CC BY
0http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DE492F66-3FB9-46A3-920B-468389D8C5E9
DOI: 10.24412/2226-0773-2025-14-1-80-94
EDN: TWKUPR
Review of the “hebridanus” species group of the genus Cacodacnus Thomson, 1861 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Prioninae) with new combinations, description of a new species from Fiji and key to species
A.S. Zubov1, A. Drumont2
1Dacia 38/6 ap.36, Kishinev MD-2062 Moldova
e-mail: [email protected]
2O.D. Taxonomy and Phylogeny - Entomology, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
Vautier str. 29, Brussels B-1000 Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]
ORCID 0000-0001-9357-473X
Key words: Cerambycidae, Coleoptera, longhorn beetles, Catypnini, taxonomy, new species.
Abstract. The genus Cacodacnus Thomson, 1861 is partially revised with a specific study of the “hebridanus”species group. As a result, four species have been differentiated inside the hebridanus species group. New combination is proposed for Acrhetypus ?deplanchei Thomson, 1867 from New Caledonia: Cacodacnus deplanchei (Thomson, 1867) n. comb. Cacodacnus kozlovi sp. n. is described from Fiji (Viti Levu, Vanua Levu).
Introduction
Cacodacnus Thomson, 1861 is a small genus within the recently revalidated tribe Catypnini Lacordaire, 1868 by Jin et al. (2023). This genus has been described from New Hebrides (Vanuatu) to include one new species C. hebridanus. Next species were described as deplanchei Thomson, 1867 (as Archetypus ?) from New Caledonia (in Fauvel, 1867), rasilis Olliff, 1888 (as Toxeutes rasilis) from Norfolk island, planicollis Blackburn, 1895 from Australia, lameerei Aurivillius, 1925 from Papua, and occidentalis Ślipiński et al., 2023 also from Australia.
Lameere (1904, 1913 & 1919) regarded deplanchei and rasilis as being synonyms of hebridanus. This position was followed by McKeown (1947) in his catalogue of the Cerambycidae of Australia, as well as by several authors after him.
More recently, Ślipiński et al. (2023) recognized Cacodacnus hebridanus as a complex of species occurring in New Caledonia, Norfolk island, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Fiji. These authors did not go any further in their interpretation due to a lack of material and few genetic sequences. In their work, they place specimens from Fiji under C. hebridanus.
Specimens from Fiji were known for a long time (Fairmaire, 1881, Evenhuis & Ramsdale, 2006), but good comparison with types wasn’t made yet.
Recently, we have had the possibility to examine and study types of the taxa hebridanus, deplanchei and rasilis, as well as rather consistent series of specimens. Results of this analyze show that exemplars from New Hebrides (Vanuatu), New Caledonia and Fiji represent separate species.
New combination is proposed for Acrhetypus ?deplanchei Thomson, 1867 from New Caledonia: Cacodacnus deplanchei (Thomson, 1867) n. comb. In addition, Cacodacnus kozlovi sp. n. from Fiji is being described and illustrated.
Material and methods
The specimens are preserved dry, pinned or glued on cards. The author have used. Comparative analysis of exmplars by using methods of morphological examination was made using stereo microscope Zeiss Stemi 2000-C.
More than 57 specimens belonging to the “hebridanus” group have been examined for this study.
Total length was measured as the distance between the tip of the mandibles and the apex of elytra.
The material discussed below is housed in the following collections (with the names of their curators in parentheses for institutions mentioned), given with the respective acronym used in the text:
AD - private collection of Alain Drumont (Brussels, Belgium).
AM - collection of Australian Museum (Sydney, Australia) (D. Smith and N. Tees).
AT - private collection of Andrey Yu. Titarenko (Moscow, Russia).
AZ - private collection of Andrey Zubov (Moscow, Russia).
AK - private collection of Anton Kozlov (Moscow, Russia).
CR - private collection of Claude Ripaille (Lias, France).
JD - private collection of Jirí Dvoracek (Krenov, Cesky Krumlov, Czech Republic).
LT - private collection of Laurent T’Joen (Bures-sur-Yvette, France).
MNHN - collection of Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (Paris, France) (A. Mantilleri, T. Deuve & G. Tavakilian).
ND - private collection of Norbert Delahaye (Plaisir, France).
RBINS - collection of Royal Belgian Institut of Natural Sciences (Belgium, Bruxelles: W. Dekoninck).
Result
Cacodacnus deplanchei (Thomson, 1867) n. comb.
Archetypus ? deplanchei Thomson, 1867a in Fauvel: 205.
Cronodagus deplanchei, Thomson, 1867b: 89.
Type locality: New Caledonia: Lifu.
Diagnostic characters: see differential diagnosis of the new species given below and in the key below.
Type material examined: Holotype, male, Opheltes ?Archetypus ?Deplanchei Fvl, Lifu in MNHN.
Distribution: New Caledonia (Grande-Terre and Lifou island of the Loyalty islands).
Notes: The holotype (Figs 1-2) of Archetypus ?deplanchei is a very small specimen of 25 mm and, as Thomson (1857) pointed out, the individual he received from Mr. Albert Fauvel is in very poor condition (see the figure 17 given by Thomson which illustrated it with just the first two remaining antennal articles).
The specimen is in fact much more damaged than in Thomson's drawing (see Figure 1 of our study), with the head and pronotum stuck to the rest of the body. After Thomson, an antenna was glued back on from another species of Prioninae.
Furthermore, the type specimen is an immature specimen in which the colouration and characters of the elytra are not fully developed. It was probably for this reason that Thomson turned to the genus Archetypus for the description of his species deplanchei, without reattaching it to the genus Cacodcnus he described some years ago, finding that it nevertheless had an armature quite different from representatives of the genus Archetypus.
We therefore used a specimen of the same size from New Caledonia in the RBINS collections (Canala, ex. coll. A Fauvel) as a point of comparison for our study of the deplanchei species.
Figs 1-2. Archetypus ?deplanchei Thomson, 1861: 1 - Holotype, male, collection of MNHN; 2 - Labels of holotype. (Photos by Jérôme Constant).
Cacodacnus rasilis (Olliff, 1888)
Toxeutes rasilis Olliff, 1888: 1010; 1890: 72, pl. X, fig. 1.
Cacodacnus rasilis, Ślipiński, de Keyzer & Jin, 2023: 302, figs 134A (male), 134B-D, 158H (syntype), 158J (syntype male).
Type locality: Australia: Norfolk island.
Diagnostic characters: see differential diagnosis of the new species given below and in the key below.
Type material examined: Toxeutes rasilis Type. A.S. Olliff Norfolk Il / Type preserved in AM. Another syntype is present in MNHN and illustrated in Ślipiński et al. (2023), fig. 158H).
Distribution: Australia, Norfolk island.
Cacodacnus kozlovi sp. n.
Figs 3-4
Type locality: Fiji, Viti Levu island.
Description. Holotype: male (length 36 mm): light brown; head, mandibles, 1st antennae segment darker brown; head, antennae, mandibles, elytra and legs hairless and glabrous; body in long golden hairs; head quite big, almost long as wide and almost as wide as pronotum and elytra with short impression between the eyes; frons closer to clypeus with wide and deep horizontal impression; mandibles long, as long as head, curved, with 2 denticles at the apex, second denticle slightly looks up; in coarse dense punctuation at the external sides closer to the base, other surface almost glabrous, mandibles covered with rare and short golden hairs; eyes rather small, long and narrow; head punctuation strong and dense, sparser and glabrous at the vertex; antennae long, slightly shorter than the body; 1st antennal segment slighty thickened, short and oval, in thin quite dense punctuation, glabrous; 3rd segement long, same length as the width of pronotum, 5th segment slightly longer than 4th; prothorax process thin; pronotum rectangular, almost 2 times wide as long, strongly narrowed at the base, pronotum slightly flattened with 4 small spines on the sides; pronotum glabrous with very dense punctuation on the sides and in the center, with two big callosities in the center of pronotum; elytra straight, long and parallel, almost 2,1 times long as wide, slightly widened in the middle, glabrous, with rare deep punctures mostly located at the base, and more glabrous to the apex; elytra; each elytra with 4 slightly notable costae, sometimes barely visible; legs thin and quite short, without spines and curves; legs light brown.
Male variation: size varies from 27 mm to 45 mm, average size around 33 mm; on some specimens elytra are a bit widened at the center of the elytra, while on some others specimens elytra can exhibit 6 notable costae; some specimen are darker, especially pronotum and head which are dark brown; antennae can be a little bit shorter, not reaching apex of elytra; pronotum spines at some specimens are more visible and look more as spines than flattened angles, but variation is not so consistent and overall form of pronotum is visibly uniform.
Females (length 29-40 mm): light brown; body glabrous, almost without hairs; head short, almost as long as length of pronotum, quite wide, covered by dense punctation, slightly glabrous, mandibles short, pronotum rectangular, 4 spines at the sides clearly visible and a bit elongated, center of pronotum wider, with bigger spines; pronotum covered by dense, small punctation, except the callosities; elytra quite long, approximately 2,3 long as wide; elytra covered by quite rare small punctures; antennae short, barely longer than half of the body; 3rd antennae segment longer, a bit shorter than length of pronotum; eyes a bit bigger than in males.
Differential diagnosis. All examined males of C. kozlovi sp. n. are with elongated mandibles (major form), so the comparison is made on males of different species with also elongated mandibles. Minor forms (specimen without elongated mandibles) of some other species were examined, they show less visible differences, but clear comparison of minor forms can’t be made as minor forms of C. kozlovi are still unknown.
C. kozlovi shows clear signs of hebridanus group and is very close to C. hebridanus and C. deplanchei, but shows a number of clear signs that differ from these later species.
Species with elongated mandibles of “hebridanus” group: C. hebridianus, C. deplanchei, C. kozlovi, C. lameerei can be easily distinguished from C. planicollis, C. rasilis and C. occidentalis by the absence of 3rd tooth at the center (or closer to the base) of mandibles in the hebridanus group. This is true for major males because several minor males of deplanchei exhibit a 3rd or a 4th visible tooth on the internal side of the mandible. But C. deplanchei has very different pronotum shape in males and females.
Major form of planicollis has short and wide mandibles with barely visible 3rd tooth, clearly visible at most specimen and barely visible at some major forms. Anyway, C. planicollis has very short and wide mandibles, and even in major forms, mandibles are clearly shortest than the head. The only other species with short and wide mandibles is C. occidentalis, but it has a big tooth at the base of mandibles and no third tooth at the apex. Major form of C. rasilis has slightly widened mandibles at the center with barely visible tooth, but clearly widened that makes it easy to recognize. Minor forms of C. rasilis always have a visible tooth at the center of mandibles.
Known minor specimen of C. hebridanus don’t have teeth at the center of mandibles. Several minor specimen of deplanchei from New Caledonia exhibit teeth in the center of mandibles and one of 37 mm exhibits 4 teeth in the center of the mandible. Later comparision will be made only between species of hebridanus group.
Note from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “Species in this complex differ from the continental Australian species by having the prothorax with the spine that originates at the anterior corner very stout and short, and usually straight, or almost completely absent.”
Cacodacnus lameerei can be distinguished well from other species of the hebridianus complex by the shape of pronotum; its shape is less rectangular, spines are thinner, center of pronotum is not so wide, so pronotum has clearly different shape, sometimes apex of pronotum is wider (at major forms) that we don’t meet at other species of “hebridanus” complex; also the base of pronotum on the sides of C. lameerei has long golden hairs, other species are hairless and glabrous.
C. lameerei can be easily distinguished from C. kozlovi sp. n. first of all by the pronotum shape. C. lameerei is a bigger species, head is wider comparing to it’s pronotum; pronotum is less rectangular in both males and females; mandibles are longer but relatively thinner, especially at the base; 3rd antennal segment is longer (clearly longer than the pronotum width) in both males and females; eyes are relatively wider and bigger both in males and females; elytra length is longer comparing to it’s base, expecially in major forms, also both in males and females. Minor form mandibles are shorter, as long as the head size, other characters remain almost the same.
Cacodacnus hebridanus is also a bigger species (size 35-46 in our sample, n = 14; AD, LT & RBINS, with average 41 for males and 38 for females) than C. kozlovi sp. n. and has well distinguished major form with elongated mandibles and more widened elytra. It can also be easily distinguished from C. kozlovi sp. n. by longer 3rd antennal segment that is longer than the pronotum length (in minor form 3rd segment is shorter, but also relatively longer than in C. kozlovi sp. n., though the comparision should be made also with minor forms); mandibles in major forms much longer, longer than head, in minor forms mandibles shorter than head; elytra less parallel and wider at the center; pronotum is more rectangular in its shape and the center is clearly more widened, so central spines seems bigger both in males and females. Females of C. hebridanus have longer antennae, clearly longer than half of the body; have clearly longer 3rd antennal sement; have wider head and pronotum.
By mandibles shape Cacodacnus deplanchei (Figs 5-6) differs well from other species of hebridanus complex. C. deplanchei seems to be bigger than C. kozlovi sp. n. (deplanchei size 24 - 49 in our sample, n = 22; AD, JD, LT, with average size about 35 mm for males and 41 mm for females; kozlovi size 27 - 45, with average 33 mm for males and 35 mm for females). Major males mandibles are elongated, as long as head, very wide and have denser punctation than C. kozlovi sp. n.; mandibles wide, shorter than head im minor forms (see Holotype photo, Fi. 1), and apical denticles have long distance between them; these characters make C. deplanchei easily recognizable comparing to C. kozlovi sp. n. and C. hebridanus. Pronotum is also clearly much more rectangular with longer spines. 3rd antennal segment as long as the pronotum length even in biggest specimens.
Materials. Holotype, male, Fiji, Viti Levu isl., 4-7.II.2015 - AZ; 40 Paratypes; 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Nadarivatu, 26.VII.1994 - JD; 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Namaquamaqua, X.2004 - AD ; 2 females, Fiji, Vanua Levu, I.2014 - AT; 1 male, 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Navai village, 23-26.I.2015, B. Bubenik leg. - LT; 1 male, 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Navai village, I.2015, B. Bubenik leg. - ND; 2 males, 3 females, Fiji, Viti Levu, Navai village, without date, B. Bubenik leg. - AD; 1 male, 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Navai village, without date, B. Bubenik leg. - ex AD, will be deposited in RBINS, I.G.: 34.953; 1 male, 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, II.2015; 1 male, 1 female, Fiji, Vanua Levu, I.2014 - AZ; 2 males, 2 females, Fiji, Viti Levu, Suva, 4-7.II.2015- AT; 2 males, 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, Central Mts, I.2016, leg. B. Bubenik - AD; 2 males, 2 females, Fiji, Viti Levu, Suva, 5-23.02.2016 - AK; 1 male with the same label - AZ; 3 males, 5 females, Fiji, Viti Levu, X.2022, local coll. leg - ND; 1 female, Fiji, Viti Levu, IX.2023, local coll. leg - CR; 1 male, 1 female, same data - ND; 3 males, 3 females, Navosa, Viti Levu, Fiji, X.2023 - ND.
Figs 3-4. Cacodacnus kozlovi sp.n. 3 - Holotype male (36 mm);
4 - Paratype female with the same label (36 mm). (Photos: Dmitry Fominykh).
Figs 5-6. Cacodacnus deplanchei (New Caledonia): 5 - Male (41 mm);
6 - Female (38 mm). (Photos: Laurent T’Joen)
Distribution. The new species is currently only known from Fiji (Viti Levu, Vanua Levu).
Etymology. The new species is named after Anton Kozlov (Moscow, Russia) for his contribution to the study of Prioninae, Cerambycidae and especially his help with the specimens and study of the new species.
Updated list of Cacodacnus species and their distribution
1. C. deplanchei (Thomson, 1867): New Caledonia, n. comb.
2. C. hebridanus Thomson, 1861: New Hebrides (Vanuatu)
3. C. kozlovi n. sp.: Fiji
4. C. lameerei Aurivillius, 1925: Papua New Guinea
5. C. occidentalis Ślipiński et al., 2023: Western Australia
6. C. planicollis (Blackburn, 1895): Esatsren Australia
7. C. rasilis (Olliff, 1888): Australia: Norfolk island
Key for Cacodacnus species
1(2) Mandibles with 2 teeth at the apex (one under, so only one is visible from the top).…..…..........................................C. occidentalis
Notes. C. occidentalis is rather long; head, mandibles and elytra are almost of same width; antennae of males are rather short (shortest of all species) and are a bit longer than the center of body; mandibles are very short, almost two times shorter than the head; mandibles without 3rd tooth at the apex (due to the shape and size of the mandibles, the third apical tooth is placed closer to the base that makes the unique form of mandibles among all Cacodacnus). Pronotum spines are thin and curved. Pronotum with 2 big square glabrous callosities different from other species. Head with two slightly glabrous punctured tubercles between the eyes. Combination of these characters make this species well distinguished among other species.
Notes from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “Cacodacnus occidentalis can be distinguished from the widespread Australian species, C. planicollis, by the shorter male mandible without a dorsal subapical tooth on its inner margin. It can be distinguished from members of the C. hebridanus complex by its longer pronotal lateral projections that point backwards.”
2(1) Mandibles with 3 teeth at the apex (2 seen from the upperside, 3rd placed underside and can bee seen only from ventral side).
3(6) Mandibles with additional tooth at the center of mandibles; major forms mandibles are slightly widened at the center, sometimes the tooth is barely visible, but mandibles are visibly widened. Pronotum shape is less rectangular with visible thin curved spines.
4(5) In forms with elongated mandibles, 3rd antennal segment is clearly longer than the pronotum width, mandibles thin and round, dense punctuated.
In forms with short mandibles, 3rd antennal segment is almost same length as pronotum.
Pronotum wider at the central spines, spines at the apex smaller than the central one……………………………………...…….…C. rasilis
Notes. Major forms of C. rasilis have longer and thinner mandibles than C. planicollis. Pronotum has different shape, widened at the central spines. Elytra more widened with strong costae, the most raised costae of all species of the genus.
Notes from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “Compared to other populations of this group the Norfolk Island specimens have relatively short elytra with very fine sparse punctures; the male frontoclypeus is relatively flat, sloping forward and has a short anteclypeus meeting the transverse labrum; the mandible has a strong lateral carina in the basal half and has the dorsal subapical tooth well separated from the apical ones; the gular area has a distinct transverse groove that is vermiculate, punctate and bears short setae; and the anterior prothoracic angle is short, pointed and somewhat posteriorly directed.”
5(4) In forms with elongated mandibles, 3rd antennal segment is almost the same length as pronotum width, mandibles are widened with wide glabrous space on the inner side if mandibles.
In forms with short mandibles, 3rd antennal segment is visibly shorter than pronotum length.
Pronotum width is the same at central and apical spines; apical spines are of the same size as the central one. So overall pronotum shape is more parallel and square………...……………C. planicollis
Notes. Major forms of C. planicollis have the widest mandibles of all species with wide glabrous impression; mandibles shorter than head. Pronotum apical spines big and curved like in occidentalis, both in major and minor forms.
Notes from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “Cacodacnus planicollis can be separated from C. occidentalis by the male mandible always bearing a subapical tooth on the inner margin of the mandible. lt is also very similar to the T. hebridanus complex but can be recognised by its longer pronotal lateral projections that point backwards.”
6(3) Mandibles don’t have any signs of additional tooth at the center of mandibles; in major forms mandibles are long, thin and curved ; in minor forms straight in the center. Pronotum with flattened spines, sometimes a bit thin, but not or almost not curved.
7(8) Males pronotum with long hairs at the side of the base…………………………….……………………...…C. lameerei
Notes. C. lameerei is a bigger species as C. hebridanus. But has very different pronotum shape from all species of the complex. Pronotum spines are thinner; pronotum at central spines is only a bit wider, sometimes wider at apical spines, that makes it’s pronotum shape very different from other species of the complex. 3rd antennal segment is long at major and minor specimen. Mandibles length in minor specimen is a bit shorter than head, but not wide; in major forms mandibles long, but shorter than in C. hebridanus major forms.
Notes from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “The male frontoclypeus is relatively flat, sloping forward and has a short anteclypeus meeting the transverse labrum; the telodont mandible has a lateral carina in the basal half and a dorsal subapical tooth very close to the apical ones; the gular area lacks a transverse groove, is very coarsely vermiculate, punctate, and bears short setae; the anterior prothoracic angle is short and broad. The pronotum is very strongly sculptured in comparison with other populations, and the impressed lateral areas are more strongly coarsely punctate and setose.”
8(7) Pronotum without long hairs, glabrous.
9(10) Males 3rd antennal segment long, visibly longer than the length of pronotum; major form mandibles longer than head. Mandibles of minor specimen shorter than head, but look elongated…………………….…...................................C. hebridanus
Notes. C. hebridanus is a relatively big species (35 - 46, with average size 41 mm for males and 38 mm for females). It has long mandibles in major forms, longer than C. deplanchei and C. kozlovi. Minor specimen have short mandibles that look elongated and have dense punctation. A bigger size, longer mandibles im major specimen, long 3rd antennal segment make this specie quite eazy to recognize. Also the pronotum shape is very different, but keys for pronotum are hard to make due to absence of easily recognizable characters. Comparison of specimen makes clear that pronotum shape differs well, and considering other characters like antennae, mandibles, head width makes them easy to recognize.
Notes from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “The male frontoclypeus is relatively flat, at one level, and the clypeus extends forward, meeting an apparently triangular labrum; the telodont mandible appears to lack a lateral carina but has the dorsal subapical tooth very close to the apex; the gular area lacks a distinct transverse groove, is coarsely vermiculate, punctate, and bears short setae; and the anterior prothoracic angle is short and broad.”
10(9) Males 3rd antennal segment as long as pronotum length or shorter. Mandibles a bit longer than head or shorter.
12(13) Mandibles wide and flattened……………....…C. deplanchei
Notes. C. deplanchei is of big size too (size 24 - 49, with average size 35 mm for males and 41 mm for females), size between C . kozlovi and C. hebridanus; has wide flattened mandibles and much bigger distance between apical teeth than C. kozlovi and C. hebridanus, mandibles punctation is denser than in C. kozlovi; head relatively narrower comparing to pronotum and elytra than in C. kozlovi; pronotum with longer and more distinct spines than in C. kozlovi and C. hebridanus; apical spines on females pronotum longer and more flattened, central spines less wide; antennae shorter than body, shorter than in both other species; elytra are wider and darker, sometimes black with much more visible costae. Mandible size and shape with apical denticles at the same plane and bigger distance. Some minor specimen have additional teeth on the mandibles making C. deplanchei very different from other species of hebridanus complex.
Notes from Ślipiński et al. (2023). “The male frontoclypeus is concave and the clypeus does not extend forward, but meets the short labrum almost vertically; the strongly developed, telodont mandible has a strong lateral carina has the and dorsal subapical tooth distinctly separated from the apical one; the gular area has triangular impressions that are extremely coarse with uneven sculpture and bear short setae; the anterior prothoracic angle is short and broad.”
13(12) Mandibles narrow, as long as head, glabrous, strongly punctation only on external sides; second apical denticle looks up; 3rd antennal segment as long as the pronotum length…..……C. kozlovi
Notes. C. kozlovi is a smaller species (size 27 - 45, with average 33 mm for males and 35 mm for females), quite glabrous, rather parallel species as head, pronotum and elytra width is similar; mandibles are quite long and rather narrow. These characters make it a well distinctive species.
Acknowledgements. We thank Dmitry Fominykh (Moscow, Russia) for the help with photos, measurements and material study, Andrey Titarenko (Moscow, Russia) for help with material for the study and Vladimir Gurko (Ukraine) for help with material for the study.
We are indebted to the collection managers of the institutions who lead us examine material for this study: Thierry Deuve, Antoine Mantilleri and Azadeth Taghavian (MNHN), and Wouter Dekoninck, curator of the entomological collections (Scientific Heritage Service, RBINS).
We express our sincere thanks to Derek Smith and Natalie Tees (AM) for the pictures of the syntype of Cacodacnus rasilis, to Jerôme Constant (O.D. Taxonomy and Phylogeny - Entomology, RBINS) for the pictures of the type of Cacodacnus deplanchei and to Laurent T’Joen (Belgium) for the pictures of Cacodacnus deplanchei.
We are grateful to the following citizen scientists for providing specimens and informations for this study: Norbert Delahaye, Jiri Dvoracek, Anton Kozlov, Claude Ripaille and Laurent T’Joen.
Finally, we thank to Jiri Pirkl (Czech Republic) who manages the website “www.prioninae.eu” devoted to the types of Prioninae of the world, providing important and evident help for species identification to the researchers in this subfamily of Cerambycidae. This leads us to be able to examine types of Cacodacnus hebridanus preserved in MNHN.
REFERENCES
Aurivillius C. 1925. Neue oder wenig bekannte Coleoptera Longicornia. 21. - Arkiv för Zoologi, Uppsala. 18A (9): 503-524.
Evenhuis N.L. & Ramsdale A.S. 2006. Checklist of the Coleoptera of Fiji. - Bishop Museum Technical Report. 38 (5): 1-59.
Fairmaire L.M.H. 1881. Essai sur les Coléoptères des îles Viti (Fidgi) Suite. - Annales de la Société Entomologique de France. (6) 1: 461-492.
Jin M., de Keyzer R., Ashman L.G., Zwick A. & Ślipinski A. 2023. Phylogeny and tribal classification of Australian Prioninae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). - Annales Zoologici, Warszawa. 73 (3): 499-512.
Lameere A.A.L. 1904. Révision des Prionides. Neuvième mémoire. - Callipogonines. Annales de la Société entomologie de Belgique. 48 (1): 7-78.
Lameere A.A.L. 1913. Cerambycidae: Prioninae. Coleopterum Catalogus (pars 52). 22: 1-108. W. Junk et S. Schenkling, Berlin.
Lameere A.A.L. 1919. Genera Insectorum. Coleoptera Longicornia, Fam. Cerambycidae, Subfam. Prioninae. P. Wytsman ed., Bruxelles, Belgium. (172): 1-189, pls. 1-8.
McKeown K.C. 1947. Catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Australia. - Memoirs of the Australian Museum, Sidney. 10: 1-190.
Olliff A.S. 1888. Report on a small zoological collection from Norfolk Island. IV. Insecta. - The Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 2 (2) 4 [1887]: 1001-1014.
Olliff A.S. 1890. Additions to the insect-fauna of Lord Howe Island, and descriptions of two new Australian Coleoptera. - Records of the Australian Museum. 1: 72-76.
Prioninae of the world. - URL: https://www.prioninae.eu/.
Ślipinski A., de Keyzer R. & Jin M. 2023. Australian Longhorn Beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Volume 3. Subfamily Prioninae of the Australo-Pacific Region. ABRS, Canberra and Csiro publishing, Melbourne: i-xx + 1-512, 160 figs.
Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 22nd March 2017. - URL: www.catalogueoflife.org/col.
Tavakilian G. (Author) & Chevillotte H. (Software) [2022]. - Titan: base de données internationales sur les Cerabycidae ou Longicornes. Version 3.0 [XI.2022]. [http://titan.gbif.fr/index.html]. (Accession Date: 6 February 2025).
Thomson J. 1860-1861. Essai d'une classification de la famille des cérambycides et matériaux pour servir à une monographie de cette famille. Paris. 404 pp.
Thomson J. 1867a. In: Fauvel C.A. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la Nouvelle Calédonie et dépendances avec descriptions, notes et synonymies nouvelles. - Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie. (2) 1: 172-290.
Thomson J. 1867b. IV. Révision du groupe des Mallodonites (insectes Coléoptères, Prionites, Cérambycides). - Physis, Recueil d'Histoire Naturelle. 1 (2): 85-106.
Received: 12.01.2025
Accepted: 10.03.2025
