identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D9242DFFA10E74FF12FD498AF5FDF6.text	03D9242DFFA10E74FF12FD498AF5FDF6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhamphus pulicarius (Herbst 1795) Caldara & Tosevski	<div><p>Rhamphus pulicarius (Herbst, 1795)</p> <p>Curculio pulicarius Herbst, 1795: 429.</p> <p>This taxon was described from specimens collected at Braunschweig (Lower Saxony, Germany) from Hellwig’s collection, which was later combined with the collection of Hoffmannsegg and bought by the ZMHB (Klug 1824, Jaeger &amp; Uhlig 2010). The material of the “Hellwig-Hoffmannsegg collection” is preserved in the so-called Historical Collection (Hist.-Coll.), the old main collection of the ZMHB, which also includes material of various other authors who worked before 1860. According to Müller et al. (2001) a particular problem in this collection is that in the past, curators and collection assistants have arranged all specimens, including types of various authors or from various collections into a single historical series, if they considered them to belong to the same species (or synonyms thereof). In these cases, the series label, or the label on the first specimen of a historical series, bears handwritten names of two or more species and authors. Consequently, it is often difficult to say which specimens should be associated with which name because original labels of material from different sources/authors either did not exist or were removed during early arrangement of the Historical Collection. Sometimes, the single specimen of material from another collection/author bears a very small locality or name label. However, often only the different method of mounting indicates that the specimen is indeed from another author or from another collection. Therefore, it is often difficult to locate specimen(s) of a particular author within a historical series of a species.</p> <p>In the case of Rhamphus pulicarius there is the following series (B. Jaeger, pers. comm.):</p> <p>Series no 54461: according to the catalogue of the historical collection (Fig. 1A) written by J.P.E.F. Stein (see Göllner-Scheiding 2007), this series originally comprised eight specimens from “German., Erichs.” [Germany, Erichson]. In the collection, B. Jaeger located seven specimens, and one pin without the specimen. According to the series label it includes specimens of “ flavicornis Clairv. Latr., Curc. salt. pulicarius Ht *” from “Brunsv., Hellw. [Brunsvigia = Braunschweig, Hellwig]” (Fig. 1C). We guess that a part of the series is actually from Braunschweig from the former Hellwig’s collection and the other part comprises specimens from Erichson.</p> <p>It is noteworthy that, besides these specimens, there is also a microscope slide (Fig. 1F) including elytra and abdomen of one specimen. This slide was prepared by E. M. Hering when he published his note about R. oxyacanthae and compared it with R. pulicarius and R. subaeneus (Hering 1921).According to the label on the slide, the embedded body parts are not from a type but from a specimen collected later from Güntersberg by Hering.</p> <p>Moreover, at the ZMHB there is an old catalogue of the collection of Hellwig and Illiger, which was handwritten by Illiger. In the Curculionidae section there is only one record which might refer to pulicarius (Fig. 1B). If it does indeed refer to Rhamphus pulicarius Herbst, there were originally two specimens of this species in the Hellwig collection, which were later integrated with Erichson specimens, and probably also with specimens from other sources. Therefore, the collection label of the series 54461, which includes the name “ pulicarius Ht *”, indicates that it should include Herbst’s/Hellwig’s specimen(s) because of the asterisk following “Ht”. However, it is not clear which of the eight specimens are from the Hellwig collection and which from Erichson or from other sources. We think that there is a high probability that at least the first specimen bearing the above-mentioned label is from Braunschweig and therefore a syntype but, unfortunately, we have no certainty. A complete lack of labels makes it virtually impossible to establish which of these specimens belongs to the type series. Therefore, under the qualifying conditions enunciated in Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999) with the express purpose to clarifying its taxonomic status, following the authors’ general opinion on this taxon, we decided to designate a neotype of Curculio pulicarius Herbst, 1795, choosing the available specimen collected near to the type locality. It is a male (with the penis protruding from the abdomen), already sequenced, labelled “Assoc.w/ZFMK-TIS-2550709, Germany, 157 m NN, Halberstadt, Lkr. Harz, 51,84943N / 11,049566E, Sachsen-Anhalt, Freigelände südl. Klussiedlung [pink printed]/ Rhamphus pulicarius (Hbst., 1795) det. Jung, Manfred [pink printed]/ NEOTYPE Curculio pulicarius Herbst, 1795, Caldara &amp; Toševski des. 2021 [red printed]/ Rhamphus pulicarius (Herbst, 1795) Caldara &amp; Toševski det. 2021”. This specimen (Fig. 2A) is 1.8 mm long (rostrum excluded) and well preserved. Its online acc. Number is KU909870 (NCBI database, with photo taken when it was not yet glued on a card). It is deposited at the ZFMK. In accordance with Article 76.3 of the ICZN (1999) the place of origin of the neotype becomes the type locality of this taxon.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D9242DFFA10E74FF12FD498AF5FDF6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Caldara, Roberto;Toševski, Ivo;Mendel, Howard;Germann, Christoph	Caldara, Roberto, Toševski, Ivo, Mendel, Howard, Germann, Christoph (2022): In search of some type-specimens of Rhamphus [Clairville], 1798 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 5169 (4): 371-380, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5169.4.6
03D9242DFFA20E74FF12FA028B3EF83C.text	03D9242DFFA20E74FF12FA028B3EF83C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhamphus oxyacanthae (Marsham 1802) Caldara & Tosevski	<div><p>Rhamphus oxyacanthae (Marsham, 1802)</p> <p>Curculio oxyacanthae Marsham, 1802: 263.</p> <p>This taxon was described from specimens from Britain, without a more precise locality, collected on Crataegus oxyacantha L. (presumably C. monogyna Jacquin). Recently, M. G. Morris (pers. comm.) informed us that there are no specimens of the type series of Curculio oxyacanthae in Marsham’s material at BMNH. Therefore, following the authors’ general opinion on this taxon, with the expressed purpose to clarifying its taxonomic status, and under the qualifying conditions enunciated in Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999), we decided to designate a neotype of Curculio oxyacanthae Marsham, 1802. It is a female labelled “ England, Suffolk TL 7086, Lakenheath Station, 23.06.2020., off Crataegus, lgt. H. Mendel, DNA voucher 5953 IT/ NEOTYPE Curculio oxyacanthae Marsham, 1802, Caldara &amp; Toševski des. 2021 [red printed]/ Rhamphus oxyacanthae (Marsham, 1802) Caldara &amp; Toševski det. 2021 mt COI acc. N. MZ404333 ”. The specimen (Fig. 3A) is 1.7 mm long (rostrum excluded), well preserved with dissected genitalia. Its online acc. Number is MZ404333 (NCBI database). The neotype is deposited at the BMNH. In accordance with the Article 76.3 of the ICZN (1999) the place of origin of the neotype becomes the type locality of this taxon.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D9242DFFA20E74FF12FA028B3EF83C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Caldara, Roberto;Toševski, Ivo;Mendel, Howard;Germann, Christoph	Caldara, Roberto, Toševski, Ivo, Mendel, Howard, Germann, Christoph (2022): In search of some type-specimens of Rhamphus [Clairville], 1798 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 5169 (4): 371-380, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5169.4.6
03D9242DFFA20E74FF12FDAD8DDFFA9C.text	03D9242DFFA20E74FF12FDAD8DDFFA9C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhamphus subaeneus Illiger 1808	<div><p>Rhamphus subaeneus Illiger, 1808</p> <p>Rhamphus subaeneus Illiger, 1808: 324</p> <p>This taxon was described from specimens collected in Portugal (“Lusitania”) without more detailed locality information. Regarding Illiger’s collection, what is reported above in respect of Hellwig’s collection at the ZMNB (see R. pulicarius) is equally valid.</p> <p>In the case of Rhamphus subaeneus there is the following series (B. Jaeger, pers. comm.):</p> <p>Series no 54462: according to the catalogue of the historical collection (Fig. 1A) this series originally comprised seven specimens of “(aeneus Schh.) = subaeneus Boh. [sic]” from “Lusitania” and “Gall. merid.” In the collection now, B. Jaeger could locate only five specimens. The series in the collection, as labelled, includes specimens of “subaeneus” from “Lusit.”; we think that a part of the series is from Portugal, another part being from southern France. The labelling of individual specimens indicates that the first two specimens are from Portugal and are syntypes, and the remaining three specimens are from southern France. The two syntypes (sex not determined) are in quite poor condition (pinned with thick rusty pins), but still easily identifiable as the species currently considered as R. subaeneus. We designated the specimen in Fig. 2B and labelled “ subaeneus Ill …Lus.” as the lectotype of this species adding the following label “ LECTOTYPE Rhamphus subaeneus Illiger des. Caldara &amp; Toševski 2021”. We indicated the other specimen labelled “54462/ subaeneus Schönh. Lusit 4” (Fig. 2C) as a paralectotype.</p> <p>As with R. pulicarius, there is additionally a slide including elytra and the abdomen of one specimen (Fig. 1F). This slide was prepared by E. M. Hering when he published about oxyacanthae and compared it with pulicarius and subaeneus (Hering 1921). According to the labelling of the slide the embedded body parts are from material from the historical collection, but their precise origin remains uncertain.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D9242DFFA20E74FF12FDAD8DDFFA9C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Caldara, Roberto;Toševski, Ivo;Mendel, Howard;Germann, Christoph	Caldara, Roberto, Toševski, Ivo, Mendel, Howard, Germann, Christoph (2022): In search of some type-specimens of Rhamphus [Clairville], 1798 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 5169 (4): 371-380, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5169.4.6
03D9242DFFA40E70FF12FB1A8CC3F9BE.text	03D9242DFFA40E70FF12FB1A8CC3F9BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhamphus flavicornis Clairville 1798	<div><p>Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798</p> <p>Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798: 104.</p> <p>This taxon was described based on specimens from Switzerland, without a more precise locality, collected on Prunus spinosa L. Its taxonomic status was subjected to various interpretations. Stephens (1831) considered R. flavicornis to be a variety of R. pulicarius characterized by “the antennae completely testaceous and the club somewhat fuscescent”. Curiously, he did not mention the already described R. oxyacanthae. Almost contemporaneously, Schoenherr (1833) considered R. flavicornis a valid species and placed R. pulicarius (although previously described) and R. oxyacanthae as synonyms. Heyden (1862), as well as Perris (1877) and Bargagli (1885), roughly described the immature stages of R. flavicornis collected on a wild Prunus, without mentioning other species. Subsequently, the authors generally followed Stephens’ opinion (see Klima 1935, Hoffmann 1958). However, R. flavicornis was overlooked by Hering (1921) when he established the interspecific differences between pulicarius and oxyacanthae for the first time, the same with Tempère (1982) in his revision of the French species of Rhamphus. Only recently, Pesarini &amp; Diotti (2012) reported that since specimens were collected on Rosaceae, R. flavicornis might be a senior synonym of R. oxyacanthae and not of R. pulicarius that lives on Salicaceae and Betulaceae.</p> <p>Unfortunately, there are no obvious syntypes of R. flavicornis in Clairville’s collection at NHMB. Research in other institutes has also failed to find syntypes. Therefore, following the authors’ general opinion on this taxon, with the express purpose to clarifying its taxonomic status, under the qualifying conditions of Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999), we decided to designate a specimen of R. oxyacanthae from Switzerland as the neotype of Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798, thereby confirming the synonymy of these two taxa. It is a female labelled “Swiss, 329_19.8 SZ, GR Müstair, Wald, GS, Laubstreu, Corylus, 46°37’39.8”N 10°26’35.2”E, 1350m, 15.06.2019, lgt. C. Germann, DNA voucher 6095 IT/ NEOTYPE Rhamphus flavicornis Clairville Caldara &amp;Toševski des. 2021 [red printed]/ Rhamphus oxyacanthae (Marsham, 1802) Caldara &amp; Toševski det. 2021 mtCOI acc. n. MZ404334 ”. The specimen (Fig. 3B) is 1.5 mm long (rostrum excluded) and well preserved with dissected genitalia. Its online acc. number is MZ404334 (NCBI database). It was collected by sifting leaf litter under Corylus in close vicinity of a Crataegus bush. It is deposited at the NHMB. In accordance with Article 76.3 of the ICZN (1999) the place of origin of the neotype becomes the type locality of this taxon. In this case, however, flavicornis can be considered as nomen oblitum according to Article 23.9.1 of the ICZN (1999). This opinion, although informal, lacking the 25 publications requested by Article 23.9.2, was preliminarily reported by Caldara (2013). We now apply formally in respect of Article 23.9, reporting the following 25 publications: Abbazzi &amp; Maggini 2009; Abbazzi &amp; Osella 1992; Abbazzi et al. 1995; Alonso-Zarazaga et al. 2017; Arzanov 2015; Baviera &amp; Caldara 2020; Braunert 2009; Caldara 2013; Caldara &amp; Pesarini 1980; Colonnelli 2003; Diotti et al. 2021; Germann 2010; Germann &amp; Colonnelli 2018; Mazur 2002; Lohse 1983; Pelletier 2005; Pesarini &amp; Diotti 2012; Podlussány 2001; Rheinheimer &amp; Hassler 2010; Telnov 2004; Tempère 1982; Tempère &amp; Péricart 1989; Wanat &amp; Mocrzycki 2005; Wanat &amp; Mocrzycki 2018; Yunakov et al., 2018. Therefore, we formally propose Curculio oxyacanthae Marsham, 1802 (currently Rhamphus) as nomen protectum and Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798 as nomen oblitum.</p> <p>It seems useful to report some unpublished news on the whereabouts of the Clairville collection, to clarify the situation of all type specimens of taxa described by this eminent author. Horn &amp; Kahle (1937) and the later established and often very helpful database “Biographies of the Entomologists of the World” of the SDEI (http://sdei. senckenberg.de/biographies/index.php) both indicate that the collection of Coleoptera formed by Joseph Philippe de Clairville is at the NHMB (see also Bousquet 2016). However, enquiries about and searches for specimens in that important collection have been in vain as not a single specimen relevant to our research could be found that might be attributed with certainty to Clairville. The following short overview of our desperate search led us to conclude that this collection must be considered completely lost.</p> <p>French Botanist and Entomologist Joseph Philippe de Clairville (1742–1830) lived in the French part of Switzerland in Aigle, Bex and Nyon in the years before 1780. He moved to Winterthur in 1782, where he stayed, with some interruptions, untill his death (Geilinger 1932). Between 1798 and 1806, two volumes of a book with the title “ Entomologie helvétique ou catalogue des insectes de la Suisse rangés d’après une nouvelle méthode ” were published anonymously. Clairville (1811) declared them as his opus in a subsequent paper on botany and signed some copies (fig. 4). Furthermore, Bousquet (2016) noted that Clairville was the author of those volumes, including a short overview. It is worth noting that in these cases the name of the author should be enclosed in square brackets according to Recommendation 51D of the ICZN (1999) which we follow in the present paper. Besides Rhamphus, Clairville described several important weevil genera such as Cossonus, Cionus, and Rhynchaenus. Investigations on the whereabouts of his entomological collection revealed that nothing was present in the Naturmuseum Winterthur (Sabrina Schnurrenberger, pers. comm.), except some archived literature and some documents. The museum preserves only objects from 1860 and later. Some traces of the herbarium by Clairville are known from Zurich (https://www.herbarien.uzh.ch/de/belegsuche.html), where they were donated by the “Stadtbibliothek Winterthur” in 1901. But the herbarium is far from being complete (Alexander Kocyan, pers. comm.).</p> <p>In the “Bericht über die Verhandlungen der natuforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel” (Anonymous 1835) there is finally a compelling indication of the sad fate of the Clairville collection: on page 71 the following statement is made under “B. Zoologische Sammlung” where the first inventory of the early zoological collections in the Museum of Basel is presented―the museum then “Naturkundliche Sammlung” had been founded in 1821. In a separate room (according to the exposition at that time) the insects were presented, among them “1.) In einer an europäischen, vorzüglich schweizerischen Arten ziemlich reichen Käfersammlung, die einem grossen Theile nach aus Stücken der Clairville 'sehen Sammlung besteht, von J. J. Hagenbach im Jahr 1822 geordnet und benannt.” [a beetle collection rich in European and mainly Swiss species, which consists predominantly of pieces of the collection by Clairville, ordered and named by J.J. Hagenbach in 1822]. The mentioned Jacob Johann Hagenbach, also known as Hans Jakob Hagenbach, (1802-1825) was a seemingly very talented young entomologist (Guyet 1974), who determined and ordered in his short lifetime the collection in the early Museum Zurich, where no traces at all are left (Michael Greef, pers. comm.), and also worked as “Konservator” (or entomological assistant) of the then invertebrate curator Willem De Haan from 1823 to 1825 in the “Königliches Museum in Leiden”, now Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Lutz 1826; Pont 1995; Oscar Vorst, pers. comm.).</p> <p>The precious collection of Clairville was used to demonstrate insect diversity to the public in a big exposition in the early Museum of Basel before 1821. Nothing is known or written about the subsequent history of that collection, later volumes of the same journal have been throughly checked. Presumably, the specimens were badly damaged by light and/or destroyed by Dermestidae. Poor curation of the collection and associated documentation in the early days certainly contributed to the collection’s demise: original labels and notes by Clairville seems to have beem replaced by homogenous looking labels with a red margin. For example, the label pinned beneath one specimen from “ Deutschland ” carries the inscription “ Ramphus flavicornis ” (Fig. 1E)―the name of the genus without a letter “h”―which means the specimen can no longer be recognised with certainty as part of the Clairville collection. The label’s handwriting, at least of the investigated Curculionoidea, might be J.J. Hagenbach’s. Comparison of autobiographical notes investigated in the Staatsarchiv Basel-Stadt (Archivarien PA 838 A52 (1) and A53 (1)) and the labels show a remarkable similarity. However, there are other insects in the NHMB, which are labelled in the same way, but with a different handwriting. Hence, this practise could have been used for other collections too, and is thus not restricted to Clairville’s specimens.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D9242DFFA40E70FF12FB1A8CC3F9BE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Caldara, Roberto;Toševski, Ivo;Mendel, Howard;Germann, Christoph	Caldara, Roberto, Toševski, Ivo, Mendel, Howard, Germann, Christoph (2022): In search of some type-specimens of Rhamphus [Clairville], 1798 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 5169 (4): 371-380, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5169.4.6
03D9242DFFA60E71FF12F9658DB8FD22.text	03D9242DFFA60E71FF12F9658DB8FD22.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhamphus kiesenwetteri Tournier Caldara & Tosevski 1873	<div><p>Rhamphus kiesenwetteri Tournier, 1873</p> <p>Rhamphus kiesenwetteri Tournier, 1873: 188</p> <p>Rhamphus kiesenwetteri was described by Tournier (1873) based on specimens reported as collected in Sicily by the botanist brothers Huet de Pavillon, but never found subsequently on this island. Peyerimhoff (1931) pointed out that this species, which lives on Acacia, is widely distributed in northern Africa but is a stranger to the European fauna. This author believed that there was a confusion of locality in the original description. This opinion was accepted by Pesarini and Diotti (2012) and Germann and Colonnelli (2018), mainly on the basis of the host plant. However, whereas it is certain that this species is not indigenous to Sicily (Baviera and Caldara 2020), it remains possible that a plant with immature stages, or R. kiesenwetteri itself, could have been transported from Africa to Sicilian gardens, where many species of Acacia have been present for many years (Bazan et al. 2005) and where the brothers Huet de Pavillon could perhaps have collected them during travels in Calabria and Sicily as reported by Tournier (1873). It is noteworthy that until a few years ago, the recently described Sicilian taxon R. bavierai Diotti, Caldara, Toševski, 2021, was erroneously named R. kiesenwetteri Tournier, 1873 (see Curculio Team 2009). At the end of his description, Tournier (1873) wrote “ Sicile: ma Collection. Je crois me rappeler l’avoir envoyée aux collection de M.M. de Kiesenwetter et Stierlin….” [I think to remember that I sent specimens to Kiesenwetter’s and Stierlin’s collections].</p> <p>Currently there are no type specimens of R. kiesenwetteri in Tournier’s collection at the MNHN (H. Perrin, pers. comm.), but we found a syntype of it (Fig. 3C) in Stierlin’s collection at SDEI, already studied by Korotyaev (1994) and labelled “ Sicile [handwritten probably by Tournier]/coll. Stierlin [printed]/ Syntypus [printed on a red card] R. Kiesenwetteri Tourn. Tourn. [sic! The repetition of the name might signify “received by Tournier”] [handwritten by Stierlin on a card with blue edges]/DEI Müncheberg Col-03390”. These labels completely correspond with the original description. We designate it as the lectotype of this taxon adding the following red card with printed text “ LECTOTYPE Rhamphus kiesenwetteri Tournier Caldara &amp; Toševski des.”</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D9242DFFA60E71FF12F9658DB8FD22	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Caldara, Roberto;Toševski, Ivo;Mendel, Howard;Germann, Christoph	Caldara, Roberto, Toševski, Ivo, Mendel, Howard, Germann, Christoph (2022): In search of some type-specimens of Rhamphus [Clairville], 1798 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 5169 (4): 371-380, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5169.4.6
