Some 20th century fish discoveries

Of the approximately 1.5 million species described to date, about 48 170 (3.2%) are vertebrates. Of these 24 618 (51%) are fishes. Amazingly, 41% of fishes are found in fresh water which makes up a negligible percentage of the water on earth. The sea accounts for 97% of all water on the planet and contains 58% of the fish species, mostly from shallow, warm-coastal areas. The families Cichlidae, Cyprinidae, Characidae, Loricariidae, and Cyprinodontidae constitute about half of all the recently described new freshwater fish species named in the period 1978–1993. The Gobiidae and Serranidae are the marine families with the largest number of recently described new species. The most new freshwater teleost names came from South America (39%), Africa (32%) and Asia (17%). New fish species continue to be described at the rate of roughly 130–160 each year. An estimated 13 775 new fish names have been proposed in this century, representing about 56% of all currently known fish species. Three species are discussed in detail to represent remarkable examples of 20th century fish discoveries: the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae, the salamanderfish Lepidogalaxias salamandroides of Western Australia, and the megamouth shark Megachasma pelagios. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

苦苣苔科植物学名种加词的问题

苦苣苔科植物是个研究活跃的类群,近年来随着新类群的报道和分类系统的变动,在该科的分类学研究中,出现了不少学名的种加词的性和属名不一致或出现拼写错误的情况,虽然这些错误不影响该名称的合格发表,但还是有必要根据《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》进行改正。该文就苦苣苔科植物中属名以-stigma结尾的学名、属名以-cheilos结尾的学名、根据属名词尾不容易判断出性别的学名、拼写错误的名称等问题进行了分析,并对13个不符合法规的名称予以改正。此外,还就苦苣苔科植物学名的合格发表和规范使用进行了讨论。     

Comments on controversial tick (Acari: Ixodida) species names and species described or resurrected from 2003 to 2008

There are numerous discrepancies in recent published lists of the ticks of the world. Here we review the controversial names, presenting evidence for or against their validity and excluding some altogether. We also address spelling errors and present a list of 17 species described or resurrected during the years 2003–2008. We consider the following 35 tick species names to be invalid: Argas fischeri Audouin, 1826, Ornithodoros boliviensis Kohls and Clifford, 1964, Ornithodoros steini (Schulze, 1935), Amblyomma acutangulatum Neumann, 1899, Amblyomma arianae Keirans and Garris, 1986, Amblyomma bibroni (Gervais, 1842), Amblyomma colasbelcouri (Santos Dias, 1958), Amblyomma concolor Neumann, 1899, Amblyomma cooperi Nuttall and Warburton, 1908, Amblyomma curruca Schulze, 1936, Amblyomma cyprium Neumann, 1899, Amblyomma decorosum (Koch, 1867), Amblyomma nocens Robinson, 1912, Amblyomma perpunctatum (Packard, 1869), Amblyomma striatum Koch, 1844, Amblyomma superbum Santos Dias, 1953, Amblyomma testudinis (Conil, 1877), Amblyomma trinitatis Turk, 1948, Dermacentor confractus (Schulze 1933), Dermacentor daghestanicus Olenev, 1928, Haemaphysalis himalaya Hoogstraal, 1966, Haemaphysalis vietnamensis Hoogstraal and Wilson, 1966, Hyalomma detritum Schulze, 1919, Ixodes apteridis Maskell, 1897, Ixodes donarthuri Santos Dias, 1980, Ixodes kempi Nuttall, 1913, Ixodes neotomae Cooley, 1944, Ixodes rangtangensis Teng, 1973, Ixodes robertsi Camicas, Hervy, Adam and Morel, 1998, Ixodes serrafreirei Amorim, Gazetta, Bossi and Linhares, 2003, Ixodes tertiarius Scudder, 1885, Ixodes uruguayensis Kohls and Clifford, 1967, Ixodes zealandicus Dumbleton, 1961, Ixodes zumpti Arthur, 1960 and Rhipicephalus camelopardalis Walker and Wiley, 1959. We consider the following 40 names valid: Argas delicatus Neumann, 1910, Argas vulgaris Filippova, 1961, Ornithodoros aragaoi Fonseca, 1960, Ornithodoros dugesi Mazzoti, 1943, Ornithodoros knoxjonesi Jones and Clifford, 1972, Ornithodoros marocanus Velu, 1919, Ornithodoros nattereri Warburton, 1927, Amblyomma beaurepairei Vogelsang and Santos Dias, 1953, Amblyomma crassipes (Neumann, 1901), Amblyomma echidnae Roberts, 1953, Amblyomma fuscum Neumann, 1907, Amblyomma orlovi (Kolonin, 1995), Amblyomma parkeri Fonseca and Arag?o, 1952, Amblyomma pseudoconcolor Arag?o, 1908, Bothriocroton oudemansi (Neumann, 1910), Bothriocroton tachyglossi (Roberts, 1953), Dermacentor abaensis Teng, 1963, Dermacentor confragus (Schulze 1933), Dermacentor ushakovae Filippova and Panova, 1987, Haemaphysalis anomaloceraea Teng, 1984, Haemaphysalis filippovae Bolotin, 1979, Haemaphysalis pavlovskyi Pospelova-Shtrom, 1935, Hyalomma excavatum Koch, 1844, Hyalomma isaaci Sharif, 1928, Hyalomma rufipes Koch, 1844, Hyalomma turanicum Pomerantzev, 1946, Ixodes arabukiensis Arthur, 1959, Ixodes boliviensis Neumann, 1904, Ixodes columnae Takada and Fujita, 1992, Ixodes maslovi Emel′yanova and Kozlovskaya, 1967, Ixodes sachalinensis Filippova, 1971, Ixodes siamensis Kitaoka and Suzuki, 1983, Ixodes sigelos Keirans, Clifford and Corwin, 1976, Ixodes succineus Weidner, 1964, Rhipicephalus aurantiacus Neumann, 1907, Rhipicephalus cliffordi Morel, 1965, Rhipicephalus pilans Schulze, 1935, Rhipicephalus pseudolongus Santos Dias, 1953, Rhipicephalus serranoi Santos Dias, 1950 and Rhipicephalus tetracornus Kitaoka and Suzuki, 1983.     

HisE11 and HisF8 Provide Bis-histidyl Heme Hexa-coordination in the Globin Domain of Geobacter sulfurreducens Globin-coupled Sensor

Among heme-based sensors, recent phylogenomic and sequence analyses have identified 34 globin coupled sensors (GCS), to which an aerotactic or gene-regulating function has been tentatively ascribed. Here, the structural and biochemical characterization of the globin domain of the GCS from Geobacter sulfurreducens (GsGCS¹⁶²) is reported. A combination of X-ray crystallography (crystal structure at 1.5 Å resolution), UV-vis and resonance Raman spectroscopy reveals the ferric GsGCS¹⁶² as an example of bis-histidyl hexa-coordinated GCS. In contrast to the known hexa-coordinated globins, the distal heme-coordination in ferric GsGCS¹⁶² is provided by a His residue unexpectedly located at the E11 topological site. Furthermore, UV-vis and resonance Raman spectroscopy indicated that ferrous deoxygenated GsGCS¹⁶² is a penta-/hexa-coordinated mixture, and the heme hexa-to-penta-coordination transition does not represent a rate-limiting step for carbonylation kinetics. Lastly, electron paramagnetic resonance indicates that ferrous nitrosylated GsGCS¹⁶² is a penta-coordinated species, where the proximal HisF8-Fe bond is severed.     

Revision of the subfamily Opiinae (Hymenoptera,Braconidae) from Hunan (China), including thirty-six new species and two new genera

The species of the subfamily Opiinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from Hunan (Oriental China) are revised and illustrated. Thirty-six new species are described: Apodesmia bruniclypealis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Apodesmia melliclypealis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Areotetes albiferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Areotetes carinuliferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Areotetes striatiferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Coleopioides diversinotum Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Coleopioides postpectalis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Fopius dorsopiferus Li, van Achterberg & Tan, sp. n., Indiopius chenae Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opiognathus aulaciferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opiognathus brevibasalis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius crenuliferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius malarator Li, van Achterberg & Tan, sp. n., Opius monilipalpis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius pachymerus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius songi Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius youi Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Opius zengi Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma acuticlypeata Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma angiclypeata Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma antenervalis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma depressiclypealis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma flavisoma Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma nigrisoma Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma protuberator Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma rugulifera Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Li & van Achterberg,Phaedrotoma striatinota Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Phaedrotoma vermiculifera Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis latipennis Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis longicaudifera Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis maculosa Li, van Achterberg & Tan, sp. n., Rhogadopsis obliqua Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Rhogadopsis sculpturator Li & van Achterberg, sp. n., Utetes longicarinatus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n. and Xynobius notauliferus Li & van Achterberg, sp. n. Areotetes van Achterberg & Li, gen. n. (type species: Areotetes carinuliferus sp. n.) and Coleopioides van Achterberg & Li, gen. n. (type species: Coleopioides postpectalis sp. n. are described. All species are illustrated and keyed. In total 30 species of Opiinae are sequenced and the cladograms are presented. Neopius Gahan, 1917, Opiognathus Fischer, 1972, Opiostomus Fischer, 1972, and Rhogadopsis Brèthes, 1913, are treated as a valid genera based on molecular and morphological differences. Opius vittata Chen & Weng, 2005 (not Opius vittatus Ruschka, 1915), Opius ambiguus Weng & Chen, 2005 (not Wesmael, 1835) and Opius mitis Chen & Weng, 2005 (not Fischer, 1963) are primary homonymsandarerenamed into Phaedrotoma depressa Li & van Achterberg, nom. n., Opius cheni Li & van Achterberg, nom. n. andOpius wengi Li & van Achterberg, nom. n., respectively. Phaedrotoma terga (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n.,Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead, 1905) and Biosteres pavitita Chen & Weng, 2005, are reported new for Hunan, Opiostomus aureliae (Fischer, 1957) comb. n. is new for China and Hunan; Xynobius maculipennis(Enderlein, 1912) comb. n. is new for Hunan and continental China and Rhogadopsis longuria (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n. is new for Hunan. The following new combinations are given: Apodesmia puncta (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Apodesmia tracta (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Areotetes laevigatus (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma dimidia (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma improcera (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma amputata (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma larga (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma osculas (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma postuma (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma rugulosa (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Phaedrotoma tabularis (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis apii (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis dimidia (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis diutia (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis longuria (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis pratellae(Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis pratensis (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis sculpta (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n., Rhogadopsis sulcifer (Fischer, 1975) comb. n., Rhogadopsis tabidula(Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Xynobius complexus (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Xynobius indagatrix (Weng & Chen, 2005) comb. n., Xynobius multiarculatus (Chen & Weng, 2005) comb. n.The following (sub)genera are synonymised: Snoflakopius Fischer, 1972, Jucundopius Fischer, 1984, Opiotenes Fischer, 1998, and Oetztalotenes Fischer, 1998, with Opiostomus Fischer, 1971; Xynobiotenes Fischer, 1998, with Xynobius Foerster, 1862; Allotypus Foerster, 1862, Lemnaphilopius Fischer, 1972, Agnopius Fischer, 1982, and Cryptognathopius Fischer, 1984, with Apodesmia Foerster, 1862; Nosopoea Foerster, 1862, Tolbia Cameron, 1907, Brachycentrus Szépligeti, 1907, Baeocentrum Schulz, 1911, Hexaulax Cameron, 1910, Coeloreuteus Roman, 1910, Neodiospilus Szépligeti, 1911, Euopius Fischer, 1967, Gerius Fischer, 1972, Grimnirus Fischer, 1972, Hoenirus Fischer, 1972, Mimirus Fischer, 1972, Gastrosema Fischer, 1972, Merotrachys Fischer, 1972, Phlebosema Fischer, 1972, Neoephedrus Samanta, Tamili, Saha & Raychaudhuri, 1983, Adontopius Fischer, 1984, Kainopaeopius Fischer, 1986, Millenniopius Fischer, 1996, and Neotropopius Fischer, 1999, with Phaedrotoma Foerster, 1862.     

The genera in the second catalogue (1833–1836) of?Dejean’s Coleoptera collection

All genus-group names listed in the second edition of the catalogue (1833-1836) of Dejean’s beetle collection are recorded. For each new genus-group name the originally included available species are listed and for generic names with at least one available species, the type species and the current status are given. Names available prior to the publication of Dejean’s second catalogue (1833-1836) are listed in an appendix.The following new synonymies are proposed: Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 (= Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854) [Hydrophilidae], Hyporhiza Dejean, 1833 (= Rhinaspis Perty, 1830) [Scarabaeidae], Aethales Dejean, 1834 (= Epitragus Latreille, 1802) [Tenebrionidae], Arctylus Dejean, 1834 (= Praocis Eschscholtz, 1829) [Tenebrionidae], Euphron Dejean, 1834 (= Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858) [Tenebrionidae], Hipomelus Dejean, 1834 (= Trachynotus Latreille, 1828) [Tenebrionidae], Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 (= Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889) [Tenebrionidae], Zygocera Dejean, 1835 (= Disternopsis Breuning, 1939) [Cerambycidae], and Physonota Chevrolat, 1836 (= Anacassis Spaeth, 1913) [Chrysomelidae]. Heterogaster pilicornis Dejean, 1835 [Cerambycidae] and Labidomera trimaculata Chevrolat, 1836 [Chrysomelidae] are placed for the first time in synonymy with Anisogaster flavicans Deyrolle, 1862 and Chrysomela clivicollis Kirby, 1837 respectively. Type species of the following genus-group taxa are proposed: Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 (Sphaeromorphus humeralis Erichson, 1843) [Scarabaeidae], Adelphus Dejean, 1834 (Helops marginatus Fabricius, 1792) [Tenebrionidae], Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrio cristatus DeGeer, 1778) [Tenebrionidae], Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 (Opatrum acutum Wiedemann, 1823) [Tenebrionidae], Charactus Dejean, 1833 (Lycus limbatus Fabricius, 1801) [Lycidae], Corynomalus Chevrolat, 1836 (Eumorphus limbatus Olivier, 1808) [Endomychidae], Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 (Acanthocinus marginicollis Boisduval, 1835) [Cerambycidae], Pterostenus Dejean, 1835 (Cerambyx abbreviatus Fabricius, 1801) [Cerambycidae], Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 (Lucanus femoratus Fabricius, 1775) [Lucanidae], and Pygolampis Dejean, 1833 (Lampyris glauca Olivier, 1790) [Lampyridae]. A new name, Neoeutrapela Bousquet and Bouchard [Tenebrionidae], is proposed for Eutrapela Dejean, 1834 (junior homonym of Eutrapela Hübner, 1809).The following generic names, made available in Dejean’s catalogue, were found to be older than currently accepted valid names: Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 over Catoxantha Solier, 1833 [Buprestidae], Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 over Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 [Buprestidae], Charactus Dejean, 1833 over Calopteron Laporte, 1836 [Lycidae], Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 over Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 [Hydrophilidae], Ancylonycha Dejean, 1833 over Holotrichia Hope, 1837 [Scarabaeidae], Aulacium Dejean, 1833 over Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 [Scarabaeidae], Sciuropus Dejean, 1833 over Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835 [Scarabaeidae], Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 over Ceratocanthus White, 1842 [Scarabaeidae], Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 over Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 [Lucanidae], Adelphus Dejean, 1834 over Praeugena Laporte, 1840 [Tenebrionidae], Amatodes Dejean, 1834 over Oncosoma Westwood, 1843 [Tenebrionidae], Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 over Phligra Laporte, 1840 [Tenebrionidae], Euphron Dejean, 1834 over Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858 [Tenebrionidae], Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 over Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889 [Tenebrionidae], Anoplosthaeta Dejean, 1835 over Prosopocera Blanchard, 1845 [Cerambycidae], Closteromerus Dejean, 1835 over Hylomela Gahan, 1904 [Cerambycidae], Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 over Ancita Thomson, 1864 [Cerambycidae], Mastigocera Dejean, 1835over Mallonia Thomson, 1857 [Cerambycidae], Zygocera Dejean, 1835 over Disternopsis Breuning, 1939 [Cerambycidae], Australica Chevrolat, 1836 over Calomela Hope, 1840 [Chrysomelidae], Edusa Chevrolat, 1836 over Edusella Chapuis, 1874 [Chrysomelidae], Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836 over Asphaera Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1842 [Chrysomelidae], and Pleuraulaca Chevrolat, 1836 over Iphimeis Baly, 1864 [Chrysomelidae]. In each of these cases, Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: 23.9) or an applicationto the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be necessary to retain usage of the younger synonyms.     

Nomencurator: a nomenclatural history model to handle multiple taxonomic views

Evolutionary studies are generating increasing numbers of phylogenies which, in turn, sometimes result in changes to hierarchical organization and therefore changes in taxonomic nomenclature. A three-layered data model for a nomenclature database has been developed in order to elucidate the information structure in nomenclature and as a means to organize and manage a large, dynamic knowledge-base. In contrast to most other taxonomic databases, the model is publication-oriented rather than taxon-oriented and dynamic rather than static, in order to mimic the processes that taxonomists use naturally. The three-layered structure requires data integrity localized to each publication, instead of global data integrity, which relaxes constraints common to taxonomic databases and permits multiple taxonomic opinions: taxon names are made available as metadata within the model. Its prototype implementation, written in C ⁺⁺, has an autonomous self-identification mechanism to avoid spurious data-inflation in a publication-oriented data model. Self-identification is also desirable for distributed implementations of the nomenclature database. Publication-oriented design also will make maintenance easier than for taxon-oriented databases, much of the maintenance workload being amenable to automation. The three-layered data model was designed for use by taxonomists, but is also able to provide concise, reduced expression for non-experts required in biodiversity research, for example.     

English names for a world list of mammals, exemplified by species of Indochina

1. The lack of a globally accepted list of English‐language names for mammal species leads to various problems stemming from the reduced ability to communicate unambiguously. This impacts directly on their conservation. We use the larger mammals of Indochina to exemplify the use of an explicit set of principles designed to provide each species with a unique and non‐misleading (or at least minimally so) English name. 2. For most species, a suitable name is already in use, sometimes generally so. For species for which multiple names are in use, standardization would consist of adopting the most suitable name. Only for a very few species are all extant names so unsuitable that a neologism should be coined. One species, Panthera pardus, presents potentially insoluble problems. 3. Name standardization among the world's birds has generated some controversy, but this has not led to abandonment of the process. Much can be learned by those developing a similar process for mammals, through studying the bird‐naming process. Progress can be advanced by detractors indicating whether they oppose standardization per se, the principles used or the names resulting from application of the principles. Also, proponents of standardization should always emphasize that the purpose of the process is to produce a list available for those who want to use it, not to produce a binding selection that must be used in all circumstances.     

About the application of the Linnaean names Anthemis italica and A. tinctoria var. triumfettii (Asteraceae,Anthemidae)

The typification of the Linnaean names Anthemis italica and A. tinctoria var. triumfettii is discussed. Specimens from LINN (no. 1016.4) and SBT (no. 72) are designated as lectotypes. The name A. italica is proposed as a synonym of A. maritima, while A. tinctoria var. triumfettii is currently accepted under the genus Cota, as C. triumfettii.     

Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)

We synthesize data on all known extant and fossil Coleoptera family-group names for the first time. A catalogue of 4887 family-group names (124 fossil, 4763 extant) based on 4707 distinct genera in Coleoptera is given. A total of 4492 names are available, 183 of which are permanently invalid because they are based on a preoccupied or a suppressed type genus. Names are listed in a classification framework. We recognize as valid 24 superfamilies, 211 families, 541 subfamilies, 1663 tribes and 740 subtribes. For each name, the original spelling, author, year of publication, page number, correct stem and type genus are included. The original spelling and availability of each name were checked from primary literature. A list of necessary changes due to Priority and Homonymy problems, and actions taken, is given. Current usage of names was conserved, whenever possible, to promote stability of the classification.New synonymies (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Agronomina Gistel, 1848 syn. nov. of Amarina Zimmermann, 1832 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalioini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Melandryini Leach, 1815 (Melandryidae), Polycystophoridae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Malachiinae Fleming, 1821 (Melyridae), Sclerasteinae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Ptilininae Shuckard, 1839 (Ptinidae), Phloeonomini Ádám, 2001 syn. nov. of Omaliini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Sepedophilini Ádám, 2001 syn. nov. of Tachyporini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Phibalini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Cteniopodini Solier, 1835 (Tenebrionidae); Agronoma Gistel 1848 (type species Carabus familiaris Duftschmid, 1812, designated herein) syn. nov. of Amara Bonelli, 1810 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalio Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela caraboides Linnaeus, 1760, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Melandrya Fabricius, 1801 (Melandryidae), Polycystophorus Gistel, 1856 (type species Cantharis aeneus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Malachius Fabricius, 1775 (Melyridae), Sclerastes Gistel, 1856 (type species Ptilinus costatus Gyllenhal, 1827, designated herein) syn. nov. of Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762 (Ptinidae), Paniscus Gistel, 1848 (type species Scarabaeus fasciatus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Trichius Fabricius, 1775 (Scarabaeidae), Phibalus Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela pubescens Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Omophlus Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrionidae). The following new replacement name is proposed: Gompeliina Bouchard, 2011 nom. nov. for Olotelina Báguena Corella, 1948 (Aderidae).Reversal of Precedence (Article 23.9) is used to conserve usage of the following names (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Perigonini Horn, 1881 nom. protectum over Trechicini Bates, 1873 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Anisodactylina Lacordaire, 1854 nom. protectum over Eurytrichina LeConte, 1848 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Smicronychini Seidlitz, 1891 nom. protectum over Desmorini LeConte, 1876 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Bagoinae Thomson, 1859 nom. protectum over Lyprinae Gistel 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Aterpina Lacordaire, 1863 nom. protectum over Heliomenina Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Naupactini Gistel, 1848 nom. protectum over Iphiini Schönherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Cleonini Schönherr, 1826 nom. protectum over Geomorini Schönherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Magdalidini Pascoe, 1870 nom. protectum over Scardamyctini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Agrypninae/-ini Candèze, 1857 nom. protecta over Adelocerinae/-ini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblita and Pangaurinae/-ini Gistel, 1856 nom. oblita (Elateridae), Prosternini Gistel, 1856 nom. protectum over Diacanthini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Elateridae), Calopodinae Costa, 1852 nom. protectum over Sparedrinae Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Oedemeridae), Adesmiini Lacordaire, 1859 nom. protectum over Macropodini Agassiz, 1846 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Bolitophagini Kirby, 1837 nom. protectum over Eledonini Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Throscidae Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Stereolidae Rafinesque, 1815 nom. oblitum (Throscidae) and Lophocaterini Crowson, 1964 over Lycoptini Casey, 1890 nom. oblitum (Trogossitidae); Monotoma Herbst, 1799 nom. protectum over Monotoma Panzer, 1792 nom. oblitum (Monotomidae); Pediacus Shuckard, 1839 nom. protectum over Biophloeus Dejean, 1835 nom. oblitum (Cucujidae), Pachypus Dejean, 1821 nom. protectum over Pachypus Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae), Sparrmannia Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Leocaeta Dejean, 1833 nom. oblitum and Cephalotrichia Hope, 1837 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae).