Accepted by Q. Wang: 2 Dec. 2009; published: 22 Dec. 2009
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
ISSN
1175-5334 (online edition)
Copyright © 2009 · Magnolia Press
Zootaxa 2321: 1–80 (2009)
www.mapress.com
/zootaxa/
Monograph
ZOOTAXA
Catalogue of family-group names in Cerambycidae
(Coleoptera)
YVES BOUSQUET
1
, DANIEL J. HEFFERN
2
, PATRICE BOUCHARD
1
&
EUGENIO H. NEARNS
3
1
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6.
E-mail: yves.bousquet@agr.gc.ca; patrice.bouchard@agr.gc.ca
2
10531 Goldfield Lane, Houston, TX 77064, USA. E-mail: titanusgiganteus@hotmail.com
3
Department of Biology, Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, USA. E-mail: gnearns@unm.edu
Corresponding author: patrice.bouchard@agr.gc.ca
Magnolia Press
Auckland, New Zealand
2321
BOUSQUET ET AL.
2 · Zootaxa 2321 © 2009
Magnolia Press
Yves Bousquet, Daniel J. Heffern, Patrice Bouchard & Eugenio H. Nearns
CATALOGUE OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN CERAMBYCIDAE (COLEOPTERA)
(Zootaxa 2321)
80 pp.; 30 cm.
22 Dec. 2009
ISBN 978-1-86977-449-3 (paperback)
ISBN 978-1-86977-450-9 (Online edition)
F
IRST PUBLISHED IN 2009 BY
Magnolia Press
P.O. Box 41-383
Auckland 1346
New Zealand
e-mail: zootaxa@mapress.com
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/
© 2009 Magnolia Press
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated, in any form, or by
any means, without prior written permission from the publisher, to whom all requests to reproduce
copyright material should be directed in writing.
This authorization does not extend to any other kind of copying, by any means, in any form, and for any purpose
other than private research use.
ISSN 1175-5326 (Print edition)
ISSN 1175-5334 (Online edition)
Zootaxa 2321 © 2009 Magnolia Press · 3
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN CERAMBYCIDAE
Table of contents
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................4
Synoptic classification of the world Cerambycidae ............................................................................................................7
Catalogue of Taxa ..............................................................................................................................................................12
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................58
References......................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix ...........................................................................................................................................................................72
Index.................................................................................................................................................................................. 73
Abstract
Family-group names proposed for beetles belonging to the family Cerambycidae are catalogued and their availability is
determined using the rules of the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. A synoptic classification of the
family summarizes the validity of the names. Type genera of all family-group names are listed and the type species and
stems of genera of available family-group names are included. A new family-group name, Elytracanthinini Bousquet
(type genus: Elytracanthina Monn, 2005, a replacement name for Elytracantha Lane, 1955) is proposed for
Elytracanthinae Lane, 1955. Ichthyosoma armatum Montrouzier, 1855 is designated as type species of Icthyosoma
Boisduval, 1835. Reversal of precedence is used to preserve the validity of the following family-group names:
Anaglyptides Lacordaire, 1868 (over Anaglyptisidae Gistel, 1848 [Buprestidae]); Dryobiini Arnett, 1962 (over
Dryobiadae Gistel, 1856 [Ptinidae]); Hemilophitae Thomson, 1868 (over Amphionychitae Thomson, 1860) and
Hétéropsides Lacordaire, 1869 (over Dichophyiaeidae Gistel, 1848). The following family-group names, although junior
synonyms, are preserved as valid until an application is submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature; in these cases a reversal of precedence could not be applied: Eurypodini Gahan, 1906 (over Zaracinae
Pascoe, 1869); Macronides Lacordaire, 1868 (over Enchapteritae Thomson, 1861); Pyresthides Lacordaire, 1868 (over
Pseudolepturitae Thomson, 1861 and Erythrinae Pascoe, 1866) and Stenoderinae Pascoe, 1867 (over Syllitae Thomson,
1864). A total of 238 valid cerambycid family-group names (413 available names) are recognized in the following 13
subfamilies: Vesperinae (1 valid family-group name), Oxypeltinae (1), Disteniinae (4), Anoplodermatinae (3), Philinae
(1), Parandrinae (2), Prioninae (24), Spondylidinae (5), Necydalinae (1), Lepturinae (8), Lamiinae (80), Dorcasominae
(1), and Cerambycinae (107).
Key words: longhorned beetles; nomenclature; classification; type genera; type species; stem
BOUSQUET ET AL.
4 · Zootaxa 2321 © 2009
Magnolia Press
Introduction
Along with species- and genus-group names, family-group names form an integral part of zoological
nomenclature. Valid family-group names, which include names from subtribe to superfamily ranks, are used
in all classifications. Detailed studies on the availability and validity of these names have increased recently
since it has become apparent that accurate application of the rules of nomenclature is necessary to promote
long-term stability above the rank of genus.
Usage of the numerous family-group names proposed in the charismatic and well-studied family
Cerambycidae, the longhorned beetles, has not always been in accordance with the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature (hereby the Code) effective at the time. It has become evident that a catalogue of all
family-group names proposed within the family Cerambycidae was necessary to promote stability in the
nomenclature of the group.
The results presented here, as well as any subsequent corrections or modifications pointed out to us, will
be incorporated in an upcoming review of all family-group names proposed in the order Coleoptera to date.
This review will be co-authored by several coleopterists, including YB and PB.
The specific objectives of this paper are first to provide a complete list of family-group names proposed in
the family Cerambycidae (as far as known to us) and second to assess the availability of all names using rules
of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature consistently. We have tried to make as few changes as possible to
concepts currently accepted by workers in this family. Articles cited in the text refer to those in the current
Code (ICZN 1999).
Availability of family-group names
Based on the Code, requirements for availability of family-group names are relatively simple to interpret.
A family-group name proposed prior to 1931 needs only to be a scientific name (e.g., with a Latin
termination) in the nominative plural formed from the stem of an available genus-group name used as valid in
the new family-group taxon. The name had to denote a suprageneric taxon and not be a plural noun or
adjective referring to the members of a genus (see Articles 11, 12).
Between 1931 and 1999, new family-group names had to be accompanied by a description in words or by
a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, in addition to the requisites already in effect before, to
be available (Articles 13, 15). However, there are two cases when a family-group name proposed between
1931 and 1999 could be available even without a description or indication. Firstly, when the new name
proposed is a replacement name (Article 13.1.3). Secondly, when a family-group name, proposed before 1961
without description or bibliographic reference to such a description, was used as valid prior to 2000 and was
not rejected, between 1961 and 1999, by an author on the ground that the name was not accompanied by a
description or bibliographic reference to such a description (Article 13.2.1). A bibliographic reference is a
citation to a publication (Code’s glossary on p. 115). Simply referring to an author (with or without indicating
a publication date) without actually giving the bibliographic reference, either as a footnote or in a “references”
section, do not make the name available. In our opinion, the reference should include minimally, beside the
author’s name(s), the date and an abbreviated title of the book or of the journal.
In addition to the requisites mentioned above, any new family-group names proposed after 1999 must be
explicitly indicated as intentionally new and the name of the type genus has to be clearly cited, in order to be
available (Articles 16.1, 16.2).
One of the most difficult tasks while working on this review was to decide on the most consistent and
objective way to apply Article 11.7.2, which deals with the availability of names that were originally proposed
in a vernacular form. Vernacular names are generally not treated as scientific names in zoological
nomenclature (see Recommendation 11A). However, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature has made a single, but rather restricted, exception that applies to family-group names.
According to Article 11.7.2, a family-group name published before 1900 in a vernacular form could be
available from its first publication only “if [1] it has been latinized by later authors and [2] generally has been
Zootaxa 2321 © 2009 Magnolia Press · 5
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN CERAMBYCIDAE
generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and [3] as dating from that first
publication in vernacular form”. We interpreted the conditions listed in Article 11.7.2 as three separate
conditions that needed to be fulfilled (as indicated in square brackets we added) in order for a vernacular name
to be considered available. Many recent authors have treated family-group names first proposed in vernacular
form as available if they were latinized by later authors but we do not believe that this practice is in line with
the requirements of the Code. We have accepted as available all vernacular names published before 1900 that
have subsequently been used in latinized form, while being used as valid, and credited to the publication in
their vernacular form. To some extent we have tried to find the first publication that would explicitly fulfill
these requirements although we believe it is not indispensable. For every vernacular name that meet the
requirement of availability, we have added a comment in the format of the following example “Availability
(under Article 11.7.2): Bumetopini Lacordaire, 1872 (Aurivillius 1922a: 231).”
We have interpreted names proposed in the following languages to be vernacular: all German names with
the suffix “–en”, all Spanish names with the suffix “–os” or “–as” and all French names with the suffix “–
iens”. The most important issue was to determine the correct status of names originally proposed with the
suffix “–es.” We have used the principle that all family-group names proposed by non-French writers with the
suffix “–es” were in fact laninized names with an ending that differs from those regulated by the Commission
(these are mostly older names proposed before rules of zoological nomenclature became well-established).
For each name with the suffix “–es” first proposed by French workers (e.g. Latreille, Lacordaire, Lameere) we
went through the entire work containing those names and established if the author consistently used either
vernacular or latinized names in their work. French vernacular names often have accents in them (“é” or “è”)
while latinized names do not. We have found that determining whether an author used vernacular or latinized
names in a particular work was fairly straightforward except for one exception. Lameere (1912) used
vernacular names that he had previously introduced in previous parts of his series “Révision des prionides” in
the first pages of his article but used several family-group names as groups below the rank of tribe towards the
end of his paper. Some of these names had the suffix “–es” (e.g. Cnemoplites, Megopides, Hoploderes) and
were at the same rank as other names used in a latinized form (e.g. Archetypi, Macrotomae, Eurypodae).
Because none of the family-group names proposed below the rank of tribe had accents (some of which would
be required if these names were vernacular) and because of the context of the last part of Lameere’s article, we
have treated “Megopides” as originally proposed in a latinized form but with a suffix that differs from those
regulated by the Commission. Latreille proposed new family-group names with the suffix “–es” in several of
his works. We noticed that he most often used both the vernacular (listed first, with accents when required by
French language) and latinized (listed second, always in italics) forms of each name together in the same
heading. We have listed the latinized form of the name in each of those cases.
Bibliographic notes
As for specific and generic names, family-group names are subject to the “Principle of Priority” (see
Article 23). As mentioned above, relatively few requirements needed to be met in order for a new family-
group name proposed before 1931 to be considered available. They needed to be a scientific name formed
from the stem of an available generic name. This led to several cases where names were introduced in the
literature without even being recognized as new taxa. Sometimes the same family-group name was introduced
more than once during a single year and by different authors. This is the case for several cerambycid family-
group names proposed by Fairmaire, Pascoe, and Thomson in 1864 as well as by Lacordaire and Pascoe in the
years 1868 and 1869. We have attempted to determine precise dates of publication for these works because of
the importance of establishing priority for these names proposed in them.
Despite extensive search, we have been unable to find publication dates, other than the year, for
Thomson’s Systema cerambycidarum and Fairmaire’s Genera des coléoptères d’Europe, started by Jacquelin
du Val, both published in 1864. Pascoe’s paper published in the third volume of the third series of the
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London was published on October 3, 1864 (Wheeler 1912).
Because only the year is known for both Thomson’s and Fairmaire’s contributions, they must be considered as
published the last day of the year (Article 21.3.2). Consequently, Pascoe’s names published in 1864 have