In search of some type-specimens of Rhamphus [Clairville], 1798 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Author Caldara, Roberto Center of Alpine Entomology, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milan, Italy. Author Toševski, Ivo Author Mendel, Howard 0000-0002-5035-6684 Department of Life Sciences (Entomology), Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW 7 5 BD, UK. h. mendel @ btinternet. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 5035 - 6684 h.mendel@btinternet.com Author Germann, Christoph Naturhistorisches Museum Basel, Augustinergasse 2, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. text Zootaxa 2022 2022-08-01 5169 4 371 380 journal article 112243 10.11646/zootaxa.5169.4.6 13661458-3a84-4de2-9f5f-0d320955f401 1175-5326 6952559 21750FB0-C5BC-472B-96F8-00850F1CF4C3 Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798 Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798: 104. This taxon was described based on specimens from Switzerland , without a more precise locality, collected on Prunus spinosa L. Its taxonomic status was subjected to various interpretations. Stephens (1831) considered R. flavicornis to be a variety of R. pulicarius characterized by “the antennae completely testaceous and the club somewhat fuscescent”. Curiously, he did not mention the already described R. oxyacanthae . Almost contemporaneously, Schoenherr (1833) considered R. flavicornis a valid species and placed R. pulicarius (although previously described) and R . oxyacanthae as synonyms. Heyden (1862) , as well as Perris (1877) and Bargagli (1885) , roughly described the immature stages of R. flavicornis collected on a wild Prunus , without mentioning other species. Subsequently, the authors generally followed Stephens’ opinion (see Klima 1935 , Hoffmann 1958 ). However, R. flavicornis was overlooked by Hering (1921) when he established the interspecific differences between pulicarius and oxyacanthae for the first time, the same with Tempère (1982) in his revision of the French species of Rhamphus . Only recently, Pesarini & Diotti (2012) reported that since specimens were collected on Rosaceae , R. flavicornis might be a senior synonym of R. oxyacanthae and not of R. pulicarius that lives on Salicaceae and Betulaceae . Unfortunately, there are no obvious syntypes of R. flavicornis in Clairville’s collection at NHMB. Research in other institutes has also failed to find syntypes . Therefore, following the authors’ general opinion on this taxon, with the express purpose to clarifying its taxonomic status, under the qualifying conditions of Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999) , we decided to designate a specimen of R. oxyacanthae from Switzerland as the neotype of Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798, thereby confirming the synonymy of these two taxa. It is a female labelled “Swiss, 329_19.8 SZ, GR Müstair, Wald, GS, Laubstreu, Corylus , 46°37’39.8”N 10°26’35.2”E , 1350m , 15.06.2019 , lgt. C. Germann, DNA voucher 6095 IT/ NEOTYPE Rhamphus flavicornis Clairville Caldara &Toševski des. 2021 [red printed]/ Rhamphus oxyacanthae ( Marsham, 1802 ) Caldara & Toševski det. 2021 mtCOI acc. n. MZ404334 ”. The specimen ( Fig. 3B ) is 1.5 mm long (rostrum excluded) and well preserved with dissected genitalia. Its online acc. number is MZ404334 (NCBI database). It was collected by sifting leaf litter under Corylus in close vicinity of a Crataegus bush. It is deposited at the NHMB. In accordance with Article 76.3 of the ICZN (1999) the place of origin of the neotype becomes the type locality of this taxon. In this case, however, flavicornis can be considered as nomen oblitum according to Article 23.9.1 of the ICZN (1999) . This opinion, although informal, lacking the 25 publications requested by Article 23.9.2, was preliminarily reported by Caldara (2013) . We now apply formally in respect of Article 23.9, reporting the following 25 publications: Abbazzi & Maggini 2009 ; Abbazzi & Osella 1992 ; Abbazzi et al. 1995 ; Alonso-Zarazaga et al. 2017 ; Arzanov 2015 ; Baviera & Caldara 2020 ; Braunert 2009 ; Caldara 2013 ; Caldara & Pesarini 1980 ; Colonnelli 2003 ; Diotti et al. 2021 ; Germann 2010 ; Germann & Colonnelli 2018 ; Mazur 2002 ; Lohse 1983 ; Pelletier 2005 ; Pesarini & Diotti 2012 ; Podlussány 2001 ; Rheinheimer & Hassler 2010 ; Telnov 2004 ; Tempère 1982 ; Tempère & Péricart 1989 ; Wanat & Mocrzycki 2005 ; Wanat & Mocrzycki 2018 ; Yunakov et al. , 2018 . Therefore, we formally propose Curculio oxyacanthae Marsham, 1802 (currently Rhamphus ) as nomen protectum and Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798 as nomen oblitum . FIGURE 3. Habitus and labels of: ( A ). Curculio oxyacanthae Marsham, 1802 , neotype; ( B ). Rhamphus flavicornis [Clairville], 1798, neotype; ( C ) Rhamphus kiesenwetteri Tournier, 1873 , lectotype. It seems useful to report some unpublished news on the whereabouts of the Clairville collection, to clarify the situation of all type specimens of taxa described by this eminent author. Horn & Kahle (1937) and the later established and often very helpful database “Biographies of the Entomologists of the World” of the SDEI (http://sdei. senckenberg.de/biographies/index.php) both indicate that the collection of Coleoptera formed by Joseph Philippe de Clairville is at the NHMB (see also Bousquet 2016 ). However, enquiries about and searches for specimens in that important collection have been in vain as not a single specimen relevant to our research could be found that might be attributed with certainty to Clairville. The following short overview of our desperate search led us to conclude that this collection must be considered completely lost. French Botanist and Entomologist Joseph Philippe de Clairville (1742–1830) lived in the French part of Switzerland in Aigle, Bex and Nyon in the years before 1780. He moved to Winterthur in 1782, where he stayed, with some interruptions, untill his death ( Geilinger 1932 ). Between 1798 and 1806, two volumes of a book with the title “ Entomologie helvétique ou catalogue des insectes de la Suisse rangés d’après une nouvelle méthode ” were published anonymously. Clairville (1811) declared them as his opus in a subsequent paper on botany and signed some copies (fig. 4). Furthermore, Bousquet (2016) noted that Clairville was the author of those volumes, including a short overview. It is worth noting that in these cases the name of the author should be enclosed in square brackets according to Recommendation 51D of the ICZN (1999) which we follow in the present paper. Besides Rhamphus , Clairville described several important weevil genera such as Cossonus , Cionus , and Rhynchaenus . Investigations on the whereabouts of his entomological collection revealed that nothing was present in the Naturmuseum Winterthur ( Sabrina Schnurrenberger , pers. comm.), except some archived literature and some documents. The museum preserves only objects from 1860 and later. Some traces of the herbarium by Clairville are known from Zurich (https://www.herbarien.uzh.ch/de/belegsuche.html), where they were donated by the “Stadtbibliothek Winterthur” in 1901. But the herbarium is far from being complete (Alexander Kocyan, pers. comm.). In the “Bericht über die Verhandlungen der natuforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel” ( Anonymous 1835 ) there is finally a compelling indication of the sad fate of the Clairville collection: on page 71 the following statement is made under “B. Zoologische Sammlung” where the first inventory of the early zoological collections in the Museum of Basel is presented―the museum then “Naturkundliche Sammlung” had been founded in 1821. In a separate room (according to the exposition at that time) the insects were presented, among them “1.) In einer an europäischen, vorzüglich schweizerischen Arten ziemlich reichen Käfersammlung, die einem grossen Theile nach aus Stücken der Clairville 'sehen Sammlung besteht, von J. J. Hagenbach im Jahr 1822 geordnet und benannt.” [a beetle collection rich in European and mainly Swiss species, which consists predominantly of pieces of the collection by Clairville, ordered and named by J.J. Hagenbach in 1822]. The mentioned Jacob Johann Hagenbach, also known as Hans Jakob Hagenbach, (1802-1825) was a seemingly very talented young entomologist ( Guyet 1974 ), who determined and ordered in his short lifetime the collection in the early Museum Zurich , where no traces at all are left (Michael Greef, pers. comm.), and also worked as “Konservator” (or entomological assistant) of the then invertebrate curator Willem De Haan from 1823 to 1825 in the “Königliches Museum in Leiden”, now Naturalis Biodiversity Center ( Lutz 1826 ; Pont 1995 ; Oscar Vorst, pers. comm.). The precious collection of Clairville was used to demonstrate insect diversity to the public in a big exposition in the early Museum of Basel before 1821. Nothing is known or written about the subsequent history of that collection, later volumes of the same journal have been throughly checked. Presumably , the specimens were badly damaged by light and/or destroyed by Dermestidae . Poor curation of the collection and associated documentation in the early days certainly contributed to the collection’s demise: original labels and notes by Clairville seems to have beem replaced by homogenous looking labels with a red margin. For example, the label pinned beneath one specimen from “ Deutschland ” carries the inscription “ Ramphus flavicornis ” ( Fig. 1E )―the name of the genus without a letter “h”―which means the specimen can no longer be recognised with certainty as part of the Clairville collection. The label’s handwriting, at least of the investigated Curculionoidea , might be J.J. Hagenbach’s. Comparison of autobiographical notes investigated in the Staatsarchiv Basel-Stadt ( Archivarien PA 838 A52 (1) and A53 (1)) and the labels show a remarkable similarity. However , there are other insects in the NHMB, which are labelled in the same way, but with a different handwriting. Hence, this practise could have been used for other collections too, and is thus not restricted to Clairville’s specimens.