean, 1835	Sclerocerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	This name became available as Sclerocerus Leconte, 1850 (see page 20 of LeConte, 1850)	Y
Scleronotus Dejean, 1835	Scleronotus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, the name became available as Scleronotus White, 1855 (no record on IRMNG  Done), and Scleronotus Thomson, 1860 is a later usage	Y
Sericogaster Dejean, 1835	Sericogaster Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Smodicum Dejean, 1835	Smodicum Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Sophronica Dejean, 1835	Sophronica Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Sphenothecus Dejean, 1835	Sphenothecus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	This is a synonym of Sphaenothecus Dupont, 1838 Charientoptenus Dejean, 1836 from the third catalogue was listed as an invalid synonym of this name, and is therefore also not available (Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013b)	Y
Sphenura Dejean, 1835	Sphenura Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Sphenura Lichtenstein, 1820 senior objective synonym of Nupserha Chevrolat, 1858 (no record on IRMNG) According to lamiinae.org, Nupserha Thomson, 1860 is a citation/later usage of Chevrolat's name Sphenura Laporte, 1840 is a separate later usage that was left accidentally in the synonymy of Glenea (this is also why I prefer to "nestle" synonymies in IRMNG!). Circeus (talk) Now we have a problem because Hapochoron Gistel, 1848 is an earlier replacement name which seems to have also been forgotten as it was not an issue while Nupserha was treated as a synonym of Glenea. Luckily, Nupserha species are agricultural pests and it will be easy to assemble references for a reversal of precedence. I will wait to see of more Notulae arise from the rest of this work. Template:To do Circeus (talk)	Y
Stellognatha Dejean, 1835	Stellognatha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Stenopeplus Dejean, 1835	Stenopeplus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware Placed as synonym of Phymatioderus Blanchard by Gemminger and Harold.	Y
Stenosphenus Dejean, 1835	Stenosphenus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Stenostola Dejean, 1835	Stenostola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name According to lamiinae.org, Stenostola Mulsant, 1839 is a synonym of this name	Y
Stenura Dejean, 1835	Stenura Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Stenura Cuvier, 1829 senior objective synonym of Stenelytrana Gistl, 1848 it's not clear whether this can be considered a synonym of Leptura Linnaeus, 1758 or not, I've seen some sources cite Dejean's name as a subgenus of this genus but maybe they are outdated? according to Brustel et al., 2013, the name Stenura Haldeman, 1847 is used a subgenus of Leptura but is also a junior homonym of Stenura Cuvier, 1829 prioninae.org's Lepturinae catalogue lists Stenura Dejean as a synonym of Stenelytrana The TITAN database also goes with Stenelytrana. Although Stenura Haldeman has been treated mostly under Leptura (including as a valid subgenus, as noted by Brustel et al.), it is an unavailable later use of Dejean's name. Circeus (talk)	Y
Sternodonta Dejean, 1835	Sternodonta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Sternotomis Percheron in Guérin-Méneville & Percheron, 1836 Sternodonta Dejean, 1835 is a nomen oblitum and Sternotomis Percheron, 1836 a nomen protectum Sternodonta Laporte in Brullé, 1840 is a later usage (see page 474 of Brullé, 1840) Cleosternon Gistl, 1847 is a replacement name	Y
Sthenias Dejean, 1835	Sthenias Dupont in Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1835" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Strangalia Dejean, 1835	(no record on IRMNG)	valid genus in Cerambycidae; has priority over Strangalia Audinet-Serville, 1835	Y
Talaepora Dejean, 1835	Talaepora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	According to lamiinae.org, this name became available as "Talaepora Fairmaire & Germain, 1859" (Y Added), which is a synonym of Adetus Leconte, 1852 "Talaepora Fairmaire & Germain, 1859" might actually be Taloepora Fairmaire, 1860 on IRMNG, which is in fact spelled Taloepora in the original article: see here. Fairmaire and Germain are both authors of the article, but according to Evenhuis' dating of Annales de la Société Entomologique de France page 521 of vol. 7 in ser. 3 was published in 1860 (despite the year being given as 1859) so in conclusion it is probably correctly cited as Taloepora Fairmaire & Germain, 1860? Odd that no one else has done this anywhere online that I can see, it's either given the correct year or the correct authors, never both. Combination of "it's a synonym so no one ever cared to look that close" and "œ and æ" look almost indistinguishable in italics. I'll point out the needed corrects to Dr. Tavakilian Circeus (talk) That's funny because it wasn't in italics in the original article, nor does it use either of those ligatures, it's plainly spelled as " G. Taloepora Dej., Cat." in Roman type. Otherwise, there is also Article 58 now I think about it, but I'm not sure if that applies here at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) I noticed. Probably also a "well they obviously meant X". Article 58 doesn't apply, because that's for species-group names only. You're thinking of 33.3.1, which I personally think should no apply to names not treated as applying to a valid taxon. The actual relevant article as far as homonymy goes is 56.2. Circeus (talk) [undent] WOW, this really turned into a serious rabbit hole. Turns out that BOTH spellings are separately available, and neither of them has Fairmaire & Germain as authors: Chevrolat, 1849:325 made Talaepora available by assigning Saperda punctigera to it as the valid name for Dejean's Talaeopora mutica Just to complicate things a little, "Talaepora mutica" was made available as Agennopsis mutica Thomson, 1858:302 (=Adetus analis Leconte, 1852) By citing Taloepora (note spelling!), Thomson, 1858 antedates the publication of that name. In summary, we have: Talaepora Chevrolat, 1849 [non Talaepora Fairmaire & Germain, 1859, incorrect spelling]. Type Saperda punctigera Germar by monotypy. This is the valid name for Adetaptera Santos-Silva, Nascimento & Wappes, 2019 (!!!). Taloepora Thomson, 1858 [non Taloepora Fairmaire & Germain, 1859, validating authors]. Type Taloepora pusilla Fairmaire & Germain, 1859 by subsequent designation of Villier, 1980 (Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (n.s.) , 1980, 16(4):543) I have been in touch with Dr. Santos-Silva regarding Pyrobolus, I absolutely have to email him about this! Circeus (talk)	Y
Tetraophthalmus Dejean, 1835	Tetraophthalmus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name According to lamiinae.org, Tetraophthalmus Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is a synonym, while Astathes Newman, 1842 and Africastathes Breuning, 1956 are subgenera	Y
Trachystola Dejean, 1835	Trachystola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Tragocephala Dejean, 1835	Tragocephala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Tragomorphus Dejean, 1835	Tragomorphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Anisocerus Lacordaire, 1830 (no record on IRMNG, unless it is Anisocerus Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1830? Y authorship corrected) According to lamiinae.org, Anisocerus Audinet-Serville, 1836 is a citation/later usage of Anisocerus Lacordaire, 1830 page 181 of Lacordaire, 1830 gives ("Lepel. et Serv.") [almost certainly means Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville], however I'm not whether Anisocerus should be credited to Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville or whether it should be credited to Lacordaire anyway (which is what both lamiinae.org as well as Bousquet & Bouchard do) It seems to me that the correct authorship is to Lacordaire. Names in the second half are ascribed to Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville because of a note on p. 170: [my translation] "For genera, I shall follow the many segregates by Messrs. Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau and A. Serville, who specifically treated these insects, and as their work remain unpublished, I shall refer these genera to those of in the Catalogue of Mr. the Count Dejean where possible." However, there is no indication that characters come from them and as they cannot be solely responsible for the name under 50.1, authorship defaults to Lacordaire. Note that Roguet is not consistent in authorship assignation for that publication. Tavakilian assigns all of them to Lacordaire. Let's throw in Anisaerus Drapiez, 1837: 221 (Y added). Tavakilian/TITAN has it as a new name, but I'm with Roguet in treating it as a misspelling. Circeus (talk)
Trichoscelis Dejean, 1835	Trichoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Trigonopeplus Dejean, 1835	Trigonopeplus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Trigonotarsis Dejean, 1835	Trigonotarsis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Trigonarthris Dejean, 1837 [year should be 1836] from the third catalogue was proposed as a replacement name for this name, and therefore is also a nomen nudum (Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013b) That's already recorded as such. This makes Trigonotarsis ultimately a synonym of Trigonarthris Haldeman, 1848. Circeus (talk)	Y
Trypanidius Dejean, 1835	Trypanidius Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	No corrections needed as far as I am aware	Y
Xylorhiza Dejean, 1835	Xylorhiza Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Zographus Dejean, 1835	Zographus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Zygocera Dejean, 1835	Zygocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Disternopsis Breuning, 1939 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013) Zygocera Erichson, 1842 is a separate genus However, according to lamiinae.org (based on Australian Longhorn Beetles volume 1 from 2013 it appears): [1]: Zygocera Dejean, 1835 is a valid genus [2]: Zygocera Erichson, 1842 is now a synonym of Disterna Thomson, 1864 [3]: Disternopsis Breuning, 1939 is still treated as a separate genus?? (I'll need to check Australian Longhorn Beetles myself to double check the above) Ah, no, lamiinae.org is actually somewhat misleading here: Disternopsis Breuning, 1939 is now treated as a synonym of Zygocera Dejean, 1835 in Australian Longhorn Beetles; it appears to me that the only reason that lamiinae.org still has a page for Disternopsis is that nobody has done anything about the last remaining species included, Disternopsis bivittipennis Breuning, 1968, even though it is not the type species of the genus (and the actual type species is now in another genus). Weird, but I take it the genus page will go away as soon as someone finds a new home for the species. Looks like time marched on: Zygocera Erichson has been replaced by its junior synonym Disterna. I will send a note to the AFD people, as they still attribute Zygocera to Erichson while also listing the species as Disterna canosa and even stating Disternopsis to be an objective synonym of Erichson's name! Circeus (talk)	Y

Tétramères: Chrysomélines

• A warning: you will find that virtually every single one of these names is entered twice in IRMNG, once with author "Dejean, 1835" (N.Z.'s "nomima nuda") and once with "Chevrolat, 1837" (from Hallan). Neither of these is correct, and they should mostly be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to the IRMNG scheme.

Useful references:

• Bezděk, J. 2020. Review of the genus-level names proposed by Johannes Gistel in Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 60(1): 173–188. DOI: 10.37520/aemnp.2020.011 Reference page.  [for replacement names by Gistel]
• Borowiec, L. & Świętojańska, J. Cassidinae of the world – an interactive manual (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) [for Cassidinae in traditional sense]
• Nadein, K.S. 2013. Catalogue of Alticini genera of the World (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) [for Alticini]
• Nie, R.-E., Bezděk, J. & Yang, X.-K. 2017. How many genera and species of Galerucinae s. str. do we know? Updated statistics (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Pp. 91–102 in: Chaboo, C.S. & Schmitt, M. (Eds) 2017. Research on Chrysomelidae 7. ZooKeys 720: 1–137. Reference page.  ZooKeys 720: 91–102. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.720.13517 . Reference page.  [for Galerucinae in traditional sense, see Supplemental Material for a full list of genera up to the end of 2016]
• Staines, C.L. 2015. Catalog of the Hispines of the World (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae). Online. [for Hispinae, now included in Cassidinae]
• Staines, C.L. Hispines of the World [for Hispinae, now included in Cassidinae]

Name	IRMNG record(s)	Corrections and notes	Done?
Acentroptera Chevrolat, 1836	Acentroptera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	Authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" The authority of the first available use of this name is actually "Guérin-Méneville, 1844" (Y added) not "Baly, 1858". (see references on Acentroptera on Wikispecies, which I have cleaned up, or more specifically Staines, 2010) (There is already an unreviewed entry for this on the NZ website here, with publication "Iconographie du regne animal de G. Cuvier, vol. 7, insects. p271") This gave me a LOT more grief than I expected to 'cause Staines uses a weird way to cite Guérin-Méneville (the Iconographie's volumes are not actually numbered), so I kept not realizing that the work is indeed in BHL. Not adding Acenthroptera Thomson, as under art. 33.5 of the code, it cannot be considered an emendation. Circeus (talk)	Y
Acidalia Chevrolat, 1836	Acidalia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Acidalia Chevrolat, 1837	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Helioscopa Gistel, 1848 (not 1837; see Bezděk, 2020) authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Acis Chevrolat, 1836	Acis Dejean, 1835 Acis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" unnecessary replacement name for Colasposoma Laporte, 1833	Y
Acromis Chevrolat, 1836	Acromis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Acromis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Agelastica Chevrolat, 1836	Agelastica Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	Already done by Circeus in 2020	Y
Amasia Dejean, 1836	Amasia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Amblyopus Chevrolat, 1836	Amblyopus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Erotylidae And a senior synonym of Amblyopus Lacordaire, 1842 Circeus (talk)	Y
Amphicyrta Dejean, 1836	Amphicyrta Dejean, 1834 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Amphilocus Dejean, 1836	Amphilocus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" According to Lacordaire, this is Brachysphaenus Lacordaire, 1842 Circeus (talk)	Y
Anisodera Chevrolat, 1836	Anisodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Anisodera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Anomoia Chevrolat, 1836	Anomoia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Anomoia Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Anomoia Walker, 1835 senior objective synonym of Anomoea Agassiz, 1846	Y
Aphthona Chevrolat, 1836	Aphthona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Aphthona Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Aplosonyx Chevrolat, 1836	Aplosonyx Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Apophylia Chevrolat, 1836	Apophylia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" The correct place of publication of Apophylia is not Thomson, 1858, but Duponchel in D'Orbichy, 1841: 31.	Y
Apteropeda Chevrolat, 1836	Apteropeda Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	Already done by Circeus in 2021	Y
Asphaera Chevrolat, 1836	Asphaera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Nadein, 2013 gives the authority of the available (and valid) use of this name is "Chevrolat, 1843", though I think this might be wrong and IRMNG's choice of "Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1842" might be the correct one? Okay yes I can confirm that "Duponchel & Chevrolat" at least are the correct authors, from "D & C" in p. 227, and according to Bousquet, 2016 the publication year for the volume (Tome deuxième (= vol. 2) of Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle) is 1842 (though the page itself may have been published in 1841?) see also Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836 (in L-Z section below) 2022 update: Konstantinov et al. (2022) possibly considers Litosonycha and Asphaera to be separate genera (presumably, at least from the abstract). It also considers Ptena Chevrolat, 1836 to be a senior synonym of Asphaera. Monster Iestyn (talk) Found the full-text on ResearchGate and yes, can confirm:x "Litosonycha differs from Asphaera in several characters: distance between antennal sockets more than transverse diameter of antennal socket in frontal view; second antennomere longer than half length of the third antennomere; anterolateral callosity of pronotum short, bent anterolaterally; lateral margin of elytron narrowly explanate (see key to genera above), elytra generally wide and elytral epipleura not visible in lateral view." Circeus (talk)	Y
Aspicela Dejean, 1836	Aspicela Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Aspicela Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Asteriza Chevrolat, 1836	Asteriza Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Asteriza Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Astolisma Dejean, 1836	Astolisma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Atechna Chevrolat, 1836	Atechna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Atechna Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860	Y
Atrachya Dejean, 1836	Atrachya Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Aulacocheilus Chevrolat, 1836	Aulacocheilus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name Aulacochilus Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation See also Skelley et al. (2021) which was just published today as I write this. However, they give just "Dejean, 1836" as the authority, even though "Chevrolat" definitely is given in Dejean's catalogue itself. (See page 429) already updated the relevant names (except the year's still wrong: 1836, not 1835)	Y
Aulacophora Chevrolat, 1836	Aulacophora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Aulacophora Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Aulacoscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Aulacoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Australica Chevrolat, 1836	Australica Chevrolat in Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Calomela Hope, 1840	Y
Axiotheata Chevrolat, 1836	Axiotheata Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Axiotheata Duponchel in D'Orbigny, 1842 is the valid name for Sophraena Baly, 1865	Y
Babia Chevrolat, 1836	Babia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Babia Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Bacis Dejean, 1836	Bacis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Balanomorpha Chevrolat, 1836	Balanomorpha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Balanomorpha Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior objective synonym of Mantura Stephens, 1831	Y
Barytopus Chevrolat, 1836	Barytopus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in Erotylidae Let's not forget Barytopus Dejean in Lacordaire, 1842 (N Deleted) and Barytopus Lacordaire, 1842 Micrerotylus Crotch, 1875 is a junior synonym I had a devil of a job confirming the validity of Barytopus, which is mostly unmentioned in the recent literature, but Skelley, 2020: 23 does clearly treat it as valid. Circeus (talk)	Y
Basiprionota Chevrolat, 1836	Basiprionota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Basiprionota Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae To which we must add Basiprionota Blanchard, 1845 and Monax Gistl, 1848 (the latter of which I had synonymized to the wrong name). Circeus (talk)
Basipta Chevrolat, 1836	Basipta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Available as Basipta Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1842, not Basipta Boheman, 1854 which is a later usage. Circeus (talk)	Y
Bathis Dejean, 1836	Bathis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" No unwelcome surprise for this one. Duponchel and Chevrolat associate it with Colaspis Fabricius, so I'll use that for synonymy. Circeus (talk) Hm, to be honest I'm not sure if anything can reasonably be done here. All D&C were saying is that it was originally part of Colaspis, which is not saying very much considering that Colaspis was originally (and still is) a rather large genus that probably had to be split up (and still does need to be, apparently). It's probably true for a few other Dejean/Chevrolat names, such as Bathseba just below on the same page. Searching for the name in Seeno & Wilcox (1982) in Snippet View on Google Books tells me it's listed under "NOMINA NUDA in Eumolpinae, not identified", along with other names from Dejean's catalogue unsurprisingly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ...or if you prefer, you can refer to this archive of the Eumolpinae page of Hallan's catalog that I found and bookmarked some years ago, but totally forgot about lately. You can see all the nomina nuda in the subfamily there, including Bathis. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)	Y
Bathseba Dejean, 1836	Bathseba Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Blepharida Chevrolat, 1836	Blepharida Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Blepharida Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name also Blepharida Rogers, 1856. Circeus (talk)
Botanochara Dejean, 1836	Botanochara Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Botryonopa Chevrolat, 1836	Botryonopa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" The available author and spelling of this name is Bothryonopa Chevrolat in Guérin-Méneville, 1840. Although Staines (2015) list it as Botryonopa, he himself (Staines, 2010) pointed out in the first place that the spelling with h must be restored because the incorrect spelling was universally attributed to Blanchard, so art. 33.3.1 of the code does not apply. Circeus (talk)	Y
Brachycoryna Dejean, 1836	Brachycoryna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" This is available as Brachycoryna Guérin-Méneville, 1844, Not Baly, 1886. Circeus (talk)	Y
Brachymerus Chevrolat, 1836	Brachymerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Iphiclus Chevrolat, 1836 (see further down when this section is more complete), in family Erotylidae	Y
Bromius Chevrolat, 1836	Bromius Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Bromius Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name conserved name; placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 2298 (ICZN (2012)) Bromius Redtenbacher, 1845 also needs synonymizing. Circeus (talk) Oh, right, I should have remembered: Eumolpus Illiger, 1798 is also a synonym, but was suppressed by Opinion 2298 in order to conserve Bromius, Chrysochus and Eumolpus Weber, 1801 (which is also on the Official List). Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)	Y
Cacoscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Cacoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cacoscelis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae and senior synonym of Cacoscelis Erichson, 1847 Circeus (talk)	Y
Cadmus Chevrolat, 1836	Cadmus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae and senior synonym of Cacoscelis Erichson, 1842 Circeus (talk)	Y
Caeporis Dejean, 1836	Caeporis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Caeporis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae Plus later usages by Chevrolat in d'Orbigny and Sturm. I kinda miss the convenience of you listing them directly, I must admit 😅 Circeus (talk) (I must be slipping, I'm surprised I missed those ones) Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Calenus Dejean, 1836	Calenus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Erotylidae Glabratotelus Mader, 1942 [1952] is a junior synonym And apparent (Alvarenga, 1994) s valid subgenus of Ellipticus. Circeus (talk)	Y
Calliaspis Dejean, 1836	Calliaspis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Calliaspis Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae + Calliaspis Boheman, 1850 Circeus (talk)	Y
Calligrapha Chevrolat, 1836	Calligrapha Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	Already done by Circeus in 2020 Actually I overlooked Calligraphapha Gistl, 1848 . Neave records this as an emendation, but seeing as Gistel is explicitly replacing Calligraphe ("Whose ugly name Calligraphapha must be abandoned"), Calligraphapha is in fact an incorrect subsequent spelling.	Y
Callipepla Dejean, 1836	Callipepla Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Callistola Dejean, 1836	Callistola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Callopistria Chevrolat, 1836	Callopistria Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Callopistria Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Calyptocephala Chevrolat, 1836	Calyptocephala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Calyptocephala Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Camptolenes Chevrolat, 1836	Camptolenes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Camptolenes Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum	Y
Centroscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Centroscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Centroscelis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Cephalodonta Chevrolat, 1836	Cephalodonta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cephalodonta Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum! First available not as Cephalodonta Guérin-Méneville, 1844 but rather Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1842 (not 1843 as in Staines, who also cites an incorrect typification method. It is by monotypy, not subsequent designatoin). It is indeed a synonym of Sceloenopla as from Hallan, though. Circeus (talk)	Y
Cephaloleia Chevrolat, 1836	Cephaloleia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cephaloleia Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Cerophysa Chevrolat, 1836	Cerophysa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cerophysa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Cerotoma Chevrolat, 1836	Cerotoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cerotoma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Chalcophana Chevrolat, 1836	Chalcophana Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	Already done by Circeus in 2020 Oh yeah, before I forget: the taxonomic remark at Lycaste Gistel, 1848 should be updated, now that Eupetale Flowers, 2021 has been established for the two species formerly included under "Lycaste".  Done	Y
Chalcoplacis Chevrolat, 1836	Chalcoplacis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Chalcoplacis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Charitonia Dejean, 1836	Charitonia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Looks like this one never became available, huh. Circeus (talk)	Y
Cheilotoma Chevrolat, 1836	Cheilotoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cheilotoma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Chelymorpha Chevrolat, 1836	Chelymorpha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Chelymorpha Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name plus names by Blanchard, Guérin-Méneville and Agassiz Circeus (talk)	Y
Chrysochus Chevrolat, 1836	Chrysochus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Chrysochus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name conserved name; placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 2298 (ICZN (2012))	Y
Chrysopeplis Dejean, 1836	Chrysopeplis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Gemminger & Harold place it as a synonym of Chrysodina Baly aka Spintherophyta Dejean.	Y
Cladophila Chevrolat, 1836	Cladophila Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to Leschen & Węgrzynowicz (1998), this is now a synonym of Crotchia Fowler, 1886 This actually turned up a huge surprise. In 1847, Schaum placed the species Psoa americana Fabricius, 1801:294 in Cladophila. Unless I'm mistaken, this makes Cladophila Schaum, 1847 available. However, I cannot find any information on the taxonomic whereabouts of Fabricius' species! except a passing mention by hope that it's apparently a Languria. I'm emailing Jerzy Borowski about this. Circeus (talk)	Y
Cladophora Dejean, 1836	Cladophora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Per Sekerka 2014:272, this is Caloclada Guérin-Méneville, 1844 (=Octocladiscus Thomson, 1856), Circeus (talk)	Y
Clamophora Chevrolat, 1836	Clamophora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not sure whether this should be treated as nomen nudum or not; according to Bousquet & Bouchard of course it didn't originally have any valid species, but in Nadein, 2013 it is valid but spelled as "Chlamophora" Chlamophora Agassiz, 1846 (Agassiz is presumably the author who amended the spelling) Chlamophora Chevrolat, 1837 N Deleted (Hallan duplicate, which uses the amended spelling) oddly enough, the type species given for Chlamophora is "Chlamophora clypeata Clark, 1865", which was obviously not included in the original publication for Clamophora This is common when a genus is described in details, but without actually mentioning a species to be included. I might email A.S. Konstantinov for info about this mess. Furth & Savini, 1998 assumes without any evidence that Chevrolat makes the name available. Lingafelter & al. mentions in passing a Clamophora Jacoby [1885] as a synonym/alt spelling of Chlamophora, seemingly entirely unaware that "Clamophora" is in fact the original spelling! It looks to me as though the Chrysomelid researchers have just uncritically accepted that Chevrolat 1836 made the name available (especially judging by the sources used by Furth & Savini, 1998 to correct the date of publication!), but Bousquet & Bouchard neglected to discuss this point as their main taxonomic interest is tenebrionids. I've also seen the authority for Chlamophora stated to be "Chevrolat, 1843" in some sources There it is, and if Bousquet & Bouchard are correct about Clamophora Chevrolat, 1836, it is likely to be the place of availability (it is cited as such by Jacoby, anyway).	Y
Coelomera Chevrolat, 1836	Coelomera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Coelomera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Colaphus Dejean, 1836	Colaphus Dejean, 1834 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Colaspidema Laporte, 1833 Corrections to related entries: (somewhat original research): the suppressed name Colaphus Dahl, 1823 can probably be considered a synonym of Colaphellus Weise, 1916, since I have seen Dahl, 1823 and the only species listed is Chrysomela sophiae (now in Colaphellus, which was a replacement name for Colaphus Redtenbacher, 1845) Y Note: some online databases, e.g. Fauna Europaea, incorrectly use Colaphus Dahl, 1823 as valid despite the fact Dahl's work was suppressed by the ICZN; I think this is also the case for some other genus names by Dahl, 1823 You haven't fixed Colaphus Dejean, 1834 yet! Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Colpodes Chevrolat, 1836	Colpodes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Colpodes Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum	Y
Colposcelis Dejean, 1836	Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Coptocephala Chevrolat, 1836	Coptocephala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Coptocephala Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name see also Labidognatha Dejean, 1836 (in L-Z section below)	Y
Coptocycla Chevrolat, 1836	Coptocycla Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Coptocycla Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Corynopalpa Dejean, 1836	Corynopalpa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum invalid synonym of Diacantha Chevrolat, 1836 (see further down when this section is more complete)	Y
Craspedonta Chevrolat, 1836	Craspedonta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Crepidodera Chevrolat, 1836	Crepidodera Dejean, 1835 † (nomen nudum) Crepidodera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name not a extinct genus, it is extant! I'm not sure if this is a "marine" genus either (since this is a flea beetle), though that flag seems to come from WoRMS	Y
Cyaniris Chevrolat, 1836	Cyaniris Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cyaniris Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum invalid subjective synonym of Smaragdina Chevrolat, 1836 (see further down when this section is more complete)	Y
Cyclodera Dejean, 1836	Cyclodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" note that Cyclodera White is an unrelated name in Cerambycidae. No one seems to have wanted to use Dejean's concept, even with a new name. Circeus (talk)	Y
Cyrtocephalus Dejean, 1836	Cyrtocephalus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" I've seen this name related to Pithophilus, Calyptomerus and Clambus. Possibly available from here.	Y
Cyrtomorphus Chevrolat, 1836	Cyrtomorphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Lacordaire made it available in 1842. Circeus (talk)
Cyrtonota Chevrolat, 1836	Cyrtonota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cyrtonota Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Damia Dejean, 1836	Damia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Dasymallus Chevrolat, 1836	Dasymallus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Dasymallus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum! in family Chrysomelidae This turns out to be available as Dasymallus Sturm, 1843:280. The type is Oedionychus leptocephalus Perty, the type of Rhinotmetus Clark, 1860 (itself, ironically enough, the subsequently available form of a different Dejean name!). On the other hand, this solves a separate nomenclatural problem in polychaetes! Dasymallus Grube, 1846 was replaced on the mistaken belief that Dejean's name was an homonym. Now there are no threats to Dasybranchus Grube, 1850. Circeus (talk)	Y
Delocrania Dejean, 1836	Delocrania Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Deloyala Chevrolat, 1836	Deloyala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Deloyala Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Delphus Dejean, 1836	Delphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Seems to be a synonym of Brachysphaenus (or one of the subgenera Lacordaire split it into, but which one's impossible to assess). Circeus (talk)	Y
Deuterocampta Chevrolat, 1836	Deuterocampta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Deuterocampta Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Dia Dejean, 1836	Dia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Dia Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum	Y
Diabrotica Chevrolat, 1836	Diabrotica Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Diabrotica Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Diacantha Chevrolat, 1836	Diacantha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Diacantha Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Diphaulaca Chevrolat, 1836	Diphaulaca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Diphaulaca Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Discomorpha Chevrolat, 1836	Discomorpha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Discomorpha Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Disonycha Chevrolat, 1836	Disonycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Disonycha Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Disopus Chevrolat, 1836	Disopus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Disopus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762	Y
Ditropidus Chevrolat, 1836	Ditropidus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Dorylas Dejean, 1836	Dorylas Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Dorynota Chevrolat, 1836	Dorynota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Dorynota Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in Chrysomelidae	Y
Echoma Chevrolat, 1836	Echoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Echoma Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Ecthrophyta Dejean, 1836	Ecthrophyta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Edusa Chevrolat, 1836	Edusa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Edusa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Edusella Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1874 "Edusa Chevrolat, 1836 has precedence over Edusella Chapuis, 1874 which is currently used as valid (e.g., Seeno and Wilcox 1982: 59). Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) cannot be used because Edusa Chevrolat was used as valid after 1899 (e.g., Weise 1923: 53). Therefore an application to the Commission is necesssary to conserve usage of the name Edusella Chapuis." Some background, possibly not relevant: the genus was originally called Edusa, but was credited to Chapuis, 1874, which would have made it a junior homonym of three others of the same name (Edusa Gistel, 1848 in Tunicata, Edusa Albers, 1860 in Gastropoda and Edusa Martens, 1860 in Mollusca, according to Bouchard et al. (2011)). So the name was changed to that of one of its former subgenera, Edusella, established by Chapuis. However, the fact Chevrolat's name was available all along means it could be switched back to Edusa in future; I suspect this will happen eventually, once Australian Beetles Volume 3 finally comes out. Edusa Albers, 1860 isn't actually on IRMNG right now, though according to WoRMS, which cites MolluscaBase, it is a synonym of Moreletia Gray, 1855 (a subgenus of Mesomphix Rafinesque, 1819). Then again, maybe Edusa Martens, 1860 is the same genus as Edusa Albers, 1860? (Y Authorship corrected) On N.Z., it has the note "(Albers MS.)". Looking up the original description (Die Heliceen nach natürlicher Verwandtschaft systematisch geordnet Edition 2, page 72) does indicate it is either Edusa Albers in Martens, 1860 or Edusa Albers, 1860, depending on who can be considered the author of the work (I think?). The title page qualifies it as such: "Zweite Ausgabe nach dem hinterlassenen manuskript besorgt von Martens". For context, Albers died in 1857. So the work is by Martens based off Albers' manuscript. I'm strongly inclined to follow the authorship of WoRMS in this case as I'm pretty sure Martens would ascribe to Albers name that were in the original manuscript. Circeus (talk)	Y
Ellipticus Chevrolat, 1836	Ellipticus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Elytrogona Chevrolat, 1836	Elytrogona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Elytrosphaera Chevrolat, 1836	Elytrosphaera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" What's Geoffroy (1762) doing being cited as the original publication for Elytrosphaera Blanchard, 1845? I assume this must have been a slipup. (This also seems to be the case for a few other genera on IRMNG, looking into the details for said publication) Fixed	Y
Endocephalus Chevrolat, 1836	Endocephalus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Endocephalus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in Chrysomelidae	Y
Entomoscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Entomoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Entomoscelis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Epytus Dejean, 1836	Epytus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name Oocyanus Hope, 1841 is a junior synonym (e.g. in Skelley (2009))	Y
Eubrachis Dejean, 1836	Eubrachis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Pseudocolaspis Laporte, 1833	Y
Euclada Dejean, 1836	Euclada Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Eugenysa Chevrolat, 1836	Eugenysa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Eugenysa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Eugonycha Chevrolat, 1836	Eugonycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Euparocha Dejean, 1836	Euparocha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Correct spelling of the valid name by Motschulsky probably should be "Euparochia" as far as I can tell; see page 189 of the original publication. I have found nothing so far to suggest it's actually the Euparocha spelling that's considered to be valid. IRMNG has a record for the Euparochia spelling as Euparochia Motschoulsky in Schrenk, 1860, but claims it to be unaccepted. Neave is clearly in the wrong here. Most authors followed Motschulsky's spelling even before Neave came along. Circeus (talk)	Y
Euprionota Chevrolat, 1836	Euprionota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Eva Dejean, 1836	Eva Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Exora Chevrolat, 1836	Exora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Exora Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in Chrysomelidae	Y
Fatua Dejean, 1836	Fatua Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in Erotylidae Fatua Crotch, 1876 could be a later usage? (See page 382 of the original publication) Definitely belongs in Erotylidae either way. Since he's explicitly using the same type species, it's kind of irrelevant. That species is also the type of Macromelea Hope, 1840. Circeus (talk)	Y
Fidia Dejean, 1836	Fidia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" I see you already dealt with Fidia Baly, 1863 and Neofidia Strother, 2020 from Kumari et al. (2020) from last year. However, the same publication also uses Fidia Motschulsky, 1860 as the valid name for the genus Lypesthes Baly, 1863, so IRMNG probably should have those two records updated as well.  Done	Y
Gamelia Dejean, 1836	Gamelia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Gastrophysa Chevrolat, 1836	Gastrophysa Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	already done by Circeus in 2020	Y
Glyptoscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Glyptoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Glyptoscelis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" valid genus not a nomen nudum Glyptoscelis Leconte, 1859 is a later usage	Y
Goniocephala Chevrolat, 1836	Goniocephala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to Leschen & Węgrzynowicz (1998), this is now a synonym of Goniolanguria Crotch, 1875 (1876?), in family Languriidae Languriidae is now a subfamily of Erotylidae according to IRMNG	Y
Gonioctena Chevrolat, 1836	Gonioctena Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	already done by Circeus in 2020	Y
Gonophora Chevrolat, 1836	Gonophora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Gonophora Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" valid genus in family Chrysomelidae not a nomen nudum Gonophora Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is a later usage	Y
Graptodera Chevrolat, 1836	Graptodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Graptodera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" available name in family Chrysomelidae; junior objective synonym of Altica Geoffroy, 1762 Graptodera Mannerheim, 1843 is a later usage	Y
Guyanica Chevrolat, 1836	Guyanica Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	already done by Circeus in 2020	Y
Hadrocera Dejean, 1836	Hadrocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Hemipyxis Dejean, 1836	Hemipyxis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" valid genus not a nomen nudum	Y
Hemisphaerota Chevrolat, 1836	Hemisphaerota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Hemisphaerota Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" valid genus not a nomen nudum Hemisphaerota Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage	Y
Hersilia Dejean, 1836	Hersilia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum Somewhat unrelated note: I'm not sure whether Embryon Thomson, 1857 is also a synonym of Brevicolaspis or not; in some publications it is, but on lamiinae.org it is a valid genus in Cerambycidae... see Talk:Embryon here on Wikispecies for my notes about this problem. Okay, so GBIF and IRMNG are irrelevant here because they both ultimately trace back to TITAN. Probably an earlier version that previously quoted Embryon as a valid cerambycid genus (or even worse, mishandled the data and listed as a cerambycid, while it wasn't even so in TITAN to begin with!). Same for CoL, which is the intermediate that fed it into IRMNG. Honestly, the part that confuses me is how Thomson could confuse a Chrysomelid and a Lamiine?? None of the sources synonymizing the name to Brevicolaspis bother with any sort of explanation! (on his second use, he specifically compares the genus with Leptochilus, rejecting his original choice of Brachychilus, but neither of these genera look anything like Brevicolaspis!) Circeus (talk) I also know that Gemminger & Harold (1874)'s Catalogus Coleopterorum volume 11 lists Embryon as a member of Chrysomelidae in page 3377, where it is positioned directly before Brevicolaspis in fact. But as far as I know there's no explanation for this position there either. You would have thought Harold or Lefèvre might have at least published an explanation in one of their many notes, both of them seem to have been rather prolific at them. Monster Iestyn (talk) anyway, I ended up listing it as taxon inquirendum. Circeus (talk)	Y
Heteraspis Chevrolat, 1836	Heteraspis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum treated as valid genus in some recent publications, such as in Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera (a chapter of which is the example cited by B&B), yet Australian Faunal Directory currently still uses the junior synonym Scelodonta as the valid name. (Perhaps this will change once Australian Beetles Volume 3 finally comes out, as with the Edusa/Edusella problem above) Heteraspis Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage Going to follow CatPalCol on this. See vol. 6, p. 83 for s discussion which I doubt they'll reverse on when Chrysomeloidea part. II comes out. Circeus (talk)	Y
Homalopus Chevrolat, 1836	Homalopus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" became available as Homalopus Chevrolat, 1837; see Bouquet & Bouchard, 2013b "Homalopus Chevrolat, 1837 has precedence over Heterichnus Warchałowski, 1991 and should be used as valid as was done by several authors (e.g., Warchałowski 1991; Steinhausen 2007)." (note that Heterichnus is currently considered a subgenus of Cryptocephalus so it remains a "synonym" on IRMNG anyway.)	Y
Hybosa Chevrolat, 1836	Hybosa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Hygrotophila Chevrolat, 1836	Hygrotophila Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Sphaerosoma Stephens, 1832, in family Alexiidae ...hang on, should that maybe be Sphaerosoma Samouelle, 1819? (which if the same genus, is misplaced in Coccinellidae for some reason) Looking around online, it does appear to be the same genus (e.g. in Checklist of the Alexiidae of the World (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea), though if I'm being honest going by the original page (page 394) I'm not entirely sure how it's available at all (the only information given on S. quercus is that it's found on oaks, with no apparent description of the beetle species itself; is this enough to make the species name even available?). But I'm entirely new to this family so I'm not going to question this for now. Okay on second thoughts, I must not be the only one who thinks Stephens, 1832 should be used rather than Samouelle, 1819: In the Errata for Volume 4 of Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera (given in Volume 7 from 2011), page 31, it lists changing the author of Sphaerosoma to Stephens, 1832, and likewise for Sphaerosoma quercus (also now a synonym of pilosum Panzer, 1793). An online version of all the Errata for Volumes 1 to 7 exists online here. Hygrotophila Champion, 1887 is a later usage, it probably refers to https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9266967 page 227] of his "On the priority of various generic names in use in British Coleoptera", which cites Chevrolat's name. What do mean "probably"? It's cited sight there in Shockley (2008), linked above. Circeus (talk)	Y
Hylax Dejean, 1836	Hylax Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Hypsomorpha Dejean, 1836	Hypsomorpha Dejean, 1837 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Hysomorpha Dejean, 1835 is a misspelling from the NZ website; even the original Nomenclator Zoologicus got the spelling right! N Deleted	Y
Iphiclus Chevrolat, 1836	Iphiclus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Erotylidae senior synonym of Brachysphaenus Lacordaire, 1842 Iphiclus Chevrolat, 1840 appears to be a later usage, based on page 173 of Revue zoologique for 1840 see also Skelley (2020) for some relevant notes (mostly to do with the subgenera Brachymerus Chevrolat, 1836 [also see further up in this section] and Neobarytopus Alvarenga, 1965), though Skelley chooses to give the authority "Dejean, 1836" instead	Y
Iscadida Dejean, 1836	Iscadida Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Ischiopachys Chevrolat, 1836	Ischiopachys Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Ischiopachys Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Chrysomelidae Ischiopachys Lacordaire, 1848 appears to be a later usage, based on page 468 of the original publication	Y
Ischyrosonyx Chevrolat, 1836	Ischyrosonyx Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" the name "Ischyrosonyx" probably became available as Ischyrosonyx Sturm, 1843	Y
Ischyrus Chevrolat, 1836	Ischyrus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Janessa Chevrolat, 1836	Janessa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Languria Latreille, 1802	Y
Labidognatha Dejean, 1836	Labidognatha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Labidognatha Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum subgenus of Coptocephala Chevrolat, 1836 (see A-J section above) Labidognatha Lacordaire, 1848 is a later usage	Y
Labidomera Chevrolat, 1836	Labidomera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Labidomera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Labidostomis Chevrolat, 1836	Labidostomis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Labidostomis Germar, 1817 and Labidostomis Redtenbacher in Russegger, 1843 are probably both later usages Labidostomus Faldermann, 1837 is a misspelling or unjustified emendation Labidostomus Gistel, 1848 emendation also exists (see Bezdek, 2020), but has no IRMNG record Added "Labidostomis Germar, 1817" is a nonexistent name. It's actually more often cited with the date 1822, mostly from Russian and Turkish authors (1817 seems more common in Spain because that's how the name is cited in Fauna Ibérica), but this appears to be a severe misunderstanding of how species name are cited. Germar did publish in 1822 species that are now in Labidostomis, but he never mentioned that generic name at the time. Clearly this phantom name (which is tellingly never accompanied by a primary source) is due to these species often being cited without the parentheses that would serve to indicate a subsequent composition. Circeus (talk)	Y
Lachnaia Chevrolat, 1836	Lachnaia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus There was also a forgotten incorrect original spelling Barathroea Lacordaire, 1848 left to synonymize. Circeus (talk)	Y
Lacpatica Chevrolat, 1836	Lacpatica Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Lacpatica Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum Lacpatica in Bechyne & Springlova-Bechyne is the first available use of this name. (To answer the note, the author is actually both Bechyne and Springlova-Bechyne themselves, going by the original publication that made it valid, {{Bechyné & Bechyné, 1977}}. Annoyingly though, MIZA's Scratchpads sites don't seem to work anymore at least for me, but there's still a DOI to the [paywalled] article on Taylor & Francis) yeah, the note is confusing. Looking at the paper (Elbakyan to the rescue!) I think they mean they couldn't consult the 1955 paper briefly mentioned as not making the name nomenclaturally available. I believe their assertion that the previous mention is unavailable because the discussed character is not discriminant enough is incorrect (I actually asked User:Dyanega about this regarding Sphaerosoma, but this is a much better example). The code (art. 13.1.1.) requires merely that there be purported characters in addition to a type species, not that these characters be necessarily sufficient. The relevant page in Bechyné, 1955 is here, the last para under Monomacra peruviana, to be precise. Y Date corrected and note added Circeus (talk) Nadein's Alticini website spells it "Lacpactica", but this is incorrect as far as I can tell. The Bechynés actually use the Lacpatica spelling in their article. At a guess, that may be lifted off Furth & Savini, 1996. Added Circeus (talk)	Y
Laertes Dejean, 1836	Laertes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Lamprotheca Dejean, 1836	Lamprotheca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Leioplacis Dejean, 1836	Leioplacis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Leioplacis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum but the available name is a confused mess. It's Leioplacis, Not Lioplacis for starters, which is Agassiz' emendation. It's another validation in D'orbigny that was difficult to track. Y Cleaned up	Y
Leiopomis Dejean, 1836	Leiopomis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Lepronota Chevrolat, 1836	Lepronota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Lepronota Chapuis, 1874 is the first available use of this name Yet another name antedated by Chevrolat in D'orbigny. Luckily, no species is included, so there is no (apparent) threat to the current definition of the genus. Hyperantha Gistel also becomes available. Circeus (talk)	Y
Lepropterus Dejean, 1836	Lepropterus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1836	Leptinotarsa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" conserved as "Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837" by ICZN in Opinion 1290 (despite not including any valid species nor description originally...?), so it is a valid name see also Polygramma Chevrolat, 1836 (see further down in this section when it is more complete) see also Myocoryna Dejean, 1836 below Leptinotarsa Stal, 1858 is a later usage; see p. 475 of Stal's "Till kännedomen om Amerikas Chrysomeliner" article. as for Leptinotarsa Klug, 1850... I have been unable to find Klug's 1850 "Verzeichniss verkäuflicher Doubletten der entomologischen Sammlung der Königlichen Universität zu Berlin" anywhere online, at least not under that title, but I'm guessing it's probably a later usage too Actually, Bousquet and Bouchard are basically disputing the reasoning for conserving the name with ascription to Dejean over Stal. Originally Leptinotaras Stal was being conserved against Polygramma, but ICZN realised that the same argument caused Leptinotarsa Dejean to be available by inclusion of Altica cinctipennis Chevrolat, 1834 (currently placed in Omophoita). Circeus (talk)	Y
Leptomorpha Chevrolat, 1836	Leptomorpha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Leptomorpha Germar, 1842 is the first available use of this name It's actually Guérin-Méneville, 1844: 277. Either way Leptomorpha Falderman, 1835 means there is no disruption. Circeus (talk)	Y
Leucocera Chevrolat, 1836	Leucocera Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	already done by Circeus in 2020	Y
Lisias Dejean, 1836	Lisias Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Lithonoma Chevrolat, 1836	Lithonoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Lithonoma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum	Y
Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836	Litosonycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" senior synonym of Asphaera Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1842 (see also Asphaera Chevrolat, 1836 in A-J section above) "Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836 has precedence over Asphaera Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1842. Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Asphaera Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1842." 2022 update: Konstantinov et al. (2022) possibly considers Litosonycha and Asphaera to be separate genera (presumably, at least from the abstract). It also recognises Pleurasphaera Bechyné, 1958 as a junior synonym of Litosonycha. Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Lybas Chevrolat, 1836	Lybas Dejean, 1835	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Macrolenes Chevrolat, 1836	Macrolenes Dejean, 1835 (uncertain) Macrolenes Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" valid genus
Malacosoma Chevrolat, 1836	Malacosoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Malacosoma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Malacosoma Hübner, 1820	Y
Megalostomis Chevrolat, 1836	Megalostomis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Megalostomis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Megalostomis Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage	Y
Melina Chevrolat, 1836	Melina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Melina Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1874 cites this name and tries to make it available, but it was already a junior homonym of Melina Philipsson, 1788 and Melina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830	Y
Melitonoma Chevrolat, 1836	Melitonoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Melitonoma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Chrysomelidae Melitonoma Lacordaire, 1848 is a later usage, see page 371 of Lacordaire (1848)	Y
Menalcas Dejean, 1836	Menalcas Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Metachroma Chevrolat, 1836	Metachroma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Metachroma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Metachroma Melsheimer, 1847 is a later usage (see page 168 of Melsheimer (1847)), though I am aware that both listed species (Metachroma melanura Melsheimer, 1847 and Metachroma thoracica Melsheimer, 1847) are now in Paria LeConte, 1858 Yeah, but I think we ought to be sensible and treat it as Chevrolat's name. sensu names are already a little too numerous in IRMNG b/c of Hallan's catalogue. Circeus (talk)	Y
Metaxyonycha Chevrolat, 1836	Metazyonycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	"The spelling Metaxyonycha is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Metazyonycha in prevailing usage and attributed to the publication of the original spelling; therefore Metaxyonycha is deemed to be the correct original spelling (ICZN 1999: Article 33.3.1)." authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Metazyonycha Chevrolat, 1846 is a later usage (see page 172 of d'Orbigny (1846), in a section authored by "(C.)" (=Chevrolat)) Metaxyonycha Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 Added Circeus (talk)	Y
Metazycera Chevrolat, 1836	Metazycera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Metazycera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Microdonta Chevrolat 1836	Microdonta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Microdonta Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum Microdonta Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is a later usage	Y
Microrhopala Chevrolat, 1836	Microrhopala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Microrhopala Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Microrhopala Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is a later usage	Y
Microtheca Dejean, 1836	Microtheca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Monachus Chevrolat, 1836	Monachus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Monachus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Monachus Fleming, 1822 Monachus Melsheimer, 1847 is a later usage (see page 174 of Melsheimer (1847)), though Monachus viridis Melsheimer, 1847 is now in Diachus LeConte, 1880 (as a synonym of Diachus auratus (Fabricius, 1801))	Y
Monolepta Chevrolat, 1836	Monolepta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Monolepta Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Monomacra Chevrolat, 1836	Monomacra Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Monomacra Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Monoplatus Chevrolat, 1836	Monoplatus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Monoplatus Clark, 1860 is usually given as the first available use of this name. However, according to Bouchard et al. (2011), Monoplatus was first made available by Chevrolat in 1846; see page 333 of d'Orbigny (1846), which gives a short description of the genus (but with no available species names). also see Sphaeronychus Dejean, 1836 below (when this section is more complete)	Y
Mycotretus Chevrolat, 1836	Mycotretus Dejean, 1835	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Myocera Dejean, 1836	Myocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Myochrous Chevrolat, 1836	Myochrous Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Myocoryna Dejean, 1836	Myocoryna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" According to the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Volume 6, Myocoryna Stål, 1859 and Thlibocoryna Riley, 1875 (a replacement name) are synonyms of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1836 (see above earlier in this section)	Y
Nerissus Dejean, 1836	Nerissus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Noda Chevrolat, 1836	Noda Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	already done by Circeus in 2020	Y
Notosacantha Chevrolat, 1836	Notosacantha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Notosacantha Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Notosacantha Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage	Y
Notozona Chevrolat, 1836	Notozona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Notozona Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836	Ochralea Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	already done by Circeus in 2020 Oh dear, Ochralea Clark, 1865... I actually already had a discussion with Dyanega about this and Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836 over on the English Wikipedia (see here). Basically, Hazmi & Wagner (2010) revalidated Ochralea Clark, 1865 as a separate genus from Monolepta, but without realising (perhaps understandably) that it was a junior homonym of Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836, which itself is now a synonym of Oides Weber, 1801. Unfortunately there is not yet a substitute name for Ochralea Clark, 1865, so it currently stands as a valid genus but needing a replacement name. Oh, it gets better. In my opinion, Clarke is explicitly using Chevrolat's genus ("The genus Ochralea, proposed by Chevrolat, appears to be a very natural one, and of much more easy definition than the species themselves that compose it."). There is a cogent argument that his name is indeed just a later use (well, misuse in this case...) of Chevrolat (that Clarke believed it unavailable is irrelevant) and not even available in its own right! Circeus (talk)	Y
Octotoma Dejean, 1836	Octotoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Octotoma Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is a later usage	Y
Odontionopa Chevrolat, 1836	Odontionopa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Odontionopa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus not a synonym of Eboo Reid, 1993! That is only true for the junior homonym Odontionopa Erichson, 1842. As for the separate homonym Odontionopa Motschulsky, 1866, it is a synonym of Pagria, not Heteraspis as was given in IRMNG. Circeus (talk)	Y
Odontoderes Chevrolat, 1836	Odontoderes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" probably became available as Odontoderes Saunders, 1846 ...which itself is a junior homonym of Odontoderes Schönherr in Sahlberg, 1823 even if it wasn't already a junior synonym Also there's some mess in GBIF about this. The type of Odontoderes Saunders would be Cryptocephalus australis Boisduval, 1835 by homonymy. However, in GBIF, there is an entry for "Odontoderes australis Boisduval, 1846" (a nonexistent name, though it is how Saunders cite Boisduval's species), which is given as belonging to the senior homonym Odontoderes Schönherr! Circeus (talk)	Y
Odontota Chevrolat, 1836	Odontota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Odontota Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Odontota Mannerheim, 1843's only species, Odontota rubrolineata Mannerheim, 1843, is now included in Microrhopala Chevrolat, 1836	Y
Oedipodes Dejean, 1836	Oedipodes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" no available name for this so far as I'm aware ("NOMINA NUDA (Not placed)" in Seeno & Wilcox, 1982) Actually... This at the very least available from Chevrolat, 1847:734. This is an interesting case, really. The Illigerian name mentioned by Chevrolat in D'Orbigny was (as far as I can tell) intended as a subgeneric, but Illiger calls his subdivisions "Familien" and uses adjectival forms, rendering them unavailable. Although the name were used for subfamilial classification for a while in what was then known as Halticidae, and another of those names is the direct predecessor of Longitarsus. There's debate whether those names based on Illiger's "Familien" should be attributed to Berthold or Latreille. If the Berthold versions are available, then it follows that Dejean's use too is available from 1836. This needs confirmation from an Alticini specialist, but assuming Google Translates didn't mangle Kuschera, 1859's explanations, this name appears to be either a junior (possibly objective) synonym or in the vicinity of Oedionychus. Circeus (talk) So, as it turns out, Chevrolat later (1849:6) assigns "Oe. annulicornis". as the type. Now in 1836, Oedipodes annulicornis was a nomen nudum, but I can't confirm whether a corresponding name was published in the intervening 13 years. Circeus (talk)	Y
Oligocera Chevrolat, 1836	Oligocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Oligocorynus Chevrolat, 1836	Oligocorynus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus According to page 107 of Alvarenga (1994), both Alloiotelus Hope, 1841 and Zonarius Hope, 1841 are synonyms of this genus	Y
Omaspides Chevrolat, 1836	Omaspides Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Omaspides Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Omaspides Boheman, 1850 is probably a later usage	Y
Omophoita Chevrolat, 1836	Omophoita Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Omophoita Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Longasphaera Bechyné, 1955 is now a synonym since Duckett (2005, imprint 2004) see also Ptena Chevrolat, 1836 (further down in this section) 2022 update: Konstantinov et al. (2022) considers Ptena Chevrolat, 1836 to be a senior synonym of Asphaera Duponchel & Chevrolat in d’Orbigny, 1842 instead. Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Omoteina Chevrolat, 1836	Omoteina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Omoteina Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Chrysomelidae Omoteina Blanchard, 1845 is probably a later usage, and, at least from the original publication, should also be in family Chrysomelidae even if for some reason it wasn't a later usage Yeah, no one consider Blanchard as the original author. Circeus (talk)	Y
Omototus Chevrolat, 1836	Omototus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" would say this became as available as Omototus Clark, 1860, but first I have to wonder why the Chevrolat name is placed in Curculionidae on IRMNG rather than Chrysomelidae...? Checking volume 9 of Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle, Chevrolat in page 102 indicates it is meant to be placed in "Alticites", which is also the same group of beetles that Crotch's name is placed with today. Sounds likely it should be in Chrysomelidae after all then. Yeah, looks like an error occurred somewhere. 'Omotus Chevrolat, 1837 is probably a misspelling in Hallan. Circeus (talk)	Y
Onchocephala Chevrolat, 1836	Onchocephala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" According to Staines' 2015 catalog of Hispines (tribe Oncocephalini page), this became available as Oncocephala Agassiz, 1846 Onchocephala Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is also a synonym of Oncocephala Agassiz: page 281 is where the type species of the latter (O. quadrilobata) became available. This does mean at first glance that Onchocephala Guérin-Méneville, 1844 appears to have priority though, and Bouchard et al. 2011 have commented on that... ...but in their 2020 additions and corrections, they stated it was a junior homonym of Onchocephala de Blainville, 1828 (Annelides), which is not on IRMNG. So Agassiz's name must be used then, if this is actually the case. And they are uncharacteristically incorrect in this instance. Onchocephala is actually a family-group name, and does not enter in synonymy with Guérin-Méneville's genus-group name. Circeus (talk)	Y
Ootheca Dejean, 1836	Ootheca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Ootheca Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1875 is probably a later usage	Y
Oreina Chevrolat, 1836	Oreina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Oreina Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Oreina Monros & Bechyne, 1956 is a synonym of Chrysochloa Hope, 1840, which is currently considered a subgenus of Oreina; as it turns out, Monros & Bechyne designated Chrysomela tristis as the type species of Oreina (see page 1129 of their article, but this is also the type species of Chrysochloa Hope, 1840 (see page 165 of Hope (1840))! According to Bieńkowski's 2019 Chrysolina of the world (warning, PDF with 920 pages!) Oreina has sometimes been treated as a subgenus within Chrysolina, but most leaf beetle workers treat it as a valid genus instead; this may explain why there apparently must have been both Oreina as a valid genus and Oreina as a Chrysolina subgenus in Hallan's catalog going by the taxonomic notes on IRMNG (which would indicate that whoever compiled the subfamily Chrysomelinae page on there completely missed this inconsistency?). Viewing a Wayback Machine archive of the Chrysomelinae page... wow I was right that is exactly what happened. Alright, so it's absolutely impossible to argue that "Oreina Monros & Bechyne, 1956" is available. Under the code it is a misapplication based on Motschulsky technically invalid typification (ICZN article 70.2). At first blush it looks like most modern authors don't follow Monros & Bechyne (seeing the relevant pages in CPC vol. 6 would help. I have found a download, but I'm mildly concerned because I've never handled a djvu file on desktop). Borowiec et al., 2011 refer to "taxonomic and nomenclatural chaos within the genus Oreina", which does seem to accurately reflect the situation! CPC vol. 6 treats Oreina Chevrolat, 1836 as a valid genus with type species Chrysomela speciosa Linnaeus, 1758, with Chrysochloa actually as a subgenus of it (and with type species Chrysomela tristis Fabricius, 1792). I've never seen anyone give "Monros & Bechyné, 1956" as an authority for Oreina (so far), for all I know that may have been invented by the Hallan catalog (?). (But then again, I have not yet seen Daccordi's 1994 article with a list of genera in Chrysomelinae...) Monster Iestyn (talk) As for DjVus, I've tried out WinDjView and it seems good to me (at least for Windows). If viewing them at all is your problem, that is. Monster Iestyn (talk) oooooh, aphia was just updated with "substatuses" that make it easier to mark a name as unavailable or misapplied! Such good timing! V. excited for this new development! Circeus (talk)
Oxygona Chevrolat, 1836	Oxygona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Oxygona Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum However, Oxygona Erichson in Schomburgk, 1848 is a later use of Oxygona Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1847 ( Added)
Ozomena Chevrolat, 1836	Ozomena Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Ozomena Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum according to Lee & Bezděk (2019), Ozomena Harold, 1876 is a synonym of Theopea Baly, 1864; by implication of Gemminger & Harold, 1876's synonymy of both of Dejean's undescribed species with Theopea impressa, this also makes Ozomena Chevrolat, 1836 name probably a synonym too. From the same source, it gets more complicated though with Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle, as apparently Chevrolat listed Ozomena twice: once in volume 6 (Chevrolat (1845)) and once in volume 9 (Chevrolat (1847)), which are now synonyms of Cerophysa and Theopea respectively. Unfortunately I cannot tell which of these uses Ozomena Chevrolat, 1849 from Hallan's catalog is supposed to be, if either of them at all. The situation here is similar to Ochralea: Should this be considered simply a misapplication of Chevrolat's name (cf. the treatment of "Ozomena Harold" in Lee & Bezděk, 2019) or a separately available name that happens to be a junior homonym? I brought the point up to Doug (since we might end up proposing a new name for Ochralea Clarke). Circeus (talk)
Pachnephorus Chevrolat, 1836	Pachnephorus Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	Pachnephoriscus Lopatin, 1976 is a subgenus (e.g. in Zoia (2007))	Y
Pachybrachis Chevrolat, 1836	Pachybrachis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Pachybrachis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Pachybrachis Faldermann, 1837 is a later usage (page 381 is the description for Pachybrachis scripticollis Faldermann, 1837, which is still in the genus according to the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Volume 6)	Y
Pachyonychus Chevrolat, 1836	Pachyonychus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Pachyonychus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum ...well, this is a funny one: it could either be a synonym of Pachyonychus Melsheimer, 1847 or Pachyonychis Clark, 1860, which are currently considered two separate flea beetle genera Pachyonychus Crotch, 1873 is actually a misspelling of Clark's name; in the same publication Crotch went on to replace Clark's name with Hamletia believing it to be a junior homonym; likewise Clarkaltica was a replacement name for Melsheimer's name they even both have a single species named paradoxus or paradoxa, to make things worse! Nadein's Alticini website actually gets the authority for Pachyonychus Melsheimer mixed up with Crotch, 1873, which is incorrect. ah, hang on, in page 63 of Clark's work, Dejean's undescribed "Pachyonychus dimidiaticornis" (the only species listed in Dejean's catalogue under that name) is listed as a synonym of Pachyonychis paradoxus Clark. This could settle Dejean's Pachyonychus as a synonym of Pachyonychis Clark, 1860 then maybe? I'd accept that, but it turns out the update I get excited about under Oreina makes it impossible to mark nomina nuda as synonyms of other names! Circeus (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) The really funny bit is that Weise himself gets confused and ends up accidentally citing the names he replaces as "Pachyonychus Crotch (Type paradoxus Melsh. 1846)". Circeus (talk)	Y
Pales Chevrolat, 1836	Pales Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Pales Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Pales Meigen, 1800 (published in a suppressed work) and Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (which is valid; Neopales Coquillet, 1910 is an unneccessary replacement name, see Evenhuis (2018: 40)) ( Done) Floricola Gistl, 1848 and Eupales Lefèvre, 1885 are both replacement names for Dejean's name; many publications have used Eupales as valid, but in fact Floricola should be used as valid according to some recent ones (e.g. Bezděk (2020))  Done Eupales Dillon & Dillon, 1945 itself is a junior homonym of Eupales Lefèvre, 1885 and was replaced by Eupalessa Monné, 2005 ( Done)	Y
Pandona Dejean, 1836	Pandona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Pandora Chevrolat, 1843 is available and antedates Pandona Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1847 Circeus (talk)	Y
Pedema Dejean, 1836	Pedema Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum, but it is an unavailable name on the other hand, Oedionychus Berthold in Latreille, 1827 is a nomen nudum according to some articles (checking the original description cited on IRMNG, there is no description specifically for the genus, nor any included species), and the actual available (and valid) name for the genus is actually Oedionychis Latreille in Cuvier, 1829 as a side note, this exact same problem exists for some other flea beetle genera on the same page as Oedionychus in Berthold, 1827: Longitarsus Berthold in Latreille, 1827 is a nomen nudum; Longitarsus Latreille in Cuvier, 1829 is the available (and valid) name (page 155), latter name not on IRMNG Psylliodes Berthold in Latreille, 1827 is a nomen nudum; Psylliodes Latreille in Cuvier, 1829 is the available (and valid) name (page 154), latter name not on IRMNG What we have here is a disagreement on the availability of Berthold's name (discussed above under Oedipodes). personally, I take these as available through indication to a published description (12.2.1). Circeus (talk) I probably would have treated them as available myself if I didn't know better to be honest, but apparently Doug thinks otherwise going by his edits to Psylliodes on Wikispecies in 2019; I followed suit for the Longitarsus page likewise last year. He's not the only one who thinks this, e.g. Konstantinov (2005) for Longitarsus. I think the inference is that the description for the "Galérucites" group in Berthold's work ([4]) fits all the included genera in the group but doesn't distinguish the genera themselves from each other at all, making them nomina nuda. But I'm not a code expert so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and they're still available as you say. Monster Iestyn (talk)
Periscapta Chevrolat, 1836	Periscapta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" I have no idea why some sources use this as valid over Prasocuroides Bechyné, 1959, unless maybe Chevrolat made it available in the Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle? hm, Periscapta is indeed listed in page 625 of volume 9, but I don't think it's available here either unfortunately MIZA's Scratchpads sites are all down which also brings down all of their online archives of Bechyné's papers... luckily the one establishing Prasocuroides is available on Wayback Machine here. I agree that Periscapta is not available, but the reason it is in the synonymy of Prasocuroides is that Vogel thought his Prasocuris nana (protologue here) to be the Periscapta nana of Dejean. I do not, however, see any use of Periscapta as the valid name for that genus in the recent literature?? Circeus (talk) yeah, it's weird, I scraped Google Book's snippet view of {{Seeno & Wilcox, 1982}} for instance and I think they treat "Periscapta Dejean, 1837" as valid (they give a general distribution of "S. Africa" to it on the same line which indicates they do, if you can see the actual text with it); but after that I think nobody has really talked about the genus at least recently?? Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Phaedra Dejean, 1836	Phaedra Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" this became available as Phaedra Chapuis, 1874 (now a synonym of Lamprosphaerus Baly, 1859)	Y
Philocalis Dejean, 1836	Philocalis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name, has priority over Philocalis Boisduval, 1835 Technically, it does not, because "Philocalis" Boisduval, 1835 doesn't seem to exist... I've marked it as an incorrect authorship in IRMNG. I'm curious what Seeno and Wilcox cites as the place of publciation for this name! Circeus (talk) It gives "Philocalis Boisduval, 1835: 552" ([5]), which is apparently the description for Galleruca pulchra, the only species included in Dejean's catalogue. So somehow the authorship of the species was misapplied to the genus itself it seems. Monster Iestyn (talk) Found it! Authorship is Chevrolat (1849:6). Circeus (talk) @Circeus: But Philocalis is available from Dejean's catalog as Philocalis Dejean, 1836 anyway, was this needed? Monster Iestyn (talk) nevermind. I got confused by the discussion oh Philocalis Boisduval. Circeus (talk)	Y
Phratora Chevrolat, 1836	Phratora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Phratora Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Phratora Faldermann, 1837 is a later usage	Y
Phygasia Dejean, 1836	Phygasia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Phygasia Baly, 1876 is a later usage	Y
Phyllecthris Dejean, 1836	Phyllecthris Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Phyllecthris Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1875 is a later usage	Y
Phyllobrotica Chevrolat, 1836	Phyllobrotica Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Phyllobrotica Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Phyllobrotica Redtenbacher in Huegel, 1844 is a later usage	Y
Phyllotreta Chevrolat, 1836	Phyllotreta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Phyllotreta Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Phyllotreta Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage There's some messed up stuff going around the name Orchestris. Orchestris Kirby, 1836:217 cannot be typified by Chrysomela nemora (CPC ed.1 6:545), because that's not an originally included species (those are Haltica vicina and Haltica puncticollis, both by Kirby, 1836). That typification is associated with Orchestris sensu Crotch, 1873:65 (an unavailable misapplication, and certainly not a junior homonym as given in AFD!) and probably the invalid typification by Chevrolat pointed out by Bousquet & Bouchard. Kirby's species have been subsequently cited as synonyms of species in Disonycha Chevrolat, but I'm not clear whether that is considered current... Circeus (talk)	Y
Physicerus Chevrolat, 1836	Physicerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Physicerus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762	Y
Physimerus Chevrolat, 1836	Physimerus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" the name first became available as Physimerus Clark, 1860	Y
Physocoryna Chevrolat, 1836	Physocoryna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Physonota Chevrolat, 1836	Physonota Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Anacassis Spaeth, 1913 Physonota Boheman, 1854 is a separate genus "The name Physonota is attributed to Boheman (1854: 190) in the literature (e.g., Borowiec 1999: 172; Riley et al. 2002: 646) with Physonota alutacea Boheman, 1854 as type species. To conserve the current concept of the genera Anacassis and Physonota, we believe the best avenue is to apply to the Commission to reject the name Physonota Chevrolat, 1836 for the Principles of Priority and Homonymy."	Y
Physonychis Dejean, 1836	Physonychis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" name first became available as Physonychis Clark, 1860 Physonychis Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1875 is a later usage of Physonychis Clark, 1860 (though the original publication also cite's Dejean's name	Y
Physopalpa Dejean, 1836	Physopalpa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" never became available nor valid as far as I can tell	Y
Plagiodera Chevrolat, 1836	Plagiodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Plagiodera Chevrolat, 1839 is a later usage all information from Australian Faunal Directory refers to the Dejean catalogue name, not this one likewise, IRMNG's note about the above being cited elsewhere as Chevrolat, 1837 actually applies to the Dejean catalogue name (which is what AFD actually cites as the original publication) @Monster Iestyn: I'm a little confused. DO you mean this is a later usage (aka the same name) or a later homonym with a different type? Circeus (talk) @Circeus: Sorry about that, it is a later usage as I already said. I was just figuring out why Tony left a note "Authority cited elsewhere as Chevrolat, 1837." on the Chevrolat, 1839 record basically. (The answer being that he must have seen that AFD gave the authority as "Chevrolat, 1837"). Monster Iestyn (talk) In a way, I was also musing that he didn't notice Chevrolat, 1839 was citing a different publication ("Rev. Zool. (Soc. Cuv.), 2 page(s): 267") to AFD, and that AFD was actually citing Dejean's catalogue, just like the "Dejean, 1835" record is/was. ..If that's still confusing though, then don't worry about it I guess. Monster Iestyn (talk) Perhaps linking AFD's own record will help things make sense maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) No no, that's all fairly clear that it's just several levels of corrections/bibliographical errors that caused multiple records to end up in IRMNG. Something to keep in mind when trying to look back at the current AFD record is that the AFD import was in 2007, so there's been plenty of possibilities to update it since... Circeus (talk)	Y
Planagetes Chevrolat, 1836	Planagetes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" name first became available as Planagetes Chevrolat, 1843	Y
Platycorynus Chevrolat, 1836	Platycorynus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Platycorynus Chevrolat, 1841 is a later usage	Y
Plectroscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Plectroscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Plectroscelis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831 Plectroscelis Faldermann, 1837 is a later usage; this is a description of Plectroscelis breviuscula which is now in Chaetocnema	Y
Pleuraulaca Chevrolat, 1836	Pleuraulaca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Iphimeis Baly, 1864 "Pleuraulaca Chevrolat, 1836 has precedence over Iphimeis Baly, 1864 which is currently used as valid (e.g., Bechyné 1953: 168). Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Iphimeis Baly, 1864. Pleuraulaca Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage That's not even available as far as I can tell! Circeus (talk) I had the wrong blanchard, 1845 publication. Circeus (talk) Paraulaca Baly, 1888 (now a synonym of Paridea Baly, 1886) has no relation to the misspelling of Pleuraulaca by Monrós & Bechyné 1956, and can be left be Neave's comments for Paraulaca Ogloblin, 1936 suggest it should also be placed as a synonym of Paridea Baly, 1886, since its replacement name Carapaula Chûjô, 1962 is a synonym of it as well At first blush—impossible to be fully certain because Ogloblin is from the Fauna SSSR series (if I interpret Orlova-Bienkowskaja & Bieńkowski, 2014 correctly, anyway) and Chujo from an issue of Philippine Journal of Science that is not digitized—it looks like Ogloblin's name is an unavailable sensu name, making Chûjô, 1962 (NOT "Ghujo" as listed in the note!) an objective synonym of Bally. But then both Bally and Chujo's name are apparently treated as invalid synonyms of Paridea either way (Lee & Bezděk, 2014). So no nomenclatural issues so long as no one tries to revalidate Carapaula. Phew! Circeus (talk) Some Brazilian authors have used "Paraulaca dives" for the species, and I dunno if that makes it impossible to enact a reversal of precedence... IMO Bouchard & Bousquet should have synonymised this genus with Eriphylina Lefèvre instead to begin with, as that genus is seemingly a lot more obscure (possibly a synonym of Guyanica?? Monrós & Bechyné, 1956:1125 synonymized it, but it's unclear whether it was later revalidated... I can barely find any mentions of ot at all) and replacing it would have led to fairly minimal disruption, whereas Iphimeis dives is an agricultural pest. Circeus (talk) Yeah, after Bechyné died in the 70s, I don't think anyone has published anything on Guyanica/Eriphylina at all (except B&B and later Bezdek (2020) treating Guyanica as valid, that's about it). I don't know many articles on Iphimeis/Pleuraulaca either. As I said further down here at Sphaeroplacis it's quite hard to find many recent publications on anything in the subfamily Eumolpinae altogether, especially on those in the Neotropics. (Mind you, maybe I've been ignoring the articles not about taxonomy possibly...) Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Pleurophora Chevrolat, 1836	Pleurophora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Pleurophora Chevrolat, 1837 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Plusiopeplis Dejean, 1836	Plusiopeplis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836"	Y
Podagrica Chevrolat, 1836	Podagrica Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	Podagrica Küster, 1847 is a later usage (here's the original page to save you time, since some of the page numbers don't display on BHL for some reason), it is just a redescription of Podagrica fuscicornis, which is still in the genus	Y
Polychalca Chevrolat, 1836	Polychalca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Polychalca Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name	Y
Polyclada Chevrolat, 1836	Polyclada Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name Polyclada Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage not sure what publication Polyclada Chevrolat, 1833 (from Hallan's catalog) is citing, but it's possible the year is a typo for "1835" like in Nadein's Alticini catalogue, which would mean it's another duplicate of a Dejean's catalogue name	Y
Polygramma Chevrolat, 1836	Polygramma Dejean, 1835	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Prionocheilus Chevrolat, 1836	Prionocheilus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" According to Chevrolat in page 469 of Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle volume 10, this is a synonym of Priotelus Hope, 1841	Y
Prionodera Chevrolat, 1836	Prionodera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Prionodera Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name Prionodera Erichson, 1847 is a later usage; the cited page (here) is a description for Prionodera lutea Erichson, 1847, which is still in the genus Jodasia Bechyně, 1951 and Stenolampra Baly, 1859 are now both synonyms (see Flowers (2004)).	Y
Promecosoma Chevrolat, 1836	Promecosoma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" This name's availability is backdated to Gemminger & harold, 1874 through ICZN art. 11.6.1. Circeus (talk)
Promecotheca Dejean, 1836	Promecotheca Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" according to Staines's 2015 Hispines catalog the valid name is Promecotheca Blanchard, 1853 In Bouchard et al. (2011) the authority is given as "Chevrolat, 1847", referring to page 482 of Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle volume 10 In their 2020 corrections however, they corrected this to Promecotheca Guérin-Méneville, 1840. I find this kind of fascinating. Neaves, for all his shortcomings, still provides at least a starting point and easy sanity check, and consulting it would surprisingly often avoid subsequent woes like these! Circeus (talk) as a side-note, the cited page for Promecotheca Guérin-Méneville, 1840 gives only two species, P. diluta and P. petelii, neither of which are the type species in Staines's catalog, Hispa cyanipes Erichson 1834. In fact, while the latter species is still in Promecotheca, the former is now the type species of Hispoleptis Baly, 1864 according to Staines Template:Todo	Y
Proseicela Chevrolat, 1836	Proseicela Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Proseicela Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name Prosicela Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation	Y
Protophysus Chevrolat, 1836	Protophysus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Protophysus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762	Y
Prototrigona Chevrolat, 1836	Prototrigona Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Prototrigona Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum! never became available nor valid as far as I can tell	Y
Ptena Chevrolat, 1836	Ptena Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Ptena Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum invalid synonym of Omophoita Chevrolat, 1836 (see entry earlier in this section) 2022 update: Konstantinov et al. (2022) considers Ptena Chevrolat, 1836 to be a senior synonym of Asphaera Duponchel & Chevrolat in d’Orbigny, 1842 instead. Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Pyxis Dejean, 1836	Pyxis Dejean, 1835	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" placed in family Chrysomelidae according to page 667 of volume 10 of Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle became available (and valid) as Pixis Chevrolat, 1843 (link to cited page) Pyxis Chevrolat, 1843 can probably be considered a misspelling of Pixis, since it does not use this spelling in volume 3 (only in volume 10) There is IMO an argument for Pixis being an incorrect original spelling and Pyxis an emendation, but Pyxis would be a junior homonym so that's a pretty daft approach. Circeus (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)	Y
Raphidopalpa Chevrolat, 1836	Raphidopalpa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Raphidopalpa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum invalid synonym of Aulacophora Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 Raphidopalpa Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage There are also duplicates of both the Dejean and Blanchard names on Neave, but with the spelling "Rhaphidopalpa": Rhaphidopalpa Dejean, 1835 and Rhaphidopalpa Blanchard, 1845 Wow, that's unusualy messy for Neave! Rhaphidopalpa seems to first show up in an anonymous list of genera wanted for exchanges in 1839. It doesn't take off until Fairmaire's 1849-50 Essai sur les coléoptères de la Polynésie (p. 119). AFD cites Rosenhauer, 1857, but that is also not available. Circeus (talk)	Y
Rhinotmetus Chevrolat, 1836	Rhinotmetus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" became available as Rhinotmetus Clark, 1860 See note under Dasymallus above. Circeus (talk)	Y
Rhombopalpa Chevrolat, 1836	Rhombopalpa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Rhombopalpa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Oides Weber, 1801
Romalocera Dejean, 1836	Romalocera Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" synonym of Phrynocepha Baly, 1861 according to Nadein's Alticini website The synonymy is by Harold, 1873. Circeus (talk)	Y
Rumina Dejean, 1836	Rumina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" no available name for this so far as I'm aware ("NOMINA NUDA in Eumolpinae, not identified" in Seeno & Wilcox, 1982)	Y
Saccomorphus Chevrolat, 1836	Saccomorphus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Erotylidae I think Bouchard & Bousquet are wrong to cite Alvarenga here. Everything recent (e.g. Robertson et al., 2004, Yvinec, 2010, McHugh & Chaboo, 2015, Skelley & Gasca-Álvarez, 2021) treats or mentions this name as a valid subgenus of Iphiclus. Circeus (talk) Charidemus Gistl, 1848 is an unnecessary replacement name This name appears to have been overlooked by Bezděk, 2020 Circeus (talk) That would be because Bezděk, 2020 only covered Gistel names for Chrysomelidae; this is for Erotylidae and so was out of scope for Bezděk's article. Monster Iestyn (talk) Yeah. I shoulda deleted that comment since I noticed that AFTER (and then had to fix the families XD I used in URMNG). Circeus (talk) Morphoides Hope, 1841 is a junior synonym of this genus, not a synonym of Neomorphoides Alvarenga, 1977 (which itself is now a synonym of Brachymerus Chevrolat, 1836; also it's marked as extinct for some reason??) Skelly (2020) says that Morphoides sensu Crotch, 1876 (which is marked as extinct as well??) is a also synonym of Brachymerus Chevrolat, 1836 We almost overlooked Saccomorphus Crotch, 1876. Circeus (talk)	Y
Sceloenopla Chevrolat, 1836	Sceloenopla Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Sceloenopla Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae Sceloenopla Blanchard in d'Orbigny, 1846 is a later usage; according to Staines (2015) the species described at the cited page (Sceloenopla angusticostata) is now a synonym of Sceloenopla maculata which is still in the genus (though for some reason Staines cites angusticostata as originally being in Cephalodonta?)	Y
Schematiza Chevrolat, 1836	Schematiza Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Schematiza Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name in family Chrysomelidae Schematiza Guérin-Méneville, 1844 is a later usage	Y
Smaragdina Chevrolat, 1836	Smaragdina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Smaragdina Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid name Smaragdina Faldermann, 1837 is a later usage	Y
Spartophila Chevrolat, 1836	Spartophila Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Gonioctena Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836; takes priority over Spartophila Stephens, 1834 While as B&B already note, Spartophila does not appear in Stephens' Illustrations of British Entomology, it does actually appear in his 1839 A Manual of British Coleoptera on page 310. It sounds like both the year and page number got miscited as 1834 and 340 somehow over the years? Unfortunately this doesn't provide an earlier type designation than Hope, 1840, but it was worth a look just in case. ...Actually, it's even *stranger* than that, on a closer inspection at Stephens, 1839: 310 ...that page also cites the same mysterious page 340 in volume iv of Mandibulata supposedly in Illustrations of British entomology? Well, that explains the propagation of the 1834 citation, at least. Circeus (talk) Spartophila Gené, 1839 is a later usage	Y
Sphaerometopa Chevrolat, 1836	Sphaerometopa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Sphaerometopa Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Chrysomelidae	Y
Sphaeronychus Dejean, 1836	Sphaeronychus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Sphraeronychus Dejean, 1835 is an incorrect original spelling "The spelling Sphaeronychus is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Sphraeronychus in prevailing usage and attributed to the publication of the original spelling; therefore Sphaeronychus is deemed to be the correct original spelling (ICZN 1999: Article 33.3.1)."	Y
Sphaeropalpus Chevrolat, 1836	Sphaeropalpus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Sphaeropalpus Guérin, 1844 is probably the earliest available use of this name	Y
Sphaeropis Chevrolat, 1836	Sphaeropis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Sphaeroplacis Chevrolat, 1836	Sphaeroplacis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Sphaeroplacis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum synonymy with Antitypona Weise, 1921 should be correct, it's listed as one in Bechyné's 1953 Neotropical Eumolpinae catalog. however, now I'm here I vaguely remember noticing years ago that one or two species are apparently noted as originally placed under Sphaeroplacis ...particularly Antitypona sanguinea (Fauvel, 1861) and Parachalcoplacis tricolor (Fauvel, 1861) (now Chalcoplacis tricolor) and indeed they are ([6] [7]), oh dear, so Fauvel probably unwittingly made Sphaeroplacis available (unless Chevrolat beat him to it in the Dictionnaire?) Fauvel definitely made it available. Chevrolat didn't. Sphaeroplacis Fauvel, 1861 Y created Circeus (talk) I now also remember that Clavareau, 1914's Eumolpinae catalog lists Sphaeroplacis as a genus in the "Incertae sedis" section (and evidently Lefèvre listed it his 1885 Eumolpinae catalog as well), so there goes the "has not been used as a valid name after 1899" condition in 23.9.1.1. Couldn't tell you offhand if anyone has used the name as valid since then, I'd need to traverse Bechyné's earlier articles to check that (I hear a new website for MIZA's Chrysomelidae collection is being worked on atm, maybe the Bechyné articles will be reuploaded there?) Even if it wasn't for Clavareau, I don't know if enough works have been published in the last 50 years that mention Antitypona (or indeed enough authors) to meet Article 23.9.1.2 or not offhand, this would take some real scouring to verify. There was definitely a bit of a gap with works on the subfamily Eumolpinae at all in the 80s (after both Doris H. Blake and Jan Bechyné died in the 70s), even now you'd be hard pressed to find many people publishing works on the subfamily (especially those in the Neotropics) even since I started editing Wikipedia articles to do with leaf beetles 4 or 5 years ago. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got over the years. then again I don't think a type species has ever been designated for Sphaeroplacis Fauvel, 1861 (probably because nobody realised it was valid from there, obviously), but what a mess this is anyway Luckily, the name doesn't threaten Chalcoplacis. Looks like we can safely designate tricolor as type, so it's not that much of a mess, or am I overlooking something in your account? Circeus (talk) Yeah that would be the safest way to fix it, I realised that myself in my last comment. Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Sphaeropomis Dejean, 1836	Sphaeropomis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Chevrolat says the type is "Altica globata Ol[ivier]". I can't find any such species though.	Y
Spintherophyta Dejean, 1836	Spintherophyta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Spintherophyta Lefèvre, 1875 is actually another one of those unavailable "sensu" names we've been talking about with Doug recently. It was "replaced" with Phytospinthera Monros & Bechyne, 1956 ([8]), which itself later became a synonym of Metaparia Crotch, 1873 in {{Flowers, 1996}}. A recent revision of Metaparia at the end of last year ({{Sublett & Cook, 2021}}) still maintains these two as synonyms, so I've checked for myself. Lefèvre is explicitly borrowing the name alone and not intending to use the concept of Dejean at all, just the name. It's something that would fall under ICBN art. 48.1, but the ICZN does not have an explicit provision for this particular case and it probably falls into a sensu situation indeed. It would be advantageous, IMO, for this provision to be borrowed into the ICZN. Circeus (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)	Y
Stenodiloba Chevrolat, 1836	Stenodiloba Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Stenodiloba Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" This has been synonymyzed separately, both in 1874, with Metaxyonycha (by Chapuis) and with Tymnes (by Gemminger & Harold). The former has priority. Circeus (talk) ...priority can apply here? In any case, you put Bousquet & Bouchard as the source of the synonymy, which doesn't seem correct. Monster Iestyn (talk) Well, it would apply if somehow an (highly unlikely) obscure availability should be dug up. Circeus (talk)	Y
Stilodes Chevrolat, 1836	Stilodes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Stilodes Chevrolat, 1843 (Y authorship corrected) is probably a later usage Stilodes Baly, 1859 is definitely at least an unavailable "sensu" name redescribing Stilodes Chevrolat, 1836 ([9]), though whether any of the included species are still in Stilodes I do not know offhand.	Y
Strabala Chevrolat, 1836	Strabala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Strabala Chevrolat, 183745	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to B&B, this doesn't actually include any available species (except for species inquiranda), so the name should actually be credited to Chevrolat, 1848 (who listed the same two available species inquiranda species but without question marks).(Strabala Chevrolat, 1848 Template:Tick '''added''') In which they are incorrect. The actual place is the Galérucites entry in volume six, (1845). Circeus (talk)	Y
Strichosa Chevrolat, 1836	Strichosa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Strigophorus Chevrolat, 1836	Strigophorus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Strigophorus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum synonymy with Cryptocephalus should be correct, since this is given in {{Riley, Clark & Seeno, 2003}} Gemminger and Haroldappears to have been th first to synonymize it, but this would require confirmation. Circeus (talk)	Y
Strongylosomus Chevrolat, 1836	Strongylosomus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus senior synonym of Coccimorphus Hope, 1841	Y
Strongylotarsa Chevrolat, 1836	Strongylotarsa Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Syneta Dejean, 1835	Syneta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	this is actually the one time in the chrysomélines that the authority+year was already correct from the beginning; apparently it was included twice in Dejean's second catalogue (probably in error), but the priority goes to the 1835 instance of course not a nomen nudum valid genus Syneta Eschscholtz in Mannerheim, 1843 is a later usage; Mannerheim was giving a description to Eschscholtz's Syneta carinata (originally n.n. in Dejean's catalogue), which is still in the genus to date.	Y
Systena Chevrolat, 1836	Systena Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Systena Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Tachypetes Chevrolat, 1836	Tachypetes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" placed in family Chrysomelidae according to Bezděk (2020) Lacordaire had it as a synonynym of Gynandrophtalma when he described the latter genus (Tachypetes would be a junior homonym). I can't quite tell whether Gynandrophtalma is currently considered valid. It's a junior synonym of Anomoea Agassiz Circeus (talk)	Y
Teinodactyla Chevrolat, 1836	Teinodactyla Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Teinodactyla Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Longitarsus Latreille, 1829 (see Pedema Dejean, 1836 entry above for notes on valid authority) I personally consider Berthold the correct author for these names. Circeus (talk) Teinodactyla Faldermann, 1837 is a later usage; the cited page on IRMNG (here) is a description for Teinodactyla conspiciabilis Faldermann, 1837, with a description for Teinodactyla aeneicollis Falderman, 1837 given in following pages, both of which are currently placed in Longitarsus according to CPC vol 6.	Y
Tetraphala Chevrolat, 1836	Tetraphala Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" This is Tetraphala Sturm, in Erotylidae (=MetabelusGorham, 1887, ≡Tetralanguria Crotch, 1876 & =Tetralanguroides Fowler, 1886) per CPC 4:535. The availability of this name was reported back in 1998 by Leschen Węgrzynowicz, so I'm kinda surprised it's not in IRMNG (Y added). Circeus (talk)	Y
Thalassia Chevrolat, 1836	Thalassia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" Chevrolat in D'Orbigny says it's a Clavipalpe a.k.a. an Erotylidae. I can't find a synonymy. Circeus (talk)	Y
Thyra Dejean, 1836	Thyra Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" Gotta admit I was expecting to find a synonymy of some sort! Circeus (talk)	Y
Thyreomorpha Dejean, 1836	Thyreomorpha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" This name is commonly cited (e.g. CPC, Borowiec, Barber & Bridswell, 1939:7, Hinck, 1952:331) as available from Boheman, 1850, but availability under article 11.6.1 explicitly requires that it be "either adopted as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym" posterior to the publication of that synonymy, which does not appear to have actually happened in this case... Circeus (talk)	Y
Thysbe Dejean, 1836	Thysbe Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" This is available as Thysbe Motschulsky, 1851:650. Type is Acis daurica Mannerheim, 1849, making it indeed a symonym of Colasposoma. Thysbe Thomson is for once a separately available name. It's a junior homonym and a synonym of Platycorynus, not Colasposoma (CPC ed. 1, 6:83) Circeus (talk) @Circeus: Oh right, funny story about that, turns out the Platycorynus synonymy text in CPC 6 was an error; it's actually a synonym of Colasposoma according to CPC 7: 36: "p. 83, Thysbe J. Thomson is currently in synonymy with Colasposoma Laporte, 1833, not Platycorynus Chevrolat, 1836" I actually forgot about this until now, sorry! Monster Iestyn (talk) Fro reference, Thysbe aurichalcica is actually an African species, recorded from Gamba, DR Congo and Ethiopia; unfortunately there aren't a lot of articles about it, let alone any that are freely available; luckily an article by Selman from 1973 that mentions the species (as Colasposoma aurichalcicum) is available through BioNames [10] (see page 164). It's also possibly the most recent article mentioning the species there is. As of Zoia (2012), Andosiomorpha Lopatin, 1981, Iranomolpus Lopatin, 1979 and Bezdekia Warchalowski, 2005 are all synonyms of Falsonerissus Pic, 1951 (not on IRMNG), now considered a subgenus of Colasposoma Laporte, 1833.	Y
Trichostola Chevrolat, 1836	Trichostola Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to the Australian Faunal Directory, Trichostola Weise, 1923 is not the same as Trichostola Chapuis, 1874, indicating that Weise's Australian species do not actually belong to the genus (it is supposed to be native to the Mascarene Islands, but it also has some described species from Africa/Madagascar that are also thought to be misplaced). As far as I know the whole Chrysomelidae section on the AFD website was handled by Chris Reid, an expert on Chrysomelidae, but beyond that I'm not sure if it's stated in literature at all that Weise got it wrong (unless it's in Matthews & Reid 2002's A Guide to the Genera of Beetles of South Australia? which I have not seen yet) Oh, right, Trichostola Weise, 1923 is a "sensu" name anyway, it doesn't look like Weise was intending to establish a new genus but just describe new species for the existing one (the original publication is available in PDF form here). Either way, the Australian Trichostola species apparently don't belong, but they don't have another home for the time being. Monster Iestyn (talk) After discussion with Tony, it's been clear neither of us are particularly fond of sensu names being in IRMNG. Trichostola Weise N Deleted. Circeus (talk)	Y
Typocephalus Chevrolat, 1836	Typocephalus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to B&B (and Skelly (2020)) the name should be credited to Hope, 1841 in family Erotylidae Typocephalus Chevrolat, 1841 is probably a later usage (or is it maybe earlier than Hope, 1841?) Neither one nor the other.Look at the citations: it's literally the same name. Hope is just attributing it to Chevrolat, but Hope is the authors under ICZN. It's a synonym of Cytorea. Circeus (talk)	Y
Typophorus Chevrolat, 1836	Typophorus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Typophorus Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Typophorus Erichson, 1847 is a later usage	Y
Uroplata Chevrolat, 1836	Uroplata Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Uroplata Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus placed on the official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 1359 (ICZN 1985)	Y
Zygogramma Chevrolat, 1836	Zygogramma Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Zygogramma Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y

Trimères

Some notes:

• There are some more genera authored by Chevrolat in this section, so this will have the same problem with duplicate entries as the previous one most likely
• Since this involves families such as Coccinellidae and Endomychidae so I noticed, there is a small chance that a few of these may possibly now be in other families as of Robertson et al. (2015) (which establishes the new superfamily Coccinelloidea). But this might be a rabbit hole of its own, then again, as I have been learning througgh updating Wikispecies and now Commons with its changes recently, so maybe best not worry about that for now.
  • though, if you were worrying about the changes in Robertson et al. (2015)... family classification changes in the article also affect genera in earlier sections of Dejean's catalogue as it turns out; e.g. Teredus Dejean, 1835 in Tétramères: Xylophages was placed in Bothrideridae, but is now the type genus of Teredidae (consisting of three former subfamilies of Bothrideridae). I have not thoroughly checked for any other Dejean names that might be affected by these changes though.
    • In the absence of genus-level lists, that publication is useless for me. It basically requires me to puzzle the placement of a specific genera pre-robertson first before I can apply Robertson and no thank you. Circeus (talk)

Name	IRMNG record(s)	Corrections and notes	Done?
Ancylopus Chevrolat, 1836	Agcylopus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	"The spelling Ancylopus is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Agcylopus in prevailing usage, attributed to the publication of the original spelling, and so deemed to be the correct original spelling (ICZN 1999: Article 33.3.1)." Ancylopus Agassiz, 1846 is probably the source of the spelling emendation Ancylopus Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 Y added as it was missing entirely! Circeus (talk) authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Ancylopus Costa, 1854 I take it is probably a later usage, since the type species (Ancylopus melanocephalus (Olivier, 1808)) is listed under it on IRMNG.	Y
Anisosticta Chevrolat, 1836	Anisosticta Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Aploscelis Chevrolat, 1836	Aploscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus in family Endomychidae "This generic name is usually credited to Blanchard (1845: 312) under the spelling Haploscelis (e.g., Strohecker 1953: 81; Tomaszewska 2005: 43; Shockley et al. 2009: 51). This spelling is in prevailing usage but not attributed to the original author (see ICZN 1999: Article 33.3.1). Therefore the original spelling used by Chevrolat must be retained." In other words Haploscelis Blanchard, 1845 (as well as Haploscelis Agassiz, 1846, probably the source of the spelling emendation) should be synonyms Almost certainly, seeing as Blanchard just reuses Dejean's spelling. Circeus (talk) (I actually have no idea if any publications on Endomychidae have mentioned Aploscelis/Haploscelis ever since B&B's articles)	Y
Brachiacantha Chevrolat, 1836	Brachiacantha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Brachiacantha Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Brachiacantha Chevrolat in d'Orbigny, 1842 is a later usage Not to mention Brachyacantha Chevrolat in d'Orbigny, 1842 Circeus (talk)	Y
Cheilomenes Chevrolat, 1836	Cheilomenes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Cheilomenes Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus "This genus-group name is sometimes reported under the spelling Chilomenes. However, Cheilomenes seems in prevailing usage as seen by a search through the Zoological Records for the last 20 years." Chilomenes Agassiz, 1846 is probably where that spelling came from Cheilomenes Mulsant, 1850 is a later usage	Y
Chnoodes Chevrolat, 1836	Chnoodes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Chnoodes Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum {{Krüger et al., 2018}} uses "Chevrolat, 1849" as the authority for the available name (as a valid genus, that is) Actually, this probably should be "Chevrolat, 1843", since Krüger et al. states it comes from the Dictionnaire vol. 3, page 612, which was published on 24 April 1843 according to Evenhuis (2019). It doesn't list any species but it provides a description, so it is available from here. {{Gordon, 2007b}} designates Chnoodes chaudoiri Mulsant, 1850 as the type species (under the assumption Mulsant, 1850 was the authority for the genus, though since Chnoodes Chevrolat, 1843 didn't include any species originally this is probably not an issue at least) Chnoodes Chevrolat in D'Orbigny, 1843 and Chapinella Gordon, 1996 Y added To be honest, I have a hard time understanding what prompted the coinage of Chapinella in the first place. Gordon's 2007 account is... cryptic, to say the least. Circeus (talk)	Y
Chnootriba Chevrolat, 1836	Chnootriba Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Chnootriba Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Corynomalus Chevrolat, 1836	Corynomalus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Cynegetis Chevrolat, 1836	Cynegetis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Ephebus Chevrolat, 1836	Ephebus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum Ephebus became available in the Dictionnaire, vol. 5, page 346, (Y added) published in 14 October 1844 according to Evenhuis (2019), which includes at least a description (I'm not sure if any mentioned species are available). So the name is available as Ephebus Chevrolat, 1844. Amusingly enough, Bousquet had declared the Dejean available in an earlier publication (mentioned in Arriaga-Varela, Tomaszewska & Navarrete-Heredia, 2007). I'm in Montreeal, so I should be able to get my hands on a copy of Fabreries somewhere to check out of curiosity. Circeus (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC) If you're trying to access Bousquet (2004), that's actually already available online via zin.ru: [11], as I found out some time back. Bousquet (2004) as it turns out doesn't elaborate exactly why it's supposedly available, just states that it is. B&B must have later realised that was wrong anyway, Dejean's catalogue includes 7 species, almost all of which are Dejean/Chevrolat nomina nuda, with hispidus being a species inquirenda. Hence B&B's statement that it has no originally included available species. Monster Iestyn (talk) Huh, now that I look at it I think I actually came across it at some point too, and then forgot about it because it wasn't that relevant to us. Your assessment Bousquet probably thought Hispidus was a validly included species seems accurate. The correct term is "doubtfully included species" (ICZN 67.2.5), though an actual species inquirenda would also not be considered an originally included species. Circeus (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC) According to B&B Dejean used "?" when he wasn't sure if his identification was correct, so they used the term "species inquirenda" which I followed here. Though to be honest I had confused the terms anyway, thankfully the distinction didn't matter for this case. Monster Iestyn (talk)	Y
Epilachna Chevrolat, 1836	Epilachna Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Epilachna Chevrolat, 1839 (see here) is just a citation of Chevrolat's name within a description for the species Coccinella diffinis Eydoux & Souleyet, 1839, now known as Henosepilachna diffinis (Eydoux & Souleyet, 1839). I agree. It would be at best a potential place of availability through synonymy. Henosepilachna Li & Cook, 1961 Y reinstated' Circeus (talk)	Y
Epipocus Chevrolat, 1836	Epipocus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Epipocus Germar, 1843 is a later usage Epipocus Blanchard, 1846 (see here and here) is a later usage	Y
Epopterus Chevrolat, 1836	Epopterus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Epopterus Chevrolat, 1845 was actually published on 14 October 1844 according to Evenhuis (2019) Oh, I'm going to have to compare the dates in Evenhuis with those in Bousquet, 2016 for differences. Circeus (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)	Y
Exoplectra Chevrolat, 1836	Exoplectra Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Exoplectra Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Exoplectra Chevrolat in d'Orbigny, 1845 is a later usage	Y
Hippodamia Chevrolat, 1836	Hippodamia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Hylaia Chevrolat, 1836	Hylaia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" according to B&B the name is actually available from Germar, 1844 Hylaia Germar, 1844 Y added Circeus (talk)	Y
Hyperaspis Chevrolat, 1836	Hyperaspis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Hyperaspis Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Leiestes Chevrolat, 1836	Leiestes Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Macaria Dejean, 1836	Macaria Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" became available as Macaria Mulsant, 1850 (cited page)	Y
Menoscelis Dejean, 1836	Menoscelis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" became available as Menoscelis Mulsant, 1850 (cited page)	Y
Micraspis Chevrolat, 1836	Micraspis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Micraspis Hope, 1840 is a later usage (the cited page is actually also where the type species is designated)	Y
Nundina Dejean, 1836	Nundina Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Rhyzobius Stephens, 1829	Y
Olenus Chevrolat, 1836	Olenus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" became available as Olenus Thomson, 1857 ...except that Olenus Dalman, 1826 † being available would make it a junior homonym, even if Thomson's name wasn't already a synonym anyway	Y
Orestia Chevrolat, 1836	Orestia Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Orestia Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" this is a nomen nudum! however Nadein's Alticini website (yes it is in Chrysomelidae apparently) lists it as a valid genus: [12], with type species Lycoperdina alpina Germar, 1824 ... Ah okay, it might actually be possible B&B got it wrong and Orestia Chevrolat, 1836 is actually available, with type species Lycoperdina alpina Germar, 1824 by monotypy, and it's actually pretty easy to understand why they might have missed this species (or perhaps didn't include it as available due to its ambiguity?): in Germar, 1824, Lycoperdina alpina is described on page 622 as "Lycoperdina alpina Ziegleri", perhaps intending to credit Ziegler for the name Dejean's catalogue then actually lists this name as "Alpina. Ziegler" [13] which appears at first glance to be an unavailable name (certainly it is not immediately traceable back to Germar's publication) If the above justification for Orestia Chevrolat, 1836 being available is not good enough there's always the Dictionnaire again (vol. 9, page 190 published in 29 March 1847) which refers to the species as "O. alpina Ziegl., Germ." Orestia Redtenbacher, 1845 is probably a later usage (or the available name if Chevrolat, 1836 is not?) but I can't confirm this based on the cited page alone, since it doesn't cite Dejean nor Chevrolat and places the genus in a different family to Chrysomelidae (presumably it was found to belong in that family later but I don't know enough about the genus's history to say for sure) (actually Dictionnaire confirms it was meant to be in "Érotyliens" which is clearly equivalent to "Erotyli", so this may not be a problem).	Y
Pelinus Dejean, 1836	Pelinus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Dejean, 1836" probably became available as Pelinus Guérin-Méneville, 1857 (cited page) I have absolutely no idea what family this genus belongs in, except that it is noted to actually belong in the Hétéromères instead of Trimères, since there appears to be no publication even in the 20th century mentioning the genus (nor its sole species, Pelinus lagrioides) judging from a quick a quick Google search; maybe it entered into synonymy with another genus but this is just a wild guess. The Fongicoles is mostly modern Endomychidae, so I'm listing it as taxon inquirendum in that family. Maybe we can ask for help from Dr. Tomaszewska later on. Circeus (talk)	Y
Psyllobora Chevrolat, 1836	Psyllobora Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum) Psyllobora Chevrolat, 1837	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Psyllobora Mulsant, 1850 is a later usage (cited page)	Y
Quirinus Chevrolat, 1836	Quirinus Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" became available as Quirinus Thomson, 1857 The unavailable replacement name Pantaenetus Gistl, 1848 has been overlooked in the literature. Circeus (talk)	Y
Rhanis Dejean, 1836	Rhanis Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836"	Y
Synonycha Chevrolat, 1836	Synonycha Dejean, 1835 (nomen nudum)	authority should be "Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836" not a nomen nudum valid genus Synonycha Mulsant, 1850 is a later usage (cited page)	Y

Overlooked names from the second catalogue

New names or names requiring notes

Name	IRMNG record(s)	Corrections and notes	Done?
Aspistomus Dejean, 1833:8 (Carabiques)	Aspistomus Dejean, 1833	Name first used in synonymy by Dejean, 1831;402, which would be the correct antedating, but it does not appear to have been used as valid. It is a synonym of Macrocheilus (per Häckel & Farkač, 2013)
Omphra Dejean, 1833:81 (Carabiques)	Omphra Dejean, 1821	This name is currently dated to Dejean, 1825:285 (CPC ed. 2), but the correct dating is all the way back to Dejean, 1821:4.
Scapanetes Dejean, 1833:147 (Lamellicornes)		Currently the earliest publication of this name is attributed to Westwood, 1834:121 (e.g. Huchet, 2000:14), with the spelling Scaphinetes.
Anisus Dejean, 1834:246 (Curculionites)	Anisus Dejean, 1821	This is a synonym of Bronchus Germar, 1817 (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999:138).
Trigonosoma Dejean, 1835:279 (Curculionites)	Trigonosoma Dejean, 1835	This is a synonym of Camptocheirus Lacordaire, 1863 (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999:138).
Sphaerula Dejean, 1835:301 (Curculionites)		This name is currently dated to Villa & Villa, 1833:22 (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999:210), but the correct dating is all the way back to Dejean, 1821:83.
Acalypha Dejean, 1835:311 (Xylophages)	Acalypha Dejean, 1835	I cannot trace any name (available or otherwise) likely to correspond to the "Latridius mollis" of the catalogue. I will list it as an unavailable synonym of Latridius in IRMN.
Nyctipeta Dejean, 1835:328 (Xylophages)		I think this name is best treated as a misspelling of Nyctipates Dejean, 1835.
Spermatophilus Dejean, 1835:357 (Chrysomélines)		This is a later use of Fischer, 1824, which would be the correct antedating if the name turned out to be available. It is a synonyms of Rhaebus Fischer, 1824
Dicella Dejean, 1836:377 (Chrysomélines)		This name was seemingly never available. It is associated with Schematiza compressicornis (Fabricius, 1801)

Additions to Appendix I

Pentamères: Carabiques

• Philotechnus [1833:8] → Dejean, 1831
  • This further antedating dating is cited in CPC ed. 2
• Physodera [1833:9] → Eschscholtz, 1829
• Callisthenes [1833:21] → Fischer, 1820
• Laemostenus [1833:28] → Bonelli, 1810

Pentamères: Brachélytres

• Xantholinus [1833:28] → Bonelli, 1810

Pentamères: Malacodermes

• Cochleoctonus [1833:104] → Mielzinsky, 1824
  • Dating per Kazantzev, 2011

Pentamères: Terediles

• Dryophilus [1833:116] → Chevrolat, 1832

Pentamères: Clavicornes

• Tritoma [1833:119] → Fabricius, 1775

Pentamères: Lamellicornes

• Callicnemis [1833:152] → Laporte, 1832
• Casignetus [1833:173] → Macleay, 1819
• Paxillus [1833:175] → Macleay, 1819

Pentamères: Mélasomes

• Stenosis [1834:183] → Herbst, 1799
• Phylax [1834:190] → Brullé, 1832
  • I need to examine evidence to understand why B&B 2013 attributes this name to Dejean, 1821 while Bouchard et al, 2021 ascribes it to Sturm, 1826. Dejean, 1821 appears available through inclusion of Opatrum gibbum Fabricius. I will have to ask Patrice Bouchard when I get to share my findings regarding the Tenebrionidae catalogue with him.
    • Although Dejean's authorship attribution are often sketchy, he separately listed Opatrum gibbum Fabricius under Heliophilus. Whatever "Opatrum gibbum Bonelli" is meant to refer to be (and I cannot find a proper reference, it may have been a collection name or a Sensu name seeing as it's also the type of Phylan Sturm), I assume it does not render the name available. The taxon itself seems to be Allophylax picipes (Olivier, 1811).

Pentamères: Taxicornes

• Ceratupis [1834:199] → Perty, 1830

Pentamères: Ténébrionites

• Xylita [1834:201] → Paykull, 1798
• Pelmatopus [1834:202] → Fischer, 1824

Pentamères: Hélopiens

• Hedyphanes [1834:208] → Fischer, 1820

Pentamères: Trachélides

• Tetraphyllus [1834:211] → Laporte and Brullé, 1831

Pentamères: Curculionites

• Acanthorax [1834:234] → Acanthothorax Gaede, 1832
  • I have to add this spelling to IRMNG
• Curculio [1834:240] → Linnaeus, 1758
• Polydius [1834:248] → Dejean, 1821
• Chlorima [1834:250] → Germar, 1817
• Menoetius [1834:252] → Dejean, 1821
• Merionus [1835:259] → Dejean, 1821
• Panaphilis [1835:269] → Dejean, 1821
• Simo [1835:270] → Dejean, 1821
• Brius [1835:270] → Dejean, 1821
• Orthochaetes [1835:283] → Germar, 1824
• Trigonotarsus [1835:303] → Guérin-Méneville, 1833
• Cercidocerus [1835:303] → Guérin-Méneville, 1833
• Belorhinus [1835:303] → Belorhynus Guérin-Méneville, 1833

Pentamères: Xylophages

• Sylvanus [1835:311] → Silvanus Latreille, 1804
• Hemipeplus [1835:315] → Latreille, 1829
  • An embarrassing amount of citations date it to 1825 or 1827, but this is incorrect as well described by Thomas, 1985

Pentamères: Longicornes

• Stenocorus [1835:319] → Geoffroy, 1762
• Acanthopterus [1835:323] → Acanthoptera Latreille, 1829
• Necydalis [1835:333] → Linnaeus, 1758
• Eucinetes [1835:356] → Eucinetus Germar, 1818

Pentamères: Chrysomélines

• Crioceris [1836:395] → Geoffroy, 1762
• Brevicolaspis [1836:412] → Laporte, 1833
• Tritoma [1836:429] → Fabricius, 1775

Dimères

• Stanosthetus [1836:442] → Dejean, 1821
  • This overlooked name has previously been known as the nomen nudum Stenosthetus Griffith & Pidgeon, 1831 (Newton, 2017).

Third catalogue

Name	IRMNG record(s)	Corrections and notes	Done?