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 sensu Ferreira, 1960 (nec Harold) On studying the ZMHB collections leading up to her review of the genus Catharsius , Ferreira (1960) examined a male standing under C. harpagus and re-described the species based on that specimen. In later publications, she described the female (1964a) and included the description of both sexes in a work on the dung beetle fauna of Mozambique (1967). FIGURES 1–9. Catharsius Hope, 1837 species. 1 , C. harpagus Harold, 1877 (lectotype ♂), habitus, dorsal view; 2, idem , associated labels; 3, C. laticeps sensu Péringuey (nec Boheman), reproduction of figures 23 and 23a from plate XXXIII of Péringuey (1901) ; 4, C. parafastidiosus Ferreira, 1971 (holotype ♂), habitus, dorsal view; 5, idem , associated labels; 6, C. haroldi sp. nov. (holotype ♂), habitus, dorsal view; 7, idem , lateral view; 8, idem , aedeagus, lateral view; 9, C. haroldi sp. nov. (paratype ♀), habitus, dorsal view. Scale equals 5 mm unless otherwise specified. In their work on the Catharsius species described by Harold, Génier & Josso (2016) studied three specimens standing under C. harpagus in ZMHB of which two had been collected after the date of description and designated the remaining male as a lectotype . This specimen was collected in Delagoa Bay and had likely belonged in the collection of Carl Felsche. One of the labels ([D.O. Africa / 36] refer to Fig. 10 in Génier & Josso (2016)) is handwritten in Felsche’s very distinctive hand. It is possible that this was the specimen studied by Ferreira in her 1960 publication, but nevertheless it cannot be a syntype and hence the lectotype designation is invalid. The above synonymy leaves this taxon undescribed and its description as a new species follows: