On Eryphus Perty, 1832 (Dichophyiini), Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 (Trachyderini, Trachyderina), and Eryphus Klug, 1829, with description of a new genus, and corrections on publication dates (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

Abstract The validity of two forgotten names, EryphusKlug, 1829 and E. rubricollisKlug, 1829, is discussed. The former is considered a nomen oblitum and synonymized with EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834, a nomen protectum; the latter is revalidated and Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 is considered a junior synonym of Eriphus rubricollis (Klug, 1829). A lectotype is designated to Eryphus rubricollisKlug, 1829. The date of the work where EriphusAudinet-Serville, 1834 was described is corrected. A new genus is described in Dichophyiini Gistel, 1848 to include the species currently allocated in Eryphus sensuNapp & Martins (2002). The dates of publication of genera and species described by Fairmaire & Germain (Révision des Coléoptères du Chili (suite)) are corrected.


INTRODUCTION
During the process of identifying specimens sent by various institutions, we encountered a problem involving three generic names: Eryphus Klug, 1829, Eryphus Perty, 1832, and Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834. Eryphus Klug (1829) and its type species, E. rubricollis Klug, 1829, have been completely omitted from recent catalogues.The biggest hurdle in trying to solve the problems involving these names was the absence of specimens identified as Eryphus rubricollis in the ZMHB collection (see acronym below).However, we believe that they are present in this collection as "coccineus".The work where Klug described Eryphus and E. rubricollis (1829) was a list of duplicate specimens for sale.Thus, even if some specimens of E. rubricollis were actually sold, the institution would never have sold all the specimens.The dates of publication of Eriphus Audinet-Serville, and of a work by Fairmaire & Germain are corrected.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Photographs of MZSP specimens were taken with a Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR camera, Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.8 1-5X macro lens, controlled by Zerene Stacker AutoMontage software.
The species were identified using original descriptions, redescriptions, photographs of the types, and comparisons with specimens of the MZSP collection.
The collection acronyms used in the text are as follows: BMNH = The Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom; MZSP = Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; ZMHB = Museum für Naturkunde -Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany.
Making everything even more complicated, according to Dejean (1835): "ERIPHUS, Serville./ Rubricollis Dej.Brasilia = Bisignatus.Germar. id. [Brasilia]." Thus, Dejean (1835) synonymized Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829 (wrongly attributing the authorship to himself ) with Eriphus bisignatus (Germar, 1823).Dejean (1835) simply ignored the use of the name Eryphus by Klug (1829).Examination of a specimen of Eriphus rubricollis (Figs.1A -1B) / Eriphus bisignatus from Dejean's collection (label handwritten by Dejean himself ) makes evident that Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean is really equal to E. bisignatus.However, the original description by Klug makes clear that the pronotum and elytra are reddish with the dorsal area black ("thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris."), which does not agree with E. bisignatus.Therefore, the synonymy proposed by Dejean (1835) was not correct and made evident that E. rubricollis in Dejean (in litteris) collection is not equal to E. rubricollis Klug.It is very likely that Joseph Anton Maximilian Perty had seen the specimens identified by Johann Christoph Friedrich Klug as Eryphus rubricollis.Klug's brief description (1829) would not allow Perty to recognize the species and not even to which tribe it belonged.In fact, it would only be possible to infer the family, because Klug (1829) listed Eriphus rubricollis among known species of Cerambycidae.As Dejean's catalog (1835) listing this species as equal to Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus Germar, 1823 had not yet been published, it would not be possible for Perty to make the association.In addition, it is very unlikely that Perty personally knew Dejean's collection, and we were unable to find an indication that Dejean sent him material or a letter describing his Eriphus rubricollis.
As the general appearance of Eryphus bipunctatus Perty (Figs. 2A-2C) is similar to that of Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean (= Eriphus bisignatus (Germar) (see Bezark, 2022 and Fig. 1), it is possible to infer that Eryphus rubricollis Klug also has a similar overall appearance to them.Evidently, this does not allow us to know if the Klug's species was actually of the same genus and tribe as the Perty species.
Although there are specimens identified as Eriphus bisignatus (designated as lectotype and paralectotypes by Monné & Monné, 2015) at the ZMHB collection, they could not be present in this collection at the time of Klug if they really belonged to the private collection of Ernst Friedrich Germar.According to Horn & Kahle (1935): "Germar, Ernst Friedrich (1786-1853) [currently, ZMHB]." Germar died in 1853 and his nephew, Hermann Rudoph Schaum (who kept the collection after Germar's death), died in 1865.Therefore, it is most probable that was only after 1865 that the types of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus were deposited at the ZMHB.One of the labels currently placed in the lectotype indicates that the specimen was collected by Olfers (see Monné & Monné, 2015: 392-393).This collector name appears in several species described by Klug in several works.This may suggest that the "types" at the ZMHB collection are not the true "types", or that they always belonged to this collection (loaned by Klug to Germar).According to Klug (1829) they were friends (translated): "For the curculionids, I have used the information I requested and received from my friend, Prof. Germar, with few exceptions, and also indicated his determinations where they did not agree with those I had received from Count Dejean." But apparently, Germar also received specimens from Olfers (see Germar, 1823: IX) (translated): "It remains to me as much as possible to thank my friends who have enriched this work by sharing the beauty that they have discovered … Bescke father and son, …, Olfers…" These reasoning on the types of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus are important because if they were present at the ZMHB in 1829, Klug would hardly have described the species again, if Eryphus rubricollis Klug really was a synonym of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatus Germar.
There are three possibilities to explain why Klug knew that there were specimens named as Eriphus rubricollis in the Dejean collection: Klug personally knew the Dejean collection; Dejean sent him specimens on loan; or Dejean gave him information about the species.In all three cases, it is not possible to know why Klug used Eryphus and not Eriphus (as was later published by Dejean and was probably written in the specimens of his collection).
There is no evidence that Dejean sent specimens to Klug or that Klug personally saw Dejean's collection.Furthermore, the introduction in Klug (1829) suggests that they just exchanged letters (translated): "Therefore, in identifying the probable new species, I largely followed the advice of my respected correspondents and in particular that of Count Dejean, who was as forgiving as he was insightful and experienced…" If the third option was the real one, Dejean would probably have described the species in such a way that it was possible for Klug to recognize it, which would undoubtedly include the two circular spots on the pronotum, the general color of the pronotum and elytra.Notwithstanding, he described it as "thorace coleoptrisque coccineus dorso nigris", which means that both the pronotum and the elytra are reddish with dorsal (central) area black.A quick comparison with photographs of the types of Germar's species, as well as specimens of Eriphus rubricollis from Dejean's collection reveals that the elytra are not so (and we never saw this type of variation in Eriphus bisignatus).However, we already saw another description by Klug with contradictory information on these structures.For example, in the original description of Chlamys exarata Klug, 1824 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae), he informed: "thorace coleoptrisque rugosus, quadri-sulcatis." However, in the same description he also pointed out: "Thorax … sulcis quatuor apice coëuntibus nigris exaratus.Elytra … bi-sulcata." This may suggest that the original description of E. rubricollis was inaccurate.However, it is difficult to believe in this mistake, and it is easier to accept that the information from Dejean was inexact or that Klug wrongly interpreted them.Dejean did not write in German, as it is possible to see in a letter from him to Germar in 1818 (Dieckmann, 1986) (translated): "If you are not used to writing in the French, Italian and Latin languages, you can write to me in German, but using, please, the Latin characters.As for me, I beg your pardon, but I can only write to you in French; besides, I suppose that if you do not understand this language, you will easily find a translator." Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB) sent us precious information on historical specimens of Eriphus present in ZMHB, including photograph of the drawer (Fig. 1F), and copy of some pages of Eryphus records section in the catalog of their historical collection (Figs.1D-1E).According to him, there is no specimen named "rubricollis" among the specimens of Eriphus (or Eryphus), and also no record on the catalog using this name.As the work by Klug (1829) was a list of duplicates of specimens for sale, it is possible that there is at least one syntype specimen in some other museum which may allow recognizing the species.However, even if it(them) survived, it will be extremely difficult to find it(them).
In fact, the species that more perfectly matches the description by Klug (1829) is Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, which is present in the ZMHB collection as "coccineus" (Figs.1C and 1F).Based on the fact that Eryphus coccineus Klug in litteris (= E. purpuratus), Eryphus ruficollis Klug in litteris (= E. immaculicollis Audinet-Serville, 1834, the specimens have a label with "N" after the species name, meaning "Nobis") were considered by Klug himself as belonging to Eryphus, it is logical to assume that Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 is a junior synonymy of Eryphus Klug, 1829 (type species Eryphus rubricollis).However, as both conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2) are present, Eryphus Klug, 1829 is considered a nomen oblitum, and Eriphus Audinet-Serville, 1834 a nomen protectum (for citations using Eriphus, exclusively for the genus or in its 23 species see, for example, Monné, 2005Monné, , 2022)).According to Klug (1829) (translated): "Apart from a few Lepidoptera from Cuba, the present directory contains only Coleoptera, first from southern Brazil, collected by Sellow in the vicinity of Montevideo [Uruguay], Cassapava [probably Caçapava do Sul in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul], Porto Alegre [Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul], then from Cuba from a year ago by a certain Maximil." At least six specimens identified as "coccineus" in the ZMHB collection were collected by Sellow.As the original description of Eryphus rubricollis and the collector (see Figs. 1D and 1F, and introduction in Klug ( 1829)) agree perfectly with the specimens labeled as "coccineus" in ZMHB collection, we think that they are the syntypes of the former.According to Bernd Jaeger (ZMHB, personal communication): "The historical specimens arranged under the purpuratus label (written by our former curator Kuntzen) have the manuscript name "coccineus N. " obviously provided by Klug." It is not possible to know if there was an error in labelling the specimens as "coccineus" instead of "rubricollis" and, if so, if the error was that of the curator or Klug himself.But we think it is very likely that the specimens are the true syntypes of Eryphus rubricollis Klug.However, it is probable that Klug had changed the name of the species, from E. rubricollis to E. coccineus, after the publication of the catalogue of Dejean (1835).However, as Eriphus rubricollis sensu Dejean is equal to Eriphus bisignatus (Germar) and not equal to Eryphus rubricollis Klug, again, the synonymy is not correct, and the latter name is available.Accordingly, Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 is a junior synonym of Eryphus rubricollis Klug, 1829.As only one of the conditions demanded by ICZN (1999: Article 23.9.1) is present (Article 23.9.1.1),Eriphus purpuratus Chevrolat, 1862 cannot be considered a nomen protectum.
According to ICZN (1999: 72.4.1.1):"For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series." As Klug (1829) mentioned "Dej.(i.litt.)",we think it is necessary to consider the specimens from Dejean's collection, identified as Eriphus rubricollis, as syntypes of Eryphus rubricollis.As E. rubricollis sensu Dejean is not equal to Klug's species, this makes this species an amalgam of species.It is important to record that it is also possible that the specimens in Dejean's collection are also syntypes of Callidium (Clytus) bisignatum, becoming them as syntypes of two species.This because Dejean offered specimens for study to Germar (Dieckmann, 1986): "In answering me, have the kindness to let me know approximately what you want and I will have the greatest pleasure to send you everything that will be possible for me…" Unfortunately, we have no evidence that Dejean sent specimens to him except, probably, specimens of Curculionidae.
It is important to mention that the southern region of Brazil, as well as southern Argentina and Uruguay are places where intensive collections of insects were carried out in the last 100 years and no species that agrees with the original description of Eryphus rubricollis was found, except Eriphus purpuratus, which occurs in the same region.
According to Napp & Martins, 2002 on their new genus Tacyba (translated): "Eryphus [= Solangebira, here named as Eryphus sensu Napp & Martins (2002)] differs from Tacyba gen.nov.: antennomeres VIII-XI long in both sexes, not tumid in females; prothorax wider than long, with sides uniformly rounded; elytra flattened dorsally, parallel-sided and slightly convex close to apex; legs proportionally short; metafemoral club cylindrical; metatibiae cylindrical and just shorter than metafemora.In Tacyba: antennomeres VIII-XI shortened in both sexes, tumid in females; prothorax as long as wide, sub-hexagonal; elytra convex dorsally, narrowed about middle and convex at apex; legs proportionally long and stout; metafemora fusiform; metatibiae flattened and slightly longer than metafemora." However, the antennomeres VIII-XI in females of Tacyba is not different from that in males, which means they are not tumid, but they are somewhat wider than the previous segments, which does not occur in Solangebira except, apparently, in S. carinatus (Zajciw, 1970); the prothorax in S. carinatus is very similar to that in Tacyba, and is slightly longer than wide; the elytra is distinctly not flattened in S. tacuarembo (Napp & Martins, 2002) (Fig. 2G), and S. bivittatus (Melzer, 1934) (Fig. 2F), they are convex dorsally, and very weakly flattened in S. laetus (Blanchard, 1851); the elytral side is variable in Solangebira and can be identical or nearly so to that in Tacyba (for example, in S. carioca (Napp & Martins, 2002) (Fig. 2D)); the length of the legs in Solangebira is variable, as well as the shape, and may be identical or nearly so as in Tacyba; the metafemora in Tacyba cannot be defined as fusiform, and is very similar to that in S. transversalis (Fairmaire & Germain, 1864), gradually widened from base to near apex; and the metatibia is somewhat variable in some specimens of Tacyba tenuis (Blanchard, 1851), and may be identical or nearly so as in Solangebira, especially regarding the flattening.Accordingly, the only reliable difference between Solangebira and Tacyba is the length of the antennomeres VIII-XI, which have similar length in the former and X-XI distinctly shorter than VIII-IX in the later.Apparently, S. carinatus (Fig. 2E) and S. transversalis (Fig. 2H) do not belong to this genus.However, we could not examine specimens of S. carinatus and females of S. transversalis.Thus, we prefer to keep them provisionally in Solangebira.

Correction of dates
The work by Fairmaire & Germain in the "Annales de la Société Entomologique de France" has been reported as published in 1859.However, according to Desmarest