User:Monster Iestyn/IRMNG and Dejean's catalogues

IRMNG it turns out has a lot of errors regarding genus-group names from Dejean's Coleoptera catalogues, mostly due to importing data from Nomenclator Zoologicus (which I'll call N.Z. for short) and Joel Hallan's Biology catalog. For instance, many of the names from N.Z. were recorded as "nomen nudum" even if they are now considered valid names. I don't know the full extent of errors in Hallan's catalog on the other hand, but some years need to be fixed among other things. Unfortunately there are even duplicate records in some cases, particularly in Chrysomelidae at least: typically one from N.Z. and one from Hallan's catalog! Here I attempt to note any corrections needed to said records on IRMNG, or at least mark which ones are essentially duplicates.

It is totally understandable that all of this is a mess though, as these names have apparently caused confusion historically, hence the creation of the two articles by Yves Bousquet & Patrice Bouchard in 2013.

Thanks @Monster Iestyn: for taking the time to look into these... as you note, in order to build IRMNG I started by importing everything in Nomenclator Zoologicus (correcting obvious errors only), plus some other sources, and later Hallan's Catalog for names I did not already have a record for... on the principle that acquiring the data was the first step, then any necessary cleaning can at least have a skeleton structure on which to build. Of course the Nom. Zool. records do not tell you which names are accepted/valid/current and which are not, or the family assignment; around 60% of such names now have this information, added from other sources (also species lists too, some already out-of-date) but this too is an ongoing process, hence the "I" in IRMNG, for "Interim" - I/we know it is not perfect, but a useful starting point for further improvement.

Also worth noting I initially envisaged building IRMNG to be a 3 month full time/6 months part time activity. That was in June 2006, still going as of now (including being retired from my formal work for the past 6 years!)... Best - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside - sometimes I think I have created a monster that will devour us all... But then I look at items such as this paper which can only be produced from IRMNG (at this time) and think that, warts and all, it has been a worthwhile effort to date (and which has served clients for the past 14 years or so, in the absence of anything more complete) so then I feel a little better :) Initially it was created because of the then deficiencies in the Catalogue of Life, as a "names resolving service" (e.g. to answer questions like, "just what is this critter??" - CoL was around 15% complete at that time). I met Frank Bisby (CoL originator and then prime mover) at a meeting of taxonomic database persons in 2007 and told him I was creating a stop-gap product, he was creating the Catalogue of Life, I was doing the Catalogue of Life and Death (fossils included). He did not seem particularly amused (perhaps the joke was too much at his expense...!) - Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Main references:

• Bousquet, Y. & Bouchard, P. 2013. The genera in the second catalogue (1833–1836) of Dejean’s Coleoptera collection. ZooKeys 282: 1–219. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.282.4401, PMC: 3677338 . PMID: 23794836. Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y. & Bouchard, P. 2013. The genera in the third catalogue (1836–1837) of Dejean’s Coleoptera collection. ZooKeys 282: 221–239. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.282.4402, PMC: 3677339 . PMID: 23794837. Reference page. 

Other references:

• Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 1999. A world catalogue of families and genera of Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) (excepting Scolytidae and Platypodidae). Entomopraxis, Barcelona. PDF. Reference page. 
• Blanchard, C.É. 1845. Histoire naturelle des insectes leurs moeurs, leurs métamorphoses et leur classification ou traité élémentaire d’entomologie. Tome premier. Paris, 398 pp.; pls. 1–10. DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.35820 BHL Reference page. 
• Blanchard, C.É. 1845. Histoire naturelle des insectes leurs moeurs, leurs métamorphoses et leur classification ou traité élémentaire d’entomologie. Tome second. Paris, 524 pp.; pls. 11–20. DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.35820 BHL Reference page. 
• Bouchard, P. & Bousquet, Y. 2020. Additions and corrections to “Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)”. ZooKeys 922: 65–139. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.922.46367 . Reference page. 
• Bouchard, P., Bousquet, Y., Davies, A.E., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Lawrence, J.F., Lyal, C.H.C., Newton, A.F., Reid, C.A.M., Schmitt, M., Ślipiński, S.A. & Smith, A.B.T. 2011. Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). ZooKeys 88: 1–972. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.88.807 . PMC: 3088472 . Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y. 2016. Litteratura Coleopterologica (1758–1900): a guide to selected books related to the taxonomy of Coleoptera with publication dates and notes. ZooKeys 583: 1–776. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.583.7084 . PMC: 4868922 . Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y. & Bouchard, P. 2017. Status of the new genera in Gistel’s “Die Insecten-Doubletten aus der Sammlung des Herrn Grafen Rudolph von Jenison Walworth” issued in 1834. ZooKeys 698: 113–145. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.698.14913 . Reference page. 
• Bousquet Y., Bouchard, P. & Campbell, J.M. 2015. Catalogue of genus-group names in Alleculinae (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). The Coleopterists Society Monograph 14: 131–151. DOI: 10.1649/0010-065X-69.mo4.131 . ResearchGate . Reference page. 
• Bousquet, Y., Thomas, D.B., Bouchard, P., Smith, A.D., Aalbu, R.L., Johnston, M.A. & Steiner Jr., W.E. 2018. Catalogue of Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) of North America. ZooKeys 728: 1–455. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.728.20602, PMC: 5799738 PMID: 29416389 Reference page. 
• Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1834. Coléoptères du Mexique. Strasbourg: G. Silbermann. BHL.
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 1 (pp. 1–96), Livraison 2 (pp. 97–176)]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. [pp. 177–256, Livraison 3 was published in 1834; pp. 257–360, Livraison 4 in 1835; pp. 361–442, Livraison 5 in 1836]. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1834. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 3]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 177–256. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1835. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 4]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 257–360. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Deuxième édition. [Livraison 5]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 361–443. BHL. Reference page. 
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Troisième édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. [Livraisons 1-4]. Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils, Paris, 1–384. Google Books.
• Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Troisième édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. [Livraison 5]. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis Père et Fils. pp. 385–503. BHL. Google Books. Reference page. 
• ICZN 1991. Opinion 1628. Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 48(1): 74–75. BHL.
• ICZN 1993. Opinion 1725. Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2): 169–170. BHL.
• ICZN 1996. Opinion 1825. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1): 57–59. BHL.
• ICZN 1996. Opinion 1838. Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2): 134–135. BHL.
• ICZN 2004. Opinion 2083 (Case 3205). Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61(3): 188–189. BHL. PDF.
• ICZN 2008. Opinion 2214 (Case 3366). Cisseis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1839 and Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Buprestidae) generic names not conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65(4): 325–326. DOI: 10.21805/bzn.v65i4.a1 . PDF.
• ICZN 2009. Opinion 2228 (Case 3393). Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): name not conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 66(2): 201–202. DOI: 10.21805/bzn.v66i2.a13 . PDF.
• Katovich, K. 2008. A generic-level phylogenetic review of the Macrodactylini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Insecta Mundi 23: 1–78. PDF. Reference page. 
• Krell, F.-T. 2007. Author, date, and type species of Adoretus (Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 61(1): 125-126. DOI: 10.1649/952.1 .
• Lacordaire, J.T. 1835. In: Boisduval J. & Lacordaire J.T.: Faune entomologique des environs de Paris; ou species général des insectes qui se trouvent dans un rayon de quinze à vingt lieues aux alentours de Paris. Tome premier. Paris: Méquignon-Marvis, 696 pp. BHL.
• Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. 2007. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 4. Elateroidea – Derodontoidea – Lymexyloidea – Cleroidea - Cucujoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 935 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004260894 . ISBN 978-90-04-26089-4. Google Books.
• Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. 2008. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 5. Tenebrionoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 670 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004260900 . ISBN 978-87-88757-69-9. Google Books
  • Iwan, D. & Löbl, I. 2020. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 5. Tenebrionoidea. Revised and Updated Second Edition. Brill. xxiv+945 pp. ISBN 978-90-04-43498-1 (paper), ISBN 978-90-04-43499-8 (e-book). DOI: 10.1163/9789004434998.
• Löbl, I. & Smetana, A. 2010. Catalogue of Palearctic Coleoptera. Volume 6. Chrysomeloidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark. 924 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004260917 ISBN 978-87-88757-84-2. Google Books. Index to species-group names (PDF). Reference page. 
• Löbl, I. & Löbl, D. 2015. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 2. Hydrophiloidea – Staphylinoidea. Revised and updated edition. (2 vols.) Brill, Leiden; Boston. 1736 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004296855 . ISBN 978-90-04-28992-5. Google Books
• Löbl, I. & Löbl, D. 2016. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 3. Scarabaeoidea – Scirtoidea – Dascilloidea – Buprestoidea – Byrrhoidea. Revised and updated edition. Brill, Leiden; Boston. 1012 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004309142 . ISBN 978-90-04-30913-5. Google Books
• Löbl, I. & Löbl, D. 2017. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 1. Archostemata – Myxophaga – Adephaga. Revised and updated edition. Brill, Leiden; Boston. 1480 pp. DOI: 10.1163/9789004330290 . ISBN 978-90-04-33028-3. Google Books.
• Motschulsky, V. de 1853. Lampyrides. Études Entomologiques 1 [1852]: 25–58. BHL.
• Mühle, H. 1993. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull,[1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius,[1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1): 27–30. BHL.
• Solier, A.J.J. 1833. Essai sur les Buprestides. Annales de la Société entomologique de France 2: 261–316. BHL Reference page. 

Web references:

• The World of Jewel Beetles - World Checklist

Notes

Column meanings:

• N.Z.: External link to the IRMNG record imported from Nomenclator Zoologicus, with stated name and authority. If name is stated as nomen nudum on IRMNG I mark it here.
• Hallan: Ditto, but for Joel Hallan's Biology catalog. (only if there is a duplicate record)
• Other: (To be used if there is a record from neither N.Z. nor Hallan's catalog involved)
• Correct name: Correct name and authority according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013). (only if the name needs correcting)
• Other corrections and notes: Here I list what else needs to be fixed on IRMNG, e.g.: if name is not actually a nomen nudum contrary to what IRMNG says, should be a synonym, etc. To put it another way though, if the name is meant to be a synonym of another and IRMNG has this correct information already, I don't need to state this here because it's not actually wrong! Other notes may also be placed here if necessary for context.
• Done?: If Y appears in this column, then these fixes have been made on IRMNG since the making of this list. If Y appears then as far as I can tell it was already fine beforehand (these may be changed to green ticks if they are fine). ? means it's probably fine but I'm not entirely sure or there may be personal guesses I've made related to the record(s).

Genera in this list are in the same order as in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013a, 2013b), where they are split into sections and ordered alphabetically within each section.

Second catalogue

Contents

• Pentamères
  • Pentamères: Hydrocanthares Y Done

    dytiscids, noterids, haliplids, gyrinids

  • Pentamères: Brachélytres Y Done

    staphylinids in part

  • Pentamères: Sternoxes Y Done (except Abrobapta)

    buprestids, elaterids, eucnemids

  • Pentamères: Malacodermes Y Done

    rhipicerids, ptilodactylids, scirtids, lycids, lampyrids, cantharids, melyrids, etc.

  • Pentamères: Terediles Y Done

    clerids, lymexylids, ptinids, etc.

  • Pentamères: Clavicornes Y Done

    silphids, nitidulids, cryptophagids, dermestids, histerids, byrrhids, heterocerids, etc.

  • Pentamères: Palpicornes Y Done

    hydraenids, hydrophilids

  • Pentamères: Lamellicornes Y Done

    scarabaeids, hybosorids, trogids, geotrupids, glaphyrids, lucanids, passalids

• Hétéromères
  • Hétéromères: Mélasomes Y Done

    tenebrionids in part

  • Hétéromères: Taxicornes Y Done

    tenebrionids in part, zopherids, leiodids in part, tetratomids

  • Hétéromères: Ténébrionites Y Done

    tetratomids, melandryids, pythids, tenebrionids in part, borids

  • Hétéromères: Hélopiens Y Done

    tenebrionids in part

  • Hétéromères: Trachélides Y Done

    tenebrionids in part, pyrochroids, anthicids, aderids, scraptiids, ripiphorids, mordellids, etc.

  • Hétéromères: Vésicants Y Done

    meloids

  • Hétéromères: Sténélytres Y Done

    oedemerids, mycterids, salpingids

• Tétramères
  • Tétramères: Curculionites Y Done

    Curculionoidea except scolytines and platypodines

  • Tétramères: Xylophages Y Done

    scolytines, platypodines, bostrichids, sphindids, latridiids, mycetophagids, cerylonids, monotomids, cucujids, etc.

  • Tétramères: Longicornes

    cerambycids

  • Tétramères: Chrysomélines

    chrysomelids, orsodacnids, megalopodids, erotylids, phalacrids, leiodids in part, corylophids

• Trimères

  coccinellids, endomychids, dasycerines

Pentamères

Pentamères: Hydrocanthares

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Cybister Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Cybister Curtis, 1827 senior synonym of Gyretes Brullé, 1835	Y
Cyclous Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum "Cyclous Melsheimer, 1844" in Neave	Y
Cymatopterus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epinectus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Graphoderus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Liopterus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior subjective synonym of Copelatus Erichson, 1832 Reinstated by Balke et al., 2004 Leiopterus Stephens, 1835 is a later misspelling	Y
Nogrus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y
Orectochilus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Orectochilus Lacordaire, 1835 (which is a later usage of the name; see Lacordaire (1835: 344)) and its synonyms Other related notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2017)): Patrus Aubé in Dejean & Boisduval, 1838 is a valid genus, and not a synonym of Orectochilus Dejean, 1833. Hydronectes Gistl, 1834 is a junior synonym of Orectochilus Dejean, 1833, and not a nomen nudum. Potamobius Hope, 1838 (another Oectochilus synonym) is missing in IRMNG Spelling and type fixed by ICZN (1954) in Opinion 289 (ICZN 1954).	Y
Rhantus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Scutopterus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum suppressed for the purposes of Principle of Priority by ICZN (1993) in Opinion 1725	Y
Thermonetus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Contra Bousquet & Bouchard, the emendation Thermonectus is universally used. They completely ignore that emendation (made in the third catalogue) in both their papers	Y
Trigonocheilus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Trochalus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Trochalus Laporte, 1832 replacement name is Scaphinectes Adam, 1993 Scaphinectes and Trochalus both synonyms of Cybister Curtis, 1827	Y

Pentamères: Brachélytres

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Astenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Astenus Stephens, 1833 (which is likely a later usage)	Y
Callictenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Also as Callictenus Chevrolat, 1848, a later usage	Y
Corynocerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed A complicated mess of diverging attributions around Carpelimus	Y
Lithocharis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Lyeidius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Macrostenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Megalops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Microphius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid subgenus	Y
Olisthaerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Ophiomorphus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phloeobium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y
Platytoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Plochionocerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Sauromorphus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Pentamères: Sternoxes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Abrobapta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) state that Abrobapta becomes available in the third edition of the catalogue as Abrobapta Dejean, 1836. This would mean it has precedence over Torresita Gemminger & Harold, 1869 (in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the authority is referred to as just "Harold, 1869"), which is currently used as valid (though according to IRMNG is it a nomen nudum and is a synonym of Torresita Thomson, 1878). Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Torresita Harold (Gemminger & Harold, 1869). Abrobapta Dejean, 1836 itself is missing from IRMNG. However, according to this page, Abrobapta Dejean, 1833 is instead a synonym of Melobasis Laporte & Gory, 1837. No mention of Dejean, 1836 in sight though. What a mess. The Harold/thomson thing is just Neave improperly listing a name as nom. nud again. Bellamy (2002) list Abrobapta as under the synonymy of both Torresita and Melobasis on the basis of Bellamy (1998; Fragm. Entomol. 29:379)... which mentions only Torresita (wtf). Both B. chrysoptera and viridinitens are mentioned in Levey (2012; Zootaxa 3464:4), implying they are indeed treated in that genus at the moment, but the relevant part has not yet been published: Part 2 only came out in 2018, talk about delays... I will wait until I have a definite placement to do anything with this. Circeus (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)	N
Actenodes Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Ampedus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Ampedus Germar, 1844 (which is likely a later usage) and its synonyms N Species need moving to Dejean's name.	Y
Analampis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Brachys Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Brachys Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833: 312).	Y
Callimicra Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Catoxantha Solier, 1833 is a junior homonym New acts in Löbl I. & D. (2016): [page 19] Catoxantha Solier, 1833 is renamed to Xanthocata Kubáň, 2016 (new name not on IRMNG) [page 23] Megaloxantha Kerremans, 1908 is a junior synonym of Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 [page 25] Epacmene Gistl, 1848 is a junior synonym and unnecessary new replacement name of Catoxantha Dejean, 1833, not Catoxantha Solier, 1833 Other related notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2016)): Demochroa White, 1859 is a valid genus, not a subgenus of Catoxantha Solier, 1833 Chrysochroa Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the name Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833 (see notes for Chrysochroa), which means it is not a subgenus of Catoxantha Solier, 1833 either Euchloris Billberg, 1820 is a synonym of Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833 Pyranthe Gistl, 1834 is not a nomen nudum and is a valid subgenus of Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chalcophora Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 77 Extra note based on my own observation: Chalcophora Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833:278), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville"	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chrysesthes Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 78 Extra note based on my own observation: Chrysesthes Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name, see Solier (1833:190), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville".	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 75 Extra note based on my own observation: Chrysochroa Carcel & Laporte in Solier, 1833 (import from N.Z.) and Chrysochroa Solier, 1833 (import from Hallan's catalog) are duplicates, though I'm not sure what the correct authority should be for these. They are together a later usage of Chrysochroa Dejean, 1833; see Solier (1833: 270), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Carcel". (also see notes for Catoxantha)	Y
Cratonychus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Being an unnecessary replacement name, this is not a nomen nudum N.Z. misattributes Melanotus which causes additional confusion, with Bousquet & Bouchard, 2017 mentioning both Melanotus Eschscholtz, 1829 and "Melanotus Erichson, 1829" at different points.	Y
Cylindroderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cyphonota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Buprestidae suppressed for the purposes of Principle of Priority by ICZN (2004) in Opinion 2083 accepted name is Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (source: Löbl I. & D. (2016))	Y
Diphucrania Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus, according to both Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) and Löbl I. & D. (2016) Cisseis Laporte & Gory, 1839 and Ethon Laporte & Gory, 1840 are junior synonyms (both authorities should also be Gory & Laporte, 1839, and they should have the same original publication) [source: Löbl I. & D. (2016)] ICZN (2008: 325) voted against the suppression of Diphucrania Dejean, 1833 in Opinion 2214 I do not know the status of the name Ethonion Kubán in Kubán, Majer & Kolibác, 2000 as Löbl I. & D. (2016) does not list it at all, though the other synonyms of Ethonion are all emendations of either Diphucrania Dejean 1833 or Ethon Laporte & Gory, 1840 it looks like. (later note) According to this, Ethonion appears to be a replacement name for "Ethon Lacordaire 1857:78 (not Ethon Gory & Laporte 1839)", so may be a totally unrelated genus to Diphucrania Dejean, 1833 (especially since it has its own page here on the same site). (another later note) Australian Faunal Directory on the other hand lists Diphucrania as a synonym of Ethonion, which I have a horrible feeling is actually a mistake on AFD's part. It's a little more complicated than that. Ethonion is not a replacement name as such. Not for a homonym anyway. It's a name for Ethon sensu Lacordaire. There is some extra confusion in Bellamy 2002 again (Diphucrania, prior to the 2008 decision, listed under both Cisseis and Ethonion)	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Euchroma Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 76 Extra note based on my own observation: Euchroma Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833: 284), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville".	Y
Eurhipis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) state that Eurhipis becomes available in the third edition of the catalogue as Eurhipis Dejean, 1836, where it becomes a junior homonym of Eurhipis Laporte, 1834 (Rhipiceridae). In the same article, they also propose that Eurhipis Dejean, 1836 is a junior subjective synonym of Phyllocerus Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, 1825. Eurhipis Dejean, 1836 itself is missing from IRMNG.	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Eurythyrea Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 78 Extra note based on my own observation: Eurythyrea Lacordaire, 1835 is a later usage of the same name; see Lacordaire (1835: 593).	Y
Evides Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Geronia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Hemiops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Hypocaelus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Lampetis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Lampetis Chevrolat, 1833 (which is a later usage; see Chevrolat (1844: 5); authority should actually be Chevrolat, 1834; description is actually on page 5) and its synonyms Other names found to be synonyms/subgenera of Lampetis Dejean, 1833 according to this page: Buprestodes Carter, 1924 (synonym) Eolampetis Pongrácz, 1935 † (synonym; fossil) Damarsila Thomson 1878 (synonym of genus) This is not Damarsila Thomson (=Oedisterna Lacordaire), but rather Damarsila sensu Kerremans, as pointed out by Kurosawa (1993) Spinthoptera Casey, 1909 (subgenus)	Y
Lampra Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Lampra Hübner, 1821 senior objective synonym of Lamprodila Motschulsky, 1860 Extra notes: Lamprodila Motschulsky, 1860 has priority over Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 and its synonyms Latipalpis Solier, 1833 is actually a valid genus according to Löbl I. & D. (2016) Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 is actually a replacement name for Lampra Dejean, 1833, not Dendrocharis Guérin-Ménéville, 1843 (source: Mühle (1993)) Palmar Schaefer, 1949 is a subgenus of Scintillatrix/Lamprodila.	Y
Lasionota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) Lasionota Dejean, 1833 is probably accepted as Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 is actually a junior synonym of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837, which is a valid genus (Dactylozodes's synonyms/subgenera likewise are synonyms of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837) Agrilozodes Théry, 1927 is a valid genus, not a subgenus of Dactylozodes/Lasionota, according to this page Lasionota Warren, 1912 (from Lepidoptera) is a junior homonym of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 and was replaced by Isatoolna Nye, 1975 (source: ICZN (2009) Opinion 2228) They're both placed in Acantholipes Lederer, 1857 now a proposal to conserve Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 by suppressing Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 was rejected by ICZN (2009) in Opinion 2228.	Y
Leptia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The accepted name for Leptia Dejean, 1833 is Spectralia Casey, 1909, not Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (source: this page) Extra notes (referring to this page): Leptia Chevrolat, 1838 is a senior synonym of Spectralia Casey, 1909, and is treated as a nomen oblitum It technically retains priority until a formal declaration to that effect is published. Leptia Dejean, 1837 is probably a duplicate or later usage of Leptia Dejean, 1833	Y
Lius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Macrodes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) (personal guess) the name probably became available as Macrodes Candèze, 1863 but I can't prove this at the moment Candèze certainly didn't make it available himself. Hyslop (1921) seems to imply no one treated it as valid (in which case it would be valid from 1863), which makes it a nomen nudum and later use of Dejean's name.	Y
Megacnemius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) Extra notes: Megacnemius Dejean, 1836 is a later usage according to N.Z.'s own record, though cited as a manuscript name by Eschscholtz Indeed. this is clearly the reuse from the third edition. The Silberman record confused the heck out of me until I took notice that the "Tableau" referred to is a foldout that is not scanned in BHL, only barely visible in transparency and undecipgerable. (personal guess) the name probably became available as Megacnemius Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 I believe that use validates it all the way back to 1834 through art 50.7 (dear God do I hate that provision), but it's still a synonym of Tomicephalus.	Y
Not Applicable	Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 91 Extra note: Melanoxanthus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833, especially since the type species of Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833 (Elater melanocephalus Fabricius, 1781 according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) is listed under the record for Melanoxanthus Eschscholtz, 1836	Y
Not Applicable	Microrhagus Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 85 Extra notes: (personal guess) Microrhagus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of Microrhagus Dejean, 1833	Y
Oomorpha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	family Buprestidae this is treated as a synonym of Sponsor Laporte & Gory, 1839 according to this page	Y
Perotis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra notes: Aurigena Laporte & Gory, 1838 is a junior synonym according to Löbl I. & D. (2016) as well as this page. (personal guess) Perotis Spinola, 1837 is likely a later usage	Y
Phaenops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Phaenops Chevrolat, 1838 is likely a later usage, especially since the misspelling Phoenops Chevrolat, 1838 is already apparently a synonym of Phaenops Dejean, 1833 on IRMNG. I can't find any traces of the o- misspellings/variants anywhere in the original publications. If they were in use, it's not because of Chevrolat or Dejean.	Y
Polybothris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This is treated as a synonym of Polybothris Spinola, 1837 according to this page according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), Polybotris Dupont, 1833 was the first valid use of the name; however, Dupont used the spelling Polybotris instead of Polybothris, the latter of which is in prevailing usage. ICZN (2015) in Opinion 2366 ruled that the spelling "Polybothris" be conserved, so the valid name for the genus should be Polybothris Dupont, 1833. Extra notes: Polybothris Spinola, 1837 Dupont, 1833 is a valid genus, not a synonym of Psiloptera Solier, 1833, according to this page The following so-called synonyms/subgenera of Psiloptera Solier, 1833 on IRMNG are in fact synonyms/subgenera of Polybothris Spinola, 1837 Dupont, 1833: Amphisbeta Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Aplax Thomson, 1878 (synonym of genus) Carcinias Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Cassidabothris Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Coccinellopsis Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Cornelia Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Enharpya Thomson 1878 (synonym of subgenus Cornelia Thomson, 1878) Erebodes Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Euharpya Kerremans, 1892 (misspelling of Enharpya Thomson 1878) Hemisobothris Thomson 1878 (synonym of subgenus Laconides Thomson, 1878) Laconides Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Palaeobothris Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Phobetodes Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Pseudophthalma Thomson, 1878 (synonym of genus) Pycnobothris Thomson, 1878 (synonym of subgenus Cornelia Thomson, 1878) The following synonyms actually belong to Apateum Spinola, 1837: Alampetis Thomson, 1878 (subgenus) Apatea Thomson, 1879 (synonym of genus; note: year should be 1878) The following actually belong to Lampetis Dejean, 1833 (also see notes for Lampetis above) Damarsila Thomson 1878 (synonym of genus) Spinthoptera Casey, 1909 (subgenus) Unclear synonymy: Lampetis Thery, 1905 and Lampetis Spinola, 1837 are either later usages of Lampetis Dejean, 1833 or synonyms of Apateum Spinola 1837 Psiloptera Solier, 1833 itself is a later usage of Psiloptera Dejean, 1833; see notes for Psiloptera	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Polycesta Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 78 Extra note based on my own observation: Polycesta Solier, 1833 is a later usage; see Solier (1833: 281), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited it as by "Serville".	Y
Polychroma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The status of this one is a bit unclear; according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) there are definitely valid species but there is no type species, and the name was suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority in Opinion 1628 (ICZN 1991) anyway. On the other hand, this page just claims it is an unavailable name, but gives a type species of Polychroma septemmaculata Mannerheim 1837. At the very least from the above (and from this page) I can infer: Polychroma Dejean, 1833, regardless of nomen nudum or not, is treated as a synonym of Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1838 (as Castiarina Laporte & Gory, 1837 on IRMNG) Polychroma Mannerheim, 1837 is almost certainly a later usage of the name, and is also a synonym of Castiarina rather than Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829, which is a separate genus Phlydaena Gistl, 1847 is a synonym of Castiarina as well Themognatha Solier, 1833 is also a separate, valid genus, not a synonym of Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829, according to this page Actually, this one seems to be the IOS for Temognatha Solier, 1833.	Y
Prionophora Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: (personal guess) Prionophora Kerremans, 1908 is likely a later usage, which would mean it is also a synonym of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 Not a later usage. like "Macrodes Candèze", it is the first place the name could have become available from (through at. 11.6.1)... it never did. This record has no business floating around and I deleted it. The date would be wrong anyway as Kerremans published the synonymy years before. Leptia Dejean, 1833 and Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 are not synonyms of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837	Y
Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior subjective synonym of Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 An application to the Commission is needed to conserve Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 as the valid name. Extra notes: (personal guess): Pristiptera Mannerheim, 1837 is likely a later usage	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Psiloptera Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 76 Extra note based on my own observation: Psiloptera Solier, 1833 is a later usage; see Solier (1833: 283), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited it as by "Serville". (also see notes in Polybothris regarding synonyms)	Y
Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Ptosima Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 79 Extra note based on my own observation: Ptosima Solier, 1833 is a later usage; see Solier (1833: 277), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited it as by "Serville".	Y
Rhigmaphorus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though family is possibly Eucnemidae if below note is correct) Extra note: (personal guess) Rhigmaphorus Guérin-Méneville, 1843 is possibly a later use, which would also make Rhigmaphorus Dejean, 1833 a synonym of Eucalosoma Laporte in Brullé, 1840	Y
Selagis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) state that Selagis becomes available in the third edition of the catalogue as Selagis Dejean, 1836 (which has priority over Selagis Mannerheim, 1837). Selagis Dejean, 1836 itself is missing from IRMNG.	Y
Sericosomus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Being an unnecessary replacement name, this is not a nomen nudum Extra note: (personal guess) Sericosomus Stephens, 1839 is possibly a later usage	Y
Sphenoptera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Sphenoptera Solier, 1833 (which is a later usage, see Solier (1833: 299)) and its synonyms	Y
Steatoderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Extra note: (personal guess) Steatoderus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage	Y
Steraspis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Steraspis Solier, 1833 (which is a later usage, see Solier (1833: 267)) and its synonyms	Y
Strigoptera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Strigoptera Chevrolat, 1841 is almost certainly a later usage, especially since the type species of Strigoptera Dejean, 1833 (Buprestis bimaculata Linnaeus, 1758) is included under that record	Y
Xyloecus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Being an unnecessary replacement name, this is not a nomen nudum Extra note based on my own observation: Xyloecus Boisduval & Lacordaire, 1835 is a later usage; see Lacordaire (1835: 627)	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Cardiotarsus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 91]
  • accepted name is Cardiotarsus Eschscholtz, 1836
  • Y Done
• Ctenonychus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 87]
  • accepted name is Melanotus Eschscholtz, 1829
  • Y done
• Cyria Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 75]
  • Cyria Serville in Solier, 1833 is a later usage of the same name; see Solier (1833: 269), keeping in mind Dejean originally cited the name as by "Serville".
  • Y Done
• Dirhagus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • (personal guess) possibly name became valid as Dirhagus Laporte, 1834 (a synonym of Microrhagus Dejean, 1833)?
  • Y Done
• Oophorus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 93]
  • junior subjective synonym of Aeolus Eschscholtz in Thon, 1829
  • (personal guess) Oophorus Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of the same name
  • Y Done
• Oxycleidius Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 89]
  • (personal guess) Oxycleidius Eschscholtz, 1836 is likely a later usage of the same name
  • Y Done
• Perothops Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 87]
  • (personal guess) possibly name was reused as Perothops Eschscholtz, 1836 or Perothops Laporte de Castelnau, 1838; don't ask me which of those is the actual accepted name though, I have absolutely no idea as of writing
  • Y Done
• Physorhinus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 86]
  • (personal guess) Physorhinus Eschscholtz in Silbermann, 1836 is likely a later usage of the same name
  • (personal guess) possibly name became valid as Physorhinus Germar, 1840
  • Y Done
• Pterotarsus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • it is unclear to me which of Pterotarsus Guérin-Méneville, 1831 or Pterotarsus Latreille, 1834 is the "accepted" name, if either of them are at all related to Dejean's name. What doesn't help matters is that both of these later uses of the name are apparently in two different beetle families, Elateridae and Eucnemidae, making it impossible for me to figure out even which family the Dejean, 1833 name should go under at present.
    • That would be because "Pterotarsus Latreille" is apparently a sensu name. Although eschscholtz is mentioned alot in relation to this name, I'm given to understand Eschscholtz 1829 (the likely source) does not make the name available.
  • Y Done
• Sphaerocephalus Dejean, 1833 (nomen nudum) [Original description: Catal. Coléopt., ed. 2, (1) page(s): 84]
  • (personal guess) possibly name was reused as Sphaerocephalus Eschscholtz, 1838 and/or Sphaerocephalus Laporte de Castelnau, 1838; since both are synonyms of Nematodes Berthold in Latreille, 1827, figuring out which of them was the first "valid" use is a little moot
    • If the source is correct, Eschscholtz is the author and the date is wrong since that's the 1836 tableau I mentioned above under Megacnemius (it's actually listed as 1836 in N.Z., too).
  • Y Done

Pentamères: Malacodermes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Actenista Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Lampyridae (species split between Calyptocephalus and Ethra)	Y
Anisocera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Atela Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Auge Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Calendyma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Callianthia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Cantharidae junior synonym of Chauliognathus Hentz, 1829 ("Hentz, 1830" according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) Callianthia Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845b: 52)	Y
Charactus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Lycidae senior objective synonym of Calopteron Laporte, 1836 Actually, Bocakova (2003) moved L. limbatus to Metapteron Bourgeois, 1905 and changed the type of Calopteron to L. apicalis, a change which appears to be accepted (cf. Alves do Nascimento, 2013). Charactus Dejean, 1833 has precedence over Calopteron Laporte, 1836 Metapteron Bourgeois, 1905 which is currently used as valid. Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Calopteron Laporte. Extra notes: Charactus Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; see Blanchard (1845b: 55) Charactes Haldeman, 1843 is also linked according to N.Z. see Haldeman (1843: 303), where a single species Charactes duplicatus is described Charactes duplicatus Haldeman, 1843 is a synonym of Calopteron terminatus Say 1823, according to here I'm pretty sure Charactes has to be treated as a separate available name, with a synonymy different (given the above) from Charactus.	Y
Cladon Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Colophotia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra note: Colophotia Motschoulsky, 1853 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Motschulsky (1853: 51)	Y
Ctenidion Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Dadophora Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Ellychnia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Ellychnia Blanchard, 1845 (which is a later usage according to N.Z.; see Blanchard (1845b: 54))	Y
Epicyrtus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epiphyta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	We appear to have somehow overlooked this name back then (or the line got deleted by accident). It belongs in Prionoceridae per Geiser, 2015.	Y
Eurycerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum (?) current status is unknown according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) Listed it as taxon inquirendum.	Y
Geopyris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Geopyris Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845b: 54)	Y
Lychnuris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus according to Bousquet & Blanchard (2013); should take precedence over Pyrocoelia Gorham, 1880, though apparently Pyrocoelia has also been used as valid instead sometimes Extra note: Lychnuris Blanchard, 1845 a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845b: 54) (however, this page references synonymy with Lucidota Laporte, 1833, which is to my knowledge a separate and valid genus. Meanwhile, Lychnuris Motschulsky, 1853 [original description: Motschulsky (1853: 28)] is listed as a synonym of Lucidota on IRMNG. It's a bit unclear what exactly belongs to what here) Lychnuris has been synonymized under Lucidota in the past, when it was thought that Motschulsky fixed the type species (hence the authorship too). Lychnuris klugii Motschulsky was indeed until recently a member of Lucidota, and was removed to the new genus Costalampys last year. Additionally, "Lychnuris Olivier" is unavailable whether you cite it from 1899 as Hallan did (where it is just Lychnuris Motschulsky = Dejean) or from 1911 (where it is explicitly a misapplication/recircumscription of Lychnuris Motschulsky = Dejean, contra the citation as available in Keller & Branham, 2021). Circeus (talk)	Y
Lygistopterus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Lygistopterus Mulsant, 1838 (which is a later usage according to N.Z.)	Y
Nematophora Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Nyctocharis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Nyctophanes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Nyctophanes Motschoulsky, 1853 is a later usage according to N.Z.; also see Motschulsky (1853: 34)	Y
Photuris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Photuris Curtis, 1839 (which is a later usage according to N.Z.) and its synonyms	Y
Not Applicable	Pygolampis Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Extra note: according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013), this is not the same genus as Pygolampis Kirby & Spence, 1828. Keller & Branham treat Pygolampis Motschulsky as available and a synonym of Heterophotinus Olivier, 1894. I disagree with that.	Y
Pyractomena Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Though, that said... what is with even the accepted name, Pyractomena Melsheimer, 1845 also being "unaccepted" on IRMNG? What is the accepted name instead then?!? Looking around, Pyractomena LeConte 1845 (not on IRMNG) might be a possible answer, but this is still very weird Unaccepted names without accepted names are very unusual on IRMNG indeed, but Melsheimer, 1845 is clearly (with correction to 1846: Keller & Branham, 2018) considered the correct author. Far as I can tell, Leconte did not write on that genus until the 1850s. No idea why wikipedia ascribes authorship to "Leconte, 1845". The various versions of this name, the earliest by Sturm, 1843:76, are discussed in details by Barber, 1851:14-16	Y
Rabdota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Selas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Lampyridae junior objective synonym of Lamprocera de Laporte, 1833
Spenthera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Xanthestha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Podabrus Dejean, 1833 [original description: Dejean (1833: 105)]
  • family Cantharidae
  • valid genus according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013); therefore takes priority over Podabrus Westwood, 1838 (which is likely a later usage) and its synonyms
  • on the other hand, an earlier use of the name exists as Podabrus Fischer de Waldheim, 1821, though according to IRMNG (and of course N.Z.) it is a nomen nudum. Unfortunately, Fischer's "Entomographia Imperii Russici" ("Entomographie de la Russie" in French) does not seem to be accessible on the internet to double check this. Though, according to this article the original description was never found in any of Fischer's published papers (apparently the same article cites Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus for the "nomen nudum" status, which is a little awkward considering my motivations for making this list)
    • Actually, that article cites Lacordaire (1857[:352]) as the source. Since B&B cited the Entomographie with detailed bibliographical details in their Catalogue of Geadephaga, I think they probably consulted it. Although I do wish they'd have been more thorough in dealing with possible homonyms predating Dejean's names (while I believe that Eurycerus 1807 is also almost certainly a nomen nudum, it would be nice to have an explicit statement to that effect).
      • Thanks to Litteratura Coleoptrologica (thank you so much Dr. Bousquet!), I have been able to cross-reference the name to here and definitely confirm its nomen nudum status.
  • Y Done

Pentamères: Terediles

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Aegialites Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Callitheres Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (though see below) Extra note: Callitheres Spinola, 1841 is a later usage according to N.Z. and is probably the valid name (?), though I've still no idea what family either belong to I've put both in Coleoptera incertae sedis with "taxon inquirendum" status. Though likely a Clearidae of some sort (as all the genera of this section are), it seems to be essentially a nomen oblitum.	Y
Epiphloeus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Notostenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Notostenus Spinola, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Phyllobaenus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra notes: Phyllobaenus Spinola, 1844 is a later usage according to N.Z., but then again on IRMNG it is accepted as Madoniella Pic, 1935, and as of writing I have no idea if Madoniella is a synonym of Phyllobaenus Dejean or a separate genus altogether (probably best to leave it) Definitely different. Not even in the same subfamily (Phyllobaenus is Hydnocerinae, Madoniella is Epiphloeinae). Hydnocera Newman, 1838 is a synonym of Phyllobaenus Dejean, 1833 according to Bouchard et al. (2011) Seems to be borne out by the literature.	Y
Stemmoderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Xystrophorus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Pentamères: Clavicornes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Cylistus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Platysoma Leach, 1817 Extra note: (personal guess) Cylistus de Marseul, 1853 is likely a later usage	Y
Dermophagus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Encaustes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Episcapha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Episcapha Lacordaire, 1842 (a later usage, according to N.Z.) Also see Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)'s notes on the type species.	Y
Haeterius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Haeterius Gistel, 1834 (likely a later usage) and Hetaerius Erichson, 1839 (a misspelling according to N.Z.) Extra note: Eupelogonus Gistel, 1856 is an unnecessary replacement name for Haeterius Dejean, 1833 (source: Löbl I. & D. (2015))	Y
Hyporhagus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Hyporhagus Thomson, 1860 and its synonyms (all of which are likely later usages or incorrect subsequent spellings)	Y
Lasioderma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Leionota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid subgenus of Hololepta Paykull, 1811 Extra note: Leionota Marseul, 1853 is likely a later usage, going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)	Y
Monoplius Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Omalodes Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Omalodes Erichson in Klug, 1834 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Oxysternus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Extra note: Oxysternus Erichson, 1834 is likely a later usage, especially since it is already listed as a synonym of Oxysternus Dejean, 1833 on IRMNG	Y
Platyderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Selenoderus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Thyreosoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y

Pentamères: Palpicornes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) Extra notes: (from Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)) type species is Sphaeridium abdominale Fabricius, 1792 by monotypy the name is usually (incorrectly) used as Cyclonotum Erichson, 1837, with type species Hydrophilus orbicularis Fabricius, 1775 and given as a junior synonym of Coelostoma Brullé, 1835 (for example in Löbl I. & D. (2015)) "To promote nomenclatural stability a request to the Commission is necessary to suppress Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 and conserve Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 as the valid name. Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.9) cannot be used to suppress Cyclonotum since the name was used as valid after 1899 (e.g., Régimbart 1906: 269)."	Y

Pentamères: Lamellicornes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Ablabera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Ablabera Erichson, 1847 (a later usage according to N.Z) and its synonyms	Y
Acallus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Acerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Acerus Burmeister, 1847 is a later usage according to N.Z, and is probably the first available use of the name. However, apparently IRMNG has two identical records for "Acerus Burmeister, 1847", which are here and here this appears to be because N.Z. also has two identical records for the same name for some reason. On N.Z. they both have the note "(See Aceratus Prell 1936.)", so they must be referring to the same thing at least. Actually, N.Z. has three records. The paper version has two records: one is the Dejean+Burmeister (hence "supplementary record created"), the other is a later addition to document the replacement name, but for some reason that later one is present twice in the database version. I'll merge these when I get to this name. Y	Y
Adelops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Aegidium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Aegostheta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Aegostheta Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845a: 216) Aegostetha Agassiz, 1846 is an (unjustified) emendation of Aegostheta Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z.	Y
Amphicrania Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Liogenys Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838 Extra note: Katovich (2008) confirms that Amphicrania Burmeister, 1855 is a synonym of Clavipalpus Laporte, 1833, and indicates that it is not the same Amphicrania that is a synonym of Liogenys. So Amphicrania Burmeister, 1855 is not a later usage of Amphicrania Dejean, 1833 (which is already the case on IRMNG, this is just in case there was any confusion).	Y
Ancylonycha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae senior objective synonym of Holotrichia Hope, 1837, which is currently considered valid "Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) cannot be used because Ancylonycha Dejean was used as valid after 1899 (with Holotrichia as synonym) at least once by Saylor (1942: 157). Therefore an application to the Commission is necesssary to conserve usage of the name Holotrichia Hope." Extra note: Ancyclonycha Dejean, 1833 is possibly a incorrect subsequent spelling Ugh. Hallan has that misspelling listed twice for some reason... Turns out it was also in as Ancyclonycha Faldermann, 1835, presumably the first user of that spelling	Y
Anisonchus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Hoplopus Laporte, 1832 Extra notes (referring to Löbl I. & D. (2016)): Y Hoplopus Laporte, 1832 is a valid genus, not a synonym of Anomala Samouelle, 1819 Y Pachystethus Blanchard, 1851 and Zaspilota Casey, 1915 are synonyms of Callistethus Blanchard, 1851, not Anomala Samouelle, 1819	Y
Aplonycha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become available as Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 (record not on IRMNG) according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 is now considered an invalid synonym of Colpochila Erichson, 1843 (as "Haplonycha Dejean, 1836") but has priority. Reversal of Precedence or an application to the Commission is necessary to retain Colpochila Erichson as the valid name. according to Bouchard et al. (2011), the spelling "Haplonycha" is an unjustified emendation of "Aplonycha" by Agassiz (1846), which is in prevailing usage and so deemed to be a justified emendation. (personal guess) Combined with the infotmation from Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), this possibly means that "Haplonycha Boisduval, 1835" is actually the available name to be used... though it seems nobody has used this particular name and authority together yet. If this were true though, Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 would then be an incorrect original spelling, and Haplonycha Agassiz, 1846 would be a justified emendation. (personal guess) Haplonycha Blanchard, 1851 is likely a later usage of Aplonycha/Haplonycha Boisduval, 1835 as well Later note: B&B seem to completely waive the whole Aplonycha/Haplonycha spelling thing except in passing, does that mean they don't consider Haplonycha a justified emendation anymore?? I'll leave you to figure this out Circeus, I'm not sure what's best here. Later note 2: Bouchard & Bousquet (2020) fortunately resolve the Aplonycha/Haplonycha spelling confusion: From pages 82 and 83 in the article: Page 250. Replace the entry “Haplonychidae H. C. C. Burmeister, 1855: 224…” with: “Haplonychidae H. C. C. Burmeister, 1855: 224 [stem: Aplonych-]. Type genus: Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 [as Haplonycha, unjustifed emendation of type genus name by Agassiz (1846b: 29)]. Comment: the unjustified emendation Haplonycha Agassiz, 1846 is in prevailing usage but attributed to Dejean (1836), not to Boisduval (1835) who first made the name Aplonycha available and therefore, Art. 33.2.3.1 (ICZN 1999) cannot be used to consider Haplonycha as a justified emendation; incorrect original stem formation, not in prevailing usage; the junior homonym Aplonychini De Stefani, 1908 (type genus Aplonyx De Stefani, 1908) is available in Diptera; this case is to be referred to the Commission to remove the homonymy (Art. 55.3.1).” So: Aplonycha Boisduval, 1835 is the first available use of Aplonycha (and invalid synonym of Colpochila Erichson, 1843?) Haplonycha Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation, contrary to Bouchard et al. (2011), because, despite being in prevailing usage, it was incorrectly attributed to Dejean, 1836 rather than Boisduval, 1835. No, it's because it was (as far as I can tell, amyway) attributed to Blanchard, 1851 or Agassiz, 1846. Haplonycha Blanchard, 1851 is a later usage most likely	messy, but Y
Arctodium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Arctidium Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation according to N.Z., though I am not sure if it is valid or not either It's available and valid as Arctodium Burmeister, 1844, which is missing in IRMNG (it's a pretty recent restoration, though it'd been pointed out as early as 1938). Agassiz' emendation is unjustified.	Y
Aulacium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Mentophilus Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 "An application to the Commission is necesssary to conserve usage of the name Mentophilus Laporte" Aulacium Reiche, 1841 is a later usage of Aulacium Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z. Extra notes: Mentophilus Blanchard in Brullé, 1840 is probably a duplicate of Mentophilus Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 but with a different authority, though the only "proof" of this I have at the moment is that "Brullé, H. N. Anim. Artic. (Col.), 2 page(s): 74" turns out to be a page in Laporte (1840)'s Histoire naturelle des insectes Coléoptères ...Tome deuxième (this page in particular), which is apparently Tome troisième in Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés, annelides, crustacés, arachnides, myriapodes et insectes.	Y
Barybas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Barybas Blanchard, 1850 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus Katovich (2008) confirms that Barybas is a valid genus in family Scarabaeidae Microcrania Burmeister, 1855 is listed as a synonym, and the article assigns three new synonyms: Ctilocephala Burmeister, 1855, Eubarybas Gutiérrez, 1952 and Pseudohercitis Moser, 1921 a "Barybas sensu Burmeister" (presumably Barybas Burmeister, 1855) is also mentioned in Katovich (2008), but not much more info is given unfortunately (maybe this is cleared up in another article?) It's an homonym, the replacement valid name is Byrasba Harold, 1869 (Fuhrmann & Vaz-de-Mello, 2017)	Y
Brachysternus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Bubas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Bubas Mulsant, 1842 (likely a later usage)	Y
Caelidia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	according to Kuijten (1992), Caelidia Dejean, 1833 is a synonym of Parastasia Westwood, 1841 Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become valid as Caelidia Boisduval, 1835 (record not on IRMNG) More specifically 1835:187 (personal guess) Caelidia Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage of Caelidia Dejean, 1833 on N.Z, so it is also likely a later usage of Caelidia Boisduval, 1835 Indeed, his treatment wouldn't even make the name available, as pointed out by Kuijten (1992:69)! if the above connections are correct, this causes problems for Parastasia Westwood, 1841, since Caelidia Boisduval, 1835 would now have priority over it. Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) don't seem to make a comment on this at all apparently! I'm not surprised: they were only interested with whether Dejean' name predated any existing ones, after all. Kuijten, however, IMO has no excuse whatsoever after treating Boisduval's Caelidia marginata as available (p. 104), and then immediately referring elsewhere in the paper for a discussion of said generic name as unavailable (p. 69)! Caelidia might well qualify as a nomen oblitum, though, so it's not a big threat. The misspelling Coelidia Blanchard, 1850 is missing from IRMNG. N	Y
Caelodera Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae replacement name for Pachypus Dejean, 1821, a junior homonym of Pachypus Billberg, 1820 following Bouchard et al. (2011), Pachypus Billberg, 1820 is a nomen oblitum and Pachypus Dejean, 1821 is a nomen protectum, so Caelodera Dejean, 1833 is now a junior synonym of Pachypus Dejean, 1821 Pachypus Billberg, 1820, meanwhile, is now a senior synonym of Pachycnema Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 according to Cupello & Ribeiro-Costa (2019) (note: authority cited as "Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828")	Y
Callichloris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to N.Z., both Callichloris Burmeister, 1844 and Callichloris Curtis, 1844 are later usages, but I am not sure which is valid (or even if they are related to each other) Burmeister's name (Handbuch 4(1):455) is treated as Platycoelia Dejean, 1833 (Smith, 2003. On the other hand, Curtis' Callichloris perelegans (Trans. Proc. Linn. Soc. London 19:445, dated 1845, not 1844) is a species of Hylamorpha Arrow, 1899 (Ratcliffe & Ocampo, 2002). Just to make it REALLY messy, though, Burmeister treats Dejean's species under Aulacopalpus, and nowadays it's (apparently) the type of Hylamorpha.	Y
Carteronyx Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Those are generally accepted to be Dicrania, as far as I can tell	Y
Catalasis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Anoxia Laporte, 1833 Catalasis Sturm, 1843 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Chalconotus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Somnius Gistl, 1848 is an emendation according to N.Z. Clearly it should be a replacement name, not an emendation, though his reason (if any!) for proposing it is unclear at best. Extra notes: until Branco (2011: 12), Chalconotus (as Chalconotus Reiche, 1841) was considered a junior synonym of Anachalcos Hope, 1837; being unable to see the work for myself, does this mean that now Anachalcos Hope, 1837 is a junior synonym of Chalconotus Dejean, 1833 and Chalconotus Reiche, 1841 is a later usage? That's what Cupello et al., 2020:58 would seem to imply, yes.	Y
Chloenobia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Chlaenobia Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation according to N.Z. I have no idea if Chlaenobia Blanchard, 1850 is related or not I'd wager not. Blanchard would mention Dejean if it were. Looking at the original description for Chlaenobia Blanchard, 1850, you're correct in that it doesn't mention Dejean at all. However, looking around on Google Books, I found Burmeister (1855)'s Handbuch der Entomologie, which mentions Dejean's only named species ("Chloenobia fastidita", see here) on this page. He seems to be comparing it with Tostegoptera Blanchard, 1851 , with a note that translates to "Note. This genus is probably the same as Count Dejean's Chloenobia fastidita". Interestingly, both Chlaenobia Blanchard, 1850 and Testegoptera Blanchard, 1851 are currently synonyms of Phyllophaga Harris, 1827 if IRMNG is correct. So a link *could* be made to Dejean's name, but then again this is just speculation.	Y
Chlorota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Coprobas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This is actually Macroderes Westwood, 1842	Y
Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae name suppressed by ICZN (1996) in Opinion 1838, and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for the Principle of Homonymy Extra note: Coptorhinus Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838 (a junior homonym of Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833) was also placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 1838. I'm not actually sure what the current names for either Coptorhinus are now, though the ICZN case/opinion seems to be about conserving Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (accepted as Temnorrhynchus Hope, 1837 on IRMNG)... so maybe Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 is a synonym of that now? yes, yes it is.	Y
Cryptodon Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Cryptodontes Burmeister, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Oh, this is a fun one. Dejean used Cryptodon, based off a Manuscript name of Latreille, then Westwood published it as Leptognathus because he thought Latreille's name was too similar to Latreille's own earlier Cryptodus, another lamellicorn. But Leptognathus Westwood is itself a junior homonym (of Leptognathus Swainson, 1838), so Burmeister, agreeing about the Cryptodon vs. Cryptodus thing, publishes it as Cryptodontes instead. Ironically, Westwood later commented how he didn't think the homonymy justified taking up Burmeister's name!	Y
Dasysterna Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Stratiomanes Gistl, 1848 is an emendation, according to N.Z. Available as Dasysterna Rambur, 1844 (see this very nice historical summary of Pachydeminae in French by Marc Lacroix), and as such a synonym of Pachydema Laporte, 1832 (Löbl & Löbl, 2016). Stratiomanes is not an emendation, but a replacement name.	Y
Dorysthaetus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Dorysthetus Blanchard, 1845 is a misspelling/emendation, according to N.Z. Seeing as Dejean's name is not available and Blanchard's is (and valid too, apparently; see also Moore et al., 2004 regarding its type species), the spelling of Dejean's name and whether Blanchard changed it is irrelevant. Also as Dorystethus Agassiz, 1846	Y
Encya Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Encya Blanchard, 1845 (which is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845a: 216))	Y
Epicaulis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Never synonymized. Will list as Scarabaeidae nonetheless as the few mentions have always been in the context of Macrodactylini	Y
Epichloris Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior objective synonym of Brachysternus Guérin-Ménéville in Duperry, 1838 Taleitha Gistl, 1848 is an emendation of Epichloris Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z. N.Z. is really loose with "emendation"... An emendation is a name asserted as a corrected spelling (ICZN Art. 19). A new name (as are all of Gistl's proposals) falls under Art. 60. Further down I'll just correct the notes.	Y
Epirinus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus The following names are related to Epirinus Dejean, 1833: Anisopus Hope, 1838 (a substitute name according to N.Z.) I rather read it as an unavailable name published in synonymy (Hope, 1838:328): "Now of the genus Epirinus, De Jean [sic!]. In my MSS. I have given to the species allied to [Scarabaeus granulatus Olivier] the generic name of Anisopus [Editor notes that this is a homonym in a footnote]. As it is doubtful if the characters are published by [?Dejean], I defer adding them at present." Epirinus Reiche, 1841 (a later usage) Epirhinus Agassiz, 1846 (unjustified emendation, according to N.Z and Daniel (2019)) Epirrhinus Bedel, 1903 (incorrect subsequent spelling, according to N.Z. and Daniel (2019))	Y
Eriesthis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Eriesthis Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus	Y
Eucranium Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This is a nomen nudum this time! This name became valid as Eucranium Brullé, 1834 according to Ocampo (2010) Extra notes: also according to Ocampo (2010), Anomiopsis Westwood, 1837 and Psammotrupes Guérin-Ménéville, 1838 are junior synonyms of Eucranium Brullé, 1834 Don't forget Cyclodema :P	Y
Geobatus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become available as Geobatus Boisduval, 1835 (now a synonym of Maechidius Macleay, 1819)	Y
Gromphas Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Gymnogaster Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Gymnoloma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Gymnoloma Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Heteronychus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Heteronychus Burmeister, 1847 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Hoplites Dejean, 1833	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	senior synonym of Enema Hope, 1837	Y
Hybalus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Hybalus Germar, 1838 (a later usage, according o N.Z.) Extra note: Hybalus Brullé, 1834 is likely a later usage too, as according to Löbl I. & D. (2016) Geobius Brullé, 1832 (or Geobius Brullé in Bory de St. Vincent, 1832 on IRMNG) is a synonym of Hybalus Dejean, 1833. Geobius Brullé, 1832 is also listed as a homonym in the same source.	Y
Hyperis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid subgenus of Hoplia Illiger, 1803 Hyperis Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845a: 211) Clandestinus Gistl, 1848 is an emendation, according to N.Z.	Y
Hyporhiza Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior subjective synonym of Rhinaspis Perty, 1830 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Blanchard (2013a)) Extra note: Ulomenes Blanchard, 1850 is also a junior synonym of Rhinaspis Perty, 1830	Y
Lagosterna Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Lagosterna Erichson, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; see also Erichson (1847: 653) Extra notes: according to Evans (1989), Lagosterna Dejean, 1833 was synonymized with Sparrmannia Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 (though it doesn't make clear if it still is one by this point). This would also mean Lagosterna Dejean, 1833 is in family Scarabaeidae. For some reason, evans seems to be is failing to note that Lagosterna Erichson is an available name... I'll still put them as synonym. Sparmannia Laporte, 1840 synonymized too, Sparrmannia Gemminger & Harold, 1869 is an incorrect authorship under ICZN rules and has been deleted, note added to Sparrmannia Laporte instead.	Y
Lasiopus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: the name became available as Lasiopus Leconte, 1856 (replaced by Podolasia Harold, 1869 because of homonymy); see LeConte (1856: 282) and the following page	Y
Leocaeta Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Sparrmannia Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 according to Bouchard et al. (2011), Leocaeta is a nomen oblitum and Sparrmannia a nomen protectum	Y
Leptopus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Synonymized with Elaphocera Gené, 1836 according to Lacroix (see above under Dasysterna)	Y
Leucopholis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae valid genus Extra notes: Leucopholis Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; see Blanchard (1845a: 216) Leucopholis Chevrolat, 1841 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Machona Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name, according to N.Z.	Y
Macrothops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become valid as Macrothops Boisduval, 1835 [original description: Boisduval (1835: 210) Macrothops Dupont in Boisduval, 1835 is very likely a duplicate of Macrothops Boisduval, 1835, since the cited original description on IRMNG refers to Boisduval (1835: 212), just a few pages ahead of where Macrothops Boisduval, 1835 is described Macrothops Macleay, 1864 is not the same as Macrothops Boisduval, 1835 according to here	Y
Mallogaster Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed =Rhinaspis Perty, 1830 according to Fuhrmann & Vaz-de-Mello, 2017.	Y
Microplus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Microplus Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably the valid name for the genus; see Burmeister (1844: 174)	Y
Myoderma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Myodermum Burmeister & Schaum in Germar, 1840	Y
Onthocharis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Onthocharis Westwood, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably the valid name for the genus Nope. The valid name is Anomiopus Westwood, 1842 (Luzia Canhedo, 2006)	Y
Onthoecus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This is a synonym of Dendropaemon (Crassipaemon) Cupello & Génier Chamorro et al., 2019 cite this as available from Lacordaire, 1856:103, which seems incorrect to me as it clearly fails Art. 11.5 of the code: "To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed". If there is availability, it is from Génier & Arnaud, 2016, who cite it as Lacordaire's name, making it a seniorobjective synonym of subgenus Crassipaemon.	Y
Ootoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Ootoma Blanchard, 1850, is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus. This would mean Ootoma Dejean, 1833 could be put in family Scarabaeidae. Nope and nope. Fuhrmann and Vaz-de-Mello (2017:6) put Dejean's name as a synonym of Clavipalpus Laporte, 1832, but Blanchard's name is a synonym of Pachydema (Löbl & Löbl, 2016:242)	Y
Orthognatus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed A synonyum of Sphaenognathus Buquet, 1838 (Paucar-Cabrera, 2001). Orthognathus Schönherr, 1838 is a Curculionidae genus unrelated to Dejean's name (cf. Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999), with the very unfortunate unnecessary replacement name of Sph(a)enognathus, just to confuse things further!	Y
Oxyomus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Pachylus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	I know this is a nomen nudum name, but, well ...I think there was some horrible mixup here, since this doesn't appear even to be in the right subphylum! According to N.Z. itself, Pachylus Dejean, 1833 *should* be in order Coleoptera, but instead on IRMNG this record seems to place it in subphylum Crustacea, order Mysida, family Mysidae. How on earth did this happen? A second "Pachylus Dejean, 1833" record exists which instead places it in Arachnida, but at least I can attribute that to being mixed up with Pachylus Kollar in Koch, 1839 possibly. And maybe we can also blame Hallan for that one. Extra notes: according to N.Z.'s record, Pachylus Dejean, 1833 became valid as Pachylus Burmeister, 1847 (...which has a duplicate record on IRMNG) according to Bouchard et al. 2011, Pachylus Burmeister, 1847 is a hononym of Pachylus Kollar in Koch, 1839 (stated as just "Koch, 1839") and is a synonym of Ottokelleria d'Andretta & Martínez, 1957. Bouchard et al. 2011 lists Pachylus Burmeister, 1847 as the type genus of an invalid tribe name within family Scarabaeidae, so likely Pachylus Dejean/Burmeister and Ottokelleria are all in that family. Seriously though, this one is a mess guys. Ok, I think I got it all sorted out	Y
Philochloenia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Anoplosiagum Blanchard, 1850 is a junior synonym Extra notes: Philochlaenia Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage and incorrect subsequent spelling of "Philochloenia" (see Blanchard (1845: 215)), and likely so is Phyllochlaenia (no authority given) and its other synonyms this was formerly considered a junior synonym of Dichelonyx Harris, 1826 (e.g.: in Evans & Smith (2005)), but because of an earlier valid type species found, this made Philochloenia a senior synonym of Anoplosiagum instead The valid name for "Phyllochlaenia sensu Blanchard" is Deuterocaulobius Dalla Torre in Schenkling, 1912 (Smith & Evans, 2005:40-41)	Y
Phytolaema Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The following names seem to be related to Phytolaema Dejean, 1833: Phytolaema Blanchard, 1850 (later usage according to N.Z.) Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851; see Blanchard (1851: 251) and the following page I'm not sure what the valid name currently is, though according to Evans & Smith (2005) and Smith & Mondaca (2015) it is Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851 "Phytolaema Blanchard, 1850" is an error in both dating and spelling. The volume was issued in two livraisons, and although I can't find a source detailing the dating, the second livraison (pp. 129ff) is always cited as 1851, and clearly has the name spelled with two h's. I'm turning that one into "Phytolaema Neave, 1940", incorrect subsequent spelling to Phytholaema Also according to Evans & Smith (2005) and Smith & Mondaca (2015), the following are synonyms of Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851: Lacris Fairmaire & Germain, 1860 Melicurus Germain, 1904, which should have a year of 1905 [also see Smith (2002) on the former synonymy of Melicurus with Aulacopalpus Guérin-Ménéville, 1838] if it counts (since it is not on IRMNG), Areoda Solier, 1851, a misapplication of Areoda Macleay, 1819	Y
Platycheira Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Can't find a current placement. Lacordaire (1856:382, see footnote 1) places it in Geniatini, but Jameson & Hawkins (2005) only mention Rhizobia. Although Ohaus at one point argued for Platycheira as a valid ganus (Deutch Entomol. Z. 7:327), I can't find actual material (it doesn't help that Philyra platycheira, a common species of crabs, heavily pollutes search results). Platychira Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation, and no help. (Note weird authority because Agassiz actually had two different Platychira in his nomenclator, and Aphia coughs up duplication errors if two names have the same spelling and authority)	Y
Platycoelia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Platycoelia Burmeister, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; see Burmeister (1844: 452))	Y
Podalgus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed To the synonymy of Podalgus Burmeister we must add the objective synonyms Vertumnus Reiche, 1859 and Crator Semenov, 1890 (Krell, 2002, Podalgus conserved in Opinion 2066)	Y
Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior objective synonym of Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 (name not on IRMNG, see notes), which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Leptinopterus Hope. Extra notes: according to Bouchard et al. (2011), "Leptinopterus" is an unjustified emendation of Leptynopterus Hope, 1838 by Hope (1845), but the emended spelling is in prevailing usage and so deemed to be a justified emendation this means that Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 is the valid name Leptynopterus Hope, 1838 is an incorrect original spelling Leptinopterus Hope, 1845 is a justified emendation Psalipocerus Agassiz, 1846 is an emendation of Psalicerus Dejean, 1833, according to N.Z.	Y
Pygurus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed This appears to be Uroxys Westwood, 1843 (a name that turns out to be threatened by Uroxys Rafinesque, 1818:272, a validation of the 1815 nomen nudum)	Y
Rhinyptia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Rhizobia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed As alluded to above s.v. Platycheira, this is Rhizogeniates Ohaus, 1909	Y
Ryparus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The following names seem to be related to Ryparus Dejean, 1833 on IRMNG and N.Z.: Ryparus Westwood, 1844 (synonym of Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 on IRMNG) Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 (treated as valid genus on IRMNG) Rhyparus Agassiz, 1846 (treated as valid genus on IRMNG, emendation of Ryparus Dejean, 1833 on N.Z.) Rhypaus Agassiz, 1847 (synonym of Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 on IRMNG) This one is a misspelling in Hallan, which I'm deletiing According to Bouchard et al. (2011), Rhyparus Westwood, 1845 is the valid name for this genus "Rhyparus is an unjustified emendation of Ryparus Westwood, 1845 by Agassiz (1846b: 328), in prevailing usage, and so deemed to be a justified emendation (Article 33.2.3.1); the emended spelling avoids homonymy with Ryparus Spinola, 1844 [Coleoptera: Cleridae] (see A. B. T. Smith 2006: 159) this probably means that Ryparus Westwood, 1844 is probably the incorrect original spelling (abeit with the wrong year?) for Rhyparus Westwood, 1845, and Rhyparus Agassiz, 1846 is a justified emendation. Rhypaus meanwhile just seems to be a separate misspelling Kakizoe et al., 2019 also has a detailed summary.	Y
Schizonycha Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Schizonycha Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.; also see Blanchard (1845: 215)	Y
Sciuropus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae senior subjective synonym of Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835.	Y
Sericesthis Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name became valid as Sericesthis Boisduval, 1835, which would give it precedence over Sericesthis Hope, 1842	Y
Spilota Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Spilota Burmeister, 1844 (now Callistethus Blanchard, 1851) is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably first valid use of the name; see Burmeister (1844: 266)	Y
Streptocerus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Strigidia Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Strigidia Burmeister, 1844 (now Pelidnota Macleay, 1819) is a later usage, according to N.Z.; see Burmeister (1844: 388) Orodina Gistl, 1848 is a substitute name according to N.Z.	Y
Strigoderma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Tarandus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Tarandus Billberg, 1828 junior objective synonym of Ceruchus Macleay, 1819 Extra notes: Tarandus Megerle in Dejean, 1837 is likely a duplicate or later usage	Y
Thyridium Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Trichops Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Trichops Borre, 1886 is a later usage, according to N.Z. ...though that said, is Trichops Val in de la Sagra, 1853 anything to do with this name? Val is the correct author for availability. Remember that much of Neave's base work is based on the code and scholarship as it was in the 30s! There's a significant amount of cases where later volumes (as here: Val's publication was recorded in Volume 8, in 1993) or Hallan have a more accurate date or place of publication. Trichops Val is the available version of Dejean's name, and is a synonym of Apalonychus Westwood 1846, but Trichops Borre is a separate homonym. As Borrochrus (its replacement name), it is as far as I can tell a valid subgenus of Chaetodus Westwood 1846	Y
Trigonostoma Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Scarabaeidae junior homonym of Trigonostoma Blainville, 1825 (known as Trigonostoma Blainville, 1827 on IRMNG) senior objective synonym of Adoroleptus Brenske, 1893 (a valid genus in Scarabaeidae) Wow. I have the hardest time finding anything online about Adoroleptus, but Montreuil, 2010 has a tiny offhand mention implying it's valid.	Y
Trionychus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Trionychus Burmeister, 1847 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus; also see Burmeister (1847: 140 According to this, Trionychus Burmeister = Rhizoplatys Westwood, 1842, but there is apparently also a Trionychus Fairmaire, 1898 missing from IRMNG, which is a synonym of Eophileurus Arrow, 1908!	Y Ignoring the Fairmaire name
Xylonichus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra note: (personal guess) going by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), the name may have become valid as Xylonichus Boisduval, 1835	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Adoretus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Dejean (1833: 157)]
  • valid genus
  • Adoretus Laporte in Brullé, 1840 is a later usage; see Krell (2007)
    • Y Corrected authorship
• Eucheirus Dejean, 1833 nomen nudum [Original description: Dejean (1833: 140)]
  • Y This appears to be a synonym of Scatonomus Erichson
• Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 [Original description: Dejean (1833: 147)]
  • family Scarabaeidae
  • senior subjective synonym of Ceratocanthus White, 1842
  • Sphaeromorphus Germar, 1843 is a later usage (apparently Germar, 1843 was the first to provide species with available names for the genus)
  • Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to retain Ceratocanthus White as a valid taxon.
    • Y Corrected authorship

Hétéromères

Hétéromères: Mélasomes

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Acisba Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior objective synonym of Pachychila Eschscholtz, 1831	Y
Aethales Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior synonym of Epitragus Latreille, 1802 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013))	Y
Amatodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae senior synonym of Oncosoma Westwood, 1842, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Oncosoma Westwood, 1843. Amatodes Solier, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Amathodes Erichson, 1845 is a misspelling of Amatodes Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.	Y
Amphysus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Erichson puts this as a synonym of Heliofugus	Y
Arctylus Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Arctylus Dejean, 1834	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Praocis Eschscholtz, 1829 (new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013))	Y
Blacodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The name became available as Blacodes Blanchard, 1845 according to N.Z. (now a synonym of Blenosia de Laporte in Brullé, 1840); also see Blanchard (1845b: 13) Turns up by Duponchel in D'Orbigny, 1842 (Bouchard et al., 2022). Circeus (talk)	Y
Brachygenius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Assigned to Gyriosomus by later authors	Y
Brachyscelis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum senior synonym of Pachyscelis Solier, 1836 Brachyscelis Dejean, 1833 is a nomen oblitum and Pachyscelis Solier, 1836 a nomen protectum Extra note: (personal guess) Brachyscelis Fischer de Waldheim, 1837 is possibly a later usage of Brachyscelis Dejean, 1833 Can't confirm what Fischer's name is, so leaving it as uncertain	Y
Bradytes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed, though I'm not convinced this actually now accepted as Amara Bonelli, 1810 (as recorded on IRMNG currently), since Amara is in Carabidae (but that's just me) Incorrect. Confusion/misspelling in Hallan due to the similar-sounding subgenus Bradytus Stephens, 1827 (cf. Bousquet, 2012). Identity of Bradytes Dejean unknown.	Y
Bradyus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus	Y
Cacicus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior homonym of Cacicus Lacepède, 1799 (Aves) senior synonym of Megelenophorus Gebien, 1910 (a valid genus) Cacicus Solier, 1837 is a later usage according to N.Z.	Y
Caedius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed (but see below) Extra notes: (personal guess) going by Bouchard et al. (2011) and Löbl & Smetana (2008), the name probably became available (and valid) as Caedius Blanchard, 1845 (which is missing from IRMNG). Coedius Blanchard, 1845 (which is a later usage/misspelling of Caedius Dejean, 1834 according to N.Z.) is probably an incorrect original spelling of Caedius Blanchard, 1845; see Blanchard (1845b: 13). according to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Caedius Mulsant & Rey, 1859 is both a junior hononym and synonym of Caedius Blanchard, 1845 Isarida Pascoe, 1866 is also a synonym of Caedius Blanchard, 1845 Adavius Mulsant & Rey in Mulsant, 1859 and Cyptus Gerstaecker, 1871 are valid genera, not synonyms of Caedius	Y
Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	The following records on IRMNG appear to be related to Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834: Calymmophorus Solier, 1840 (treated as valid in IRMNG) Calymmaphorus Solier, 1841 (later usage of Calymmaphorus Dejean, 1834 according to N.Z., treated as synonym of Calymmophorus Solier, 1840 in IRMNG) Calymmophorus Burmeister, 1875 (misspelling of Calymmaphorus Solier, 1841 according to N.Z.) I'm guessing that Calymmophorus Solier, 1840 is probably the actual valid name for the genus All evidence (e.g. Flores et al., 2011) seems to point in that direction, yes. What we have here, it seems, is an unjustified emendation in prevailing usage (just as with Coedius), as Solier clearly uses "Calymmaphorus" (the date is 1840, not 1841, so same name as the Calymmophorus of Hallan). He clearly intends to include Dejean's "Calymmaphorus cucullatus" (and indeed he mentions him by name), so that's allone and the same.	Y
Cephalostenus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cilibe Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Colposcelis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus Extra notes: this is not a synonym of Pagria Lefèvre, 1884 in Chrysomelidae; there is actually a second genus named Colposcelis in Dejean's second catalogue, Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836, which is a junior homonym of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834 and is the actual Colposcelis in synonymy with Pagria! Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 is missing from IRMNG at the moment Y [Original description: Dejean (1836: 408); family Chrysomelidae; senior objective synonym of Pagria Lefèvre, 1884] the Australian Faunal Directory record is actually referring to Colposcelis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836, not Colposcelis Dejean, 1834 (see here) according to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the following are subgenera of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834: Colposceloides Schuster, 1940 Colposcythis Reitter, 1889 Scelocolpis Reitter, 1900 Turcmenicola (no authority given) [authority is Bogatchev, 1952] Colposcelis Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage of Colposcelis Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.	Y
Coronus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae senior synonym of Phligra Laporte in Brullé, 1840, which is currently used as valid Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Phligra Laporte, 1840. It appears that workers have decided Phligra has not seen enough use in recent years for this to be worth the hassle, and are simply taking up Cyrtoderes (Alonso-Zarazaga, 2014; Kaminski et al., 2019) There exists a Cyrtoderes Solier (overlooked by Neave), of which I'm not entirely clear if it ought to be a separately available name.	Y
Dicrossa Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed apparently this is Notiophygus, in Discolomatidae	Y
Echinotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Entomoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epilasium Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Epilasium Curtis, 1844 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the first valid use of the name; see Curtis (1844: 201) Extra notes: Epilasium Blanchard, 1845 is probably a later usage of Epilasium Dejean/Curtis; see Blanchard (1845b: 14) Epilasium Curtis, 1844 is a synonym of Trichoton Hope, 1840 according to this	Y
Epiphysa Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Epiphysa Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage; see Blanchard (1845b: 4)	Y
Hadrus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Hadrus Wollaston, 1854 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and is probably the valid name for the genus Nope, it is Wolladrus Iwan & Kaminski, 2016. Hadrus is a junior homonym of Hadrus Perty, 1833, a name not currently in use (=Lepiselaga, Diptera:Tabanidae) because dipterologists assumed it to be the junior homonym. I am emailing Sixto Coscarón about this (he is the main author on the 2009 Catalog of Neotropical Tabanidae).	Y
Heliopates Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	valid genus Extra notes: this name was originally a replacement name for Heliophilus Dejean, 1821 (a junior homonym of Heliophilus Meigen, 1803), which is now an invalid synonym of Phylan Dejean, 1821. this means that Heliopates Dejean should also be a synonym of Phylan Dejean, though Heliopates Dejean is considered a valid genus anyway. (e.g. in Löbl & Smetana (2008)) "To promote stability, we believe the best avenue would be to submit an application to the Commission to retain Tenebrio lusitanicus Herbst as type species of Heliopates Dejean, 1834." according to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the following are synonyms or subgenera of Heliopates Dejean, 1834: Heliocrates Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Heliocaes Bedel, 1906 (synonym); Heliocaës Bedel, 1906 is the incorrect original spelling according to IRMNG Heliopathes Mulsant, 1854 (an unjustified emendation according to this) No ICZN case. I'm pretty sure less than half the issues were ever attempted to be dealt with. (personal guess) Heliopathes Dejean, 1853 is probably some kind of weird duplicate by Hallan that somehow combined the authorities of "Heliopates Dejean, 1834" and "Heliopathes Mulsant, 1854" together by accident. Though it'd be strange if it was a later usage, since Dejean died in 1845! I agree. Record deleted	Y
Herpiscius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Hipomelus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Trachynotus Latreille, 1828 (name not on IRMNG, unless it is the same as Trachynotus Latreille in Cuvier, 1829?) [new synonymy by Bousquet & Bouchard (2013)] I very much believe that 1828 is in error (cf. also Bousquet, 2016 regarding the date of that work)	Y
Lasiostola Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Lasiostola Solier, 1836 (a later usage according to N.Z.) and its synonyms	Y
Leichenum Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Leichenum Blanchard, 1845 (a later usage according to N.Z.)	Y
Leptodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Leptodes Solier, 1838 (a later usage according to N.Z.) and its synonyms	Y
Macrotis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed I cannot seem to find where (if anywhere) this name is currently treated Bouchard et al. confirms it as a tenebrionidae.	Y
Melancrus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Melancrus Reiche & Saulcy, 1857 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Targesius Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name of Melancrus Dejean, 1834	Y
Melanesthes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae valid genus Melanesthes Faldermann, 1835 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the following are synonyms/subgenera of Melanesthes Dejean, 1834: Hemitrichestes Reitter, 1904 (synonym) Hemitrichesthes Gebien in Schenkling, 1911 is an emendation of Hemitrichestes Reitter, 1904, according to N.Z. Lesbidana Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Mongolesthes Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Opatronesthes Reitter, 1904 (subgenus) Melanesthes Lacordaire (year missing) is probably a later usage of Melanesthes Dejean, 1834 as well Myladanesthes Skopin, 1961 is actually a subgenus of Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 according to Löbl & Smetana (2008) and Iwan, Ferrer & Raś (2010), not a synonym of Melanesthes Opatropis Reitter, 1904 is also a subgenus of Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 Dasus Motschoulsky, 1845 is a synonym of Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 Gonocephalum Chevrolat, 1849 is probably a later usage (all species listed within should be under Solier, 1834)	Y
Melanostola Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Melanostola Sénac, 1887 is a later usage, according to N.Z., which would make it the first available use of the name however, according to Löbl & Smetana (2008) [page 42], "Melanostola Dejean, 1836" is available (probably from the third edition of Dejean's catalogue?), since it claims the first species name ("simplex. Dej.") is actually available as "Pimela simplex Solier, 1836" however to that however though, Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) doesn't mention Melanostola at all, let alone list Melanostola Dejean, 1836 as a valid name, so I can't actually tell if Löbl & Smetana (2008)'s note is correct or not I have no idea why the name is missing entirely from Bousquet & Bouchard, but Löbl & Smetana are correct that Pimelia simplex Solier 1836:123 was available prior to publication of Melanostola Dejean, 1836:198 (Bousquet & Bouchard explicitly state that paper preceded Dejean's catalogue), making that name available. All evidence points to Dejean's M. blapsoides and oblonga being nomen nudum, so that the designation by Löbl et al. is unavailable, as Pimelia simplex is then the type by monotypy. Balius Gistl, 1848 is a replacement name for Melanostola Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z. Bouchard & al., 2021 add another layer to this cake: Dejean ended up merely made available his own name, which Solier, 1836:123 had published in synonymy a month or so earlier! Melanostola Solier, 1836 added Y	Y
Metopocerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Microzoum Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior objective synonym of Melanimon Steven, 1829 Microzoum Motschoulsky, 1839 is a later usage, according to N.Z. (personal guess) Microzoum Redler, 1845 is probably also a later usage	Y
Morica Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Morica Solier, 1837 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Nosoderma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Nosoderma Guérin-Ménéville, 1838 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: According to García-París, Coca-Abia & Parra-Olea (2006), the following are synonyms of Nosoderma Solier, 1841: Homaloderes Solier, 1834 (as "Homaloderes Solier, 1831") Noserus Leconte, 1862 Phloeodes Leconte, 1862 Ageonoma Pascoe, 1866 Noserosus Doyen & Lawrence, 1979 (lapsus for Noserus) Actually, Nosoderma Guérin-Ménéville is the valid name for Meralius Casey, 1907, while Verodes Casey, 1907 becomes the valid name for Nosoderma Solier (Foley & Ivie, 2007). The article's writing style is a bit winding and confused IMO, making no proper attempts to clarify that there are two homonymous Nosoderma until after figuring out that N. morbillosum is not the type of Gérin-Méneville's name (which fact is self-evident if you start by establishing the these are clearly two separate names!).	Y
Notha Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	listed as an invalid synonym of Scotera Dejean, 1834 (also a nomen nudum), so this name is not available The Scotera gibbosa of Eschcholtz is a Cibdelis. It is available from Motschulsky, 1845 as a synonym later considered valid.	Y
Notocorax Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes precedence over Notocorax Mannerheim, 1844 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Nyctipates Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Nyctipates Gebler, 1841 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: According to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Nyctipates Gebler, 1841 is a synonym of Prosodes Eschscholtz, 1829 Nyctipates Solier, 1848 is junior homonym of Nyctipates Gebler, 1841, and a synonym of Prosodopria Reitter, 1909 (a subgenus of Prosodes Eschscholtz, 1829)	Y
Oncotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Oncotus Solier in Baudi & Truqui, 1848 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 is probably also a later usage Oncote Blanchard, 1845 is a misspelling of Oncotus Dejean, 1834 according to N.Z. (also see Blanchard (1845b: 13)) and is probably an incorrect original spelling for Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 Which name is valid, Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 or Oncotus Solier [in Baudi & Truqui], 1848? according to Bouchard et al. (2011), Oncotus Blanchard, 1845 is the valid name according to Kamiński (2016), Oncotus Solier, 1848 should actually be the valid name: "[...] , Blanchard’s reference does not fulfill the criteria laid down in Art. 12.2. of ICZN (1999), therefore Solier (1848) is considered here to be the author of Oncotus." It is absolutely Blanchard. Kamiński's argument conveniently ignores the clear presence of a description in Blanchard, which obviates the need to examine whatever indication(s) may be present. On second thought I believe his argument may be (and if so, terribly worded!) that the name is unavailable because it's not actually Latin and instead a vernacular transcription (the page include several names that clearly fall into such a category). Amusingly enough, the ICZN does not include any such provision that I can find aside from banning accented letters! I'm sure that's going to bite them in the ass some day... the ICZN is basically written so as to avoid having to change accepted dates of publication as much as possible through a variety of means (and end up really complicating things in a variety of creative methods in the process...), and otherwise minimize the need for the commission's interventions as much as possible (given how ridiculously long cases linger, and frequently are just... completely forgotten, I can't blame them)... except for article 55.3 which maximizes it. By contrast the ICBN emphasizes being able to tell from examination of the protologue whether a name is validly published or not. It's also worth noting that "Oncotus" later appears in page 25 in Blanchard's work, though without a description. I noticed that. It's why I put down both pages for Oncotus Blanchard. Subgenera included under Oncotus, according to Kamiński (2016): Cilioncotus Koch, 1954 Menoncotus Koch, 1954 Quadroncotus Koch, 1954	Y
Pachycoelia Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Pachycoelia Boisduval, 1835 was the valid name, not Lepispilus Westwood, 1841. | Y
Pachypterus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Pachypterus Lucas, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Pelecyphorus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Philoscotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed No idea what it's placed under. No apparent connection to Philoscotus Sawada, 1957. The "Asida silphoides" of Sturm mentioned given here unlikely to be Tenebrio silphoides Linnaeus (currently in Alphasida), as that is a Maghrebine species. Circeus (talk)	Y
Physosterna Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Physosterna Allard, 1885 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Pilioloba Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Investigation reveals this to be a synonym of Salax Guérin-Méneville, 1834	Y
Platyholmus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Platyholmus Solier, 1841 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Prionotheca Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Prionotheca Solier, 1836 (a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Psorodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Wait, as a replacement name, is it not by definition available and thus gaining priority over Psorodes Solier, 1848? Confirmed by Bouchard et al., 2021. I've updated all the entries Circeus (talk)	Y
Pterocoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Pterocoma Solier, 1836 (a later usage, according to N.Z.) Extra notes: what's the source for N.Z. listing Mongolopterocoma Skopin, 1974 and Pseudopterocoma Skopin, 1974 (subgenera of Pterocoma) as extinct exactly? Apart from the lack of evidence for being extinct at all, I also suspect this is wrong because, so far at least, I have found at least one article mentioning P. reitteri as being "abdundant under shrubs", which sounds like it is an extant species. P. reitteri is listed as under Pterocoma subgenus Mongolopterocoma in Löbl & Smetana (2008). Make of that what you like. IRMNG often has that sort of errors, in both directions. They were not necessarily in N.Z.	Y
Pterolasia Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Sciaca Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Sciaca Solier, 1835 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra note: I cannot say for certain if the genus is valid as Solier, 1835 or not, but according to d'Orbigny (1848: 423) (which of course could be completely wrong now), Sciaca Dejean, 1834 is a synonym of Hylithus Guérin, 1834 Solier's publication as a synonym could be a source of availability, but the conditions do not appear to have been met (hence Sciaca) not being in Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013b. He put it as a syn. of Hylithus and no one has bothered to contest it. The tentyrioides they mention is indeed an Hylithus. Circeus (talk) Could and is, it turns out. Bouchard et al. (2021) note that the third edition of the catalogue's entry makes Solier's name available. Even if we HAD covered the names from the third catalogue, it wouldn't have helped because unlike, say, Caelidia, Sciaca was not mentioned. Still a synonym of Hylithus. Circeus (talk)	Y
Sclerum Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Sclerum Blanchard, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z. Extra notes: Synonyms according to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Anticlia Gistl, 1847 (unnecessary replacement name) Chlamydion Gistl, 1848 (unnecessary replacement name) Scleron Hope, 1840 (an incorrect subsequent spelling) (synonymized in Bouchard et al. (2005))	Y
Scotera Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Scotera Eschscholtz in Motschoulsky, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z. I have no idea if this name ever became used validly or not. See above sub. Notha	Y
Selenomma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Selenomma Solier, 1838 is a later usage, according to N.Z. According to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), this name became available as Selenomma Dejean, 1836 (record not on IRMNG), as an unnecessary replacement name for Ammophorus Guérin-Ménéville, 1830 [with year "1831" in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b)]. Kamiński et al. (2019) does not list Selenomma Soiler, 1838 (or Dejean for that matter) as a synonym of Uniungulum Koch, 1962, though that may just mean it is not an available name No, it's because Selenomma Dejean, 1836, the only available one, has no apparent connection with Uniungulum (no idea where the heck Hallan got that synonymy from): it's an objective synonym of Ammophorus, and Ammophorus is currently treated as a valid genus in Scotobiini.	Y
Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Eurynotus Kirby, 1819 valid genus in Bousquet et al. (2021) Extra notes: are Selenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 and Solenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 related to the name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 at all, considering their very close spelling? according to Kamiński (2016), Solenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 is a subgenus of Eurynotus, and it has a different type species to Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 as given in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013). Better hope they can be considered different sense of the name (if they are linked), otherwise this is going to be a mess, oh dear. If we consider that Solenopistoma is an incorrect subsequent usage, it must be reverted because it is not being properly attributed to Dejean, making it not protected by Art. 33.3.1. The type designation by Bouchard and Bousquet is problematic because the current placement of O. acutum Wiedemann is unclear (to me at least)! The "Eurynotus acutus" of Mulsant and Rey is a Zadenos (Kaminski, 2015)! On the other hand, the designation by Koch, 1854 is inadmissible because E. denticosta is not an originally included species! This is indeed a mess... Update: Obviously, Bousquet and Nouchrd were working off the system used prior to Kamiński, who was in turn unaware of the type designation. Proper action was taken by Bouchard et al. (2020), synonymizing Euzadenos under Selenepistoma, with the the later used as a valid subgenus. @Circeus:: According to {{Bouchard et al., 2021}}, Solenopistoma Mulsant & Rey, 1854 (and Selenepistomus, but they don't mention Selenopistoma) is a incorrect subsequent spelling of Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 (and therefore unavailable), and they proposed a new subgenus Neosolenopistoma with the type species Eurynotus denticosta Mulsant & Rey, 1854. Meanwhile Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 is now considered a valid genus in the same article. Lastly, it appears IRMNG still needs to be actually updated! Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Ooops, my bad! I'm only up to Falsocaedius and and the entry for Euzadenos is worded in a rather misleading way: "Euzadenos Koch, 1956 was recently treated as a valid subgenus of Zadenos Laporte, 1840 (Kamiński 2015: 549); however, the type species of the older available genus name Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 is currently placed in Euzadenos and therefore Selenepistoma has priority." So I did not realize the genus level swap.	Y
Stenholma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Tetromma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Hyperops Eschscholtz, 1831	Y
Thalpophila Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Thalpophila Solier, 1835 is a later usage of the name, according to N.Z. a duplicate exists of Thalpophila Solier, 1835 (thanks to N.Z.) Thalpophilodes Strand, 1942 is a replacement name for Thalpophila Solier, 1835, according to N.Z.	Y
Zophius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus; therefore takes priority over Zophius de Brême, 1842 (which is a later usage, according to N.Z.)	Y
Zophobius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Zophobius Dejean, 1837 is linked to this name according to N.Z. However, it is not listed in Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b) so it is presumably not available even in the third edition of Dejean's catalogue. (Also, it should probably be cited as "Dejean, 1836")	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Y Pandarus Dejean, 1834 (original description: Dejean (1834: 191))
  • This is treated as an unjustified emendation of Dendarus Dejean, 1821
  • According to Löbl & Smetana (2008) [page 41], Dendarus Dejean, 1821 includes two available species-group names, so it is not a nomen nudum
    • This would mean Dendarus Dejean, 1821 takes priority over Dendarus Latreille, 1829 and takes all its synonyms/subgenera
• Y Trigonoscelis Dejean, 1834 (original description: Dejean (1834: 179))
  • valid genus
  • family Tenebrionidae
  • Trigonoscelis Solier, 1836 is probably a later usage, since both of its synonyms (Chinotrigon Skopin, 1973 and Echinotrigon Skopin, 1973) are subgenera of Trigonoscelis Dejean, 1834 according to Löbl & Smetana (2008)

Hétéromères: Taxicornes

(To Circeus: I'll try not to mix up "valid" and "available" from here on if I can help it!)

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Aniara Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Aniara Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably an available use of the name? It is definitely referring to Dejean, as he mentions "anthracina Dej.". However, the first available use appears to be by Melsheimer 1853:139. I'm more concerned about Melsheimer making available the name "Centronipus Dej.", as Centronipus Melsheimer is monotypic and an objective senior synonym of Menechides Motschulsky, 1872, a subgenus of Centronopus Solier (Bousquet et al., 2018) I have emailed Patrice Bouchard about this, and he seemed thrilled about the information	Y
Anisocheira Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Anisocrepis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Apsida Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Basanus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Calymmus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Calymmus Pascoe, 1871 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably an available use of the name? The correct authority is Doué (in Monrouzier, 1860:289), not Pascoe, 1871. Calymmus is a valid genus, not a synonym of Wattius Kaszab (Kergoat et al., 2014, Smith & Sanchez, 2015). Nom. Zool. considers that Pascoe is creating a new name homonym of Doué. IMO, this is clearly not the case, as he refers to Calymmus of Dejean and Doué assigning a species of Monrouzier to that genus. It is correct, however, that Calymmus sensu Pascoe = Wattius Kaszab.	Y
Cataphronetis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Cataphronetis Lucas, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and probably an available use of the name? According to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Cataphronetis Lucas, 1846 is synonym of Phtora Germar in Germar, 1835 Pseudostene Wollaston, 1861 is also a synonym of Phtora Clypeophtora Soldati & Soldati, 2003 is a subgenus of Phtora Phthora von Seidlitz, 1891 is probably an incorrect spelling or emendation of Phtora That record was duplicated, too, just to fuck things up even further. It is indeed an incorrect subsequent spelling of Germar's name. The duplicate is from Seidlitz ALSO citing Phtora Mulsant, 1854 with the wrong spelling, but Phthora Mulsant, 1854 is in fact an incorrect original spelling, saving us from having to cite two homonyms with the same authority.	Y
Cerandria Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum	Y
Cheirodes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cosmonota Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Delognatha Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed, though see notes Extra notes: According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), Delognatha Agassiz, 1846 is an "unjustified emendation" of Dailognatha Stevens, 1829 (not on IRMNG), a valid genus in Tenebrionidae. the original description for Dailognatha Stevens, 1829 is: Steven, C. von. 1829. Tentyriae et Opatra collectionis Stevenianae nunc Musei Universitatis Mosquensis. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 1 : 81–100. [Available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33157988], page 88 According to Bouchard & Löbl (2008), Dailognatha Stevens, 1829 has been misattributed as Dailognatha Eschscholtz, 1831 (or "Stevens in Eschscholtz, 1831"), since Steven's paper was little known by his contemporaries ICZN (2010)'s Opinion 2250 conserves the name Delognatha Lacordaire, 1859 by suppression of the name Delognatha Agassiz, 1846. Though according to one of the voters, Agassiz did not use Delognatha as valid (or even as an emendation of Dailognatha Stevens at all possibly), therefore Delognatha Agassiz, 1846 is not an available name and no action was necessary (he still voted for the case regardless).	Y
Endophloeus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus Endophloeus Erichson, 1845 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Epicalla Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Epicalla Lacordaire, 1859 is a later usage, according to N.Z. (personal guess) the name probably became available as Epicalla Champion, 1886, as it is listed as "Epicalla Champion" in Doyen (1989)	Y
Epicamptus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Epilampus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum unnecessary replacement name for Ceropria Laporte & Brullé, 1831 Extra notes, according to Löbl & Smetana (2008): Epilampus Blanchard, 1845 is a junior homonym (of Epilampus Dejean, 1834 probably?) The original description for Epilampus Blanchard, 1845 is found at Blanchard (1845b: 30), as "Épilampe. Dalm." to be fair in this case it could equally be just a later use of Dejean's name Aside from the fact the correct page is probably 223 (on p. 30, the name is in French form and unavailable), it is indeed clearly the same name as Dejean (although attributed to Dalman as Dejean did). Epilamprus Gistl, 1848 is an "unjustified emendation"	Y
Eucyrtus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Eunotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Heterocheira Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013b), this name became available as Heterocheira Dejean, 1836 (no record for this on IRMNG) in the third catalogue. Heterocheira Dejean, 1836 is a valid genus in family Tenebrionidae (personal guess) Heterocheira Lacordaire, 1859 is probably a later usage of Heterocheira Dejean, 1834/1836	Y
Heterophaga Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum Heterophaga Lucas, 1846 and Heterophaga Ludwig Redtenbacher, 1845 are later usages of Heterophaga Dejean, 1834, according to N.Z.	Y
Hylonoma Dejean, 1834	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This time, this is a nomen nudum! But it turns out to be available as Hylonoma Macquart, 1850. Circeus (talk)	Y
Hypogena Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus	Y
Hypsoderes Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Margus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum junior objective synonym of Tribolium Macleay, 1825 Margus Redtenbacher, 1842 is a later usage, according to N.Z.	Y
Phloeonemus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Phtora Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Platycrepis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Scaptes Eschscholtz in Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Scaptes Dejean, 1834	Scaptes Champion, 1886 is a later usage, according to N.Z., which would make this a synonym of Ammodonus Mulsant & Rey, 1859	Y
Xyloborus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	I have no idea if Xyloborus Kirby & Spence, 1828 is related at all It's definitely a nomen nudum. Xyloborus Motschulsky, 1858 is probably a later usage though, going by Motschulsky (1858: 64–65); if so this would make Xyloborus Dejean, 1834 a synonym of Rhipidandrus Leconte, 1862 in Schwarz & Barber (1914: 175), where they talk about the confusion of Xyloborus and Xyleborus and give some history on Xyloborus, they conclude that Motschulsky made the name available For the clarification: Xyloborus Motschulsky is a Tenebrionidae. Xyleborus Eichhoff is a Curculionidae. however, according to Merkl & Kompantzeva (1996) the name Xyloborus is a nomen nudum even in Motschulsky's usage! They don't put any argument whatsoever toward that, and I believe them to be wrong in that regard. I cannot find any other material only about the current placement of X. crenipennis Motschulsky though. I am emailing Dr. Bouchard about this and leaving this unresolved. Dr. Bouchard has kindly confirmed my analysis, even adding information to the specific effect that Xyloborus cannot be made a nomen oblitum because it "was used as valid after 1899 (e.g., Swezey 1942: 167)" (this seems to be Bernice P. Bishop. Mus. Bull. 172 and I am amazed they dug that up!).	Y

Names not on IRMNG

• Eleoma Dejean, 1834: 195
  •  Unnecessary This would be adding a later usage of Eleoma Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829
  • was originally listed as an invalid synonym of Lithophilus Frölich, 1799
    • Lithophilus is currently a synonym of Tetrabrachys Kapur, 1948 according to Löbl & Smetana (2007)  Done
    • Lithophilus (no authority given) appears to be a duplicate record for Lithophilus Frölich, 1799 from Hallan's catalog. Y Deleted
    • Also according to Löbl & Smetana (2007), Lithophilus Frölich, 1799 is a junior homonym and Tetrabrachys Kapur, 1948 is a replacement name
  • unavailable name
  • Eleoma Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829 was also proposed as a invalid synonym of Lithophilus Frölich, 1799  Done
    • According to N.Z., Eloma Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829 is another spelling of the same name  Done
• Phylethus Dejean, 1834: 196 (nomen nudum)
  • (personal guess) most likely linked to Phylethus Dejean, 1821 and Phylethus Redtenbacher, 1849, which would make this a synonym of Alphitophagus Stephens, 1832
  •  Unnecessary Same reason as above.

Hétéromères: Ténébrionites

N.Z.	Hallan	Other	Correct name	Other corrections and notes	Done?
Anaedus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	What's the correct authority for Anaedus Blanchard, 1845??? According to Löbl & Smetana (2008), the authority of Anaedus is "Blanchard, 1843: 198" However, according to Bouchard et al. (2011), "Blanchard, 1845" is the authority However again, according to Wei & Ren (2020) the authority is actually "Blanchard, 1842: pl. 14"! Same is stated in Bousquet et al. (2018) If the dates in Bousquet, 2016 are to be trusted, then the year in 1845. Plate 14 was issued in 1847. The accompanying text is from 1853, not 1843 (which I assume to be due to a typo appearing at some point in the process). I am surprised to see the wrong date in Bousquet et al., 2018! I was wrong about this. I misread something in the Litteratura. Plate 14 is firmly dated to 1842, which is the correct date and place of publication. According to N.Z., Anoedus Blanchard, 1845 is an incorrect spelling or emendation of Anaedus Blanchard, 1845 It's an incorrect original spelling and should be dated 1842.	Y
Anthracias Dejean, 1833 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Anthracias Dejean, 1834	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae junior subjective synonym of Cryphaeus Klug, 1833 The following names are linked to this one on N.Z. and may be later (or earlier) usages, etc: Anthracias Steven or Fischer Waldheim, 1829 ("nomen nudum") Anthracias Mulsant & Rey, 1859 Ardelio Gistl, 1848 (unjustified emendation) I'll throw in the additional Anthracias Redler, 1858, an antedating from Mulsant & Rey that was already synonymized.	Y
Aspisoma Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	According to Wei & Ren (2020), Aspisoma is available as "Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1841: 210" It's actually page 240. Name added. According to the same article, Aspidosoma Agassiz, 1846 is an unjustified emendation of Aspisoma Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1841, though N.Z. apparently says it is an emendation of "Aspisoma Laporte 1833 & Dejean 1834" (so both Aspisoma Laporte, 1833 and Aspisoma Dejean, 1834 ???) Same is stated in Bousquet et al. (2018) Yes, Agassiz was a very liberal emender, and if two names were homonyms, he would happily emend them to the same but different homonym. He would also shamelessly create wholly new homonym pairs through his emendations: he also emended Anaides Westwood to Anaedes, for example.	Y
Baryscelis Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This likely became available (and valid?) as Baryscelis Boisduval, 1835 Yes, that's pointed out in Bouchard & Bousquet, 2013b:table 1. Baryscelis is a taxon inquirendum in AFD.	Y
Bius Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum valid genus, therefore takes priority over Bius Mulsant, 1854 and its synonyms	Y
Bucerus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed Seems to be Tauroceras Hope, 1840	Y
Camptobrachys Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	This name likely became available and valid as Camptobrachys Kaszab, 1941	Y
Centronipus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed As noted above, this name became available as Centronipus Melsheimer, 1853, which is a senior objective synonym of Menechides Motschulsky, 1878	Y
Charinotus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed, though see notes Extra note: Charinotus Agassiz, 1846 appears to be a misspelling of Charinotes Dupont in Audinet-Serville, 1834, and is probably unrelated to the Dejean name (I think) Yes, yes it is	Y
Chariotheca Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Cholipus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Dendronomus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Eleutheris Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	no corrections needed	Y
Euphron Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	not a nomen nudum family Tenebrionidae senior subjective synonym of Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858, which is currently used as valid (new synonymy by Bousquet & Blanchard (2013a)) Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9) or an application to the Commission is necessary to conserve usage of the name Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858 Reversal of precedence was enacted for Euphron vs. Derosphaerus and Adelphus vs. Praeugenus by Bouchard & Bousquet in Iwan & Lôbl, 2020:6.	Y
Geoborus Dejean, 1834 ("nomen nudum")	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Geoborus Blanchard in d'Orbigny, 1846 is a later usage, according to N.Z., and also probably the first available use of the name The correct date according to Bousquet, 2016 is 1842 (pl. 13) According to COLEOPTERA NEOTROPICAL's page for Tenebrionidae in Chile, Deroplatus Solier in Gay, 1851 (as "Deroplatus Solier, 1851") is a synonym of Geoborus Blanchard, 1843 (which is likely the same as Geoborus Blanchard in d'Orbigny, 1846) This makes Geoborus Lacordaire, 1859 likely a later usage of Geoborus Blanchard Yes. Lacordaire only revalidated the name.