| _version_ | 1866901946813644800 |
|---|---|
| author | Allsopp, Peter G. |
| author_facet | Allsopp, Peter G. |
| contents | <p><b><i>Antitrogus planiceps</i> (Blackburn, 1911)</b></p><p><i>Rhopaea planiceps</i> Blackburn, 1911: 195.</p><p><i>Antitrogus planiceps</i>: Britton 1978: 20.</p><p><i>Rhodaea</i> <i>planiceps</i>: Lea 1912: xxxvi (in error).</p><p><b>Lectotype (designated by Houston & Weir 1992: 306) male (Figs. 1–3):</b> Museum Balhannah 12-85 (handwritten) | TYPE Rhopaea planiceps, Blackb. (handwritten by Blackburn) | I.4526 Rhopaea planiceps Bl S. Australia. (handwritten with S. Australia crossed out) TYPE (handwritten in red, at right angle) | SAMA Database No. 25-034468 | my lectotype label; in SAM.</p><p>Blackburn (1911) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1), but he said that the “Type” was in SAM and it was listed by Lea (1912) as such. Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) all referred to a male “ holotype ” in SAM, but none provided any discussion as to why they considered that Blackburn (1911) might have had only one specimen. As Britton (1978) provided no discussion, did not label any specimen in ZMB and did not correctly state the collection data on the specimen label, I considered that his mention of a holotype does not constitute a valid lectotype designation. However, Houston & Weir (1992) cited the SAM register number I.4526 that fixes a particular specimen and is a lectotype designation by an incorrect reference to a holotype (vide Article 74.5).</p><p>The type locality was given by Blackburn (1911) as “ South Australia ” and on the label as “Balhannah” [34.98°S, 138.82°E], about 30 km south-east of Adelaide; it does not accord with the known distribution of the species in northeastern New South Wales and southeastern Queensland (Britton 1978; Allsopp 1993b, 2003; Miller & Allsopp 2000). Perhaps, this is why ‘South Australia’ is crossed out on one of the labels.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_4340938 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Antitrogus planiceps Allsopp, Peter G. Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Melolonthidae Antitrogus Antitrogus planiceps <p><b><i>Antitrogus planiceps</i> (Blackburn, 1911)</b></p><p><i>Rhopaea planiceps</i> Blackburn, 1911: 195.</p><p><i>Antitrogus planiceps</i>: Britton 1978: 20.</p><p><i>Rhodaea</i> <i>planiceps</i>: Lea 1912: xxxvi (in error).</p><p><b>Lectotype (designated by Houston & Weir 1992: 306) male (Figs. 1–3):</b> Museum Balhannah 12-85 (handwritten) | TYPE Rhopaea planiceps, Blackb. (handwritten by Blackburn) | I.4526 Rhopaea planiceps Bl S. Australia. (handwritten with S. Australia crossed out) TYPE (handwritten in red, at right angle) | SAMA Database No. 25-034468 | my lectotype label; in SAM.</p><p>Blackburn (1911) did not define the type series, seeing an unknown number of males (vide Articles 73.1.2, 72.1.1), but he said that the “Type” was in SAM and it was listed by Lea (1912) as such. Britton (1978), Houston & Weir (1992), and Miller & Allsopp (2000) all referred to a male “ holotype ” in SAM, but none provided any discussion as to why they considered that Blackburn (1911) might have had only one specimen. As Britton (1978) provided no discussion, did not label any specimen in ZMB and did not correctly state the collection data on the specimen label, I considered that his mention of a holotype does not constitute a valid lectotype designation. However, Houston & Weir (1992) cited the SAM register number I.4526 that fixes a particular specimen and is a lectotype designation by an incorrect reference to a holotype (vide Article 74.5).</p><p>The type locality was given by Blackburn (1911) as “ South Australia ” and on the label as “Balhannah” [34.98°S, 138.82°E], about 30 km south-east of Adelaide; it does not accord with the known distribution of the species in northeastern New South Wales and southeastern Queensland (Britton 1978; Allsopp 1993b, 2003; Miller & Allsopp 2000). Perhaps, this is why ‘South Australia’ is crossed out on one of the labels.</p> |
| title | Antitrogus planiceps |
| topic | Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Melolonthidae Antitrogus Antitrogus planiceps |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4340938 |