Eburia Lacordaire 1830

Eburia Lacordaire, 1830 Eburia Lacordaire, 1830: 177. Dissacanthus Hope, 1834: 107. Eleutho Thomson, 1864: 242. Syn. nov. Remarks. We consider it important to reproduce here the original descriptions of the genera involved, especially because these descriptions were not written in English. Furthermore, we believe this will make it easier for readers to understand the issues at hand, as they will not need to consult other works to obtain all the information. Lacordaire (1830) described Eburia, attributing the genus to Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, as follows (translated): Eburia (Lepel. and Serv.), Stenocorus (Fab.). – The large species, with an almost cylindrical body, live under the bark and even inside decayed trees: E. 4 - maculata (Fab.), distinguenda, morosa (Dej., new species). The others, with a more flattened body, elytra less hard than the previous ones, and femora armed at their apices with strong spines, live on leaves and cling to them, with their antennae folded over their backs. When one tries to touch them, they quickly escape and let themselves fall to the ground: E. sexmaculata (Fab.), Lacordairei, similis (Dej., new species). All produce a sharp sound with their prothorax. Although Lacordaire (1830) attributed the genus to Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, according to Bousquet (2007), “ It is quite obvious that Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville provided the generic names, but there is no evidence from the content that they provided the descriptions used by Lacordaire or proposed the inclusion of any of the specific names mentioned under the genera by Lacordaire. Therefore, the generic names first validated in Lacordaire (1830) should be attributed to Lacordaire. ” Except for Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus, 1767, wrongly attributed to Fabricius by Lacordaire, all species listed by Lacordaire (op. cit.) are nomina nuda. Therefore, C. quadrimaculatus is the type species of the genus by monotypy. According to Bousquet (2007), “ It is quite obvious that Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville provided the generic names, but there is no evidence from the content that they provided the descriptions used by Lacordaire or proposed the inclusion of any of the specific names mentioned under the genera by Lacordaire. ” Partially supporting Bousquet’s (2007) comment — since Audinet-Serville considered the genus to have been described by himself alone, and not by Lacordaire — Audinet-Serville (1834) redescribed Eburia (translated): The four palpi are equal; their terminal segment is rather short, shaped like an inverted cone, and almost rounded at the apex. The pronotum [prothorax] is cylindrical, with a single lateral tubercle, its surface uneven and often bearing two closely set dorsal spines. The antennae are setose, composed of eleven segments, and longer than the body in both sexes, with the last segment elongated in males. The legs are long, with femora not club-shaped. The elytra are glabrous and truncate at their apices; the angles of the truncation are prominent, the outer one often extended into a strong spine. They usually display several raised, ivory-colored spots. The scutellum is rounded posteriorly. The body is glabrous, at least in part. Audinet-Serville divided Eburia into two groups (translated): 1. “ The first four femora [meso- and metafemora] are equipped on both the inner and outer parts of the club that receives the base of the tibia with two spines of unequal size, ” including E. quadrimaculata, E. sexmaculata (Fabricius) (in fact, Cerambyx sex maculatus Olivier, 1790, currently Eburodacrys sexmaculata), E. lineola (Fabricius, 1781) (currently Erosida lineola), and E. stigma (Olivier, 1800); 2. “ All the femora are unarmed, ” with only E. morosa Dejean (which is actually a nomen nudum in Dejean’s catalogs; the species was formally described by Audinet-Serville in 1834 and is currently known as Pantomallus morosus) (Fig. 28). Audinet-Serville’s (1834) description of the genus and the first group of species does not make it clear whether he misidentified Eburia quadrimaculata. Hope (1834) (not 1835 as indicated by Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) — see Sherborn 1925) proposed Dissacanthus and included “ quadrimaculatus, Fab., aliaeque decem [and ten others]. – America Meridionalis. ” Interestingly, he included Dissacanthus among the genera without spinose antennae (“ Antennae plus minusve pubescentes, haud spinosae [Antennae more or less pubescent, not spined] ”). This description suggests that he misidentified the true Cerambyx quadrimaculatus, which has some spiny flagellomeres. Hope (1841) indicated (not 1843 as indicated by Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025)): “ Hope’s genera and types in 1833 … Dissacanthus, Sten. 4 - maculatus, Fab. ” and “ Serville’s genera and types in 1834 … Eburia, Sten. 4 - maculatus, Fab. [= Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus]. ” With this note, Hope (1841) synonymized Eburia under Dissacanthus, which is here regarded as a mistake, since Eburia was first described by Lacordaire in 1830 and therefore has priority over Dissacanthus. We believe that this was not a very clear way of designating a type species, especially since he was designating a type species for Eburia Audinet-Serville (1834) and not for Eburia Lacordaire (1830), but also because, from the way the information was presented, one could understand that Audinet-Serville had already made the designation or that there was monotypy. However, this designation has no nomenclatural value, since Eburia in Lacordaire (1830) was described with a single available species: Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus, 1767 (wrongly attributed to Fabricius), contradicting the information on Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and on Monné (2024), who state that Hope (1841) designated the type species of Eburia. Thomson (1864) considered Dissacanthus [misspelled as Dissacantha] as different from Eburia: “ Type: D. Quadrimaculata Fabr. Syst. El. II, p. 308, n ° 16. (Nec Eburia (Cérambyx) 4 - maculata Linné.) Guyadeloupe. ” However, the description by Fabricius (1775) did not allow excluding Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus, because it is extremely short and vague, allowing the inclusion of many species. Furthermore, he listed Linnaeus (1767), Sloane (1725), and Drury (1770) as references (see remarks in Coeleburia tetrastalacta (White, 1853)). The two latter provided illustrations that, apparently, match very well the syntype housed in the LSUK. We believe that Eburia quadrimaculata Linnaeus, sensu Thomson (1861; 1864), was a misidentification. Gemminger (1872) considered Dissacanthus a junior synonym of Eburia. Thomson (1861) described Coeleburia as follows (translated): Head produced, short, elevated at the base of the antennae. Antennae 11 - segmented, elongated, setose underneath, in the male far exceeding the apex of the body; the 1 st segment longitudinally sulcate; segments 3 and 4–10 each scarcely longer; segments 3 and 4 simple and entire; the last segment usually the longest, longer than the two preceding segments, very slender, with an appendage or divided, the appendage simulating a twelfth segment. In the female, the antennae are shorter, only slightly exceeding the body; the last segment is scarcely longer than the preceding one, entire, and not slender. Eyes lunulate [crescent-shaped] on the inner side. Mandibles bifid. Palpi fairly elongated, dilated at the apex, maxillary palpi longer than labial ones. Prothorax globular, laterally spined, scarcely elongated, with tubercles on the upper surface. Scutellum somewhat rounded. Elytra elongated, slightly convex, subparallel, apex bi-truncate, and four-spined. Prosternum [prosternal process] narrowed and slightly produced at the apex. Mesosternum [mesoventral process] broad and crescent-shaped at the apex, more or less with a single tubercle in the middle. Legs fairly long, especially the hind legs, cylindrical; the front legs scarcely thickened; procoxae globular; anterior procoxal cavities rounded; intermediate and hind femora cylindrical, each armed apically on the inner side with two spines, the inner spine larger; first segment of the tarsi somewhat elongated. Genus Eburia: distinguished by (1) the 1 st antennal segment being longitudinally sulcate and the last segment longer; (2) the mesosternum [mesoventral process] being more or less tuberculate; and (3) the hind femora in males always exceeding the end of the body. Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and Monné (2024) reported that the type species of Coeleburia was designated only 3 years later by Thomson (1864). However, this is a mistake, since only C. semipubescens Thomson, 1861, was originally included, making it the type species by original monotypy. The other purported species included by Thomson (1861) have no nomenclatural value (translated): “ My collection still contains some probably undescribed species that must belong to this genus. I will mention, among others, C. stigmatica Chevrl., unpublished, from Mexico, and another species from Guatemala, in which the spines of the middle and hind femora are almost obsolete. ” Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and Monné (2024) considered Coeleburia stigmatica Chevrolat in Thomson (1861: 238) as equal to Eburia stigmatica Chevrolat, 1835 (currently, Susuacanga stigmatica). Although Thomson (1864) mentioned “ C. stigmatica Chevrolat, ” it is unlikely that the citation in Thomson (1861) actually corresponds to Eburia stigmatica Chevrolat, 1835, because he stated that it was an undescribed (“ inedited ”) species. Even if it may have been an error by Thomson (1861), there is no evidence to support it. Therefore, it is mandatory to accept that only C. semipubescens was originally included in the genus. Lacordaire (1868) synonymized Coeleburia with Eburia and was followed by Gemminger (1872). Thomson (1864) described Drymo as follows (translated): Male. Short head; forehead two-horned, concave in the middle and longitudinally