The bark beetle Cryphalusstriatulus Mannerheim, 1853 was described on the basis of two specimens from Alaska, one under the bark of unknown tree and one caught in flight (Mannerheim 1853). Schwarz (1895) listed C.striatulus as feeding on the spruce tree Piceaenglemanni Engelm. [sic!] (Pinaceae) based on specimens collected while on vacation near Alta, Cottonwood Canyon, Utah, in June 1891. These specimens share the approximate collection data (with year and host omitted) as the specimen which became the type of Cryphalusruficollis Hopkins, 1915. It is unclear why Hopkins treated them as such, but all subsequent publications before 2021 refer to Mannerheim’s species as Procryphalus Hopkins,1915 then as Trypophloeus Fairmaire, 1864. Schwarz also collected specimens of Trypophloeus from the same locality, eventually becoming the holotype of Trypophloeuspunctipennis Hopkins, 1915, now a synonym of Trypophloeusnitidus Swaine, 1912.
Later reviews of North American Cryphalini (sensu Wood, 1954) found that there was a proliferation of described names, many of which represent synonymous taxa (Wood 1954). For Cryphalusstriatulus Mannerheim, 1853, the identity was uncertain because the types could not be found in Mannerheim’s collection. Despite this, Wood proposed that Trypophloeusnitidus Swaine, 1912 was junior synonym of Cryphalusstriatulus, thus providing the Trypopholeusstriatulus [sic!] combination (Wood 1969, 1973). This change was probably based on two major features: (1) Mannerheim’s statement that the specimen was similar to Trypophloeusgranulatus (Ratzeburg, 1837) (Mannerheim 1853), and (2) Trypophloeusnitidus was the only North American Cryphalini described as being north of British Columbia in literature at that time (Wood 1969, 1973). This taxonomic combination remained unchanged until Kvamme et al. (2021) in which the authors, while looking for Trypophloeus types, discovered a single specimen of Cryphalusstriatulus Mannerheim, 1853 in the type material present in the Zoological Institute (St. Petersburg, Russia) (Fig. 1A). Kvamme et al. found that the species described by Mannerheim was a species of Cryphalus Erichson, 1836 and re-established the original combination (Kvamme et al. 2021), putting Cryphalusruficollis Hopkins, 1915 as a junior synonym.
Figure 1.
Habitus and original labels of primary types of species sharing the combination “Cryphalusstriatulus”. Specimen photographs are resized to a common scale, black bars represent 1.0 mm ACryphalusstriatulus Mannerheim, 1853; designated lectotype, Zoological Institute (St. Petersburg, Russia) BCryphalusbrownei (Beaver, 1991) (= Cryphalomorphusstriatulus Browne, 1978) holotype, NHMUK 010805928 CCryphaluspunctistriatulus Johnson, 2020 (= Cryphalusstriatulus Browne, 1981) holotype, NHMUK 010805993.
Mannerheim (1853) explicitly described two ‘forms’ in the description, with differences that are neither diagnostic of Cryphalus nor Trypophloeus. However, given the multiple specimens with different morphologies in the original description, there remains an unlikely but possible chance that the source of historical confusion was that two species were present in the type series. To maintain taxonomic stability, we designate the only known co-type as the lectotype of Cryphalusstriatulus. This specimen bears the labels: (1) golden circle used to mark type specimens; (2) “Cryphalusstriatulus Mnrhm. Kenai J[unio]. [?] Russam [?Russian America]” (unclear); and (3) “Lectotype Cryphalusstriatulus Mnrhm. Marchioro et al. des. 2023”. This designation promotes stability in case the second specimen is found and represents a different species.
Additionally, the taxonomic change following the discovery of the type creates a new homonym. Cryphalusstriatulus (Browne, 1978) was originally described as Cryphalomorphusstriatulus Browne, 1978 on the basis of a single specimen from Penang, Malaysia (Fig. 1B), collected in the gut of a swiftlet (Beaver and Browne 1978). Subsequently, the species was moved to Hypothenemus Westwood, 1834 and given the replacement name Hypothenemusbrownei Beaver, 1991 since this taxonomic combination was already pre-occupied by Hypothenemusstriatulus Schedl, 1942 (Schedl 1942; Beaver 1991). In 2020, Johnson et al. removed the species from Hypothenemus and placed it in Cryphalus, rendering the replacement name no longer necessary, using Cryphalusstriatulus (Browne, 1978) as the valid combination (Johnson et al. 2020). Since the combination Cryphalusstriatulus is now occupied by Cryphalusstriatulus Mannerheim, 1853 (sensu Kvamme et al. 2021), we treat the name Cryphalusstriatulus (Browne, 1978) as a junior homonym, and the novel combination, Cryphalusbrownei (Beaver, 1991), as the valid name. This is an unusual nomenclatural situation, for using a replacement name as a valid name when in a different genus.
An additional potential source of confusion is Cryphalusstriatulus Browne, 1981 (Fig. 1C), which was already replaced with Cryphaluspunctistriatulus Johnson, 2020 due to homonymy with Cryphalusstriatulus (Browne, 1978) (Johnson et al. 2020). Furthermore, Cryphalusbrownei Wood, 1992, already exists as an unnecessary replacement name for Cryphalusartocarpus Schedl, 1958, (now a synonym of Cryphalusartocarpus (Schedl, 1939)) (Johnson et al. 2020). Given such a high degree of homonymy within Cryphalus, we suggest correctly citing the authority with the year to avoid future confusion.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Roger A. Beaver for providing some useful documents for this work and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for partially funding the project. Andrew Johnson was funded by National Science Foundation (NSF), the US Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Aphis, and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)-Division of Plant Industry. Boris A. Anokhin (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia) is thanked for his help in obtaining photographs of Cryphalusstriatulus Mannerheim, 1853 type specimen. We thank Maxwell V. L. Barclay for granting access to the Cryphalus types preserved at the Natural History Museum, London.
Citation
Marchioro M, Johnson AJ, Besana L, Mandelshtam MYu, Faccoli M, Ruzzier E (2023) Taxonomic clarification and lectotype designation for Cryphalus striatulus Mannerheim, 1853 (non Browne, 1978, nec Browne, 1981) (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae), and notes on pervasive homonymy. ZooKeys 1183: 121–124. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1183.107660
Funding Statement
United States Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, FDACS-Division of Plant Industry
Additional information
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Ethical statement
No ethical statement was reported.
Funding
This work was supported by European Food Safety Authority and United States Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, FDACS-Division of Plant Industry.
Author contributions
All authors have contributed equally.
Author ORCIDs
Matteo Marchioro https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2301-1047
Andrew J. Johnson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3139-2257
Laura Besana https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4670-5775
Michail Y. Mandelshtam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7135-3239
Massimo Faccoli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9355-0516
Enrico Ruzzier https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-1247
Data availability
All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.
References
- Beaver RA. (1991) Reclassification of some Oriental and Australasian Scolytidae (Coleoptera). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 127: 53–54. [Google Scholar]
- Beaver RA, Browne FG. (1978) The Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera) of Penang, Malaysia. Oriental Insects 12(4): 575–624. 10.1080/00305316.1978.10432538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hopkins AD. (1915) Classification of the Cryphalinae with descriptions of new genera and species. United States Department of Agriculture: Report 99. 10.5962/bhl.title.65905 [DOI]
- Johnson AJ, Hulcr J, Knížek M, Atkinson TH, Mandelshtam MY, Smith SM, Cognato AI, Park S, Li Y, Jordal BH. (2020) Revision of the bark beetle genera within the former Cryphalini (Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Insect Systematics and Diversity 4(3): 1. 10.1093/isd/ixaa002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kvamme T, Mandelshtam M, Salnitska M, Ojeda DI. (2021) A new cryptic Trypophloeus Fairmaire, 1864 species in Northern Fennoscandia (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) revealed by DNA analyses. Norwegian Journal of Entomology 68: 44–66. [Google Scholar]
- Mannerheim CG. (1853) Dritter Nachtrag zur Käfer-Fauna der nord-amerikanischen Länder des Russischen Reiches. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou 26(3): 95–273. [Google Scholar]
- Schedl KE. (1942) Neue Scolytidae aus Java. 76. Beitrag zur morphologie und systematik der Scolytoidea. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 85: 1–49. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarz EA. (1895) Note on Hylesinussericeus. Insect Life 7: 254–256. [Google Scholar]
- Wood SL. (1954) A revision of North American Cryphalini (Scolytidae, Coleoptera). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 36: 959–1089. [Google Scholar]
- Wood SL. (1969) New synonymy and records of Platypodidae and Scolytidae (Coleoptera). The Great Basin Naturalist 29(3): 113–128. 10.5962/bhl.part.17054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wood SL. (1973) New synonymy in American bark beetles (Scolytidae: Coleoptera). Part III. The Great Basin Naturalist 33(3): 169–188. 10.5962/bhl.part.28154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.