A catalog of the types of Tenebrionidae sensu lato (Insecta, Coleoptera, Cucujiformia) deposited in the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (cid:147)Bernardino

: The type specimens (all current categories) of Tenebrionidae s.l. housed at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (cid:147)Bernardino Rivadavia,(cid:148) until December 2007 are listed; 158 names are recorded, 125 of them (79 percent) represented here by name-bearing types ((cid:145)primary(cid:146) types). The family is taken in its broadest sense (including the Alleculinae and Lagriinae, sometimes treated as separate families). The specific and subspecific names were alphabetically filed, followed by the generic ones as they were spelled in the original publication (or the generic and specific names in the case of subspecies and varieties). Later combinations and/or current binomina, and synonyms are mentioned as far as these are known to the authors. Two lists are added: 1. of specimens labelled as types of names not found in the literature, and presumably not published, and 2. of specimens labelled as types, but not originally included as such, and published or not after the original description.

A catalog of the typical specimens (all current categories) of species of Tenebrionidae s. l. deposited in the Entomological Division of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia, until December 2007 is presented; it contains 158 names represented by 26 holotypes, 98 syntypes (1 of them dubious) of 59 names, 40 lectotypes, 167 paratypes, one of them dubious (including 5 allotypes), and 24 paralectotypes; 125 of these 158 names (79 percent) are here represented by name bearing types (primary types). One holotype is missing on the holding card, that of Lepidocnemeplatia vianai Kaszab, but the entry is included in the main list.
The family is here taken in its broadest sense, including the Alleculinae and the Lagriinae, sometimes treated as separate families. We adopt the classification presented by Aalbu (2006) which has incorporated, when relevant, the nomenclatural changes proposed by Bouchard et al. (2005).
Specific and subspecific names are alphabetically entered in a single list, as it is usual in type specimen catalogs; each name is followed by the generic one (and subgeneric one if it was mentioned) as it was spelled in the original binomen, or by the generic and specific names in the case of subspecies or varieties; a bibliographic citation follows, as well as a listing of the types if these were mentioned. An account of the type specimens actually housed at the Museum follows, with their label data. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), allotypes are not name bearing types. If the country is not mentioned, Argentina is meant; in every other case, the country is mentioned first. Some specimens bear a registration number, entered in the Entomology Division register; numbers under 10000 correspond to the old general register of the Museum. Posterior nomenclatural or taxionomical changes are recorded as long as these are known to the authors. Unless otherwise stated, the specimens mentioned are pinned. Words or whole sentences in square brackets [ ] are our own comments, not included in the originals quoted.
For the identification of types not formally designated in the original publication (art. 72.4 of the Code), evidences from the labels are considered. When the authors did not formally designate a holotype, or its equivalent, and did not mention the amount of specimens examined, it is assumed that they had a series of syntypes (recommendation 73 f of the Code), eventually sole syntypes.
Some specimens in the collection are labelled as types of names not found in the literature, and assumed not to have been published. These names are probably not available in the sense of the Code; however, in order to assist in future research, they are separately listed.
Specimens labelled as types or cotypes, but not included in the original publication, and specimens designated as types after the original publication date, published or not, cannot be accepted as a part of the type series; however, also in order to assist in future research, they are included in a third list.
Hermann Burmeister (the first scientific director of the Museum, since 1861) never labelled his specimens as types, their condition can only be inferred from the collection, and from his publications. He put a label with the name of the species fastened to the bottom of the drawer, to the left of the specimen or series; frequently he put a locality label only to the first specimen, or to a few, so it can only be suspected that the following ones pertain to the same series; often the label has an indication of the distribution, sometimes very vague, like Argentina. He did not mention in his publications how many specimens he examined (except for single ones) so we assume them to be syntypes (recommendation 73 f of the Code). One of us (AOB) added a Typus or Syntypus red label, and the original name given by Burmeister. Carlos Berg, follower of Burmeister as an entomologist in the Museum, and the director after his death in 1892, was more careful in labelling types: he used to put a very small red-ink-printed label reading Typus within a red frame, and usually vague locality labels printed on dark green paper, like Mendoza or Patagonia. Carlos Bruch put in his personal collection very small white cardboard labels with country, province, and date, printed with black ink, within a black frame. His identification labels were handwritten on white paper with a red frame; those of his last years were green framed. He used to provide the types with a small piece of paper handwritten by their authors, probably cut from a letter, with the name of species, so adding credibility of the type condition of the specimens; the generic name is seldom, and then only partially conserved, which explains our expression with remainings of... in the catalog. His Typus and Cotypus labels were printed on pale green paper, and those of the last years were handwritten on similar pale green paper; only a few ones were handwritten on pink paper. We suspect that some of the cotypes in the Bruch collection deposited in this museum were not even included in the typical series, but it is not possible now to assure in every case their condition. In order to assist in future research, we include them in the present paper as syntypes or as paratypes, explaning the decision in a note. Note: Gebien mentioned this specimen, identified by him through the photograph taken by Bruch (Gebien, 1926: 86 and f. 3 Notes: Only one spec., the one with the label Foto, must be considered as a syntype, identified by Gebien through the photo taken by Bruch, and published by Gebien (1928: pl. II, 1). Synonymized with Emmallodera strangulata Fairmaire 1905by Marcuzzi (1976, who stated that Gebien (1928) apparently did not know Fairmaires species and considered the new taxon to be a new genus and species, and named it Phrynocarenum strangulatum (Fairmaire 1905), a name that is now valid; this species had been transferred to Pseudoscotobius by Kulzer (1955: 397 Notes: Put in synonymy of Nyctelia westwoodi Waterhouse 1841 (Gebien, 1937: 746;Kulzer 1963: 56 Notes: Recorded as Psectrascelis infravestita by Gebien (1910: 146). Cerostena was considered as subgenus of Psectrascelis by Gebien (1937) and Kulzer (1954). Peña (1985a) synonymized Cerostena with Psectrascelis and designated lectot. (Peña 1985a: 46). Because Peña made a mistake adding a label of syntypus, one of us (GEF) added the label of identification of lectot. Lectot., 3 paralectot., 2 of them 4227 handwr.; Cachi / Cachipampa. Pr. Salta; (on one intercostata / Berg handwr. on white paper with a red marginal stripe); and 1 Salta, all 3 handwritten on green paper; the remaining Tucu-/ man printed on green paper; all 4 Typus printed with red ink on white paper, with a red frame; Epipedonota intercostata / Berg / Lectotypus [on 1 st one, Paralectotypus on the other three] / G. Flores & P. Vidal Des. 1999 printed on red paper.