Taxonomic notes concerning the genus Catharsius Hope, 1837 (Scarabaeidae Scarabaeinae) Author Takano, Hitoshi African Natural History Research Trust, Street Court, Kingsland, Leominster HR 6 9 QA, UK. & Department of Zoology, Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford OX 1 3 PS, UK & Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW 7 5 BD, UK text Zootaxa 2021 2021-10-14 5052 2 280 286 journal article 3983 10.11646/zootaxa.5052.2.7 5902f0a7-68e2-4de8-9ef2-9e70a20676be 1175-5326 5568728 D8949428-C305-4510-99BB-39498D4421F6 Catharsius harpagus Harold, 1877 Edgar von Harold (1877) described this species from a vague locality of “ Afric. austral .” based on at least a male and a female specimen, giving a size range of 22–30 mm . Although Harold stated in his original description that the type specimens of C. harpagus were housed in ZMHB, the type series was found in the MNHN collections. This series consists of two males and one female , the larger male with a typical Harold type label ( Figs. 1–2 ). Rather surprisingly, the two males pertain to the Asian Catharsius birmanensis Lansberge, 1874 , while the female specimen is a West African Catharsius phidias (Olivier, 1789) . In order to stabilise the taxonomy of this species by fixing the published name to a single specimen, the larger male with the following label data is here designated the lectotype : “Afr. austr. / C. / Harpagus / Typ. Harold [cream-colored card with red border; handwritten] // Ex. Musaeo / E. Harold [cream-colored card with black border] // MUSEUM PARIS / ex coll. / OBERTHÜR / 1953 // LECTOTYPE / CATHARSIUS / harpagus / Harold / det. H Takano 2017 [white card with red border; partially handwritten]”. Louis Péringuey (1901) synonymised C. harpagus under Catharsius laticeps Boheman, 1857 without giving any justification. Catharsius laticeps was described from a female specimen by Boheman and Péringuey incorrectly associated with it a male which belonged to a different species. The male specimen he described and figured as C. laticeps ( Fig. 3 ) is unmistakably C. harpagus Harold and so, despite the incorrect assumption of this being the male of C. laticeps , he correctly synonymised C. harpagus under C. laticeps sensu Péringuey (nec Boheman). Maria Corinta Ferreira (1971) re-examined the very male specimen upon which Péringuey based his description and correctly stated that this is not a male of C. laticeps nor is C. harpagus sensu Ferreira (nec Harold) a synonym of C. laticeps . She proceeded to describe this specimen as Catharsius parafastidiosus . The holotype in SANC ( Figs. 4–5 ) with the following label data was examined: “ no 3 / Copris laticeps / ♂ [cream-colored paper; handwritten in Péringuey’s hand] // HOLOTIPO ♂ / Catharsius parafas- / tidiosus n.sp. / M.C. Ferreira det., 1971 [partially handwritten in Ferreira’s hand] // HOLOTYPUS / ♂ [red card] // NATIONAL COLL. / OF INSECTS ( SANC ) / Pretoria , South Africa [black border] // TYPH00479 [red card]” . Both C. harpagus and C. parafastidiosus are here synonymised with C. birmanensis thus: