Case 3656Cerambyx striatusGoeze, 1777 (currentlyDorcadion glicyrrhizaestriatum) andCerambyx striatusFabricius, 1787 (currentlyChydarteres striatus) (Insecta, Coleoptera, cerambycidae): proposed conservation of the specific names

Abstract

The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names Cerambyx striatus Goeze, 1777 and Cerambyx striatus Fabricius, 1787. Cerambyx striatus Linnaeus, 1758, C. striatus Goeze, 1777 and C. striatus Fabricius, 1787 are primary homonyms, but the first name has never been congeneric with either of the other two because it was transferred to Callidium Fabricius, 1775 two years before the description of the first junior primary homonym. The other two nominal species have not been considered congeneric since 1817, when Fabricius's species was transferred to Trachyderes Dalman, 1817. Finally, C. striatus Goeze was removed from Cerambyx Linnaeus, 1758 and placed in Dorcadion Dalman, 1817 in 1947. Currently, Cerambyx has no species with the specific name striatus and the three primary homonyms are in use in distinct generic combinations and are placed in three different subfamilies of CERAMBYCIDAE. It is proposed that the names Cerambyx striatus Goeze, 1777 and C. striatus Fabricius, 1787 be conserved by ruling that they are not invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of C. striatus Linnaeus, 1758.

Opinion 2389 (Case 3656) — Cerambyx striatus Goeze, 1777 (currently Dorcadion glicyrrhizae striatum) and Cerambyx striatus Fabricius, 1787 (currently Chydarteres striatus) (Insecta, Coleoptera, cerambycidae): specific names conserved

“…Voting FOR, Grygier recommended that the word "invalid" in proposals (1)(a) and (2)(b) of this Case as published (Botero & Cupello, 2014) should be broadened to "unavailable and thus invalid" in the Opinion, and that, in proposal (2)(b), the wording "in the not consistently binominal work" should be modified to "in a not consistently binominal work". In addition to the present proposals, the authors should also have proposed the suppression of Voet (1778) and the placement of that work on the Official Index.…”