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around 60% of such names now have this information, added from other sources (also species lists too, some already out-of-date) but this too is an ongoing process, hence the "I" in IRMNG, for "Interim" - I/we know it is not perfect, but a useful starting point for further improvement.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

edit

Main references:

Other references:

Web references:

Notes

edit

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 YesY appears in this column, then these fixes have been made on IRMNG since the making of this list. If YesY appears then as far as I can tell it was already fine beforehand (these may be changed to green ticks if they are fine). Question? 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

edit

Contents

edit
  • Pentamères
    • Pentamères: Hydrocanthares YesY Done
      dytiscids, noterids, haliplids, gyrinids
    • Pentamères: Brachélytres YesY Done
      staphylinids in part
    • Pentamères: Sternoxes YesY Done (except Abrobapta)
      buprestids, elaterids, eucnemids
    • Pentamères: Malacodermes YesY Done
      rhipicerids, ptilodactylids, scirtids, lycids, lampyrids, cantharids, melyrids, etc.
    • Pentamères: Terediles YesY Done
      clerids, lymexylids, ptinids, etc.
    • Pentamères: Clavicornes YesY Done
      silphids, nitidulids, cryptophagids, dermestids, histerids, byrrhids, heterocerids, etc.
    • Pentamères: Palpicornes YesY Done
      hydraenids, hydrophilids
    • Pentamères: Lamellicornes YesY Done
      scarabaeids, hybosorids, trogids, geotrupids, glaphyrids, lucanids, passalids
  • Hétéromères
    • Hétéromères: Mélasomes YesY Done
      tenebrionids in part
    • Hétéromères: Taxicornes YesY Done
      tenebrionids in part, zopherids, leiodids in part, tetratomids
    • Hétéromères: Ténébrionites YesY Done
      tetratomids, melandryids, pythids, tenebrionids in part, borids
    • Hétéromères: Hélopiens YesY Done
      tenebrionids in part
    • Hétéromères: Trachélides YesY Done
      tenebrionids in part, pyrochroids, anthicids, aderids, scraptiids, ripiphorids, mordellids, etc.
    • Hétéromères: Vésicants YesY Done
      meloids
    • Hétéromères: Sténélytres YesY Done
      oedemerids, mycterids, salpingids
  • Tétramères
    • Tétramères: Curculionites YesY Done
      Curculionoidea except scolytines and platypodines
    • Tétramères: Xylophages YesY 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

edit

Pentamères: Hydrocanthares

edit
N.Z. Hallan Other Correct name Other corrections and notes Done?
Cybister Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Cyclous Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Cymatopterus Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Epinectus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Liopterus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Nogrus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable not a nomen nudum YesY
Orectochilus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Other related notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2017)):

YesY
Rhantus Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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
YesY
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
YesY
Trigonocheilus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Trochalus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY

Pentamères: Brachélytres

edit
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)
YesY
Callictenus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Corynocerus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • no corrections needed
  • A complicated mess of diverging attributions around Carpelimus
YesY
Lithocharis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid genus
YesY
Lyeidius Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Macrostenus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Megalops Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Microphius Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Microsaurus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid subgenus
YesY
Olisthaerus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid genus
YesY
Ophiomorphus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Phloeobium Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable not a nomen nudum YesY
Platytoma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Plochionocerus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid genus
YesY
Sauromorphus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY

Pentamères: Sternoxes

edit
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 YesY
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
    • Red XN Species need moving to Dejean's name.
YesY
Analampis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Brachys Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Callimicra Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Catoxantha Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

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)):

YesY
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"

YesY
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".

YesY
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)

YesY
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.

YesY
Cylindroderus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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))
YesY
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)
YesY
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".

YesY
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.
YesY
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).

YesY
Evides Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Geronia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Hemiops Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Not Applicable Not Applicable Hypocaelus Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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:

YesY
Lampra Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes:

YesY
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)
  • 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.
YesY
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
YesY
Lius Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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.
YesY
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.
YesY
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

YesY
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

YesY
Oomorpha Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Perotis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid genus

Extra notes:

YesY
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.
YesY
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:

YesY
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".

YesY
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:

YesY
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
YesY
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

YesY
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)

YesY
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".

YesY
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

YesY
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. YesY
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

YesY
Sphenoptera Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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

YesY
Steraspis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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
YesY
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)

YesY
Names not on IRMNG
edit
  • Cardiotarsus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 91]
  • Ctenonychus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 87]
  • Cyria Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 75]
  • Dirhagus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • Oophorus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 93]
  • Oxycleidius Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 89]
  • Perothops Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 87]
  • Physorhinus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 86]
  • 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.
    • YesY Done
  • Sphaerocephalus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]

Pentamères: Malacodermes

edit
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 YesY
Anisocera Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Atela Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Auge Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Calendyma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Callianthia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Charactus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • family Lycidae
  • senior objective synonym of Calopteron Laporte, 1836
  • 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:

YesY
Cladon Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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)

YesY
Ctenidion Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Dadophora Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Ellychnia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Epicyrtus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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. YesY
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.
YesY
Geopyris Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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

  • 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)
YesY
Lygistopterus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Nematophora Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Nyctocharis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Nyctophanes Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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
YesY
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.

YesY
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
YesY
Rabdota Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Selas Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Spenthera Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Xanthestha Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable not a nomen nudum YesY
Names not on IRMNG
edit
  • 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.
    • YesY Done

Pentamères: Terediles

edit
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 YesY
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.
YesY
Epiphloeus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Notostenus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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.
YesY
Stemmoderus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Xystrophorus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY

Pentamères: Clavicornes

edit
N.Z. Hallan Other Correct name Other corrections and notes Done?
Cylistus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra note: (personal guess) Cylistus de Marseul, 1853 is likely a later usage

YesY
Dermophagus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Encaustes Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Episcapha Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Also see Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)'s notes on the type species.

YesY
Haeterius Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra note: Eupelogonus Gistel, 1856 is an unnecessary replacement name for Haeterius Dejean, 1833 (source: Löbl I. & D. (2015))

YesY
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)
YesY
Lasioderma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Leionota Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra note: Leionota Marseul, 1853 is likely a later usage, going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)

YesY
Monoplius Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Omalodes Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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

YesY
Platyderus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Selenoderus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Thyreosoma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY

Pentamères: Palpicornes

edit
N.Z. Hallan Other Correct name Other corrections and notes Done?
Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

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)."
YesY

Pentamères: Lamellicornes

edit
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
YesY
Acallus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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. YesY
YesY
Adelops Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Aegidium Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Aegostheta Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Amphicrania Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

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).

YesY
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...
YesY
Anisonchus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2016)):

YesY
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 YesY
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.
YesY
Aulacium Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

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.
YesY
Barybas Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Brachysternus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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)
YesY
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)
  • (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
YesY
Caelodera Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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.
YesY
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
YesY
Catalasis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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?
YesY
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.
YesY
Chlorota Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Coprobas Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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.
YesY
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!
YesY
Dasysterna Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Stratiomanes Gistl, 1848 is an emendation, according to N.Z. YesY
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
YesY
Encya Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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
YesY
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.
YesY
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))
YesY
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 YesY
Eucranium Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes:

YesY
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)

YesY
Gromphas Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Gymnogaster Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Gymnoloma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Heteronychus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Hoplites Dejean, 1833 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable senior synonym of Enema Hope, 1837 YesY
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.

YesY
Hyperis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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

YesY
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.
YesY
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

YesY
Leocaeta Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Leptopus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Leucopholis Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • family Scarabaeidae
  • valid genus

Extra notes:

YesY
Macrothops Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed (but see below)

Extra notes:

YesY
Mallogaster Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed
  • =Rhinaspis Perty, 1830 according to Fuhrmann & Vaz-de-Mello, 2017.
YesY
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) YesY
Myoderma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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 YesY
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.
YesY
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)
YesY
Orthognatus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Oxyomus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid genus
YesY
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:

Seriously though, this one is a mess guys.

  • Ok, I think I got it all sorted out
YesY
Philochloenia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes:

YesY
Phytolaema Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable The following names seem to be related to Phytolaema Dejean, 1833:

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:

YesY
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)
YesY
Platycoelia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Podalgus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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:

YesY
Pygurus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Rhinyptia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Rhizobia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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.:

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
YesY
Schizonycha Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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.
YesY
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 YesY
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) YesY
Streptocerus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Strigidia Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Strigoderma Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Tarandus Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes: Tarandus Megerle in Dejean, 1837 is likely a duplicate or later usage

YesY
Thyridium Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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
YesY
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.
YesY
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

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!

YesY
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

YesY
Names not on IRMNG
edit
  • Adoretus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Dejean (1833: 157)]
  • Eucheirus Dejean, 1833 nomen nudum [Original description: Dejean (1833: 140)]
    • YesY 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.
      • YesY Corrected authorship

Hétéromères

edit

Hétéromères: Mélasomes

edit
N.Z. Hallan Other Correct name Other corrections and notes Done?
Acisba Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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))
YesY
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.
YesY
Amphysus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed
  • Erichson puts this as a synonym of Heliofugus
YesY
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))
YesY
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) YesY
Brachygenius Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed
  • Assigned to Gyriosomus by later authors
YesY
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
YesY
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) YesY
Bradyus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • family Tenebrionidae
  • valid genus
YesY
Cacicus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Caedius Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed (but see below)

Extra notes:

YesY
Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable The following records on IRMNG appear to be related to Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834:

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.
YesY
Cephalostenus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Cilibe Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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 YesY [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:
  • Colposcelis Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.
YesY
Coronus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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.
YesY
Dicrossa Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Echinotus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Entomoderes Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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:

YesY
Epiphysa Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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).
YesY
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:
  • (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
YesY
Herpiscius Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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)
YesY
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
YesY
Leichenum Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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
YesY
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.
YesY
Melancrus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Melanesthes Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes:

YesY
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 YesY
YesY
Metopocerus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Microzoum Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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.)
YesY
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:

YesY
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.
YesY
Notocorax Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Nyctipates Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Nyctipates Gebler, 1841 is a later usage, according to N.Z.

Extra notes:

YesY
Oncotus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

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):

YesY
Pachycoelia Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed

Lepispilus Westwood, 1841. | YesY

Pachypterus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Pachypterus Lucas, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z. YesY
Pelecyphorus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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)
YesY
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.)
YesY
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
YesY
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.)
YesY
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.)
YesY
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)
YesY
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.
YesY
Pterolasia Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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)
YesY
Sclerum Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Extra notes:

YesY
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
YesY
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.
YesY
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.
YesY
Stenholma Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Tetromma Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
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. YesY
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.)
YesY
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") YesY
Names not on IRMNG
edit
  • YesY 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
  • YesY Trigonoscelis Dejean, 1834 (original description: Dejean (1834: 179))

Hétéromères: Taxicornes

edit

(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
YesY
Anisocheira Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Anisocrepis Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Apsida Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Basanus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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.
YesY
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):
  • 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.
YesY
Cerandria Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable not a nomen nudum YesY
Cheirodes Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Cosmonota Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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).
YesY
Endophloeus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Epicalla Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Epicamptus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Epilampus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

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"
YesY
Eucyrtus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Eunotus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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
YesY
Heterophaga Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Hylonoma Dejean, 1834 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable This time, this is a nomen nudum! YesY
Hypogena Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • not a nomen nudum
  • valid genus
YesY
Hypsoderes Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Margus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable YesY
Phloeonemus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Phtora Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Platycrepis Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
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 YesY
Xyloborus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
  • I have no idea if Xyloborus Kirby & Spence, 1828 is related at all
  • 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!).
YesY
Names not on IRMNG
edit

Hétéromères: Ténébrionites

edit
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.
YesY
Anthracias Dejean, 1833
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Anthracias Dejean, 1834

The following names are linked to this one on N.Z. and may be later (or earlier) usages, etc:

YesY
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"
  • 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.
YesY
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.
YesY
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
YesY
Bucerus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Camptobrachys Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable This name likely became available and valid as Camptobrachys Kaszab, 1941 YesY
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
YesY
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
YesY
Chariotheca Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Cholipus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable no corrections needed YesY
Dendronomus Dejean, 1834
("nomen nudum")
Not Applicable Not Applicable