Lectotype designations and nomenclatural changes in Xylographus Mellié (Coleoptera, Ciidae)

Abstract We designate lectotypes and propose nomenclatural changes in Xylographus Mellié (Coleoptera, Ciidae) based on type specimens deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (USA), Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (Germany), the Natural History Museum (UK), Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genève (Switzerland), Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (France), Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet (Sweden) and Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (Austria). We designate lectotypes for the following species: Cis fultoni Broun, 1886, Xylographus anthracinus Mellié, 1849, X. bicolor Pic, 1916, X. brasiliensis Pic, 1916, X. ceylonicus Ancey, 1876, X. contractus Mellié, 1849, X. corpulentus Mellié, 1849, X. dentatus Pic, 1922, X. gibbus Mellié, 1849, X. hypocritus Mellié, 1849, X. javanus Pic, 1937, X. lemoulti Pic, 1916, X. longicollis Pic, 1922, X. madagascariensis Mellié, 1849, X. nitidissimus Pic, 1916, X. perforatus Gerstaecker, 1871, X. porcus Gorham, 1886, X. punctatus Mellié, 1849, X. ritsemai Pic, 1921, X. rufescens Pic, 1921, X. rufipennis Pic, 1934, X. rufipes Pic, 1930, X. seychellensis Scott, 1926, X. subopacus Pic, 1929, X. subsinuatus Pic, 1916, X. suillus Gorham, 1886, X. testaceitarsis Pic, 1916 and X. tomicoides Reitter, 1902. We propose the following syn. n. (senior synonym listed first): X. anthracinus = X. testaceitarsis, X. brasiliensis = X. lucasi Lopes-Andrade & Zacaro, X. corpulentus = X. lemoulti and X. richardi Mellié, X. madagascariensis = X. eichelbaumi Reitter, X. rufipennis, X. seychellensis Scott and X. tarsalis Fåhraeus, X. nitidissimus = X. longicollis, X. subsinuatus = X. rufescens. We exclude three species from Xylographus: Cis renominatus, nom. n. (for X. dentatus Pic, 1922, not C. dentatus Mellié, 1849), Paratrichapus fultoni (Broun, 1886), comb. n. and P. javanus (Pic, 1937), comb. n.

Recently we had the opportunity to examine type material of the most important historical collections of Xylographus. During this work, we noted that some spe-cies should be excluded from the genus and several synonyms were recognized. It is necessary to propose these nomenclatural acts now, before finishing the revision of Xylographus, because some names will soon be cited in ecological, cytotaxonomic and phylogenetic works on ciids. As most descriptions of Xylographus are based on syntypes, lectotype designations are necessary to fix clearly the concept of the names and to ensure the universal and consistent interpretation of them.

Material and methods
We examined 195 type specimens of Xylographus from the following institutions (preceded by acronyms used in this paper):

MCZ
Museum of  We used the generic features of Xylographus cited by Sandoval-Gómez et al. (2011), the most important features proposed by Lawrence (1971) to recognize Cis, and the original description of Paratrichapus by Scott (1926), for making decisions on generic placement. Paratrichapus was described as having a 3-3-3 tarsal formula, but after studying its type material and images of microscope slide preparations by Hugh Scott, we observed that it was certainly 4-4-4 as in all other ciids. Xylographus and Paratrichapus are morphologically similar, so we propose the characteristics stated on Table 1 to differentiate them.
We have not located the types of X. bostrichoides and X. richardi. And we did not have access to type material of X. scheerpeltzi. In the case of X. bostrichoides, we had at hand several named historical specimens, including those used for its redescription by Mellié (1849). In the case of X. richardi, we had only a named specimen for examination. The description of X. scheerpeltzi is adequately detailed and includes information on the morphology of sclerites of male abdominal terminalia. In all other cases, we had access to the original type series and dissected male abdominal terminalia whenever necessary and possible. The morphology of sclerites of male abdominal terminalia of Ciidae is stable intraspecifically and distinctly varies interspecifically, even between closely related species (Antunes-Carvalho and Lopes-Andrade 2013, Oliveira et al. 2013).
We propose ten synonymies among the currently available names in Xylographus. For us, these are the most obvious cases that need solution. These names were proposed based on slight color differences (for instance, those observed in teneral adults), subtle variations of male secondary sexual characteristics or based only on females. A single author, Maurice Pic, was responsible for half of the names here recognized as junior synonyms. He is known for having proposed thousands of new names of beetles based mostly on anecdotal descriptions and small type-series. Lack of access to type material was also a great problem. Scott (1926) described X. seychellensis stating that he did it with some hesitation, because he has not examined possible conspecifics, as X. madagascariensis and X. eichelbaumi, the senior and a junior synonym proposed here, respectively. The same was true to X. lucasi, whose authors (Lopes-Andrade and Zacaro 2003) described it without examining the type of X. brasiliensis, recognized here as its senior synonym.
A complete list of Xylographus species is given in alphabetical order. Type-locality and synonyms, if any, are given for each species. Type series and type material of its synonyms are given only for species that we could examine in museums. Syntypes of species treated in this work were almost all labeled as lectotypes and paralectotypes by John F. Lawrence in 1965, but they were not officially designated in the literature. We reexamined all specimens and preferred to maintain Lawrence's labels in most cases to avoid future inconsistencies. We designated a lectotype in cases where a single specimen was located and the author of the species name did not state whether there was one or more than one specimen in the type series. We consider a specimen to be the holotype only when the author clearly stated there was a single specimen available for description. When exact label data are listed, a backslash (\) separates individual labels. Data in square brackets were added for clarification. Remarks are provided for some species.

taxonomic synopsis
Xylographus anthracinus Mellié, 1849 Xylographus testaceitarsis Pic, 1916, syn. n. Remarks. There is no morphological difference between the lectotype of X. anthracinus and the lectotype of X. testaceitarsis. They are males of about the same size and with secondary sexual characteristic similarly developed. We have also dissected and compared sclerites of their abdominal terminalia and noted no difference. Remarks. Unfortunately we did not find the type material of Dufour in the MNHN.

Xylographus bicolor
We have found only specimens used by Mellié (1849) to redescribe this species and to describe its variety aubei, and dozens of specimens that do fit the currently accepted species limits. Müller et al. (2001) labeled one specimen deposited in MFNB as syntype of X. bostrichoides . However, after studying this specimen, we determined it is a member of Scolytinae (Curculionidae) and fits neither the original description by Dufour (1843) nor the redescription by Mellié (1849). Therefore, a lectotype is not designated here.  (2003). Remarks. In the description of X. lucasi, the authors did not have access to type specimens of X. brasiliensis and stated that its description was vague (Lopes-Andrade and Lawrence 2003). After we examined the available type of X. brasiliensis, a female located in the MNHN, we observed there is no difference between it and female paratypes of X. lucasi. We have located in the MNHN a male specimen collected in "Goyaz" (which may correspond to the current state of Goiás or to Tocantins), a historical specimen but not from the original type series of X. brasiliensis. We dissected it and compared the sclerites of abdominal terminalia to those of male paratypes of X. lucasi, and they are exactly the same. The species is widespread in the tropical South America and the type localities of both names are within its known range (pers. obs.). Remarks. There are several type specimens of species described by Mellié deposited in historical collections of the MHNG and the MNHN. In the MHNG, these types are in the A. Melly collection, who has a surname similar to that of J. Mellié but shall not be confounded. We did not find type material of X. richardi in the Chevrolat collection of MNHN. We located a female specimen from Colombia in the Melly collection of MHNG named as X. richardi. Mellié (1849) mentioned he has examined specimens from both the Chevrolat and the Melly collections, therefore there is a possibility that this single specimen we located in the Melly collection is a syntype, but we cannot assure this. We compared this female with female paralectotypes of X. corpulentus and X. lemoulti and they are exactly the same. Mellié (1849) provided few differences between X. corpulentus and X. richardi, stating that they resemble each other "pour la taille et la forme", with X. richardi being more punctate. We believe the description of X. richardi was based on a female specimen, because the pronotal surface between punctures is described as being finely rugose. We have observed that it is common in female Xylographus species to have pronotal surface distinctly more rugose than that of males. The type of X. corpulentus was described as being black, while the one of X. richardi was described as reddish. It is a common variation found in X. corpulentus, in which teneral adults may be reddish (pers. obs.). Pic (1916b) mentioned that X. lemoulti differs from X. richardi in the coloration and pronotal shape, again a consequence of the fact that the description of X. richardi was based in a teneral adult female. The type-localities of X. lemoulti and X. richardi are approximately 200 Km apart and both are in the coast of French Guiana. Remarks. Scott (1926) stated he has not examined the type of X. madagascariensis and that he described X. seychellensis with some hesitation. If he had examined the known male type of X. madagascariensis, he would have observed that it was just slightly more elongate than the specimens he had at hand, with no other differences. Such a small difference in body elongation is expected to occur in Xylographus species with broad geopraphical distribution (see, for instance, the known variation in X. globipennis; Sandoval-Gómez et al. 2011). In order to make sure they were all conspecifics, we dissected named male X. seychellensis compared to the type and also the lectotype of X. madagascariensis, and we observed the sclerites of abdominal terminalia to be exactly the same. The lectotype of X. tarsalis is a male X. madagascariensis with weak secondary sexual characteristics. Ferrer (1997) stated that two female paralectotypes of X. tarsalis were deposited in NHRS. After studying the material, we have seen that they are a male and a female instead. The names X. eichelbaumi and X. rufipennis were based on females, which clearly correspond to females named X. madagascariensis that we examined.