Coeleburia tetrastalacta Botero & Santos-Silva & Bezark 2026, comb. nov.

Coeleburia tetrastalacta (White, 1853) comb. nov. Eburia tetrastalacta White, 1853: 89. Remarks. As Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) list erroneous references for this species — some of which in fact pertain to Eburia quadrimaculata — we need to make a few comments. According to Monné (2024), in the references to E. tetrastalacta: “ Cerambyx maculatus Drury, 1773: 84, pl. 37, fig. 3. / Type locality - Holotype: Jamaica. (Depository unknown). / Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Panzer in Drury, 1778: 141, pl. 37, fig. 3. / Type locality - Jamaica. (Depository unknown). ” Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) also listed Cerambyx maculatus and Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Panzer as described species. However: 1. Cerambyx maculatus in Drury (1773) is merely a spelling error. Therefore, it can never be considered a formal description (ICZN 1999: Art. 33.3). There is no doubt that Drury (1773) was referring to Linnaeus’ species, as he referred to Linnaeus under the species (“ XXXVII … 3. Maculatus, Linn. P. 626. N. 27. Ceram. ”); 2. Although the name “ Cerambyx maculatus ” appears in Drury (1773), page 84, the description and plate 37 with the illustration (fig. 3) are from Drury (1770); 3. Panzer (1787) did not describe a species named Cerambyx quadrimaculatus. He just provided references to the species and, without an explanation, corrected the spelling error of Drury (1773): “ Tab. XXXVII. Fig. 3. Cerambyx quadrimaculatus. Linn. Syst. Nat. n. 27. p. 626. Goeze. Beytr. I. Th. n. 27. p. 433. Stenocorus quadrimaculatus. Fabric. Syst. Ent. n. 11 p. 180. eiusd. Spec. Ins. T. I. n. 12. p. 727. eiusd. Mant. Ins. T. I. n. 12. p. 143. Sloan. Jam. 2. tab. 237. fig. 21. Gronov. Zooph. T. II. n. 542. ” Furthermore, Panzer’s work is not “ in Drury. ” Additionally, pages 105–152 and plates 29–40 were published in 1787, not 1788 (Bousquet 2016). These incorrect records in Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) were based on Aurivillius (1893) (translated): “ Eburia tetrastalacta White is almost certainly the same species that was illustrated and precisely described by Drury (Ill. Ex. Ent. I, p. 84, plate 37, fig. 3) as Cerambyx maculatus (index p. 2). It seems to me very doubtful that this species, as Drury himself and others have believed, is identical with Linnaeus’s quadrimaculatus, since one cannot say that the pronotum of maculatus [sensu] Drury is ‘ scaber’ [i. e., rough]. Bates states (in Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1870, p. 266, note) that the pronotum of Eburia 4 - maculata L. is completely without spines. However, this claim must be based on an error, because Linnaeus assigns his C. 4 - maculatus to the third division of the genus Cerambyx, which is precisely characterized by having the pronotum armed laterally. In contrast, Cerambyx rhamphygeus [sic] L. has an unarmed pronotum and thus cannot be, as Gemminger and Harold suggested, the same species as 4 - maculatus. — The Cerambyx 4 - maculatus described and illustrated by Forster in Fuessly’s Archiv 6, p. 13, plate 32, fig. 3, has a different body shape and spiny antennae and therefore, if the antennae are genuine, cannot even belong to the Eburia group. ” It is important to provide some notes about these statements: 1. Aurivillius (1912) did not state that Cerambyx quadrimaculatus sensu Drury (1770, 1773) is equal to C. tetrastalacta; he only suspected it; 2. We agree that C. quadrimaculatus sensu Drury (1770, 1773) is probably not conspecific with the species described by Linnaeus (1767). However, it seems evident to us that it is not possible to make any assertions about the sculpture of the pronotum based on the illustration in Drury (1770). Drury’s (1770) description of the prothorax was minimal and lacking in detail: “ The Thorax, being the color of the head, is very cylindrical, having a sharp spine one on each side and two short black ones on the top. ” Therefore, it is not possible to be certain whether C. quadrimaculatus sensu Drury (1770, 1773) is or is not the same as the species described by Linnaeus (1767); 3. The synonymy of Cerambyx ramphygeus is by Gemminger (1872) and not by Gemminger and Harold (1872); 4. “ Cerambyx rhamphygeus [sic] L. has an unarmed pronotum [prothorax] and thus cannot be … the same species as 4 - maculatus ” (Aurivillius 1893: 183). It is important to differentiate prothorax from pronotum; both C. ramphygeus and C. quadrimaculatus have the pronotum [halsschild] with two elevated tubercles, but only C. quadrimaculatus has the lateral tubercles of the prothorax distinct.