Parandra caspia was recorded for Turkmenia (Kopet-Dag) and for Transcaspean Iran (Gorgan)
- (Araujo-Arigony, 1977) on the base of Lameere (1902): "habite a Transcaucasie, le nord de la Perse et
la Turcomanie." The records was regarded by A.Semenov (1902) as wrong.
According to vácha (1987), Callipogon and Ergates belong to different tribes.
Ergates faber hartigi Demelt, 1952 and Ergates faber alkani Demelt, 1968 were regarded by
Villiers (1978) as aberrations of females.
According to Vives (2000), Macrotoma Serville, 1832 - June is a junitor homonym of Macrotoma
Laporte, 1832 - April (Diptera). The necessaty of the name change must be checked in agree with Article
23.9.1. of ICZN (1999). But even if it must be changed, the necessity of new tribal name
(Prinobiini Vives, 2000) is doubtful. Several other names can be used: Mallodonitae Thomson, 1860;
Stenodontines Lameere, 1902.
According to Vives (2000), Macrotoma germari Dejean, 1835 is a valid name, but according
to G.Sama (2002) - nomen nudum. G.Sama (2002) does not accept any subspecies in Prinobius myardi.
Prinobius is a separate genus, according to Villiers (1978).
According to Sama (1994): Prinobius myardi Mulsant, 1842 = Prionus scutellaris Germar, 1817
nec Olivier, 1795 (Pyrodes).
Prinobius s. proksi Sláma, 1982 was described from Crete.
In the remark to the original description of Prionus serricollis the author asked to read the name as
According to Miroshnikov (1998) Rhesus was described by J.Thomson 1860 (nec N.Lesson, 1840)
and then replaced to Rhaesus Motschulsky, 1875 (without special remark of replacement).
Rhaesus Motschulsky, 1875 was introduced for Rh. persicus, which is a synonym of serricollis.
The generic differences between Megopis and Aegosoma is generally accepted
(Villiers, 1978; Sama, 1988). So subgenus Spinimegopis belongs to Aegosoma.
Meroscelisitae J.Thomson, 1860 (after Monne et Giesbert, 1993).
Bílý et Mehl (1989) recorded T. depsarium for Caucasus and Amur Valley after Horion (1974: 5-6)
and Samoilov (1936)
According to the original publication: paradoxus Faldermann, 1833; not Faldermann, 1832, as in
Lobanov et al. (1981).
Prionus insularis was described from Japan (Honshu).
According to Z.Komiya and A.Drumont (2004), the nominative subspecies absent in the continent.
In Ussuri Region of Russia, Korea and NE China, as well as in Tsushima Is., Prionus insularis tetanicus
is distributed. Prionus tetanicus Pascoe, 1867 was described from "Chosan". Lameere believed that it was
Chusan Isls. of Zhejiang, China. But in fact it was old (19th century) English name for Korea.
I have not got any specimens of the species from Kunashir or Sakhalin, but according to the general
considerations, Prionus insularis insularis must be epesented in Kunashir, and
Prionus insularis tetanicus in Sakhalin.
Prionus yakushimanus Ohbayashi, 1964 (Yakushima Is. and Tanegashima Is.) was regarded as a
synonym of Prionus insularis by Kusama and Takakuwa (1984), but also as its subspecies
(Ohbayashi et al., 1992; Komiya, Drumont, 2004). In Yakushima Is. he hybrid specimens with
Prionus sejunctus were registrated, such hybrids are not known with the nominative Prionus insularis.
In South and Central China Prionus delavayi Fairmaire, 1887 is distributed.
Prionus insularis was recorded for Gornaia Shoria (Altai) by Novikov and Petuninkin (1987).
Prionus asiaticus was recorded for China Mongolia by Gressitt (1951) on the base of the
description of Prionus henkei Schaufuss, 1879 (= asiaticus). According to Jakovlev (1887)
P. henkei was described "au gouvernement d'Astrakhan aux environs du mont Bogdo". The records of
P. asiaticus for China or Mongolia is nonsense.
The species was recorded for Elburs (Semenov-Tian-Shanskij, 1927), but it could concern P. persicus.
According to the original description, Prionus zarudnii. The species was collected in Karategin
Ridge (14km N Novabad, 1700m, 30.7.69 and 5.8.1969, J.Shchetkin leg.) - 2 males and 1 female in the
collection of M.Danilevsky. According to personal communication (2003) of A.Petrov (Moscow), it was recently
collected near Shuroabad (Kuliab Region of Tadzhikistan).
A revision of Psilotarsus was published by M.Danilevsky (2000).
Psilopus was traditionally attributed to Motschulsky (1875), but it was described by Gebler
(1859) with a valid species name.
According to personal communication of A.Miroshnikov (1986), several corrections must be made to
the publication of Lobanov et al.(1981,1982):
Prionus semenovianus Plavilstshikov, 1936 (not 1935)
Xylosteus caucasicola Plavilstshikov, 1936 (not 1938)
Prionus semenovianus was transfered to Pogonarthron by Danilevsky (1999b).
The tribe system of Lepturinae (with Rhamnusiini, Oxymirini, Enoploderini, Sachalinobiini and so on)
is more or less agree with P.vácha divisions (1989 in vácha, Danilevsky, 1989), but Encyclopini is
regarded as separate and of similar evolution level as Xylosteini, as well as Enoploderini. Several tribes
(Rhamnusiini, Oxymirini, Enoploderini) were named by Danilevsky in "A Check-list ..." (Althoff and
Danilevsky, 1997). Sachalinobiini was never published.
According to Sama (1993a) Xylosteus caucasicola is a subspecies of X. spinolae. It was
declared that oldest name Psilorhabdium is not valid because the youngest name Leptorhabdium
was chosen by Ganglbauer (1882: 38), as first reviser (Article 24 ICZN).
In the original description: "Leptorhabdium". "Leptorrhabdium" was introduced by
Ganglbauer, 1881 (Best. Tab.).
Xylosteus caucasicola was recorded for European Turkey and Cortodera umbripennis for
Bulgaria (Sama, Rapuzzi, 1999). It is very probable, that last record was connected with very close
Cortodera khatchikovi Danilevsky, 2001.
Leptorhabdium caucasicum was recorded for Turkey (Torul) by Gfeller (1972).
The synonymy Encyclops = Microrhabdium was accepted by Lobanov et al., 1981
(after Gressitt, 1951; inroduced by Gressitt, 1947, Proc. Entomol. Soc. Washington, 49: 191.).
A lot of other taxonomic and geographical positions were accepted (or canceled) after different
authors or introduced as new (Lobanov et al., 1981, 1982).
According to (Danilevsky, 1988c):
E. macilentus Kraatz = E. parallelus Pic = E. ussuricus Tsherepanov
Grammoptera cyanea = G. plavilstshikovi (Far East Russia and Sakhalin), later
(Danilevsky, 1993) Neoencyclops was regarded as a subgenus of Grammoptera.
Alosterna chalybeella absent in the mainland (South Sakhalin, Kunashir, Japan).
Gaurotina sichotensis stat.n. (= G. superba m. sichotensis) was found in Khasan
district of Far East Russia (1 male in collection of Danilevsky) and G. superba absent in Russia.
Molorchus starki Shabliovsky, 1936 = M. ussuriensis Plavilstshikov, 1940 (syn.n.)
Phymatodes vandykei Gressitt, 1935 = Ph. ussurucus Plavilstshikov, 1940 (syn.n.)
Xylotrechus salicis Takakuwa et Oda., 1978 = X. nadezhdae Tsherepanov, 1982 (syn.n.)
Tetropium gracilicum was recorded for Shikotan Is. - first record for Russia, as well as
Oligoenoplus rosti (Kunashir) and Chlorophorus diadema inhirsutus (Kunashir).
Rondibilis (as Eryssamena) schabliovskyi is the only one representative of the
genus in Russian Far East mainland - absent on islands (possibly it was described before as E. coreana
Breuning, 1974). Eryssamena (or Ostedes) tuberculata absent in Russia. Rondibilis
(as Eryssamena) saperdinus is known from Kunashir, Shikotan and Japan.
Oberea scutellaroides = Oberea chinensis.
Two genera Rhagium and Rhamnusium were separated by E.Vives (2000) in a small tribe
Rhagiini, while other Rhagiino (including Oxymirus) are grouped in tribe Toxotini.
According to Danilevsky (1992):
Phytoecia pustulata = Phytoecia pilipennis,
Cortodera transcaspica = Cortodera persica = Cortodera lobanovi,
Agapanthia lederi = Agapanthia helianthi,
Rhagium caucasicum semicorne st.nov. - first record for USSR (Talysh).
I.K. Zahaikevitch basing on the area analysis supposed (personal communication), that record of
Rhagium inquisitor inquisitor for Crimea was connected with accident introduction.
B.Namhaidorzh (1972) recorded for Mongolia: Rhagium inquisitor rugipenne,
Gnathacmaeops pratensis, Leptura annularis (as Strangalia arcuata).
According to Kusama and Takakuwa (1984) the following taxa are absent in Japan:
Rhagium inquisitor rugipennis, Stenocorus amurensis, Brachyta interrogationis,
Acmaeops marginatus, Lepturobosca virens, Gracilia minuta, Xylotrechus adspersus,
Monochamus guttulatus, Monochamus galloprovincialis, Acanthocinus aedilis,
Leiopus albivittis, Eutetrapha metallescens.
Acalolepta cervina (described from India) absent in Russian fauna. It was recorded (before the
description of A. ussurica) only once (Samoilov, 1936) and absent in Russian materials in all known
to me collections.
The presence in Russian mainland fauna another Acalolepta (excepting Acalolepta ussurica)
is very doubtful (Acalolepta sejuncta is known from Korea).
Samoilov also recorded for Russia: Cylindilla grisescens, Nupserha alexandrovi
(as Oberea, described from China), Phytoecia ferrea (as analis = mannerheimi).
The species was also mentioned for USSR by Plavilstshikov (1932: 195): "[East Siberia]", missed by
Tsherepanov (1985), but recorded by Krivolutzkaia (in: Tsherepanov, 1996: 139),as Phytoecia mannerheimi
Breuning. I know at least 2 males of Phytoecia ferrea from Primorie Region in collection of Zoological
Museum of Moscow University (a pair from Mongolia in my collection).
According to Hayashi (1980: 14) - A. t. bivittis = A. t. ab. nigra Matsushita et
Tamanuki, 1940 = A. t. b. ab. plavilstshikovi Podaný, 1963. I've checked the paratypes of
A.t.b. ab. plavilstshikovi in Bratislava - it was dark forms of A. t. bivittis from
I've also studied holotype and two paratypes of Rhagium minimum Podaný in Frankfurt, so
Rhagium inquisitor stshukini = Rhagium minimum.
Hesperophanes, Deroplia, Anaesthetis and Exocentrus are attributed by
E.Vives (2000) to Dejean, 1835, as well as Stenocorus to Geoffroy, 1762; Parmena and
Purpuricenus to Dejean, 1821; Opsilia to Mulsant, 1862; Oberea to Mulsant, 1835.
Tetrops praeusta and T. gilvipes can be definitly distinguished only with larvae
(Danilevsky, Miroshnikov, 1985). A taxon with "gilvipes-like larvae" is very common in West Europe,
but its adults are very similar to T. praeusta (vácha, Die Larven der Kafer Mitteleuropas, Band 6)!
So possibly a yellow form of T. gilvipes was described from Europe as T. praeusta. In that
case black beetles from Caucasus are T. praeusta ssp. gilvipes. And a taxon with
"praeusta-like" larvae (sensu Danilevsky and Miroshnikov, 1985) needs another name.
Any way the stable black colour of Caucasian (and Turkmenian) T. gilvipes makes impossible its
synonymysation with T. praeusta, proposed by Sama (1988) and accepted by Bense (1995).
But if T. praeusta has "praeusta-like larvae", then European taxon with
"gilvipes-like" larvae (usually yellow, but sometimes black) can be named T. gilvipes ssp.
nigra Kraatz, 1859.
A series of T. gilvipes was collected in Rostov Region of South Russia (Egorlykskaia,
13-14 05 2003) by D.Kasatkin (personal communication, 2003).
In Crimea both species exist, and T. gilvipes often has yellow elytrae, but legs
are pale yellow and elytral pubescence distinctly shorter and less erected.
In West Europe adults of both taxa are (at least usually) indistinguishable. Big series of adults
from different larvae must be investigated.
According to Hayashi (1980) Eutoxotus caeruleipennis present on Sakhalin.
According to Danilevsky (1988a) Oberea depressa = Oberea amurica = Oberea transbaicalica.
Stenurella jaegeri was recorded for Crimea (Bakhchisarai) by S.Baidak (1996b) - first record for
The record of Asias halodendri for Dagestan (2 males, Rutul,1800m,16.6.94 and 15.7.94) by
S.Baidak (1996a) is connected with a well known population, which can represent a new taxon, as well as
a population from Albania (Muraj, 1960).
Paracorymbia tonsa was recorded for Crimea (Bakhchisarai); Pidonia "lucida" (evidently -
lurida), Leiopus femoratus and Stenocorus insitivus for Poltava Region (Lubny);
Ropalopus insubricus for Sevastopol; Echinocerus bobelayei (as speciosus) for Odessa
Region (Primorskoe) by S.Baidak (1997).
Echinocerus bobelayei (as speciosus) was also recorded for Rostov Region and Kalmykia
(Arzanov et al., 1993; Kasatkin, Arzanov, 1995).
The record of E. bobelayei (as speciosus) for Central Asia by Lobanov at al. (1982)
was made without any comments. The species seems to be rather common in Kopet-Dag (Turkmenia).
One male with the label: "Turkmenia, Kopet-Dag, Garygala, V.1994, J.Miatleuski leg." is preserved in
No species of Plagionotus were recorded for Kopet-Dag by Plavilstshikov (1940), but this region is
included in Plagionotus area in the map (:429).
L. femoratus was also recorded for Crimea by Zahaikevitch (1991).
Stenocorus vittatus Fisher von Waldheim = Stenocorus suvorovi Reitter. I've studied the
types of Stenocorus suvorovi (from Dzharkent) in Budapest. The males realy have several erect setae
at elytral base, but no other differences from specimens from Cenral and North Dzhungaria or from
Tarabagatai. I think such character is not enough for species separation.
Pidonia grisescens described from Urals is according to Plavilstshikov (1936) E. borealis.
According to Kusama and Takakuwa(1984) the following taxa are represented in Japan:
Nothorhina punctata, Tetropium fuscum, Acmaeops septentrionis, Stenurella melanura,
Necydalis major, Necydalis morio, Necydalis sachalinensis, Obrium cantharinum,
Agapanthia daurica, Olenecamptus octopustulatus, Oberea inclusa.
The following taxa are represented in Russia by subspecies:
Brachyta bifasciata bifasciata, Brachyta bifasciata japonica, Anoplodera cyanea
cyanea, Leptura duodecimguttata duodecimguttata, Leptura ochraceofasciata ochraceofasciata,
Nakanea vicaria vicaria, Strangalomorpha tenuis tenuis, Necydalis major major,
Necydalis major aino, Obrium cantharinum cantharinum, Molorchus minor minor,
Cyrtoclytus caproides caproides, Asaperda agapanthina agapanthina,
Asaperda rufipes rufipes, Pseudocalamobius japonicus japonicus, Egesina bifasciana bifasciana,
Pterolophia jugosa jugosa, Plectrura metallica metallica, Acalolepta luxuriosa luxuriosa,
Acalolepta sejuncta sejuncta, Mimectatina divaricata divaricata,
Pogonocherus fasciculatus fasciculatus, Eutetrapha chrysochloris chrysochloris,
Glenea relicta relicta, Oberea inclusa inclusa.
Leptura includes several subgenera:
Nakanea, Pedostrangalia, Stenurella, Megaleptura (for L. regalis
and L. thoracica).
Paragaurotes suvorovi is a subspecies of Paragaurotes doris, though usually in Japan publications:
doris = suvorovi.
According to Kusama and Takakuwa (1984) Mesosa japonica is a subspecies of Mesosa myops.
According to Danilevsky (1998a), Brachyta breiti is represented in Mongolia.
According to holotype study of Brachyta eurynensis by A.Lobanov (personal communication of 1987)
it is a synonym of Brachyta variabilis. The previously published (Danilevsky, 1988d) synonymy:
Brachyta breiti = Brachyta eurynensis was wrong.
Megopis sinica was recorded for Far East Russia by Lobanov et al. (1981) and then by Tsherepanov
(1996) without any comments.
According to Hayashi (1979): Russian parts of the areas of Distenia gracilis and
Megopis sinica must be occupied by nominative subspecies. Megopis sinica was recorded for Korea.
Asemum punctulatum is represented in Mongolia (which is rather doubtful) and in Central Asia
(which must be a mistake).
Lee (1982) recorded for Korea: Brachyta amurensis, Pidonia suvorovi, Grammoptera gracilis,
Cornumutila quadrivittata, Judolia cometes, Leptura regalis, Necydalis pennata,
Necydalis sachalinensis, Clytus melaenus, Pseudocalamobius japonicus, Pterolophia jugosa,
Monochamus nitens, Phytoecia rufipes, Oberea pupillata - the last record must concern
According to Podaný (1962) Carilia virginea is represented in Siberia by
Carilia virginea aemula.
According to Danilevsky (1998a), the traditional name of Siberian subspecies "thalassina" accepted
by Plavilstshikov (1936), Tsherepanov (1979), Lobanov et al. (1981), Tsherepanov (1996), can not be used
here as it was introduced for red-thorax aberration from Central Europe!
Carilia virginea aemula Mannerheim = Carilia sibirica Podaný - the type of the former was
investigated in Bratislava by Danilevsky; the synonymy was published by Tsherepanov (1996).
According to Danilevsky (1998a): Carilia virginea kozhevnikovi is not a separate species.
According to Mroczkowsky (1986, 1986a, 1987), Opinions: 1473, 1494 (ICZN, 1988a,1988b) were accepted,
conserving following names: Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (= Isarthron Dejean, 1835),
Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (now Acmaeops marginatus (not Leptura marginata
O.F.Muller in Allioni, 1766). Sama (1991) published Isarthron = Tetropium, ignoring the conservation.
I've studied (2001) the holotype male of Acmaeops sachalinensis (preserved in Zoological Institute
in St.-Petersburg) with the label in Russian: "[Sakhalin, Nikolskiy Bay, Nikolsky leg.]" and another small
label with date: 17.4.09. It is a colourless specimen of Acmaeops angusticollis, so
Acmaeops angusticollis = Acmaeops sachalinensis. There is also a series of similar colourles
specimens of Gnathacmaeops pratensis with similar labels in Russian "[Sakhalin, Nikolsky leg.]" in the Museum.
The relation between Gnathacmaeops pratensis and Gnathacmaeops brachypterus was shown
with larval characters by P.vácha (vácha, Danilevsky, 1989).
According to Danilevsky et Miroshnikov (1985):
Cortodera syriaca Pic, 1901 was discovered in Nakhichevan Republic.
Purpuricenus caucasicus Pic is a species, distributed in Crimea, Caucasus and possibly in
West Europe (later was regarded as a subspecies of Purpuricenus budensis by Sabbadini and Pesarini, 1992 from Armenia and Turkey).
Molorchus monticola, is a species distributed in Talysh and Armenia.
Clytus arietis lederi Ganglbauer, 1881 is a distinct subspecies distributed in Talysh,
Kopet-Dag and North Iran.
Cortodera transcaspica, Tetropium castaneum (Krasnodar), Exocentrus stierlini and
Trichoferus campestris are represented in Caucasus, the latter also in South East Russia.
Cartallum is a wrong spelling of Certallum.
Phymatodes alni alni absent in Caucasus.
Parmena balteus Linnaeus and Mallosia mirabilis Faldermann absent in USSR.
Dorcadion cinerarium Fabricius, 1787 = Dorcadion caucasicum Küster, 1847.
Parmena aurora must occur in Turkey.
Phytoecia hirsutula present in Turkey.
All records (Heyrovský, 1967; Villiers, 1978) of Saphanus piceus for Caucasus are wrong.
According to Danilevsky (1993b), Phytoecia pubescens (= Phytoecia glaphyra) was usually
mixed with Phytoecia manicata. Phytoecia manicata is known only from Syria and neighbour
territories and differs by spines of posterior male coxae (so can be mixed with small Phytoecia cylindrica).
That is why the record of Phytoecia manicata for Caucasus (Danilevsky, Miroshnikov, 1985) was wrong.
Phytoecia pubescens is distributed in Balcan Peninsula, Near and Middle East and is rather common
in Transcaucasia. The species identity was restored by Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985, as
Phytoecia glaphyra). It is close to Phytoecia icterica.
Kasatkin and Arzanov (1997) recorded Phytoecia pubescens (as manicata) from Kamyshanova
Poliana near Lagonahi in Krasnodar Region. According to personal communication of Kasatkin (2002) it
was based on wrong identification of Phytoecia cylindrica.
According to Kasatkin (1999), Phytoecia pubescens is represented in North East Caucasus (one male from
Dagestan: Sulak env., 10.6.1954). It seems to be the first reliable record of the species for Russia.
In order of preliminary improvement of Cortodera taxonomy:
Cortodera circassica is a subspecies of villosa.
Cortodera fischtensis is a subspecies of Cortodera alpina.
The system of Cortodera species close to Cortodera reitteri and Cortodera ruthena
was revised by Danilevsky (2001ab).
Cortodera alpina seems to be described from Dagestan. There are several males from Shahdag with
Ménétriés labels (cotypes?) in collections of Moscow Zoolological Museum and in collection of M.Danilevsky.
According to these specimens Cortodera alpina and Cortodera umbripennis differ as subspecies
of one species.
According to type materials (preserved in Budapest), Cortodera starki is a black parthenogenetic
subspecies of Cortodera alpina from West Caucasus.
Exocentrus pseudopunctipennis was recorded for Caucasus by Lobanov et al. (1982) without any
remark, then it was recorded for Talysh (Danilevsky, Miroshnikov, 1985), Georgia and Nakhichevan
(Danilevsky, Dzhavelidze, 1990). It was also collected in Kopet-Dag (Ai-Dere, 1985) by S.Murzin
Cortodera transcaspica is very numerous in Turkey and Iran and well represented in collection
of C.Holzschuh, but only by females, so it must be parthenogenetic.
According to Danilevsky (1993):
Cortodera cirsii Holzschuh, 1975 and Agapanthia salviae Holzschuh, 1975 were recorded for
Transcaucasia by Kaziuchitz (1975) after wrong determination of Cortodera umbripennis
(local black form) and Agapanthia walteri respectively.
Tetropium staudingeri ab. laticolle regardless of Podaný's (1967) opinion is not a species.
Purpuricenus sideriger is recorded for Russia.
Oberea inclusa (not a synonym of Oberea vittata) must be absent in Russia and in Japan.
Pidonia malthinoides = Pidonia quercus
Leptepania okunevi = Molorchus incognitus
Chlorophorus obliteratus (described from "centralen Mongolei")= Chlorophorus ubsanurensis
Xylotrechus asellus = Xylotrechus grumi
Agapanthia lederi = Agapanthia helianthi = Agapanthia lopatini
Most probably Anoplodera atramentaria sibirica does not exist. I believe that under the name
Leptura (Vadonia) atramentaria sibirica Plavilstshikov described (it was first description in his
life) one of Siberian Cortodera (both type females disappeared). His black type female of
Cortodera semenovi from Kondoma River has just same label as types of Vadonia atramentaria sibirica
and totally fits its decsription: Leptura atramentaria sibirica Plavilstshikov, 1915 ?=
Cortodera semenovi Plavilstshikov, 1936.
Possibly Plavilstshikov did not see Leptura atramentaria Ganglbauer It is very strange that a short
latin diagnosis of Leptura atramentaria, proposed by Plavilstshikov (1915) without any references
to materials or publications, strongly contradicts with its original description!
For example: in Leptura atramentaria atramentaria: "scutello nigro ciliato", while in original
description: "Scutello dense albido-cinereo pubescente." Similar difference in the description of elytral
pubescence! But later Plavilstshikov (1936: 344) described Leptura atramentaria atramentaria exactly
following original description! Anyway, his Leptura atramentaria sibirica from Altai does not
connected with Leptura atramentaria Ganglbauer, described after unique male from "Kan-ssu, 18.6.1885"
from G.N. Patanin materials. Holotype was recently discovered in collection of J.Voříšek (Czechia, Jirkov)
and figured by A.Miroshnikov (1998: 397, 400). The taxon was placed in genus Anoplodera (s.str.) by
Hayashi and Villiers (1985).
C.Holzschuh (1991) described from China Neoencyclops debilipes. Following his opinion
Neoencyclops differs from Grammoptera by nearly right angle between frons and clypeus.
I prefer to regard both taxa as subgenera inside one genus. Grammoptera angustata seems to be
a transitional form both in head structure and body form.
E.Vives (2000) proposed for Ropalopus clavipes (Fabricius, 1775) the oldest name
R. nigroplanus (Degeer, 1775); for Grammoptera ruficornis (Fabricius, 1781) -
Grammoptera atra (Fabricius, 1775). The changes can not be accepted according to the
Article 23.9. of ICZN (1999).
Grammoptera ruficornis obscuricornis, described from Talysh, differs from nominative
subspecies by dark legs and antennae; and is isolated geographically.
Sivana = Sieversia Ganglbauer (nec Kobelt, 1880 in Mollusca).
Ohbayashi (1980) joined in one genus bicolor and Japan ruficollis under oldest name
Macropidonia Pic, 1901. I prefer to regard both species in different genera.
Kusama & Takakuwa (1984) contrary joined ruficollis with Japan Pseudosieversia under the name
Macropidonia, which also looked not natural.
Pidonia = Pseudopidonia after Hayashi (1980).
A.Tsherepanov's (1979) synonymy Pidonia amurensis = Pidonia signifera is wrong
as Pidonia signifera (decribed from Japan) does not occur in the mainland and absent in Russia.
According to Tsherepanov (1982) Xylotrechus villioni was found on Kunashir Island.
Pidonia malthinoides was recorded for Korea by Danilevsky (1993d).
Nivellia extensa was recorded for Mongolia (Janovsky, 1980).
Pidonia amentata is represented on Kunashir Islnd by a subspecies Pidonia amentata kurosawai,
which must be better regarded as separate species.
Necydalis gigantea was recorded for Kurile Islands (Hayashi, 1980)
The list of Cerambycidae of Kirghyzstan (Ovtchinnikov, 1996) contains some wrong data:
Kirgisiana - wrong spelling of Kirgizobia Danilevsky, 1992.
Prionus angustatus, Prionus turkestanicus, Apatophysis serricornis,
Molorchus kiesenwetteri, Dorcadion sokolovi (=jacobsoni),
Dorcadion obtusipenne (must be Dorcadion validipes), Dorcadion globithorax are absent in Kirgizia.
Tetropium staudingeri and Tetropium laticolle are synonyms.
"Oberea rufipes Fischer" - such name does not exist. Possibly, the author was going to mention
Oberea ruficeps Fischer von Waldehim, as it was mentioned as "subendemic". It can be the
first record for the region. If so, a very common in Kirgizia species Phytoecia rufipes Olivier, 1795
absent in the list as many other Cerambycidae of Kirgizia.
According to the original description: Leptura imberbis. The name was often used in form
"imperbis", possibly after Plavilstshikov (1936).
The divisions of Pedostrangalia in 3 subgenera was accepted after G.Sama (1992). According
to G.Sama (2002), Etorufus is a genus.
According to I.M. Kerzhner (personal communication of 1986) the name variicornis for
Pedostrangalia circaocularis is invalid (secondary homonym), but the name circaocularis
(introduced as a replacement name by Gressitt, 1951) is also not good enough because several old names of
variations could be regarded as valid (niger, nemurensis). From the other side, the replacement
name, introduced before 1960 and became generally accepted must be preserved.
According to the original descriptions, the right spelling: Dokhtouroffia and Dorcadion:
dokhtouroffi, sokolowi (and the date is 1901), komarowi, tschitscherini,
tenuelineatum, matthieseni, dostojewskii, glicyrrhizae, kuldschanum.
The original spelling "glicyrrhizae" was used several times before 1.1.2000 (Althoff, Danilevsky,
1997: 34; Danilevsky, 1999: 38, 39) so the name can not be regarded as "nomen oblitum"
(Article 23.9.2 - ICZN, 1999). The previously used spelling "glicyrrhizae" was an unjustified emendation.
According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication), the genital male structures of Dokhtouroffia
species are so different that they can not be regarded as subspecies as was proposed by Kostin (1973).
G.Sama (1996) described Leptura maculata irmasanica (from Turkey), Hybometopia starcki ivani
(from Turkey), and recognized Clytus schneidri inapicalis Pic, 1897 (stat.n.) as subspecies.
Leptura aurulenta occurs in Voronezh Region. Its larvae from Tellerman Forest Farm collected by
B.Mamaev 7.10.1958 were identified by P. vácha.
According to Pesarini, Sabbadini (1994), Leptura annularis Fabricius, 1801 is a valid name.
Leptura dimorpha described from Japan was recoded for Russia as a species by Plavilstshikov, 1936.
I've not seen such specimens from the continent or from Russian Islands (in Japan it is common). It was also
recorded for Korea as an aberration of Leptura aethiops by Lee (1982) and for Russia (without any
geographical comments) as a subspecies by Tsherepanov (1979: 370). According to Hayashi (1979) it is a
subspecies, but with impossible area including East Siberea (so sympatric with Leptura aethiops aethiops).
According to Gressitt (1951), Leptura aethiops = Leptura dimorpha. According to Lobanov et al.
(1981), Kusama and Takakuwa (1985) and Ohbayashi et al. (1992), Leptura dimorpha is a species.
I believe that Leptura dimorpha is just a form of Leptura aethiops with red prothorax, which
is very numerous in Japan and rather rare on the continent. The number of such specimens in Japan populations
allow to regard a part of Japan Leptura aethiops (or all) as Leptura aethiops dimorpha.
The presense of specimens with red thorax in Russia is not proven, but even if they exist here,
their rarity does not allow to join Russian populations to Leptura aethiops doii. The situation in
Korea is unclear.
Leptura aethiops seems to be never recorded from Kazakhstan, but sure presents here at least in its
easten Altai part. I.A.Kostin (1973:) mentioned it as possible for North Kazakhstan.
Oberea donceeli was originally recorded for Russia by Lobanov et al. (1981), for Transbaicalia by
Tsherepanov (1985) and for Mongolia by Namhaidorzh (1979).
Strangalia attenuata and Oberea depressa were recorded for Mongolia (Janovsky, 1977).
Cortodera pumila was recorded for Rostov (1.6.1954) by Ju.Arzanov et al. (1993).
According to D.Kasatkin (personal communications, 2000-2002), there are Cortodera pumila
(Krasnyi Sulin) and Phytoecis (Helladia) millefolii (Persianovka, 1 05 2001, D.Gapon leg.) in
Rostov Region and Stenurella novercalis (males with black abdomen) in North Caucasus (Bolshaia
According to (Danilevsky, Dzhavelidze, 1990), Stenurella b. limbiventris is regarded as a
subspecies distributed in Adzharia and Turkey; Stenurella septempunctata anatolica
(known from Turkey and Bulgaria) is represented in Transcaucasia.
Strangalia limbiventris Reitter, 1898 was described after 1 male ("8 mm") as "Aus dem Centralen
According to Kusakabe, Ohbayashi (1992), Judolidia bangi and Judolidia znojkoi are
different species, and Judolidia bangi, distributed in Japan, seems to be absent in Russia.
According to A.Villiers (1978) and E. Vives (2000), Judolia sexmaculata parallelopipeda
(described from Dauria and Amur River) is an easten subspecies. According to my materials it is distributed
eastwards Urals. The forests of south Urals (Iuriuzan env.) are occupied by Judolia sexmaculata sexmaculata.
The western most locality of Judolia sexmaculata parallelopipeda must be Petropavlovsk env.
(Kostin, 1973) and Jamal Peninsula (Shchuchie), then Tuva Republic.
According to A.Bartenev (personal communication,1982), Pachytodes erraticus absent in Crimea.
A.Kaziuchitz (personal communication,1984) had 10 specimens from Crimea Peninsula.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication, 1992), the original description of
Strangalia connecta is the evidence of its synonymy with Pachytodes cometes.
According to Danilevsky (1988d): Oedecnema dubia (Fabricius, 1781) nom. praeocc. (non Scop., 1763)
was changed by Silfverberg (1977) to Oedecnema gebleri (Ganglbauer, 1889)
According to Danilevsky, who studied in 1992 the type of Grammoptera japonica in Paris, it
is Alosterna chalybeella.
B.Namhaidorzh (1972) recorded for Mongolia: Eodorcadion lutshniki, Eodorcadion humerale
ssp. humerale, Eodorcadion humerale ssp. impluviatum.
B.Namhaidorzh (1974) recorded for Mongolia: Anoplodera rufiventris, Hesperophanes heydeni,
Cleroclytus collaris, Oberea inclusa.
B.Namhaidorzh (1976) recorded for Mongolia: Alosterna tabacicolor erythropus (as bivittis),
Saperda perforata, Saperda scalaris, Eumecocera impustulata, Nupserha marginella.
B.Namhaidorzh (1979) recorded for Mongolia: Phytoecia ferrea (as mannerheimi).
Alosterna ingrica (decsribed from Luga) is a species (Karpinsky, 1948 and others), which is
not known eastwards Orenburg. It is not connected with Leptura erythropus, described from Altai.
The original description of the latter totally fits to Alosterna tabacicolor from Altai.
Local Alosterna tabacicolor is now regarded as Alosterna tabacicolor bivittis, which was
described from the area eastwards Baikal, so Alosterna tabacicolor erythropus (Gebler, 1841) =
Alosterna tabacicolor bivittis (Motschulsky, 1860), or represents a separate subspecies from Altai,
as well as Alosterna tabacicolor plavilstshikovi can be a separate subspecies from Tuva.
S.Bobrov (Ivanovo) collected Alosterna ingrica in Arkhangelsk Region (Pinega Nat.Res., 8.1991).
According to Danilevsky (1992b):
Anoplodera rufihumeralis occurs in Primorie (male and female in collection of Jaroslav Dalihod
(Svobody 676, 27200 Kladno, Czechia).
Grammoptera elegantula = Pseudalosterna orientalis.
Cylindilla grisescens = Atimura askoldensis
Oberea atropunctata was collected in Primorie by Uno Roosileht and M. Kruus (Estonia); male in
collection of M.Danilevsky.
Using Miroshnikov's (1998) publication:
I accept his transform of Palaearctic Anoplodera rufiventris and Anoplodera baeckmanni to
Nearctic genus Xestoleptura, which was supposed before by vácha (1989: 19).
I include in Aredolpona (=Corymbia): rubra, dichroa, variicornis and
absent in Russia fontenayi. Other members of Corymbia sensu Miroshnikov (until better decision)
are included in Paracorymbia, as well as Melanoleptura as a subgenus.
Paracorymbia = Batesiata.
Brachyleptura Casey, 1913 and Stictoleptura Casey, 1924 are represented only in America, as well
as Megaleptura Casey, 1913 = Stenura Dejean, 1837 (not Stenura Cuvier,1820, Aves).
According to E.Vives (2000) Corymbia Gozis, 1886 is a junior homonym of Corymbia Walker, 1865
(described in Noctuidae, now in Notodontidae) and must be replaced by Aredolpona Nakane et Hayashi, 1957.
The necessaty of the name change is evident as Corymbia Walker is not "nomen oblitum" according to
the Article 23.9.1. of ICZN (1999) and was mentioned among valid names in "The Genera Names of Moths of
the World." Vol.2. London. 1980: 44 (by Watson, A., Fletcher, D.C. and Nye, I.W.B. in Nye I.W.B.).
Paracorymbia apicalis was described from South Siberia (as Leptura). Two syntypes are
preserved in Moscow Zoological Museum (both without head and prothorax). The beetles seem to be close
to Paracorymbia fulva, Paracorymbia tonsa, Paracorymbia pallidipennis.
According to J. Voříšek (personal communication, 1992), Paracorymbia rufa is represented in
Caucasus and Turkey by Paracorymbia rufa dimidiata (Daniel, 1891). But according to the original
description, "dimidiata" is characterized by black elytral half (or 2/3); such form is uknown in
The specimens, similar to Caucasian variations, were identified in Paris Museum
as var. attaleiensis Daniel.
According to G.Sama (1991):
Leptura ustulata Ménétriés, 1832 (nec Laicharting, 1784) must be replaced with
Leptura heydeni Ganglbauer, 1889.
Plocaederus Dejean, 1837 (not Thomson, 1860) was introduced for South American species,
so African Plocaederus cyannipennis can not be its type species. Plocaederus bellator
Serville, 1834 is designated as type species and the genus became totally American. For Plocaederus
sensu Thomson, 1860 with type species Plocaederus cyanipennis, 1860 was proposed a new name
Cerambyx velutinus Brullé, 1832 (nec Fabricius, 1775) - was replaced with Cerambyx welensii
Cerambyx fulvum Villers, 1790 (not Scopoli, 1763) was replaced with Callidium unicolor
Callidium speciosus Adams, 1817 (not Schneider, 1787) was replaced with Plagionotus bobelayei
Morimus Serville, 1835 = Morinus Brullé, 1832 (type sp. is designated as - lugubris
Fabricius, 1792 = asper Sulzer, 1776).
Stenidea Mulsant, 1842 = Deroplia Dejean, 1837 (type sp. is designated as genei
Stenostola is attributed to Dejean, 1835.
According to the study of the type of Leptura dichroa in Paris: Leptura dichroa =
Aredolpona succedanea (as it was intoduced by Gressitt, 1951).
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication,1992), Pseudovadonia livida livida does not occur
eastwards France; in Italy - Pseudovadonia livida pecta; in Greece, Black sea coast of Bulgaria,
Transcaucasie and Turkey - Pseudovadonia livida desbrochersi Pic; but near Sochi - Pseudovadonia
Necydalis xanta Semenov was described as variation of Necydalis major with yellow head,
prothorax, legs and abdomen from near Novorossiisk. Later (Semenov,1902) it was regarded as a species.
According to Plavilstshikov (1936) it is a synonym of Necydalis ulmi. Without study the type
I prefer to return the original position (I've got Necydalis major from Gantiadi).
According to several specimens collected in Khosrov (Armenia) by V.Dolin and preserved now in collections
of Danilevsky and Murzin, Necydalis ulmi mesembrina does not differ from European forms.
Niisato (1994) recorded Necydalis major aino for Mongolia. Siberian populations must be compared
with European ones.
The name Aseminae Thomson, 1864 must be replaced with Spondylidinae Serville, 1832 becouse of priority.
The correct spelling is accepted after Vives (2000), as well as Spondylidini.
Drymochares starcki was recorded for "Crimee" by Sama and Rapuzzi (1993: 278 in "Resume"),
which had to be a mistake, as the locality was not shown on the map (:293) or discussed in the text of the
The original spelling is: Drymochares starcki and Hybometopia starcki.
According to I.Zahaikevitch (personal communication,1982), Saphanus piceus Laicharting was
collected in Ivanovo-Frankovsk Region of Ukraine. The species was mentioned for USSR by Zahaikevitch (1991).
Saphanus piceus collected in Turkey is preserved in collection of S.Kadlec.
U.R. Martins (1980) placed Turcmenigena in Hesperophanini, and Myctus in Atimiini.
Atimia maculipuncta was recorded for Mongolia (as Myctus) by Lindeman and Lyamtseva (1979).
Atimia maculipuncta from China and Mongolia differs from Atimia nadezhdae from Russia, so
better to regard the latter as a subspecies, but not as a synonym as it was proposed before
(Lobanov et al., 1981).
I.Zahaikevitch (1991) proposed:
Mesocerambyx (not Mesocerambyx Breuninget Hitzinger, 1943), that must be a synonym of
Microcerambyx Miksic et Georgijevic, 1973.
Hylotrupini and Nothorhinini - the latter seems to be not necessary, as well as accepted by him
Exocentrini Pascoe, 1864.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication,1992), the east populations of Asemum striatum
are characterized by rough elytral sculpture. So, the existence of the east subspecies can be accepted, but
the name Asemum striatum amurense Kraatz is younger than Asemum subsulcatum Motschulksy, 1860:
152 ("Nord de la Siberie").
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication,1992), Tetropium gracilicorne from Ilmen Nat. Reserve
(South Urals) is represented in his collection. It is the most western locality of the species
(if Tetropium gabrieli and Tetropium gracilicorne are really different species, becouse no reliable
differnces is observed - M.D.).
Asemum tenuicorne was recorded for Spain by E.Vives (2000b), as well as Tetropium fuscum
(Sanchez, Tolosa, 1999), but according to Vives (2000) the last record was based on wrong determination
of Asemum tenuicorne.
Pogonocherus ovatus from the territory of the USSR is unknown. All specimens of the species
in Plavilstshikov's collection are from the West Europe.
According to Bartenev (personal communication, 1982), he proved for Crimea: Tetropium castaneum,
Obrium brunneum, Pogonocherus ovatus, Phytoecia faldermanni.
After Silfverberg (1979): Arhopalus rusticus = Arhopalus tristis.
Sama (1991) also excepted identity of the type of Callidium tristis Fabricius, 1787 and
rusticus Linnaeus, 1758, but Lipp (1937) declared identity of tristis and ferus Mulsant, 1839.
Evidently, different type specimens exist. Is it possible to except Lipp's opinion as first?
Tetropium aquilonium was recorded for Sweden and Finland (Lundberg, 1993).
The tribe Apathophysides Lacordaire, 1869 was originally rased to subfamily level by Danilevsky (1979).
Subgenus Protapatophysis Semenov et Schegoleva-Barovskaya, 1936 (type sp.: Apatophysis kashmiriana
Semenov) includes Apatophysis montana Gahan, but described later Apatophysis pavlovskii belongs
to the nominative subgenus because of widely separated female posterior coxae (up to 2001 only one female
seems to be known - Danilevsky, 1979) and poorly developed male tarsi pads.
Icosium tomentosum atticum was recorded for Azerbaidzhan by M.Sláma (1999) after one specimen
(Zerat, Bezh Barma, 19.5.1975, Fr.Navrátil leg.).
According to Sama (1994d), Trichoferus holosericeus (Rossi, 1790) = Trichoferus cinereus
(Villers, 1789), described as Cerambyx (not Cerambyx cinereus De Geer, 1775)
Trichoferus griseus, described from Africa, was usually mixed with Trichoferus fasciculatus
described from Transcaucasie and was never reliably recorded for USSR or Russia.
Trichoferus griseus from Crimea (only females) seems to be preserved in collection of M.Danilevsky.
A.Brinev collected one specimen of Phoracantha semipunctata in Tzihizdziri (8.1990, Kobuleti
distr. of Georgia) - preserved in Moscow Pedagogical University.
According to Hudepohl (1990), Neocerambyx Thomson,1860 = Mallambyx Bates, 1873.
Neocerambyx raddei was often regarded as Massicus Pascoe, 1867.
Cerambyx welensii was definitely recorded for Transcaucasia by Plavilstshikov (1955: 512).
According to Pavlov-Verevkin (personal communication to A. Lobanov, 1984), Cerambyx welensii was
collected by him in Georgia (Mtzheta) and preserved in his collection.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication, 1992), Cerambyx cerdo klinzingi, described from
Caucasus is a good species, described later as Cerambyx heinzianus.
Dissopachys pulvinata was recorded for Azerbaidzhan by Sama (1999): Iardymly, Avash, 1200-1500?,
14.6.1996, 38"50N,48"10E, leg. W.Schwalller.
Rosalia coelestis houlberti Vuillet, 1911 (Tibet) is a separate species (Gressitt, 1951).
Lobanov et al. (1982) indicated the wrong dates for Purpuricenus talyshensis Reitter,1891
(as 1914) and Callidium Fabricius, 1775 (as 1777).
Purpuricenus lituratus = petasifer, accepted after Kusama et Takakuwa (1984).
The taxonomy of Asias close to Asias halodendri is not clear. It was evident mistake to
regard all populations from European Russia to Far East as one species without any subspecies, as it was
proposed by Namhaidorzh (1972).
The differences between European and Far East populations are evident, so the name Asias halodendri
halodendri can not be used for east populations, as Cerambyx halodendri Pallas, 1776 was described
"...ad Irtin" (= Irtysh), and the specimens from Kazakhstan are not close to Far East populations.
As it was declared by Kostin (1974), populations from East Kazakhstan differs from West Kazakhstan
populations at the subspecies level. I preliminary accept that Asias halodendri ephippium
(Steven et Dalman, 1817), described from South Russia (Terek River), is distributed from North
Caucasus to the south part of European Russia (northwards to about Saratov) and in Ural
Region of Kazakhstan.
In Semipalatinsk region Asias halodendri halodendri is distributed.
For far east Maritime subspecies, which penetrates far in East Siberia, the name
Asias halodendri pirus (Arakawa, 1932) can be used. It was introduced for Korean population
as Purpuricenus pyrus.
Rather peculiar small specimens from Tuva populations were described as Anoplistes minutus
Hammarstroem, 1893 - same in Mongolia.
According to Namhaidorzh (1972): "In low, south areas of Mongolia as well as in neighbour China
a small, pale, pubescent form, described as Asias kozlovi, occurs." (Lectotype was designated
by him). That one is sure a separate species and position of Namkhaidorzh (halodendri = kozlovi)
From South-East Kazakhstan Purpuricenus (Asias) heptapotamicus Semenov, 1926 was described.
Several rather strange specimens from near Balkhash Lake and from Tarbagatai (collection of M.Danilevsky)
possibly belong to this form.
The proposal of Kostin (1974) to regard Asias jacobsoni (Valley of Syr-Daria River) as subspecies of
Asias halodendri seems to be a mistake.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication, 1992), Asias jomudorum = Asias chodjaii
There is one male of A. jomudorum in collection of C.Holzschuh with a very old label:
"Syr-Darja, v.Bodemeyer". Still, the occurence of the species in Kazachstan rests doubtful.
Aphrodisium = Tomentaromia - the synonymy was published by Gressitt et al. (1970).
Aphrodisium faldermannii was recorded for East Siberia by Reitter
(Wien. Ent. Ztg., 1906, 25: 277) - after Gressitt, 1951: 202; and supposed for Mongolia by Namhaidorhz (1972).
Axinopalpis gracilis christinae Rapuzzi, 1996 was described from Peloponnese, Taygetos Mts.
Drymochares starcki ivani Sama et Rapuzzi, 1993 and Drymochares starcki cavazzutii Sama et Rapuzzi, 1993
were described from Turkey.
The tribe Stenhomalini was described by A.Miroshnikov (1989: 742).
According to A.Miroshnikov (1989) Stenhomalus lighti Gressitt was found by S.Belokobylsky
in South Primorie. Stenhomalus lighti = Stenhomalus vulcanus Tsherepanov.
Obrium obscuripenne (according to Villiers, 1978) = Obrium graciliforme Lipp, 1939 =
Obrium gracile Plavilstshikov,, 1933 (non Obrium gracile Krynicki, 1832).
According to Danilevsky (1988d):
Chlorophorus sexmaculatus (Motsch., 1859), nom. praeocc. (non Donovan, 1805) was changed to
Chlorophorus simillimus (Kraatz, 1879) by M.Hayashi (1983).
Tetrops elaeagni = Tetrops plaviltshikovi.
According to Kusama et Takakuwa (1984), Molorchus minor fuscus is distributed on Hokkaido
and Kunashir. Sakhalin is apparently occupied by nominative subspecies.
The taxonomic situation with Molorchus in Transcaucasia rests inclear. My series from near
Tbilisi (Manglisi: a male and two females) looks very close to Molorchus juglandis Sama, 1982
(described from S Turkey). According to personal communication by J.Kratochvíl (February 1986) to A.Lobanov:
Molorchus minor monticola Plavilstshikov, 1931 = Molorchus rufescens Kiesenwetter, 1879,
described from Borzhomi. So, it seems possible that Molorchus rufescens Kiesenwetter, 1879 =
Molorchus juglandis Sama, 1983 = Molorchus monticola Plavilstshikov, 1931.
The name "monticola" was addressed to Danilevsky et Miroshnikov (1985) by Danilevsky in vácha,
Danilevsky (1988: 205), as allegedly originally introduced as infrasubspecific. But the title of
Plavilstshikov's description is: "4. Molorchus minor Linnaeus var. monticola nova.",
but in the text: "Wie es scheint , nicht eine Aberration, sondern eine Morpha (forma alpina)."
So the word "Morpha" sounds, but formally it was described as variation, and I regard now
Molorchus minor monticola Plavilstshikov, as valid.
I've found a pair of Molorchus monticola from Turkmenia (Krasnovodsk, 10,13.4.1899) in
Zoological Museum in St.-Petersburg and one female from Kara-Kala is in my collection.
The original spelling was "Linomius". "Limonius" was used only by Villiers (1978).
According to Villiers (1978: 276 ): Molorchus kiesenwetteri = Molorchus plagiatus.
According to Sama (1995):
Molorchus marmottani absent in Russia;
Molorchus marmottani crovatoi Sama, 1995 (Italy) and Molorchus marmottani frischi Sama, 1995
(Turkey) are described.
Molorchus plagiatus is recorded from Iran.
Molorchus schmidti = salicicola = semenovi; the only distinguishing feature between
schmidti and kiesenwetteri is the character of pronotal punctation: denser and deeper in schmidti.
[The attribution to one taxon of similar specimens from Europe and Central Asia looks not evident].
[Sama (2002) did not mentioned Caucasus and Crimea for his Molorchus schmidti, but I've got such
specimens both from north (steppe areas!) Crimea, from near Tbilisi and from Eldari Area.
Molorchus semenovi was described from Kazakhstan and Kirgizia; I've also got it from Turkmenia (Kara-Kala).]
Molorchus kiesenwetteri ssp. hircus (for Caucasus and Turkey) = Molorchus anatolicus.
K.Adlbauer (1992) firstly recorded for Turkey: Molorchus marmottani, Isotomus speciosus,
Anaglyptus persicus and Pogonocherus hispidulus.
According to Kusama and Takakuwa (1984): Molorchus ishiharai = Molorchus kobotokensis kunashiricus,
that agrees with Danilevski's materials from Kunashir.
According to A.Lobanov (personal communication, 1987), the holotype of Molorchus kobotokensis kunashiricus
was lost in Novosibirsk. It is also absent in the list of Coleoptera types preserved in the Musem
M.Danilevsky saw several Molorchus kobotokensis from Far East Russia (Kaimanovka, 15.6.1979,
Czech collector) in C.Holzschuh's collection. No differences from Japan specimens were observed (1993).
Glaphyra heptapotamica (Plavilstshikov,) was recorded for China (Ningxia-Hui; Wrzhong)
- Hua L.Z., Niisato T. (1993), but the record could be connected with Glaphyra alashanica
Semenov-Tian-Shanskij, Plavilstshikov, 1936 or with a new species.
According to my study in Zoological Museum of St.-Petersburg (2001) of a big series of
Nathrioglaphyra heptapotamica from Ili valley (Kapchagai), Ural valley (Ianvartzevo), Aiaguz,
Dzhezkazgan, Talasskiy Alatau (Daubaba) - Nathrioglaphyra heptapotamica = Molorchus amygdali.
Nathrioglaphyra heptapotamica (as Molorchus) was recorded for Russia (Orenburg environs,
Utvinskoe in Krasnokholms forest farm) by Tsherepanov (1981).
In the Museum a series of Nathrioglaphyra heptapotamicais identified by Namkhaidorzh as
Molorchus alashanicus Semenov-Tian-Shanskij, Plavilstshikov, 1936. Its original description was
based on unique female from: "Mongolia australis: jug. Alashan, angustiae Tso-sto", which had to be
preserved in Zoological Inst. (St.-Petersburg), but was not found there by me. M. alashanicus seems
to be never recorded for Republic of Mongolia, so only original description seems to be available also
I've studied two specimens of Glaphyra from China ("Chekiang, Tien-Mu-Shan, 15.5.37 and 14.6.37,
E.Suenson leg."). First is male, second seems to be a female because of short antennae (abdomen totally
masked by hind wings). Both have same colour as Nathrioglaphyra heptapotamica, but differs from it considerably.
Prothorax is much longer with three elongated shiny areas (as in Molorchus alashanicus), elytra
with rough but rather scattered punctuation; antennae in male much longer than body (surpassing abdomen
by at least two apical joints), in female a little longer then body; while in Nathrioglaphyra
heptapotamica male antennae slightly longer than body and in female much shorter than body.
In general this pair is more or less fitting to the description of Molorchus alashanicus, but
the distance between their localities is about 1500km. Unfortunately antennal characters are totally
omitted in the original description of Molorchus alashanicus (only one "character" was mentioned:
"Par la conformation de ses antennes cette espece appartient au groupe des especes voisines du
Molorchus kiesenwetteri Mulsant") Antennal length in the pair from Chekiang is really similar to
Molorchus kiesenwetteri and 3d-4th joints are relatively short, a little shorter than 5th ,
but 1st joint is very unusual - very short, shorter than 3d and strongly swollen (only
two times longer than wide). Sill I preliminary identify this pair as Molorchus alashanicus.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication, 1992), Stenopterus rufus in Turkmenia is
represented by Stenopterus rufus transcaspicus Plavilstshikov,
According to A.Kaziuchitz (personal communication, 1984) he had in his collection Stenopterus ater
from Crimea. The species was also recorded for Crimea by Bartenev (1989).
According to I.Kerzhner (personal communication, 1985), Callimus Mulsant, 1846, was not
preoccupated in Orthoptera, as Callimus Fischer von Waldheim, 1830 is wrong posterior spelling of
Callimenus Fabricius-W., 1830. So, Callimellum is not valid.
The name "Protocallimus" used by Plavilstshikov (1940: 173,661) and then by Danilevsky and
Miroshnikov (1985) seems to be just a wrong spelling of Procallimus Pic.
The published type locality of Certallum ebulinum is France. But the species description
was based on black-pronotum specimen. Such specimens are known from Spain as very rare and seem to be
possible in France (Villiers, 1978: "Seule la morpha ruficolle SEMBLE se rencontrer en France,
Such situation caused the supposition of wrong definition of type locality by Linnaeus (Villier, 1978;
Sama, 1988). Sama (1988: 83) supposed the real locality of type specimen in North Africa and accepted
Certallum ebulinum ssp. ruficolle (described from Italy) distributed from Iberian Peninsula
to Caucasus and Iran. But I do not see the base for such supposition. The type specimen could really be
collected in Europe and then Certallum ebulinum = Certallum ruficolle.
Original spelling is "Ropalopus".
Ropalopus fischeri, described from Central Russia, differs considerably from both European
species (closer to Ropalopus insubricus). I prefer to regard it as a separate taxon until the
revision of the group.
Ropalopus macropus from Caucasus are often designated in European collections as
Ropalopus caucasicus. The main distinguishing character are spines on first antennal joints.
But the development of antennal spines is rather variable both in European and Caucasian populations.
I do not see any differences between them.
According to Plavilstshikov (1940), Ropalopus clavipes = Ropalopus caucasicus.
Ropalopus varini Bedel, 1870 = Ropalopus spinicornis (Abeille, 1869), described as
Callidium (not Callidium spinicorne Olivier, 1795).
Pronocera brevicollis Gebler, 1833 (nec Dalman, 1817).
According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication, 1993), Callidiellum rufipenne was found near
Sochi (imago and larvae in Cupressus).
According to Zahaikevitch (personal communication, 1983), Semanotus undatus must be included
in Crimean fauna after one specimen (from Livadia) from V.Shavrov's collection.
Several species were definitely recorded fore Mongolia by Janovsky (1974): Anastrangalia renardi
(Khubsugul and Ara-Khangai aimaks), Callidium aeneum (Khubsugul, Baian-Ulegey, Kobd aimaks),
Xylotrechus altaicus (Ubsunur aimak), Amarysius sanguinipennis (Selenga aimak),
Leiopus albivittis (Selenga and Khubsugul aimaks).
According to J.Voříšek's opinion of 1992, Callidium aeneum in NW Georgia and West Caucasus is
represented by Callidium aeneum longipenne Plavilstshikov,
Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 (not Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 - Tenebrionidae)
was conserved by ICZN (1989).
Phymatoderus Dejean, 1937 is nomen nudum, so Phymatoderus Reitter, 1912 =
Reitteroderus Sama, 1991.
According to J.Voříšek's opinion of 1992, south of Ukraine (Donetzk Region and Crimea) and
Caucasus are occupied by Phymatodes pusillus rufipenne. Nominative subspecies is distributed in West
Europe and West Ukraine.
According to Niisato (1995), Phymatodes infasciatus Pic, 1935 = vandykei Gressitt, 1935
= ussuricus Plavilstshikov, 1940.
According to E.Vives (2000) Paraphymatodes fasciatus (described as Cerambyx fasciatus
Villers, 1789, not Scopoli, 1763, not Degeer, 1775, not Fabricius, 1775, not Geoffroy, 1785,
not Villers, 1789) must be replaced with Paraphymatodes unifasciatus (Rossi, 1790). The necessity
of the name change must be checked in agree with Article 23.9.1. of ICZN (1999)
Pogonocherus ressli and Phymatodes alni ebursensis were recorded for
Talysh by A.Miroshnikov (2001).
The system of Cleroclytus was revised by Danilevsky (2001d).
According to the opinion of Zahaikevitch of 1983, Dorcadion tauricum and
Anaglyptus mysticus absent in Crimea, because of the absence of any data.
According to Miroshnikov (2000), Anglyptus ganglbaueri = Anglyptus persicus =
Anglyptus natae; all records of Anglyptus mysticus for Caucasus concern Anglyptus mysticoides.
Plavilstshikov (1940) as well as Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985) wrongly mentioned the author
of Anglyptus persicus Pic, as "Pic et Reitter".
Oligoenoplus rosti was regarded as Cyrtophorus rosti by Kusama and Takakuwa (1984).
According to J.Voříšek's opinion of 1992, Plagionotus detritus is represented in north and west
Caucasus by Plagionotus detritus caucasicola Plavilstshikov,
According to Sama (1994):
Plagionotus = Echinocerus, but I prefer to regard them as separate genera.
Turanoclytus gen. n. for Xylotrechus namanganensis (original spelling is "namaganensis",
but "namanganensis" is now in prevailing usage according to the Article 33.3.1 of ICZN, 2000) -
typus generis and Xylotrechus asellus, but for me Xylotrechus = Turanoclytus.
Type species of Acanthoderes is Lamia daviesi (Thomson des., 1864) from Central and South
America, and European species belong to another genus - Aegomorphus. Same was done by Linsley et
Chemsak, (1985) for American Acanthoderes.
According to Monne (1994), the type species of Acanthoderes is Lamia varia Fabricius,1787
= Acanthoderes clavipes (Schrank, 1781), designated by Bates, 1861 (but not S American Lamia daviesi,
designated by Thomson, 1864).
In fact the text by Bates (1861: 19): "In Acanthoderes varius, the European species which may be
considered typical of the genus, ..." can not be regarded as the type designation of the genus.
According to Burakovski et al. (1990) Echinocerus Mulsant, 1863 is a junior homonym of
Echinocerus White, 1848 (Crustacea). The new name is necessary.
Echinocerus scalaris was recorded for Caucasus (Lopez-Colon, 1997) without any reasons.
Chlorophorus obliteratus was recorded for Mongolia by Heyrovský (1965).
Chlorophorus mongolicus Pic, 1943, described from "Mongolie" was mentioned by Namhaidorzh (1972)
as a separate species. One specimen with such identification is preserved in Heyrovský's collection
(Prague) and looks very similar to my 3 males of Chlorophorus obliteratus from Mongolia. Evidently
that specimen was compared with Chlorophorus diadema kaszabi in its original description.
The dark elytral patterns in all my three Mongolian specimens (from rather distant localities:
Gobi-Altai aimak, South-Gobi aimak, Kobd aimak) are a little different. The last specimen (with more
reduced dark elytral pattern) is totally agree with the picture of Chlorophorus ubsanurensis in Tsherepanov's
(1982) monograph. Most probably Chlorophorus obliteratus = Chlorophorus mongolicus.
The dark elytral pattern in Chlorophorus obliteratus looks like reduced black patterns of typical
Chlorophorus diadema. That is why such specimens were described, as Chlorophorus diadema kaszabi.
The original description of Chlorophorus diadema kaszabi totally fits to some of my specimens of
Chlorophorus obliteratus. So it looks possible that Chlorophorus obliteratus is a subspecies
or just a colour form of Chlorophorus diadema.
I am sure same taxon was recorded for Mongolia as Chlorophorus faldermanni (by Heyrovský, 1968 for
Kobd aimak, Khara-Us-Nur and independently by Namkhaidorzh, 1976 for South Gobi-aimak, 20km S Bulgan).
Chlorophorus diadema diadema was also recorded for Mongolia (Namkhaidorzh, 1974 1976). It is also
represented by two specimens in my collection (South-Gobi aimak and Baian-Khongor aimak).
Mongolian Chlorophorus diadema diadema is very close by all characters to Chlorophorus diadema
diadema from Far East Russia.
First records for Mongolia: Chlorophorus ubsanurensis - Gobi-Altai aimak, Baian-Khongor aimak,
Agapanthia leucaspis - Selenga aimak (Namhaidorzh, 1982).
Agapanthia leucaspis = Agapanthia euterpe (my study of Agapanthia euterpe type in
Zoological Museum of Moscow University). The synonymy was published by Tsherepanov (1984).
Rhaphuma is characterized by long 3d antennal joint, spaced out antennal bases and others.
According to Kusama and Takakuwa (1985): Xylotrechus = Xyloclytus = Rusticoclytus.
Redescription and new locality data of Xylotrechus polyzonus in Primorie Region were published
According to Miroshnikov (1990) Clytus stepanovi Danilevsky et Miroshnikov 1985 (stat.n.)
is a species (it was described as Clytus vesparum stepanovi).
After type materials study in Plavisltshikov's collection (1986) I regard:
Clytus raddensis = Clytus hypocrita; Clytus arietoides = Clytus venustulus.
The synonyms were published by me (1998a). According to Tsherepanov (1982), Clytus venustulus is a
good specis, not close to Clytus arietoides. "Clytus venustulus" described by Tsherepanov
(on the base of 3 specimens) is not similar to Plavilstshikov's holotype, neither to any known Clytus.
According to my publication (Danilevsky, 1998a), the species identity of Clytus nigritulus Kr.
was not clear. The syntype of this specis in Paris is very similar to Clytus fulvohirsutus, as well
as 3 syntype males in Deutsches Entomologisches Institut (Eberswalde). According to the original description
has: long and dense hairs, scapus blackish brown, elytra brilliant and without subhumeral spot, the two fascia
like in Clytus rhamni, legs blackish - all characters of Clytus fulvohirsutus. So,
Clytus nigritulus = Clytus fulvohirsutus.
Paracorymbia fulva is reliably known to me (1991) from Belarus and Kharkov region (Ukraine).
It was recorded for Belarus by Aleksandrovitch ey al. (1996).
Palimna liturata continentalis was regarded by Plavilstshikov (1958) as a synonym of the
nominative subspecies from Japan, but as a separate taxon by Gressitt (1951)
Olenecamptus octopustulatus was recorded for Transbaicalie (Tchikoi - borderline with Mongolia)
by Tsherepanov (1983), so old records for the taxon for Mongolia (ignored by Plavilstshikov, 1958)
could be right.
Some Japan authors (Kusama and Takakuwa, 1984; Ohbayashi et al.,1992) regard Ibidimorphum
Motschulsky in Schrenck, 1860 (and so Olenecamptus octopustulatus Motschulsky in Schrenck, 1860)
as nomen nudum and accept the description Motschulsky in Blessig, 1873. But the description of 1860 looks
valid with type locality and colour picture.
Olenecamptus mordkovitshi was described after one specimen (with brown unicoloured elytra
without spots) from near Tchita ("Nizhniy Tsasuchei").
I do not see conciderable differences between Pterolophia mandshurica and Pterolophia angusta
(Bates, 1873) from Japan (the details of punctuation are usually different and elytral tubercles of
Pterolophia mandshurica are usually more developed). Both taxa could be regarded as subspecies.
Possibly Pterolophia maaki also has very close Japan taxon (Pterolophia kaleea?).
According to Tsherepanov (1983):
Pteroplophia mandshurica = selengensis (described from Mongolian part of Selenga River Valley.
Holotype and a paratype of Pteroplophia selengensis are preserved in Zoological Museum
(St.-Petersburg). In general they are a little paler than specimens from Far East Russia, but no other
Egesina bifasciana was found on Sakhalin, Microlera ptinoides was found on Kunashir.
The latter is also recorded by Tsherepanov for Taiwan, may be on the base of doubtful data of Gressitt (1951).
According to Nakamura et al. (1992), Microlera ptinoides absent in Taiwan.
Microlera ussuriensis sp.n. was described from Ussuri Land and later separated in a new genus
Pseudomesosella Miroshnikov, 1989 (Apodasyini).
As it was mentioned by Tsherepanov (1983: 134), the records of Acalolepta fraudatrix for Kunashir
by Danilevsky and Kompantzev (1979) and possibly by Krivolutzkaia (1973) were concerned Japanese
Acalolepta sejuncta, which is also known from Sakhalin, Korea and possibly from Russian mainland
(Danilevsky, 1998a). But Acalolepta fraudatrix was recorded for Kunashir by Kusama et Takakuwa 1984.
I regard Pterolophia mandshurica = burakowskii on the base of original description accompanied by
a picture. Pterolophia burakowskii was described from East-Gobi Aimak. I've got a female of Mongolian
Pterolophia mandshurica from Bulgan Aimak. It was originally recorded for Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh
(1974: 173 - Sukhe-Bator Aimak, East Aimak, East-Gobi Aimak) as Pterolophia rigida. Later
(Namkhaidorzh, 1976: 213) the identifications of corresponding specimens were changed to
I've got in my collection one specimen of Apomecyna histrio with the label: "East Siberia,
Following Plavilstshikov (1958), we (Lobanov et al., 1982) used wrong spelling "Pterycoptini" of Ptericoptini.
According to Breuning (1960) the tribe Apomecynini includes Ptericoptini with genus Xylariopsis.
The genus Mimectatina (= Doius) was placed in his Rhodopini (in my list Apodasyini) or in
Rhodopinini (Breuning, 1975).
Several authors regard Doius close to Xylariopsis and placed both in separate tribe Ptericoptini
(Gressitt, 1961, Tsherepanov, 1984)
Rhodopinini seems to be composed of one genus only. Rhodopina is closed to Lamiini. According to
Linsley and Chemsak (1985), Desmiphorini (the name was accepted by Vives,2000 for Anaesthetis and others)
is rather special and includes only American genera. Other genera of Rhodopinini (sensu lato), often included
in Apodasyini, are not close to each other and composition of the tribe is artificial (Miroshnikov, 1989).
The synonymy: Microlera ussuriensis Tsherepanov = Miaenia florovi Tsherepanov was declared
by A.Lobanov (personal communication of 1987) on the base of holotypes study of both taxons and was published
as possible by Miroshnikov (1989) on the base of original descriptons. Then it was published by G.O.
Krivolutzkaia (in: Tsherepanov, 1996: 121) on the base of A.Lobanov's opinion.
Two females of Stenidea genei were collected by me in Armenia not far from Erevan
(Ara-Iler Mt., 2000m, 22.6.2003).
According to Voříšek (personal communication of 1992), Armenien Stenidea genei is possibly
Stenidea genei naviauxi Villiers, 1970 described from Iran.
The species was recorded for Stavropol Region (Mashuk Mt.) by Kasatkin and Arzanov (1997).
Sophronica obrioides (described from Japan) was primary recorded for Russia by Plavilstshikov
(1932: 194) as Lasiapheles obrioides Bates and then by Samoilov (1936: 233). Tsherepanov's
(1984: 49-50) record was connected with wrong identification of Ussurella napolovi (Danilevsky, 1995).
Very possible that two first records were also based on Ussurella napolovi. So, Sophronica obrioides
most probably absent in Russia as well as on the continent.
The genera Deroplia (= Stenidea) and Oplosia were placed by Breuning (1963) in
Rhodopinini ("Rhodopini"). It is generally accepted position (in our list - Apodasyini). But in the revision
of "Asiato-Ausralienne" Rhodopinini (Breuning, 1975) both genera are absent. May be the author regarded them as
not quite "Asian"?
Oplosia was placed in Acanthoderini by Linsley, Chemsak (1985). This position can be proven by larval
characters (Mamaev, Danilevsky, 1975; vácha, 2001).
Mimectatina = Doius (see Breuning, 1963).
Terinaea atrofusca = Miania tiliae: the synonymy was published by G.O. Krivolutzkaia
(in: Tsherepanov, 1996: 121) on the base of the personal communication of S. Murzin.
According to personal communication of S.Murzin of 1986, Terinaea atrofuca tiliae is a continental
According to Miroshnikov (1989), Mimectatina divaricata was found on the continent (about 20km SE
Ussurisk, 29.8.78, Kasparian leg.). The author prefers to regard Doius as a separate genus.
Exocentrus lineatus was found on the continent (Nakhodka, 20.8.85, Belokobylsky leg.).
Cornumutila quadrivittata was found on Kamtchatka Peninsula (Kozyrevsk, 7.85).
Following Tsherepanov (1979), the author regards Cornumutila quadrivittata = Cornumutila semenovi.
Miccolamia "verucosa" (in fact Miccolamia glabricula) was found in S Sakhalin (Kholmsk, Dolinsk).
Rhopaloscelis schurmanni Breuning, 1969 was found in Talysh by M.Danilevsky (1982).
Once (Breuning, 1975) the species was wrongly spelled as Rhopaloscelis schuberti.
According to Hasegawa and Ohbayashi (2001), Miccolamia verrucosa absent in Russia; it was recorded
before on the base of wrong determination of Miccolamia glabricula glabricula, distributed in Japan,
Sakhalin and Kurile Islands.
E.Vives (2000) accepted the original spelling Aplocnemia Stephens, 1831, which was changed in right
form Aphelocnemia in the erratum to the original publication (according to Villiers, 1978) in 1831: 414;
according to Vives, 2000, in 1832: 406.
Villiers (1970) transfered Mesosa obscuricornis to the subgenus Perimesosa because of hairy
According to Hayashi (1964), Mesosa senilis belongs to the subgenus Aphelocnemia.
Mesosa hirsuta ssp. continentalis Hayashi, 1964 was described from Korea and continental Russia.
Apriona rugicollis (= germari) was recorded for East Siberia by Breuning (1962). The
occurrence of the species in the region seems to be possible, because of its very large area (India, China,
Korea, S-E Asia).
According to J.Voříšek's opinion of 1992, Monochamus saltuarius must be divided in European and
Monochamus galloprovincialis consists of a number of subspecies: Caucasian Monochamus
galloprovincialis ssp. lignator is characterized by strong development of orange-yellow elytral
pubescence, Siberian Monochamus galloprovincialis ssp. cinerascens just contrary often has
glabrous or nearly glabrous elytra. North of European Russia is already occupied by very typical
Monochamus galloprovincialis cinerascens.
The spelling of several names in some modern publications: Monochamus urussovii,
Tetrops starkii, Agapanthia dahlii, but second "i" can be eliminated, because of generally
accepted usual spelling with one "i" - Article 33.3.1 of ICZN (1999).
Siberian Monochamus sutor can be regarded as a separate subspecies Monochamus sutor pellio
Germar, 1818 because of poor elytral pubescence.
According to E.Vives (2000: 659) Carinatodorcadion is a junior synonym of Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856.
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion carinatum was revised by Danilevsky (1998b).
Dorcadion carinatum from Nizhnii Unal (male, North Osetia, Skalistyi Ridge, 2-5.7.1997, M.Nabozhenko
leg. in D.Kasatkin coll.) can be preliminary attributed to Dorcadion carinatum sunzhenum (from Sunzhensky
Dorcadion koenigi Jakovlev, described from Daghestan (Temir-Klan-Choura), is distributed in mountain
Daghestan and characterized by narrow body (the types were studied by me).
The nature of Dorcadion caucasicum is not clear (types are not available). Most probably two closely
related populations from near Tbilisi (with pubescent and with glabrous elytrae) were described as Dorcadion
caucasicum and Dorcadion sulcipenne. Anyway most of Dorcadion caucasicum from Caucasus in
Plavilstshikov's collection are represented by Dorcadion sulcipenne impressicorne - the record of
Dorcadion caucasicum for Georgia (Gory) by Plavilstshikov (1958: 126) was connected with
Dorcadion sulcipene impressicorne. I do not know any specimens of Dorcadion cinerarium from Georgia..
I preliminary accept the traditional interpretation of Dorcadion caucasicum (Plavilstshikov, 1958;
Breuning, 1962) as Dorcadion cinerarium. Caucasian Dorcadion cinerarium (Dorcadion cinerarium
caucasicum) are all very different, but in general in this subspecies autochromal females are less pronounced
and sometimes absent (according to the materials of D.Kasatkin: Karatchaevo-Tcherkessia, Daut Ravine, 6.1993
and neighbour Uchkulan Ravine 22.6.98 - males with a little pubescent elytra). The specimens from Teberda
in S.Kadlec collection are glabrous with very rough pronotum.
In Sisian environs and in Karabakh populations both forms of females are represented. One androchromal
(glabrous) female (Megri reg., Shvanidzor env., Burtinkar Mt., 24.4.98 Agababian leg.) and one autochromal
(with pubescent elytra) female (Lalvar, 8.6.60) are preserved in M.Kalashian's collection. His autochromal
female from Shorzha (Gegarkuni reg., 20-25.5.99, M.Nabozhenko leg.) is most probable Dorcadion sulcipenne
The taxon described by me as Dorcadion cinerarium danczenkoi from Talysh Mts (Mistan env.) is very
special with very rough pronotal sculpture and total absence of pubescent forms must be better regarded as a
Dorcadion panticapaeum was wrongly spelled (as "panticapeum") by Lobanov et al.(1982).
According to Danilevsky (1992) Dorcadion kalashiani was recorded before for Talysh
(Lobanov et al., 1981: 789) as Dorcadion kasikoporanum. The latter is known from Ara-Iler Mt.
in Armenian Republic (16 males and 10 females in my collection).
Dorcadion kasikoporanum was described from "Kazikoporan" or Kazkoporan - a small village situated
in NW Igdir about 20 km W Tuzluca and about 10 km S Arax river at Tandurek river. The locality is named
"Kazykolaran" in Russian topographical military map; same name is used in Russian "Atlas of Car Roads from
Atlantic to Pacific Ocean", 1999, Minsk, "Trivium": 382pp.
The holotype male (13 mm) is preserved in Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris) with the labels:
"Russ Armenia, Kasikoporan, 1901, Korb." [printed] and "kasikoporanum Pic" by Pic's hand. I do not see
any differences between holotype and two males (12.8-13.5mm) from collection of C.Holzschuh:
"TR. bor. or., GÖLE env., 24.5.1992, J. Macek leg." [Göle NW Kars?], as well as from Armenian specimens
(m: 11.0-14.5 mm, f: 11.8-14.6 mm).
Dorcadion czegodaevi sp.n. was recorded before for Soviet Azerbaidzhan (Plavilstshikov, 1958)
as Dorcadion kagyzmanicum Suvorov, 1915. Dorcadion kagyzmanicum was also recorded for "Leninakan"
(now Giumri in Armenia) by Plavilstshikov (1948), but later (Plavilstshikov, 1958) the 1915; the latter record
was not repeated by the author, so, most probably it was connected with wrong identification of
Dorcadion argonauta. Dorcadion kagyzmanicum absents on the territory of the former USSR.
Dorcadion impressicorne was described from Gori; same taxon was later described as
Dorcadion sulcipenne exertum. The opinion of Breuning (1962): impesseicorne = argonauta -
is not far from the reality, as Dorcadion argonauta is very close to Dorcadion sulcipenne and can
be regarded as one of its Transcaucasian subspecies. Dorcadion sulcipenne goktshanum Suvorov, 1915 is a
well definite subspecies from Sevan lake environs (I've got a big series from Sevan city environs).
Dorcadion caspiense Breuning, 1956 was described from "Liryk" (modern Lerik in Talysh?)
and regarded as a species (Breuning, 1962). It was regarded by Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985)
as Dorcadion sulcipenne caspiense. A big series of the taxon was collected near Lerik in
Talysh by A.Nekrasov in 1981.
Dorcadion sericatum is regarded here as a species, so Dorcadion arenarium was absent in the
Dorcadion litigiosum otshakovi Suvorov was described from near Kherson and regarded by Breuning (1962)
also as a subspecies. According to Plavilstshikov (1958) Dorcadion litigiosum = Dorcadion otshakovi.
I did not see the types, but I am sure that the description was connected with very numerous in the region
Dorcadion pusilum. Dorcadion pusillum is very common all over Ukraine, and was described from
Podolia (Vinitza and Khmelnitzky Regions). I do not know specimens of Dorcadion pusillum from Podolia,
so possibly they could differ considerably from south Ukraine specimens. If so, Dorcadion pusillum otshakovi
is a subspecies. But now I prefer to regard Dorcadion pusillum = Dorcadion otshakovi.
I preliminary regard Dorcadion pusillum var. berladense Pic., 1903, described from
Roumania as a subspecies.
It seems that Suvorov's data were the only record of Dorcadion litigiosum (described from Roumania)
for Russia. I've never seen Dorcadion litigiosum from the territory of the USSR, so its presence in
Ukraine or Moldavia is rather doubtful.
Dorcadion mokrzeckii Jakovlev was primery found in Crimea out of the type locality:
"Ottuk Mt., 16.4.1999, Andreeva leg." - a pair of not quite typical specimens in my collection received from
I've seen in Paris a series, identified by Breuning as Dorcadion elegans m. crimeense Breuning.
It was Dorcadion mokrzeckii. So I regard Dorcadion crimeense as a synonym of Dorcadion mokrzeckii
and Dorcadion elegans most probably absent in Crimea.
Dorcadion elegans was missed in the Key for Caucasus by Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985) though
it is known from the region (east Ciscaucasia).
The species is known westwards as far as Dnepropetrovsk in Ukraine, where it is very common.
Dorcadion elegans is widely distributed in Asian part of Orenburg Region (Sol-Iletzk Distr.,
According to Danilevsky (1992a) only one Dorcadion species is distributed in Kopet-Dag, though the
synonymy Dorcadion tuerki = Dorcadion komarowi was wrong. According to my series from Mazanderan
(where the type locality - Hadschgabad - is situated), Dorcadion tuerki is in general bigger with less
developed (or absent) erect elytral setae. But Dorcadion tuerki was absent in USSR.
Dorcadion komarowi is not a synonym of Dorcadion kryzhanovskii. The latter is characterized by
black legs and antennae with numerous black spots on elytral white stripes, while Dorcadion komarowi has
usually red legs and antennae with rare or absent black elytral spots. So Dorcadion komarowi kryzhanovskii
is a subspecies from Germab valley.
According to my study of the syntypes: Dorcadion euxinum Suvorov, 1915 = Dorcadion kubanicum
Plavilstshikov, 1934, that agrees with Plavilstshikov's (1958: 181) description of the type of Dorcadion
euxinum. According to Plavilstshikov (1958) a part of Dorcadion euxinum syntypes were Dorcadion
Dorcadion euxinum was described from near Novorossiisk. N.N. Plavilstshikov accepted the area of his
Dorcadion kubanicum eastwards to about Armavir. In my collection it is also represented by much more easten
localities: Stavropol environs, Erken-Shakhar in Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Tyrnyauz in Kabardino-Balkaria,
Piatigorsk environs. I also attribute to this taxon several populations from Rostov Region, which are
represented in my collection: 70 km S Roston-on-Don and Orlovsky environs (about 70km S Volgodonsk -
northwards Manych Depression).
Dorcadion sareptanum (described from Volgograd) was known to Plavilstshikov eastwards to about Emba
river in Kazakhstan, but southwards not far than Kuma River, so the taxon most probably absent in Caucasian area.
In fact the difference between Dorcadion sareptanum and Dorcadion euxinum is very small
and sometimes totally absent. In general legs and antennae of Dorcadion sareptanum must be lighter
(reddish), but in fact the colour of Volgograd specimens is about same as in speciemens. Now I prefer to
regard both taxons as subspecies.
The type (male) of Dorcadion striatiforme is in very bad condition. I was not able to identify
it good enough. It can be very small Dorcadion holosericeum or Dorcadion sareptanum euxinum.
Both species are rather common in the region.
Dorcadion tristriatum is connected by the row of transitional forms with Dorcadion holosericeum,
so I regard Dorcadion holosericeum tristriatum as south subspeciers. It is distributed eastwards
along Caucasian Ridge to Daghestan - one male from near Tlokh (2000m) in Andiyskoe Koysu Valley (27.5.1988,
V.Karasev leg., collection of S.Saluk).
Dorcadion equestre m. transsilvanicum Ganglbauer, 1884 was described from Serbia and
South Roumania, so this subspecies can be represented in Moldova.
According to Danilevsky and Khvylia (1987), Dorcadion shirvanicum Bogatschew, 1934 =
Dorcadion azerbajdzhanicum Plavilstshikov, 1937.
In fact the description of Dorcadion mniszechi ssp. shirvanica Bogachev, 1934 was based
on a glabrous female from near Perekishkiul in east Azerbaidzhan near Baku. Another specimen (from Shemakha
district) was just mentioned by the author. So, Perekishkiul is the type locality of the taxon.
According to M.Danilevsky (2004), the description of Dorcadion azerbajdzhanicum Plavilstshikov, 1937
was based on two series from Central Azerbajdzhan: a pair from "station Padar, 5.5.1934" in about 40km NW from
Geokchai (both specimens were equipped with red labels: "typus", so Padar is the type locality of the taxon)
and a pair from "steppes de Geoktshaj, Bargushety, IV.1903" in about 30km SSE from Geokchai (both specimens
were equipped with red labels: "paratypus"). One male of the species from near "Elisavetpol" - now Giandzha - (6.1916,
G.Olsufiev leg.) is also represented in Plavilstshokov's collection. A.L. Lobanov collected a big series
of the species in about 2km N Geokchai (3.5.1988). I received (2002) 12 males and 4 females from that series
for study. All specimens from Cenral Azerbaidzhan differ considerably from specimens of east population
(big series collected near Perekishkiul by V.Tzimberov - 20.4.1991, S.Khvylia - 24.4.1986 and M.Danilevsky,
1-2.5.1987). So, west populations form a subspecies Dorcadion shirvanicum azerbajdzhanicum with pale
elytral spots usually less developed, and certain specimens are very similar to Dorcadion laeve;
humeral black stripe never well developed, usually absent at least near humery or totally absent;
glabrous females are not known.
"Dorcadion azerbajdzhnicum" (in fact Dorcadion shirvanicum azerbajdzhanicum) was recorded
by Breuning (1962) for Derbent, so the species is represented in Russia.
Dorcadion bisignatum was recorded by Breuning (1962) for Batumi and regared by Plavilstshikov (1958)
as very possible for Adzharia.
According to the original description, Dorcadion indutum had to be described from east Transcaucasie,
most probable from Karabakh. Just here the forms (and in Garni district of Armenia) with pale elytral
stripes are distributed. Black forms, described as nigrosuturatum, are distributed north-westwards
Sevan Lake. Dorcadion griseipenne was also describe from here (Semenovka).
Dorcadion sodale Hampe was recorded for USSR (Abbastuman and Achalzich in Georgia) by Breuning (1962).
According to Danilevsky (1992a), Dorcadion jacobsoni = sokolowi = conicolle; and according to
Danilevsky (1993b), Dorcadion jacobsoni = apicipenne = sokolowi = amymon = dsungaricum = melancholicum = conicolle
and possibly = merzbacheri.
I do not know the type of Dorcadion merzbacheri. Its type locality is uncertain - "Thian-Shan".
But in the original description it was compared with "Dorcadion lucae" sensu Breuning, so with
Dorcadion jacobsoni and could be conspecific to it.
Dorcadion obtusicolle is a good speceis (I've studied the type in Prague), that agree with
Plavilstshikov's (1958) opinion, and just contrary to Breuning's (1962) opinion.
Dorcadion samarkandiae was described after one female from "Samarkand" environs and was compared
with "Dorcadion lucae" sensu Breuning (that meens - Dorcadion jacobsoni). Only one species
can be in this region - Dorcadion turkestanicum, and its females can be really similar to
Dorcadion jacobsoni, but if the locality was wrong, it must be Dorcadion jacobsoni.
According to Danilevsky (1993b): Dorcadion musarti Pic, 1907 is very close to Dorcadion
morozovi, but is a separate species.
Dorcadion morozovi was found in China in the east part of Ketmen Ridge on Sarybutchun Pass
(northwards Tekes-city): 1 male, 2300m, 11.6.99, I.Belousov leg. (my collection). It was collected
together with several very big Dorcadion rufogenum.
The revision of subspecies structure of Dorcadion semenovi was published by Danilevsky (2002a).
Old distributional data on Dorcadion semenovi semenovi and Dorcadion semenovi hauseri published
by me (Danilevsky, 1993b) were revised.
Old data on the occurence of Dorcadion kuldshanum in Przhevalsk environs (Plavilstshikov, 1958;
Breuning, 1962; Danilevsky, 1993b) were most probably based on specimens fron China territory. No reliable
data on the occurence od the species in Kirgizia (or in Kuldzha environs) were available (Danilevsky, 2002a).
New locality (about 160 km eastwards Narynkol along Tekes River Valley) of Dorcadion kuldschanum
in China at the western most part of Narat Ridge in Koksu River Valley south-eastwards Tekes (several males,
2000-2300m, 12.6.1999, I.Belousov leg.) makes more possible the occurrence of the species in Kazakhstan near
According to Danilevsky (1996a), Dorcadion politum = Dorcadion lydiae. The types of Dorcadion lydiae
(from Semipalatinsk) are just the most colourful specimens from the series, which was the base for
Dorcadion politum ab. nanellum - small Dorcadion politum politum.
I.A. Kostin (1973) proposed another synonyms Dorcadion eurygyne = balchashense = lydiae, that was
The occurrence of Dorcadion politum in European Russia was supposed by me (Althoff, Danilevsky, 1997)
on the base of a single male with a label: "Orenburg, 30.4.1963". Now the occurrence of Dorcadion politum
in Orenburg Region is proved by a series from the Asian part of Orenburg Region (5 males: Sol-Iletsk
District, 25km southwards Pokrovka, 24-27.5.2002, L.Korshikov leg.). My supposition of the species for European
part of Kazakhstan was evidently wrong.
The separation of Compsodorcadion and Dorcadion s.str. was published by Danilevsky (1996a).
According to Danilevsky (1992a), Dorcadion crassipes is the valid name for Dorcadion obtusipenne
sensu Plavilstshikov (1958), Breuning (1962) and others (not Motschulsky, 1860). Dorcadion obtusipenne
was described from Kzyl-Orda environs and could be regarded as a valid name for Dorcadion androsovi
as was proposed by Danilevsky (1992a), but better both taxa must be regarded as subspecies: Dorcadion
glicyrrhizae androsovi and Dorcadion glicyrrhizae obtusipenne (according to Danilevsky, 2001a).
The subspecific structure of Dorcadion crassipes was published by Danilevsky (1996a).
Dorcadion ganglbaueri up to now is known only from Kazakhstan and the record for Central Asian
republics by Lobanov et al. (1982) was a mistake. According to Plavilstshikov (1958) it is distributed
between Tchimkent and Vysokoe. I also know a good series from Aksu-Dzhabagly (Ak-Su River Valley, 2000m,
21.5.90, A.Konstaninov leg.). A new unusual locality of this very rare species was found by me in Central
Karatau Ridge near Zhanatas (several hundreds of specimens on 27.4.93).
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion gebleri was revised by Danilevsky (1996e).
Dorcadion gebleri is the longest known Dorcadion (30.0mm - male in my collection; females
are shorter, but wider). The biggest known Dorcadionini is Eodorcadion heros Jakovlev, 1899 from Mongolia
(males - up to 25 mm, females - up to 32 mm; both in my collection).
Dorcadion gebleri n. occidentale, raised to subspecies by Breuning (1962), was described
from "Kirgisensteppe westwärts bis zur Wolga". The locality is impossible for Dorcadion gebleri known from east
Kazakhstan. I saw the type in one of private collections. It was really normal Dorcadion gebleri, as it
was published by Plavilstshikov (1958). So the type locality was wrong.
A population of Dorcadion glicyrrhizae striatum (= rufifrons) from Orsk environs (1 female -
Orenburg Region, Guberli, 2.6.98, O. Gorbunov leg. and a series from same locality, 1-5.5.2001, M.Smirnov leg.
- all in my collection) is characterized by a big number of specimens with totally black antennae and totally
black femora. Such specimens are mixed with specimens of normal colour (red basal antennal joints and red femora).
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion was revised by Danilevsky (2001a).
The occurrence of Dorcadion glicyrrhizae glicyrrhizae in Russia is rather doubtful. From Volgograd
environs to Kazakhstan border and northwards to Saratov Region Dorcadion glicyrrhizae striatum is
distributed (so Plavilstshikov's data for Saratov and Orenburg Regions were sure wrong). Russian
Dorcadion glicyrrhizae glicyrrhizae can occur only in Astrakhan Region in sands eastwards Volga.
The type locality of Dorcadion glicyrrhizae striatum is "South Urals". In fact several rather
different populations of Dorcadion glicyrrhizae (includindg Dorcadion glicyrrhizae dubianskii) are known
from South Urals. I accepted as typical the population from the southmost point of Orenburg Region from the
valley of Shybyndy River (15 males and 4 females: Sol-Iletsk District, 25km southwards Pokrovka, 24-27.5.2002,
L.Korshikov leg.). It consists of rather big specimens with totally red tibiae, femora and several basal
antennal joints; frons is also usually red; female androchromal. Such specimens are very close to
Dorcadion glicyrrhizae striatum from Saratov and Volgograd Regions (with neihbour localities in
Kazakhstan: Dzhanybek env.).
I preliminary attribute to Dorcadion glicyrrhizae striatum several populations of small beetles from
middle part of Ural River Valley (right European bank) in Kazakhstan (eastwards Ural-city in Bykovka River
Valley and Ianvartzevo env.) and near Kalinovka (about 120km westwards Aktiubinsk).
The synonymy: Dorcadion cephalotes = turgaicum by Kostin (1973), who followed Plavilstshikov's (1958)
opinion on close relations between two species, was accepted by Tsherepanov (1983). In fact two species belong
to different subgenera. Very rare Dorcadion turgaicum was unknown for Kostin and Tsherepanov. I've
collected many specimens near Esil (Astana Region)in two seasons: 18.5.1992 and 1.5.2001.
Two new localities of Dorcadion turgaicum: "Astana, Khan-Tau 6.74, V.Skopin leg." - 1 male in my
collection; "Atbasar env., 5.74, V.Skopin leg." - male and female in my collection.
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion arietinum was revised by Danilevsky (1996d). According to
Danilevsky (1996d), Dorcadion lucae Pic, 1898 (the holotype female is in Eberswalde), described from
Kuldzha is a subspecies - Dorcadion arietinum lucae, known up to now oly from Kuldzha (Yining). Ealier
it was regarded by Danilevsky (1992a)as a valid species name for Dorcadion strandi. Breuning (1962)
wrongly interpreted Dorcadion lucae as a valid name for Dorcadion apicipenne = sokolovi. For
Plavilstshikov (1958) Dorcadion lucae is a separate species close to Dorcadion strandi.
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion suvorovi was revised by Danilevsky (1996b).
Dorcadion suvorovianum was restored by Danilevsky (1999d).
Dorcadion matthieseni m. unidiscale Breuning, 1947 (from Almaty) was regarded as
Dorcadion globithorax ssp. unidiscale by Danilevsky (1996a) from Kaskelen Ravine and then
(Danilevsky, 1999d) as a species Dorcadion unidiscale. The name was originally introduced for
"morpha" and so was unavailable until the first application for a subspecies supplied with distinguishing
characters (Danilevsky, 1996a).
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion mystacinum Ballion, 1878 is not investigated yet. The taxon
was described from "Kuldzha". Though the name was traditionally attributed by all authors to the species from
near Aulie-Ata (= Dzhambul = Taraz). I don't know the type, but most probably the Ballion's specimens were
really collected near Aulie-Ata. It was very usual for Ballion to mention "Kuldzha" as type locality for the
species from Kazakhstan (for example Carabus lindemanni Ballion, 1878).
The taxonomic position of Dorcadion mystacinum was correctly realized by Plavilstshikov (1958: 378),
as close (together with "Dorcadion rufidens" and "Dorcadion pumilio") to Dorcadion tianshanskii.
Recently (Rejzek et al., 2003: 167) the species was mentioned as Dorcadion (Dzhungarodorcadion) without
any comments, that was undoubtedly a mistake.
Dorcadion rufidens was described from "Syr-Daria" - the type is in St.-Petersburg with label:
"Syr-Darja, Arys". It meened the nearest to Arys slopes of Karatau Ridge as the species close to
Dorcadion mystacinum is not known from the plane between Karatau and Syr-Daria. So I regard under the
name Dorcadion mystacinum rufidens all mountain populations of Dorcadion mystacinum from Karatau.
According to available materials, Dorcadion mystacinum from different parts of Karatau are very different
and further subspecies divisions are desirable.
Dorcadion pumilio, described from near Chu-city is connected with Dorcadion mystacinum by a row
of transitional populations.
The combinations Dorcadion mystacinum rufidens and Dorcadion mystacinum pumilio were published
by Danilevsky (1999d: 39). Both taxa absent in Kirgizia. The record for Central Asian republics by Lobanov
et al. (1982) for Dorcadion pumilio were based on the data from original description for
"Frunze environs", which were really concerned with Dorcadion optatum matthieseni; another original
record for Alma-Ata environs were also wrong and connected with local population of Dorcadion suvorovianum.
The wrong record for Central Asian republics by Lobanov et al. (1982) for Dorcadion rufidens were
based on Plavilstshikov's (1958) data, that the area of Dorcadion rufidens is totally same that of
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion optatum was revised by Danilevsky (1999d).
Dorcadion tinashanskii heptapotamicum Plavilstshikov was described as a species from the region to the
south of Kastek Pass. A syntype male from N.N. Plavilstshikov's collection (Zoological Museum of Moscow
University) has two labels: the original old printed label: "Muinak Geb. Matthiessen" and a new in Russian
by N.N.Plavilstshikov's hand: ["Kastek Pass environs"].
The subspecies structure of Dorcadion tianshanskii was revised by Danilevsky (1999d).
Breuning (1962) used wrong spelling of radkevitshi ("radkewitschi").
I've studied two syntypes (males) of Dorcadion globithorax var. alexandris Pic from
"Alai" (a female from same series belongs to another species) in Paris. The taxon was later described as
Dorcadion luteolum, as it was published by Plavilstshikov (1958).
According to Danilevsky (1999d), Dorcadion globithorax, described from near Kapchagai, is
known up to now only from the type locality. Numerous records of this species from other regions belong
to other species.
After study a big series of Dorcadion tibiale toropovi, collected by me (7.5.2000) in its type
locality, I see that it must be considered as a species.
The real area of Dorcadion pelidnum (the environs of Bystrovka = Kemin only) was described by
Iberodorcadion fuliginator was recorded for Lithuania (Telnov et al., 1997), so -
Dorcadion fuliginator fuliginator.
I do not see the declared differences between Eodorcadion s.str. and Ornatodorcadion.
The date of Eodorcadion Breuning, 1947 was wrongly mentioned by me as "1946" (Danilevsky, 2004).
Eodorcadion carinatum was described atfer one specimen from "Siberia". I do not know the type and
regard as typical the populations of the species from West Siberia (Russian regions: Orenburg, Cheliabinsk,
Kurgan, Omsk, Novosibirsk; Kazakhstan regions: Kustanai, Kokchetav, Atbasar, Semipalatinsk. I've got a pair
of Eodorcadion carinatum carinatum from Cheliabinsk Region. Besides I've studied (2003) several good
series in Zoological Museum (St.-Petersburg) with the labels: "Orenburg, Leman"; "E Ural distr.,
Krasnenskiy, 31.7.1926, Umnov" - now: Cheliabinsk Reg., Krasninskiy (30km E Verneuralsk); "Verkhneuralsk
distr., Rysaeva, source of Ural River, VII.1896, Kisliakov"; "Akmolinsk reg., Kokchetav, 5-10.7.1899
Ingenitzky"; "Akmolinsk reg., Kokchetav distr., Zeredinskoe Lake, 20.V.-10.VII.1902, Rubno"; "Borovsk.,
Kokchetav, Akmolinsk Region, 25.6 - 12.7.1932, V.Popov". The taxon is charactererized by relatively flat
elytra with special puncturation; without dorsal white stripes, but humeral stripe always complete.
Eodorcadion altaicum was described from Narym River Valley (right tributary of Irtysh southwards
Zyrianovsk: Bolshenarymskaia, Altaiskaia). It is a very special form, not a synonym of the nominative
and can be in fact a good species. I've studied the syntypes. It is characterized by very large and wide
body with strongly convex elytra usually without any white stripes or with strongly reduced humeral white
According to the original description of Eodorcadion involvens m. blessigi, is a common Altai form
of Eodorcadion carinatum with irregular white elytral stripes distributed in Shebalino environs and
southwards Chemal, and probably (according to Suvorov, 1909) as far eastwards as Minusinsk.
Chemal environs are occupied by Eodorcadion carinatum with regular white elytral stripes -
Eodorcadion carinatum bramsoni (= gassneri). I've studied the holotype of Neodorcadion
carinatum v. bramsoni in Budapest.
Eodorcadion dorcas was recorded fo Russia (Plavilstshikov, 1958), but most probably it absent
in Russian fauna, as its area is very far from Russian border (see Namhaidorzh, 1972). Plavilstshikov's (1958)
data on Eodorcadion dorcas area looks fantastic. It could be easy missed with other black species.
The presence in Tuva Eodorcadion humerale impluviatum seems to be possible but rather unlikely.
Phytoecia (Helladia) plasoni was recorded for Armenia by Iablokov-Khnzorian (1961) and then
was collected here by A.Lobanov (Lobanov et al., 1981). One male from Armenia (Megri distr., 15km N
Shvanidzor, 24.5.2001, Agababian leg.) is preserved in my collection; two specimes in M.Kalashian's
collection: Niuvady, 20.5.2003, Malkhasian leg. and 6-10km N Niuvady, 9-16.6.2003 Malkhasian leg.
According to Namhaidorzh (1972), Eodorcadion carinatum involvens m. bicoloratum
Plavilstshikov, 1958 is in fact a form of Eodorcadion lutshniki without white stripes (I saw syntypes
in Plavilstshokov's collection, Moscow). According to my materials this form has a very distinct area and so
must be regarded as subspecies: Eodorcadion lutshniki bicoloratum, ssp. n. (in press.).
I know 3 populations: Shurmak environs (east Tannu-Ola) and Erzin environs (Saluk collection, Minsk).
In Mongolia similar specimens are mixed in one population with striated specimens (Namhaidorzh, 1972
and a pair in ZIN collection, St.-Petersburg) in Sands Altan-Els, NE of Ubsunur aimak. This population was
described as Eodorcadion lutshniki altanelsense Heyrovský, 1973. Which form of
Eodorcadion lutshniki occurs in Mongolia near Ulangom rests unknown to me. It could belong to
Eodorcadion lutshniki lutshniki.
All taxa of Eodorcadion group "quinquevittatum-maurum" belong to one species. Now I am
ready to recognize 4 subspecies, though in reality the number of subspecies must be more. Sometimes the areas
of different subspecies nearly contact one another (and specimens from different populations are preserved
with identic labels). Sometimes populations of different subspecies are intermixed or the area of one
subspecies is interrupted by the area of another. Very often morphologically identic specimens can be
observed in different subspecies.
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum was described as Neodorcadion: "Endast tvänne skadade exemplar tagna af
Ehnberg vid faktoriet Soldan invid Jenisei (Ulu-kem) uti Mongoliet i slutet af September." I do not know the
location of "faktoriet Soldan", but "Ulu-kem" of 1893 is now Tuvinean part of Enisei, so the type locality of
the species is situated near Kyzyl in Tuva Republic. It is agree with Eodorcadion quinquevittatum sensu
Plavilstshikov (1958). Breuning (1962) recorded type locality as: "Governement Minoussinsk" - now south part
of Krasnoirsk Region of Russia. Here another taxon is distributed, but I do not know where Breuning received
such information from. The nominative subspecies includes specimens with the most developed elytral carinae
and is distributed from about Chadan to Kyzyl then southwards to Mongolian border (Erzin). I collected a lot
of very typical Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum near Ishtii-Hem. From about here
(40 km northwards) Neodorcadion sajanicum was described ("Nagra exemplar tagna invid floden Kemtschik
i Mongoliet."). I do not know the type, but according to Plavilstshikov (1958), it is similar to the type
of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum, but looks like old specimen.
Inside Tuva Republic several marginal populations of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum (mostly northwards
Kyzyl, eastwards Kyzyl and south-westwards Kyzyl) are characterized by reduction of elytral carinae and elytral
white stripes (which are often totally absent). Just conditionally I attribute all of them to one subspecies.
This form was described as Neodorcadion leucogrammum Suvorov was described from "nörlichen Abhängen des
Gebirgsrückens Tanny-Ola Anfang VIII.1903 gesammelt." on the base of 3 males and 1 female with hardly developed
elytral carinae and white stripes. The syntype female preserved in the collection of Zoological Institute,
St.-Petersburg belongs to another form - described as Neodorcadion grumi ab. leucotaenium. A male
from same collection with two hand labels by Suvorov: "Neodorcadion leucogrammum typ.m." and "Namiur
River to the north from Kobdo, 18.VII.1903, Gr.-Gr. leg." does not belong to the type series, because was
collected much before the expedition reached Tuva territory, out of type locality - it is striated form of
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum maurum). In my materials typical population of
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum is represented by specimens from Chal-Kezhig in Elegest
River Valley (north slope of Tannu-Ola Ridge), where striated specimens are mixed with glabrous. My specimens from
Bai-Haak represent a transitional population to Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum.
Recently (2003) I've received a big series of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum with the label:
"Krasnoiarsk Region, Verchneusinsk, Us River Valley, 5.7.2002, A.Brinev leg." All specimens (about 50) are
very similar and have elytral carinae and white dorsal elytral stripes. This form was evidently the base of
Plavilstshikov's record of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum (s.str.) for the south part of Krasnoiarsk
Region of Russia. Still the level of development of elytral carinae and white stripes in that population is
never so strong as in specimens from Central Tuva, and often similar to the typical
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum. So now I also regard population from Krasnoiarsk Region as
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum.
"Eodorcadion leucogrammum", sensu Tsherepanov (1983: "Ulug-Khem depression eastwards Chadan")
is another species - Eodorcadion tuvense Plavilstshikov.
A population of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum from near Erzin (as well as the
population of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum from north Tannu-Ola: Chal-Kezhig) consists of
striated and glabrous specimens (glabrous, smooth males are much more numerous than glabrous females).
According to Ju.Mikhailov (personal communication, 2003), glabrous males often copulate with striated females;
besides all transitional forms were observed (Erzin population is represented in my materials with the
specimens collected by B.Korotiaev).
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum katharinae was described from north Mongolia (most probably from
Ubsu-Nur Lake Valley) after one male (holotype in ZIN, St.Petersburg). The subspecies is characterized by
usually wide body with very strong elytral carinae and with the widest white elytral stripes known in the
species. It is distributed around Ubsu-Nur Lake and in sands (Altan-Els) along Tesiyn-Gol (north of Ubsunur
and Dzabkhan aimaks) westwards to the Russian territory (S Tuva, sands in between Tere-Hol Lake and Tes-Hem
River). The population from sands eastwards Tere-Hol does not include glabrous forms. The population of
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum katharinae from Altan-Els Sands consists of striated and smooth glabrous
specimens with many transitional forms (similar to the populations of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittaum
from Erzin and to Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum from Chal-Kezhig).
The description of Neodorcadion maurum Jakovlev was based on three syntypes: 2 males "trouvés
en 1879 par Mr G.Potanin en Mongolie" and 1 female "venant de l'Altai" - the last locality is not exact.
According to Namhaidorzh (1972) the type series was collected near Ulangom.
Same population was partly used for the description of Eodorcadion grumi: syntype male and sytype
female in my collection with the label in Russian: ["Namiur River between Kobdo River and Ulangom, 18.7.1903,
Grum-Grzhimailo"]. Another part of Dorcadion grumi syntypes was collected in north Tannu-Ola.
One syntype male in my collection with the label in Russian: ["north slope of Tannu-Ola Ridge, 3-5.8.1903,
Grum-Grzhimailo"]. I've got very similar specimens from Torgalyk River. I do not see the difference between
specimens from Tuva and Mongolia. If the diference exists, the synonymy maurum = grumi could be canceled, after
respective lectotype designation. Now the area of the taxon is very large. Tuva: planes northwards Tannu-Ola,
hills southwards Tannu-Ola from Mugur-Aksy to Samagaltai. Mongolia: from the west part of Greate Lakes Valley -
Ureg-Nug Lake eastwards to Ulangom and southwards up to Kobdo. The area of the taxon described by
Plavilstshikov (1958) is totally wrong: there is nothing similar to the taxon in Transbaicalie or in Selenga
and Orkhon Rivers Valleis.
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum maurum is characterized by smooth, often shining elytra without humeri
granules, without epical elytral white stripe, abdomen with less dense pubescence. Specimens with elytral
carinae and white elytral stripes are well known as rare female form (ab. leucotaenium), but very rare
males also can be striated.
In some areas the transitional forms between Eodorcadion quinquevittatum maurum and
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum (Chal-Kezhig) or Eodorcadion quinquevittatum maurum
and Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum (Erzin) or Eodorcadion quinquevittatum katatharinae
(from Barun-Turun to Delgerekh) are known, but in some areas - not (Khadyn Lake, Bai-Khaak).
The proposed nomenclature must be regarded as preliminal as it is not quite natural. In fact the population
of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum in Us-River Valley is totally isolated from any other
populations of the species and is rather peculiar and can be described as new subspecies. That may also
concern the population of Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum from Khemtchik-River Valley to
Shagonar and futher eastwards to about Kyzyl with less developed elytral carinae - this form can be named
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum saianicum (Hammer.). New names must be proposed for strongly variable
populations from near Erzin and for very stable population from Tere-Khol Lake. With such point of view
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum is distributed only along north slope of Tannu-Ola, while
similar populations northwards and eastwards Kyzyl need new names. So, at least 5 new subspecies
names must be introduced for Tuva only.
Several localities known to me (ZIN - collection of Zoological Museum, St.-Petersburg;
MD - my collection):
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum (Tuva Republic):
- 1 km S Kyzyl, 12.8.1993, A.A. Benediktov leg.; same locality, 28.8.1998, D.Obydov leg. (typical form) (MD)
- Hkadyn lake (40 km S Kyzyl), 5.7.1959, S.V. Sharova leg.; same localyti, 29.7.1995, A.Avdeev leg. (about 100 ex. - only typical form) (MD)
- East Tannu-Ola Ridge, Shara-Sur, 15.7.1968, Ju. Kostiuk leg. (typical males) (MD)
- West Tannu-Ola Ridge, Ishtii-Kem, 21.7.1974, M.Danilevsky leg. (only typical form) (MD)
- Erzin, 1-17.7.1972, 27.7.1980, B.Korotiaev leg (ZIN, MD); same locality, 4.8.1977, P.Bogdanov leg.
(incl. several specimens glabrous without elytral carinae) (MD)
- 10 km SSE Erzin, Mt. Kyzyl-Khai, 10.7.1994, A.Klimenko leg. (typical form) (MD)
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum (Russia):
- Krasnoiarsk Region, Verchneusinsk, Us River Valley, 5.7.2002, A.Brinev leg. (no smooth glabrous specimens)(MD)
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum leucogrammum (Tuva Republic):
- Turan, Mt. Khai-Bar, (70 km N Kyzyl), 22.7.1963 (MD)
- Sush (40 km N Kyzyl), 15.6.97, S.Vaschenko leg. (many glabrous, smooth specimens) (MD)
- Siserlig (20 km N Kyzyl), 20.6.97, V.Patrikeev leg. (2 males with very distinct longitudinal furrows) (D.Kasatkin coll.)
- 3-10 km N Kyzyl, 20.7-10.8.1994, A.Klimenko leg. (no striated specimens) (MD)
- Kok-Tei (20 km E Kyzyl), left bank of Ka-Khem River, 7.7.2003, A.Nikolaev leg. (several males and females are nealy glabrous) (MD)
- Sug-Bazhi (30 km E Kyzyl), right bank of Ka-Khem River, 27.7.2002, Ju.Mikhailov leg. (MD)
- Saryg-Sep (80 km E Kyzyl), right bank of Ka-Khem River, 2.7.1990 (many glabrous smooth males and females) (MD)
- North slope of Tannu-Ola, Bai-Khaak, 11.7.1959, S.V. Sharova leg.; same locality, 15.7.1990 (no smooth, glabrous specimens) (MD)
- North slope of Tannu-Ola, Elegest River, Chal-Kezhig, 26.7.2002, Ju.Mikhailov leg. (some glabrous males) (MD)
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum katharinae (Tuva Republic):
- S Tuva, Tere-Khol Lake (30km S Erzin), 10.7.1996, D.Obydov leg. (incl. several males with partly reduced elytral sculpture, as well as several females with widened white stripes); same locality, 26.7.1971, Antropova leg. (MD); same locality, 10.8.1976, Chabovsky leg. (typical specimens) (ZIN).
- Tuva, Erzin distr. [most probably same locality as the previous series], 12.7.1978, Ju.Kostiuk leg. (females with widened elytral stripes) (MD)
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum katharinae (Mongolia):
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, south bank of Ubsu-Nur Lake, 10.8.1975, L. Medvedev leg. (typical form) (MD)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, 40 km ESE Dzun-Goby (near Barun-Turun), 12.8.1975, L. Medvedev leg. (typical).(MD)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, 30 km NE Barun-Turun, 5.7.1968, Arnoldi leg. (incl. strongly widened carinated males and females, and very white females, as well as specimens with partly reduced carinae and white stripes to totally smooth and glabrous) (ZIN)
- Dzabkhan aimak, 10 km NW Tes (or Delgerekh), 13-16.8.1975 L.Medvedev leg. (typical form) (MD)
- Dzabkhan aimak, 30 km WNW Tes (or Delgerekh), 3-4.7.1968, Emelianov leg. (transition to Eodorcadion quinquevittatum males with reduced carinae and elytral stripes to totally smooth and glabrous) (ZIN)
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum maurum (Mongolia):
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, south bank of Ubsu-Nur Lake, 50km E Ulangom, 6.8.1970, Emelianov leg. (type locality?) (only typical form) (ZIN)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, NW bank of Urug-Nur Lake, 17.7.1968, Arnoldi (typical male and ab. leucotaenium)(ZIN)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, Dzun-Gobi, 9.8.1970, Emelianov (typical form) (ZIN)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, 30 km W Ulangom, 13.7.1968, Arnoldi leg. (typical form) (ZIN)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, 19-32 km NW Ulangom, 27.6-8.7.1968, Kaszab's exp. (typical form with Heyrovsky's identifications: "grumi" and "dorcas morozum")(MD)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, 20 km NW Mt.Turgen-Ula, 20.7.1968, Arnoldi (typical form) (ZIN)
- Ubsu-Nur aimak, SW Orog-Nur Lake, 14km WSW from Ulan-Daba, 6.7.1968, Kaszab's exp. (typical form with Heyrovsky's identifications: "dorcas morozum")(MD)
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum maurum (Tuva Republic):
- Durgen (60 km S Kyzyl, 5km SE Bai-Khaak), 12.6.1990, Ryzhovsky leg. (typical form) (MD)
- Hadyn Lake (40 km s Kysyl) (typical form) (S.Kadlec collection)
- Torgalyk (30 km S Shagonar), 21.7.1949, Tsherepanov leg. (typical males and several females ab. leucotaenium) (MD)
- Ak-Chaara (20 km NE Ubsu-Nur Lake), 19.7.1976, Tsherepanov leg. (typical form) (MD)
- Samagaltai, 28.7.1970, Tsherepanov leg. (typical form with several females ab. leucotaenium) (MD)
- Tes River near Samagaltai, S.Ryzhkovsky leg. (typical form with a female ab. leucotaenium) (MD)
- East Tannu-Ola Ridge, Shara-Sur, 15.7.1968, Ju. Kostiuk leg. (typical males) (MD)
- Sagly (30 km NE Orog-Nur Lake), 8.7.1971, B.Korotiaev leg. (typical form) (MD)
- Mugur-Aksy (30 km NW Orog-Nur Lake), 11.7.1970, B.Korotiaev leg. (MD) (typical form) (MD)
Now I accept Cerambyx hispidulus Piller et Mitterpacher, 1783 as type species of
Pogonocherus Dejean, 1821 following the opinion of P.vácha (2003, personal communication):
Genus Pogonocherus Dejean, 1821
Type species: Cerambyx hispidus Fabricius, 1775 (nec Linnaeus, 1758) = Cerambyx hispidulus
Piller et Mitterpacher, 1783 (Guérin design., 1826). Dejean's 1821 catalogue contains "hispidus" without
any author's name, but, according to J.A. Chemsak (personal communication), Dejean in later editions of his
work (not seen by me) attributed the name to Fabricius. Also other indirect indications, such as selection
and ordering of species names or mentioning "(Cerambyx Fabricius)" under the generic name Pogonocherus,
suggest that Dejean used the classification of Fabricius. There is unfortunately no material of Fabricius'
Cerambyx hispidus in his collection in the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen (O.Martin, personal
communication), but hispidus sensu Fabricius was undoubtedly misidentified. Characterizing
Cerambyx hispidus, Fabricius (1775) obviously had before him Pogonocherus hispidulus since he
clearly mentioned bidentate elytral apex ("Cerambyx thorace spinoso, elytris apice bidentatis, antennis
mediocribus hirtis"), although he considered his specimen(s) identical to the Linnaean species (he also
cited the Linnaeus' 1758 description of Cerambyx hispidus from Systema Naturae, but that description
does not mention shape of elytral apex). Fabricius (1787) repeated his earlier characteristics of
C. hispidus and described Cerambyx pilosus which is probably the true Linnaean hispidus
(unidentate elytral apex). The name pilosus (again without author's name) was also included by Dejean.
I therefore accept the approach of Linsley et Chemsak (1985) and regard Pogonocherus hispidulus
(Piller et Mitterpacher, 1783) as the type species of Pogonocherus Dejean, 1821.
According to Lobanov et al. (1981), Pogonocherus dimidiatus = tristiculus. The synonymy was
accepted by G.O.Krivolutzkaia (in: Tsherepanov, 1996).
According to Gressitt (1951), Pogonocherus dimidiatus Blessig, 1973 = Pogonocherus seminiveus
Bates, 1873. Both names were accepted by Tsherepanov as the names of different species (island and continental).
I do not see the differences between both populations, so traditional synonymysation is right.
The dates of both names must be checked: according to Kusama and Takakuwa (1984) and Ohbayashi,
Sato et Kojima (1992): seminiveus Bates,1873 = dimidiatus Blessig, 1873.
According to Dzhavelidze and Danilevsky (1981), Pogonocherus caucasicus = Pogonocherus kuksha.
According to Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985), Pogonocherus sieversi = Pogonocherus caucasicus =
According to A.F.Bartenev's materials collected in Crimea from Pinus and identified by A.Lobanov in 1982,
Pogonocherus perroudi presents in Crimea.
According to P.vácha (personal communication, 2002) larvae of Pogonocherus perroudi from Pitsunda
(Georgia, Caucasus) were collected by J.Kratochvíl from Pinus in 1987 and adults were reared.
According to E.Vives (2000), the date of Pityphilus Mulsant is 1862.
Pogonocherus costatus (described from Jakutsk) was often regarded as dark Siberian (including Japan)
subspecies of Pogonocherus fasciculatus (Breuning, 1963, 1975; Kusama and Takakuwa, 1984). But similarly
colored specimens are also known even in Europe (Breuning, 1963), as well as in Siberea pale specimens are
also common (my materials). Pogonocherus fasciculatus = Pogonocherus costatus (see Danilevsky, 1998a).
Tsherepanov (1984) regarded both as different species with distinct larval characters. Caudal larval
plates of Tsherapnov's "costatus" from Tomsk environs are impossible for Pogonocherus fasciculatus.
The picture of imago is also very special, so identification of his species rests unclear. It is necessary to
try to look for these specimens in Novosibirsk.
According to P.vácha (personal communication of 2002), who studied the larvae of "Pogonocherus
costatus" from Tsherapanov's collection, most probably it is Pogonocherus decoratus. So,
Pogonocherus decoratus is distributed eastwards at least to Altai Region.
Oligoenoplus rosti iwatai Ikeda, 1987 was described from Japan.
According to E.Vives, Pogonocherus ovatus Goeze, 1777 was described as Cerambyx (not Sulzer,
1776) and must be replaced by Pogonocherus ovalis (Gmelin, 1790). The change can not be accepted
according to the Article 23.9. of ICZN (1999)
According to E.Vives (2000), Aegomorphus clavipes (Schrank, 1781) was described as
Cerambyx (not Forster, 1771) and must be replaced to Aegomorphus varius (Fabricius, 1787).
The change can not be accepted according to the Article 23.9. of ICZN (1999).
According to Sama (1995), Oplosia fennica (Paykull,1800), described as Lamia fennica
(nec Linnaeus, 1758) must be replaced with Oplosia cinerea (Mulsant, 1839).
According to Miroshnikov (1990) Acanthocinus giseus in Caucasus region is known from North Caucasus
(Ubinskaia, Gelendzhik) and from Armenia (Arzakan, Idzhevan).
According to Hasegawa (1996) Acanthocinus griseus orientalis is a species as well as
Acanthocinus carinulatus sachalinensis.
So, Kunashir (2 males and 3 females in my collection) and possibly Iturup (Krivolutzkaia, 1973) are
occupied by Acanthocinus orientalis, which is also distributed in Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku,
Kiushu, Tsushima, Yakushima).
Acanthocinus sachalinensis is distributed in Sakhalin, Hokkaido,
Russian Primorie, Korea and in North China. But my big series from Primorie, Amur Land, Chabarovsk and Magadan
Regions mostly consist of typical Acanthocinus carinulatus, though include several specimens, which
look close to specimens from Sakhalin (Acanthocinus sachalinensis), reaching Buriatia.
Acanthocinus carinulatus was recorded by Hasegawa from Altai to Buriatia only.
According to Hasegawa (1996), Acanthocinus griseus is totally absent in Siberia, though there are
some very typical specimens of Acanthocinus griseus in my collection from Tomsk and from Krasnoiarsk.
I've sent several series (3.2003) of my Russian Acanthocinus to Dr.M.Hasegawa for determination
and all my names were proved. So, according to my materials, determinated by Dr.M.Hasegawa:
1. Acanthocinus griseus is represented at least in West (Tomsk environs) and East
(Krasnoiarsk environs) Siberia. So, in Krasnoiarsk region Acanthocinus griseus can occur
sympatrically with Acanthocinus carinulatus.
2. Acanthocinus carinulatus is distributed eastwards to the Pacific Ocean (Amur Region and
Magadan environs), so from Buriatia to Far East it can occur sympatrically with Acanthocinus sachalinensis.
3. According to Dr.M.Hasegawa (24.3.2003): "Acanthocinus sachalinensis may be a vicarious species
of Acanthocinus griseus." It agrees with my materials.
Now, when the occurrence of Acanthocinus sachalinensis in Buriatia is proved, the synonymy
Acanthocinus carinulatus = Acanthocinus sibiricus Motschulsky became doubtful.
Acanthocinus sibiricus can be a valid name for Acanthocinus sachalinensis.
According to Michiaki Hasegawa (2003, personal communiction with the reference to Fujita, 1976),
the name "Acanthocinus oppositus Chevrolat, 1879" was used (Mitsuhashi, 1906) as a mis-quotation of
Anthoboscus oppositus Chevrolat, which was a junior synonym of Chlorophorus signaticollis
(CASTELNAU et GORY, 1841).
"Acanthocinus oppositus, Matsumura, 1931" from Hokkaido was Acanthocinus carinulatus,
according to Gressitt (1951). Acanthocinus oppositus Mitsuhashi, 1906 was mentioned as a synonym
of Acanthocinus carinulatus by Kusama and Takakuwa (1984) ["Hokkaido"]. The name concerns
Acanthocinus orientalis or Acanthocinus sachalinensis.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication of 1992), Leiopus caucasicus must be regarded as
a species, which is closer to Leiopus bedeli, than to Leiopus nebulosus.
According to Breuning (1978), Leiopus femoratus = Leiopus pachymerus.
According to Breuning (1978), Lobanov et al. (1981,1982) and Tsherepanov (1984) Leiopus malaisei
(described from Kamtchatka) is a species. According to Ivliev, Kononov (1966) it is just Leiopus
albivittis m. malaisei from Magadan environs. According to Danilevsky (1988a), it is Leiopus
albivittis ssp. malaisei.
According to Baeckmann (1924), Leiopus albivittis = albivittis ganglbaueri (described from Enisei
river southwards Krasnoiarsk); Pseudopidonia alticolluis = tristicula; Chloridolum sieversi =
According to Teocchi (1983), Exocentrus adspersus = Exocentrus alem-daghensis Breuning.
Exocentrus hirsutulus (Faldermann, 1837) described from Transcaucasia was recorded for
Caucasus (Lobanov et al., 1982) on the base of 2 specimens collected (in Nakhichevan) and identified by
S.M.Iablokov-Khnzorian (preserved in his own collection). Plavilstshikov (1927: 60) proposed to regard
the name as nomen nudum, because of poor description. The species was excluded from the genus revision by
Breuning (1958). I accept here the position by Winkler (1929)
Exocentrus adspersus = ? hirsutulus, that was also the supposition by Plavilstshikov (1927).
Due to the curtsey of M.Kalashian, I've studied once more (2003) two specimens from
S.M.Iablokov-Khnzorian's collection (now in the collection the Institute of Zoology, Erevan):
male with four labels: 1. "Kafan, Vokhin, 700, Azrb., 3.8.1950"; 2.
"Exocentrus sp.n., det. N.Plavilstshikov"; 3. "Exocentrus hirsutulus Faldermann";
4. "Exocentrus pseudopunctipennis Holzschuh, 1979, det. M.Danilevsky, 1985"
female with three labels: 1. "Kafan, Pirtsevan, Azrb., 3.8.1950"; 2.
"Exocentrus sp.n., det. N.Plavilstshikov"; 3. "Exocentrus pseudopunctipennis Holzschuh, 1979,
det. M.Danilevsky, 1985"
and I am able to prove my determination of 1985: both are Exocentrus pseudopunctipennis.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication of 1992) Exocentrus punctipennis from Transcaucasie
can be attributed to Exocentrus punctipennis signatus, described from Konstantinopol and recorded for
Turkey and Greece (Breuning, 1958).
Exocentrus punctipennis was recorded for Rostov Region by Kasatkin and Arzanov (1997), then
for Rostov Region, Minsk and Kiev by D.Kasatkin (1998).
A.I.Tsherepanov (1985) transferred Eumecocera to Saperdini on the base of larval characters;
recorded Oberea scutellaroides for Russia (as Oberea chinensis sp.n.); regarded Molorchus
semenovi as a subspecies of Molorchus kiesenwetteri Mulsant.
According to Danilevsky (1988d), Stenostola atra Gressitt, 1951 was recorded for Russia
(Lobanov et al., 1981, 1982) on the base of wrong determination of Eumecocera callosicollis.
According to J.Morati (2003), holotype and (?) paratype of Stenostola callosicollis ("Mandchourie,
Handaohetzy, VI.1938") are preserved in Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Geneve; as well as Holotype and
(?) paratypes) of Stenostola callosicollis m. incallosa Breuning, 1952.
E.Vives (2000) regards Cerambyx carcharias Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Saperda
(Westwood designation, 1840), while in fact it is Cerambyx scalaris Linnaeus, 1758 (Curtis designation,
1829). So, Anaerea is not a synonym of Saperda.
There is no type designation of Saperda in "Hist. Nat. Gen.et Partie" Tome 3 by Latreille
(1802: 215) as it was stated by some colleagues. Latreille's text: "Les saperdes de Fabricius. Exemple
Saperda carcharias Fabricius" - is not a type designation.
I prefer now to regard Saperda s.l. consisting of several subgenera including Lopezcolonia
(replacing name for Argalia Mulsant, 1862 not Gray, 1846).
According to Danilevsky (1993b): Saperda subobliterata = Saperda mandschukuoensis = A. harbinensis
(the last position was originally published by P. Dessart (1983).
Conizonia (Iranocoptosia) fausti = Iranocoptosia balashowskyi.
According to J.Morati (2003), holotype of Saperda mandschukuoensis (from near Kharbin) is
preserved in Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Geneve.
One female from Khabarovsk Region (10-17.7.1991, Shadinkov leg.) was preliminary identified by me as
Saperda bilineatocollis Pic. It is close to Saperda populnea, but without elytral spots and
with bright pronotal hair stripes.
According to Danilevsky and Miroshnikov, 1985, Stenostola maculipennis is a subspecies of
Nupserha alexandrovi must be included in Japan fauna (Tokio env., 24.7.32 and 27.7.38, N.Filippov
leg. - male and female in my collection).
The date of Nupserha alexandrovi was wronly mentioned by Lobanov et al. (1982) as 1921.
Many original Plavilstshikov's descriptions of 1915 were published once more in 17th (1917) volume of
Russ. Ent. Obozr. appeared in 1921. That is why wrong "1921" appeared in many publications (Gressitt, Breuning)
for: Macrorhabdium, Macrorhabdium ruficolle, Gaurotes kozhevnikovi,
Pseudopidonia unifasciata, Pseudopidonia subsuturalis, Ropalopus speciosus.
The synonymy Oberea herzi = coreana, accepted by Lobanov et al. (1981) and Tsherepanov (1985)
was wrong, and our reference to Breuning (1960-62) was not exact, as Breuning proposed another synonymy:
Oberea herzi = morio = scutellaroides = coreana. According to Gressitt (1951), all four are different
species. Here I regard Oberea morio = coreana and others names belong to different species.
I have two Oberea "herzi" in my collection. I've never seen the type. One of my specimens
(a female from Vladivostok) is exactly like a male from collection of C.Holzschuh, with very typical
elytral punctuation and with just same small humeral black spots. Another specimen (male from "Ussuri")
can be another species. It is of same size and same general coloration, but elytral punctuation is a little
smaller and bright black humeral spots are absent. Only dark (greyish) hardly pronounced humeral line is
developed along the whole elytral length. May be that is true Oberea herzi?
Oxylia argentata was recorded for Iran (Tegeran) by Breuning (1967) and for Crimea by Bartenev (1989).
Pteromallosia albolineata was regarded as Conizonia (Pteromallosia) albolineata by Breuning
(1954) or as Conizonia albolineata by Lobanov et al. (1982).
According to Danilevsky (1990), Mallosia scovitzi tristis Reitter, 1888 = Mallosia angelicae
A population of Mallosia from Armenia northwards Bichenek Pass (Angechakot, 1600m, 20.6.87, Kadlec
et Voříšek leg. - one male in my collection) is morphologically identical to typical Mallosia tristis
from Talysh. Taking into account that typical Mallosia scovitzi is very common southwards Bichenek
Pass and all around Armenia, I prefer to regard Mallosia tristis as a species.
Paramallosia afghanica Fuchs was found in Turkmenia: one specimen from Kopet-Dag (without exact
data) in collection of S.Murzin and one female (Kopet-Dag, Ipai-Kala, 6.5.1989) in my collection.
Phytoecia kubani described from Tadzhikistan must be placed in Conizonia.
A male of Phytoecia (Helladia) humeralis and a male of Conizonia (Eurycoptosia) bodoani
(both in my collection) were found by V.Siniaev (1992) in Talysh.
Phytoecia tigrina (Armenia) and Agapanthia maculicornis (Dagestan) were recorded for
Caucasus by Miroshnikov (1990).
According to my observations, Agapanthia maculicorinis was rather numerous in Volgograd Region (June
1999) on Tragopogon (Compositae). The species was also recorded (Bense, 1995) for Helianthus, and
(Kovacs and Hegyessy, 1997) for Campanula glomerata. While very close Agapanthia korostelevi
develops in Armenia on Scorzonera pulchra (Compositae).
Conizonia (Coptosia) bithyniensis Ganglbauer, 1884 was recorded for Ordubad by Breuning (1954).
Coptosia was regarded as a genus by Plavilstshikov (1948), Bense (1995).
According to Breuning (1966: 741) it is a subgenus of Conizonia.
According to Lobanov et al. (1981), it is a subgenus of Phytoecia.
According to Danilevsky (1988d), Mallosia imperatrix Daniel was recorded for USSR fauna (Lobanov
et al., 1982) after wrong interpretation of Plavilstshikov's (1948) record for Armenia
Mallosia imperatrix cribratofasciata Daniel, that is just a synonym of Mallosia caucasica Pic
(Breuning, 1954). Mallosia imperatrix absent in Transcaucasie.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication of 1992) most of subgenera of Phytoecia s.l. must
be regarded as genera. Pseudocoptosia must be subgenus of Conizonia, and Pseudomusaria must
be a subgenuas of Musaria.
I regard: Phytoecia cinerascens Kraatz, 1882 = Phytoecia sokolovi Semenov, 1895 and
Phytoecia eylandti Semenov, 1891 = Phytoecia glasunovi Semenov, 1895.
I (1994) identified in Dubatolov's (Novosibirsk) materials:
1 male of Agapanthia nigriventris (Badkhyz, 20-25km SE Polekhatum, Gezgiadyk Ridge, 15-16.4.93,
D.V. Logunov leg.);
Phytoecia eylandti (Badkhyz);
Dorcadion gebleri (Kemirkol Lake, SW Kurchum, 26.6);
Dorcadion eurygyne (left Irtysh bank near Ust-Kamenogorsk, Menovoe, 19.8.88 and Serebriansk env.,
I received 1 male and 2 females of Agapanthia nigriventris (Badkhyz, Gezgiadyk, 10.4.1993, A.Klimenko leg.).
According to Plavilstshikov (1961), Phytoecia farinosa = mucida.
Phytoecia pretiosa ninives Sama, 1994 was described from Irak.
According to Danilevsky and Kadlec (1990) 3 ex. of Phytoecia (Helladia) orbicollis were collected
near Biurakan. S.Kadlec accepted (2002) the opinion of G.Sama and P.Rapuzzi (2000: 20) that
Helladia orbicollis is endemic of Liban. From Turkey to Armenian Republic it is replaced by
Helladia adelpha (Ganglbauer). According to Rejzek, Sama and Alziar (2001: 279), it is a subspecies
Helladia orbicollis adelpha (Ganglbauer, 1885), but according to Sama and Rejzek (2001: 242) it
is a separate species Helladia adelpha (Ganglbauer, 1884). Now I've accepted here the last position
with the date of original description (1885) from Breuning (1951).
A big series of Phytoecia iranica in collection of C.Holzschuh (Vienna) includes specimens with
same elytral design as in Phytoecia armeniaca and as in Phytoecia natali; though in Armenia
strong development (and fusion) of black elytral spots is unknown. Phytoecia natali is up to now (2001)
known after only one specimen (from near Altyagach in Azerbajdzhan). Until new materials available it would be
better to regard all 3 taxa as subspecies.
Phytoecia rubropunctata was recorded for Czechia and Slovakia by Heyrovský (1955), for Crimea by
Plavilstshikov (1965) and on the base of this record by Lobanov et al. (1982) for USSR. According to
Bense (1995) all records of Phytoecia rubropunctata for East Europe were connected with wrong
determination of Phytoecia argus. The easten most locality of Phytoecia rubropunctata is in
Phytoecia affinis (Europe), tuerki (Brousse, Turkey), boeberi (Teberda) and
volgensis (Volga River) were usually regarded as different species (Breuning, 1951; Plavilstshikov,
1965; Lobanov et al., 1984). The natural relations between all four taxa are not clear.
I do not now in Caucasus specimens with so bright orange pubescence as in certain specimens from Brusse
(but other specimens can be very similar to Caucasian).
All specimens from Volgograd environs are with pale elytral pubescence and such typical Phytoecia
volgensis can be collected westwards up to Stavropol, though already from Daghestan they are mixed with
specimens covered by black pubescence and both forms can be here with red or black pronotum. Even in
Teberda the typical Phytoecia boeberi with black pronotum are mixed with specimens of red pronotum,
which are very close to European Phytoecia affinis (Phytoecia affinis from Europe also can be
sometimes with black pronotum as well as with pale elytral pubescence).
Specimens with black pronotum are dominant in Armenia, Azerbaidzhan (including Nakhichevan),
East Georgia (Tbilisi and eastwards) and seems in north Caucasus from Daghestan to Stavropol.
Specimens with red pronotum are dominant in West Caucasus including West Georgia (Borzhomi), Black
Sea Coast, Krasnodar environs and mountains around Guseriple.
So I prefer now to regard all four taxa as subspecies.
Phytoecia affinis nigropubescens is a preliminary name for Caucasian subspecies with red pronotum
specimens dominating. I do not know the type locality of this name - if it is Teberda, then
boeberi = nigropubescens, and for West Caucasian subspecies must be found another name (circassica
Reitter, 1888; starcki Reitter, 1888).
The combinations Phytoecia nigripes ssp. nigropubescens and Phytoecia nigripes ssp.
tuerki were published by Villiers (1978).
Phytoecia astarte lederi, distributed in Transcaucasie, differs from the nominative subspecies
from Turkey by black elytral pubescence.
Phytoecia puncticollis stygia Ganglbauer, 1886 from Kopet-Dag is always with black prothorax.
According to Breuning (1951) the author of Phytoecia (Neomusaria) suvorovi is not Koenig, 1906
(Plavilstshikov, 1930, 1948), but Pic, 1905.
The species was recorded for Caucasus by Lobanov et al., (1982) and for Armenia (Megri) by Danilevsky,
Miroshnikov (1985), both records were without exact data. One mail was collected in sands near Goravan by
Phytoecia analis Mannerheim, 1849, not Phytoecia analis (Fabricius,1781), was changed by
Breuning (1951) to Phytoecia mannerheimi. I do not know, why another names (ferrea Ganglbauer, 1887;
or atropygidialis Pic, 1939)were not used.
According to Lobanov et al. (1981), Phytoecia pustulata (m. pulla) = Phytoecia kryzhanovskii.
According to Danilevsky (1992), Phytoecia pustulata = Phytoecia pilipennis (Ordubad).
Phytoecia pustulata from Kazakhstan and from SE Russia is sometimes without red pronotal spot,
and body is covered with very long and dense white pubescence. Such specimens (m. pulla) from Kazakhstnan
and Uzbekistan (Karatau Ridge, Chatkal Ridge, Chu-Ili Mts and eastwards to Semipalatinsk) were described as
Phytoecia kryzhanovskii and must be regarded as Phytoecia pustulata ssp. pulla. The subspecies
was accepted by Heyrovský (1958) for Astrakhan env. In my collection Phytoecia pustulata pulla is
represented by a syntype (male) from Karatau, male from Dzhungarsky Alatau, male from Sary-Chelek (Kirgizia)
and a male from Chechnia (Caucasus). Some Kazakhstan and Kirgizian populations can not be attributed to
Phytoecia pustulata pulla, being rather typical Phytoecia pustulata pustulata (Bishkek env.,
Also specimens from Caucasus are often darker with veru dense pubescence and can be regarded as
Phytoecia pustulata murina.
According to G.Sama (1988a: 184), the records of Phytoecia rufipes for Siberia and Central Asia
are connected with wrong identification of another species - Phytoecia sibirica. Same statemen
(Sama, 1988) was explained by monophagy of Phytoecia rufipes on Foeniculum, which is absent
in Russia and Central Asia.
After study of my series of Phytoecia rufipes from Kazakhstan G.Sama (personal communication, 2002)
recognized, that it did not differ from European specimens and must be identified as Phytoecia rufipes.
According to my observations, Phytoecia rufipes developes in Kazakhstan and Central Asia on Prangos spp.
Phytoecia rufipes latior Pic, 1895 (Akbes, Turkey) was restored by Sama (1996).
According to G.Sama (2002: 116), Phytoecia sibirica is a species.
According to M.Rejzek, G.Sama, G. Alziar and J.Sadlo (2003), Phytoecia rufipes is oligophagous on
Apiaceae. Among its host-plants were mentioned: Foeniculum and Cnidium.
Phytoecia cinctipennis was recorded for Kurgan Region of Russia (Tsherepanov,1982).
Phytoecia (Opsilia) tienschanica was described after two specimens: holotype (male) from
"Sussamyrgebirge, Ketmen Tjube" (Ketmen-Tiube on the south bank of Toktogul water reserve, Kirizia) and
a female from Narynkol. I saw in Vienna both specimens from Fuchs private collection. Both specimens are
rather dark, but not black with distinct blue pubescence. They are sure conspecific to numerous
Phytoecia coerulescens collected by me in deifferent parts of Central Asia (Alabel Pass -
just near type locality, Karatau, Chimgan, Kuramin Ridge, Zaamin Ridge, Nuratau, Samarkand, Piandzh,
Marka-Kol, Zyrianovsk). I am not sure if this form is conspecific to European and Caucasian
Phytoecia bucharica was described from "OST BUCHARA, Tschitschantan, Nufswald, Fabricius Hauser
1898" (two syntypes in collection of C.Holzschuh). The locality is situated in Tadzhik area (Vorukh)
southwards Isfara (39°51'N,70°35'E).
Phytoecia breuningi G.Dahlgren, 1988 was described after one female from same series
(Ost Buchara, Nusswald,Tschitschantan, Fabricius Hauser, 1898), which is preserved in Ebersvalde and was
studied by me. So, Phytoecia bucharica = Phytoecia breuningi.
Two such males from Tadzhikistan are preserved in collection of C.Holzschuh (Gandzhino, Kizil-Kala, 1200m,
12-13.4.1978, V.Dolin leg.).
I've compared a big series of Opsilia (22 males and 14 females from Afghanistan (Nurestan,
N Waigal riv., 2000-3000m, IV-VII, 1971-73, O.Kabakov leg.) with 4 Opsilia bucharica of C.Holzschuh.
Variability range of Afghan series includes all known to me specimens of Phytoecia bucharica and I
do not see aven subspecific differences.
Phytoecia prasina (described from Luristan) was recorded for Talysh (Danilevsky, Kadlec, 1990).
The record (Breuning, 1951) for "Buchara" (Tadzhikistan?) is very doubtful.
One specially coloured female was collected by Miroshnikov in Armenia (Gehard).
After study of big series of Balcan Phytoecia vittipennis and Armenien Phytoecia pravei
I see the distinct constant differences, so I cancel the synonymy published by Lobanov et al. (1981) and
prefer now to return to Plavilstshikov's position on two different species. Breuning (1951) regarded both as
I collected Phytoecia prawei in Turkmenia (8ex.: Kopet-Dag, Dushak Mt.,1800m, 23.6.1992).
The tribe Hippopsini was included in Agapanthiini by Breuning (1962, 1966). The genera
Calamobius and Theophilea were regarded in Agapanthiini (Breuning, 1966). This natural position
was accepted by (Chemsak et al., 1982).
The typical Agapanthia violacea and Agapanthia intermedia from Centarl Europe (France and
Czechia) are really rather different (Agapanthia violacea without dense white pubescence on metepisternum,
long erect elytral setae are gradually shortened backwards reaching apices; while in Agapanthia intermedia
long setae are only near shoulders.
According to my materials from Moscow to Saratov only typical Agapanthia intermedia are distributed.
In steppe area a variable taxon of transitional characters is very numerous (species?): in my materials
from Kherson through Volgograd to Ural valley.
In North Caucasus (Krasnodar and Stavropol regions) both forms (violacea and intermedia are
In Crimea only Agapanthia violacea is distributed.
In Transcaucasie local forms similar to Agapanthia violacea are very common as well as
Agapanthia persicola (Talysh, Nakhichevan, Megri, Kafan, Agveran; a series from Kopet-Dag collected
from Rumex), differing dense white pubescence of metepisternum (in Agapanthia intermedia the episternal
pubescence is concentrared in line) and very dense erect elytral pubescence reaching apices. All big
Agapanthia from Transcaucasia belong to Agapanthia chalybaea, also distributed in East and
Central Anatolia (Agapanthia osmanlis, described from Stambul env., absent in Transcaucasia -
I've got it from Bulgaria and Hungary). Agapanthia chalybaea can be green, blue and metallic-gray.
Besides a small bright-green Agapanthia is very numerous in Khosrov, with very rough pronotal
punctation, episternum pubescence like in Agapanthia intermedia, but with numerous erect elytral
setae (new species?).
The easten most locality of Agapanthia intermedia in my materials is in Karaganda environs.
Rather typical Agapanthia violacea is in my materials from Zailiisky Alatau (Talgar),
Dzhungarsky Alatau, Tarbagatai.
In South Kazakhstan and Kirgizia (Chimkent, Karatau, Talassky Alatau, Chu-Ili Mts., Ily River Valley,
Bishkek env.) Agapanthia talassica (described as Agapanthia violacea talassica). Series of syntypes
is preserved in my collection (2 males and 2 females, S. Kazakhstan, Talassky Alatau, Daubaba, 15.4.62,
22.4.62, 7.5.1962, A. Badenko leg.). The species is close to Agapanthia persicola, but erect elytral
setae are rather long au to elytral apices.
Agapanthia incerta described from Tadhikistan is close to Agapanthia talassica, but well
differs by very big eyes; no other blue Agapanthia in Tadzhikistan. It is also known from near Samarkand.
Agapanthia muellneri and Agapanthia soror were recorded for Kazakhstan (Zailiisky Alatau)
by Kadyrbekov and Tleppaeva (1997); both species were mentioned by Kostin (1973,1978),
but without exact data. Rhagium inquisitor, Saperda perforata, Xylotrechus rusticus
were also recoded for Zailiisky Alatau.
Agapanthia soror, Saperda perforata, Xylotrechus rusticus were recorded for
North Tian-Shan by Kadyrbekov (1999).
I've studied the the syntypes of Agapanthia bucharica in Paris. Both small bright females are
identical to Agapanthia detrita, so Agapanthia detrita = Agapanthia bucharica. They are a little
similar to Agapanthia kirbyi, which is absent in Central Asia, and have no connection with
Agapanthia hauseri. So position of Breuning (1961), hauseri = bucharica (accepted by
Lobanov et al., 1981) was wrong. The similarity to Agapanthia kirbyi, which was also stated in the
original description is connected with relatively uniform elytral pubescense. The old name of type locality
"Buchara" is most probably connected with modern Tadzhikistan (see, for example, Semenov-Tian-Shansky, 1935).
Plavilstshikov (1968) regarded the taxon as a species with special record for Chardzhou (Turkmenia).
In my description of Agapanthia obydovi Danilevsky, 2000 I supposed the occurense of
Agapanthia detrita in Dzhungarsky Alatau based on Plavilstshikov's (1968) record for Panfilov
(Dzharkent). Now (2002) I can prove it for Koksu River Valley (one female, 8.6.2001, O.Gorbunov leg.).
I've also got a pair of Agapanthia detrita from Ketmen Ridge (Podgornoe, 2.6.2001, O.Gorbunov leg.).
The species is also distributed along Zailiisky Alatau: a pair from Syuktobe Mt. (18.5.2001, Danilevsky leg.),
a male from Talgar (17.5.1967, Falkovich leg., collection of ZIN).
Agapanthia lateralis was recorded for USSR (Lobanov et al., 1982) on the base of old doubtful
data (Pic, 1910; Reitter,1898) and must be exluded from the list of the region.
According to Hayashi (1979) Leptura doii was described from "Etorofu, South Kurile Islands" and
is a synonym of Leptura aethiops. Leptura doii was recorded as a species for Iturup Island by
Krivolutzkaia 1973 and then based on this record for USSR by Lobanov et al. (1981). The taxon was restored
by Kusama snd Takakuwa (1984) with larger data on type locality: "Island Etorofu, Kurile Islands, Hokkaido".
The restoration was not suppoted by Ohbayashi et al. (1992).
Eutetrapha sedecimpunctata = Saperda motschulskyi (Tsherepanov, 1985).
According to Danilevsly (1988c), Agapanthia auliensis Pic (described from Aulie-Ata = Dzhambul =
Taraz) is a valid name for the species wrongly identified by Plavilstshikov (1968) and Kostin (1973) as
Agapanthia angelicae. The species absent in Turkmenia and Uzbekistan; it is distributed in Kazakhstan
from Muinkumy to Ily River Valley. I've got big series both from near Taraz and from near Kapchagai and can
not see any differences.
Because of this old mistake the species was described from Ily Valley once more under the name
Agapanthia amabilis Holzschuh. I've seen the type series and have specimens from Holzschuh's
collection, so Agapanthia auliensis = Agapanthia amabilis.
Recently several localities of Agapanthia auliensis were published (Kadyrbekov et al., 1998).
Together with known localities (Taraz environs, Muiunkumy Desert northwards Tatty and Kapchagai) two
new were discovered. First: NE Kyzylkumy, Karatau Mts westwards Syr-Darja near Bairkum (10.5.1992).
The locality is so far from the known area, that the species identification needs to be checked. Second:
Almaty region, 18 km eastwards Aksuek (24.4.95). I often observed here a lot of Agapanthia obydovi on
Eremurus sp., and the presence of another species on Eremurus seems to be very doubtful.
The date of Agapanthia altaica songarica was wrongly mentioned by Lobanov at al.(1982) and by
Tsherepanov (1984: 170 - as "songarica") as 1978. The subspecies was described as Agapanthia dahli
songarica Kostin, 1973 (a series of syntypes from Chernaia Rechka near Lepsinsk in my collection) and in
fact is a local form of Agapanthia alternans, as well as Agapanthia altaica tarbagataica
(a series of syntypes from Aktugai in Tarbagatai in my collction). So, Agapanthia aternans = Agapanthia
dahli songarica = Agapanthia altaica tarbagataica.
According to my (23.6.2002) observations, Agapanthia dahli in North and East Kazakhstan and
in West Siberia (from Cheliabinsk and Kurgan to Petropavlovsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk and Dzhungarsky Alatau
is connected with Malva; Agapanthia alternans is always monophagous on Prangos; while
Agapanthia altaica is connected with Paeonia (Plavilstshikov, 1968; Tsherepanov, 1984: 174)
- so, the statement by Rejzek et al. (2003: 170), that Agapanthia simplicicornis was the first
member of the genus discovered on Paeonia was wrong.
So Agapanthia altaica must be excluded from Kazakhstan fauna.
Agapanthia villosoviridescens was wrongly recorded by Lobanov et al. (1982) for Far East
Russia and East Asia without any reasons. According to Tsherepanov (1984), Agapanthia villosoviridescens
= Agapanthia daurica.
According to personal communication of Zahaikevitch (1982), he identified Vadonia bisignata Brullé
from near Kishinev. Vadonia bisignata was mentioned by Zahaikevitch (1991: 148). According to
personal communication of J.Voříšek (1992), this statement is impossible, because Vadonia bisignata
is known only from Peloponnessos and Thessaloniki. It could be Vadonia moesiaca, known from Roumania.
Rhopaloscelis caucasicus Danilevsky (nomen nudum), mentioned by Lobanov et al. (1982),
was marked out on the base of wrong identification of Rhopaloscelis schurmanni.
According to personal communication of Zahaikevitch (1983), in Cerambycinae several supertribes
could be criated: Cerambycites, Rosaliites, Callidiites, Clytites, Callichromites, Molorchites.
The last supertribed is the most specialized one.
Dorcadion leopardinum was recorded for USSR by Lobanov et al. (1982) without any reasons
The separation of Callidium aeneum in subgenus Callidostola was accepted by Winkler (1929),
Kusama and Takakuwa (1984) and others. For Villiers (1978), Bily and Mehl (1989) it is a genus.
The genus Trichoferus was sometimes regarded (Villiers, 1946) as a subgenus of Hesperophanes.
According to Rose (1983), Penichroa is in Hesperophanini.
The type species of Olenecamptus, according to Lobanov et al. (1982) is Olenecamptus serratus
Chevrolat, according to Gressitt (1951) is Olenecamptus serratus Chevrolat, 1835 = bilobus
Fabricius, according to Plavilstshikov (1958), is Saperda bilobus Fabricius, 1801.
Oplosia suvorovi was regarded as a species by Tsherepanov (1984). According to Tsherepanov (1984),
it is distributed not only in Japan, SE Siberia (Amur Region in my materials) and Far East of the continental
Russia, but also in Sakhalin Island, Korea and China (no references to any publication or materials).
Agapanthia lais Reiche, 1858 was described from Balkan Peninsula ("du Peloponese") and absent in
Central Asia. It was recorded for Tadzhikistan by Plavilstshikov (1968), Lobanov et al. (1982) because of
wrong identification of Agapanthia incerta.
According to the study of the type series of Chlorophorus motschulskyi chasanensis Tsherepanov, 1982
form Khasan Lake by A.Lobanov (personal communication of 1987) it is a synonym of the nominative form.
Special reference must be made in the case when the original description was prepared by the author,
who was not the author of the publication.
Due to unpredictable and unprecedented delay of the publication of my aticle (Danilevsky, 1987)
by "Revue d'Entomologie de l'URSS" more than for 3 years, all new names of this paper were published in
the key by Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985) without full description, photographs and type materials.
So, the type materials, published in 1987, were represented by lectotypes and paralectotypes.
According to Danilevsky (1999d), Exocentrus curtipennis Pic 1918 recorded for USSR by Plavilstshikov
(1932), Lobanov et al. (1982), was previously described as Exocentrus fasciolatus Bates, 1873 (Breuning,
1958) from Japan and absent in Russia.
According to Danilevsky (1988a), Oberea scutellaroides Breuning = Oberea chinensis Tsherepanov.
A series of "Oberea chinensis" in Tsherapanov's collection consists of two species: pale specimens
are Oberea herzi, dark specimens are Oberea morio; but no Oberea scutellaroides.
I've got a big series of Oberea scutellaroides from Russia (Ussuri-Land, Barabash-Levada, 2-4.6.1989,
S.Nikireev leg. and same locality, 24-30.5.1989, D.Obydov leg.).
Arhopaloscelis bifasciatus (as Rhopaloscelis) was recorded for Sakhalin and Kunahir by
Euribatus gravidus was placed in USSR list by Lobanov et al. (1981) on the base of Heyrovský
(1952) record: "Turcmenia, Kara-Kum Wüste", which is unbelievable.
Eutetrapha chrysargirea was recorded by Krivolutzkaia (1973) for Kuriles on own materials and
then by Lobanov et al. (1982). It was evidently wrong determination of Eutetrapha chrysochloris (which
was "absent" in Krivolutzkaia's materials). She included in the area of her "chrysargirea" East Siberea,
so joined island species to continental Eutetrapha metallescens. In fact Eutetrapha chrysochloris
chrisargirea (described from Honshu) is a south Japan subspecies (Kusama, Takakuwa, 1985) and absent on
Kuriles, Hokkaido and the continent.
According to Villiers (1978), American genus Cyrtophorus absent in Palaearctic Region. If it
would be necessary to separate Anaglyptus bicallosus and Anaglyptus gibbosus in Anaglyptus
s.str., then other subgenus needs a new name.
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication of 1992), he has Dorcadion scabricolle and
Dorcadion similar to Dorcadion argonauta from Kara-Kala, Dorcadion holosericeum from
Chuli (all localities in Turkmenia). All specimens were "collected" by Potopolsky (Ashkhabad) - the data are
According to Lobanov et al. (1981), Xylotrechus rufilius = Xylotrechus irinae, that was accepted by
Xylotrechus magnicollis, described from West China (and known from Taiwan to Burma and Assam),
was recorded for Russia by Gressitt (1951) and Hayashi (1992) on the base of synonymy:
Xylotrechus magnicollis = Xylotrechus irinae. The species identity of Xylotrechus rufilius
and Xylotrechus magnicollis is rather possible (according to my series from Taiwan).
According to Miroshnikov (personal communication of 1993) Dorcadion ciscaucasicum = Dorcadion mokrzeckii.
Dorcadion "cinerarium" from Taman peninsula is Dorcadion panticapaeum. The record was published
by Kasatkin and Arzanov (1997).
According to Miroshnikov (personal communication of 1993), old materials collected by Vostrikov are
often with strange (and wrong) locality data:
Dorcadion elegans - Elisavetpol (= Kirovabad = Giandzha)
Dorcadion wagneri - Tersk. Region, Naurskaia
Dorcadion scabricolle - Groznyi
According to J.Voříšek (personal communication of 1992), Apatophysis pavlovskii must be placed in
subgenus Protapatophysis Semenov et Schegleva-Barovskaya, 1935, but in fact it has no special characters:
female coxae are widely separated as in Apatophysis s.str., males and females without glabrous pad
line of all tarsi joints, 3rd tarsi joints are with sharp lobes.
According to E.Vives (2000) Penichroa fasciata (desribed as Callidium fasciatum Stephens, 1931,
not Herbst, 1784, not Billberg, 1817) must be replaced with Penichroa timida (Menetries, 1831). The
necessaty of the name change must be checked in agree with Article 23.9.1. of ICZN (1999).
According to P.vácha in vácha, Danilevsky (1989: 19), Strangalia = Strangalina.
According to Tsherepanov (1987):
Stenocurus quercus was recorded for West Saian Mts. (so probably is also distributed in West Siberia?).
Anoplodera rufipes was recorded for West Saian Mts. (so probably is also distributed in West Siberia?).
Phymatodes testaceus was recorded for Altai (Maima River, 5km from Kyzyl-Ozek)
Several wrong records for Tadzhikistan were made by A.K.Kadyrov (1989), sometimes with wrong references
to Semenov-Tian-Shanskij (1935). The following reported species absent in Tadzhikistan:
Pogonarthron tschitscherini (recorded as Prionus)
Polylobarthrom margelanicus (recorded as Prionus)
Under the names Oberea erythrocephala and Oberea ruficeps most probably one species was
recorded - Oberea ruficeps (ssp. muchei ?). For both species Saccharum officinarum was recorded as a food
plant, while up to now they are known only from Euphorbia.
Volume 9th of Rev. Russe d'Entom. with Suvorov's descriptions of 1909 has on the title another date - 1910.
Volume 10-th of Rev. Russe d'Entom. with Suvorov's descriptions of 1910 has on the title another date - 1911.
Volume 11-th of Rev. Russe d'Entom. with description of Rosalia coelesthis Semenov and Suvorov's descriptions of 1911 has on the title another date - 1912.
There is a male of Alosterna scapularis from Kopet-Dag in Zoological Museum, St.-Petersburg
(Nukhur, Transcaspian Reg., Archman env., Christof leg.).
Eodorcadion humerale (Gebler, 1823; Mem.Soc.Nat.Moscou), but not Eodorcadion humerale humerale
(Fischer-Waldheim, 1823; Mem.Soc.Nat.Moscou), as it was published by Breuning (1961), though Fischer-Waldheim
(1823) also published the description of Dorcadion humerale, but in his "Entomographia Imperii Rossici"
and with reference to Gebler.
In Gebler's description the type locality was mentioned precisely "... in pratis fabricae Petrovsk prope
The pictures to "Entomographia imperii Rossici" vol.2. 1923-24 by Fischer-Waldheim were published before
(1923). So the date of new names is 1923 if they are illustrated, if not - 1924.
The date of Dorcadion glicyrrhizae (Pallas), published as Cerambyx in "Reise durch verschiedene
Provinzen des Russischen Reichs, T.2", is 1773, as it was shown in the references to the article by
Danilevsky (2001a), but not 1771, as it was wrongly mentioned in the title of the article and in
its text (pp. 1-4). The mistake was left in the paper after first version of my text based on Breuning
It is not evident that Rhamnusium bicolor and Rhamnusium gracilicorne are different species.
But if they are different (Villiers, 1978), then Rhamnusium bicolor is distributed only in West Europe.
I've got from P.V. Romantzov (St.-Petersburg) two similar Cortodera ruthena from Aktiubinsk
Region (Kazakhstan): yellow elytrae, black legs and abdomen (male: Temir valley, Pokrovsky 22.5.2000
Romantzov leg.; female: Karahobda River, Alpaisai 26.5.2000 Romantzov leg.) - new subspecies?
A. Shapovalov (Orenburg) collected two females of Cortodera ruthena ruthena in Orenburg Region
(Sol-Iletzk District, Krutye-Gorki, 31.5-1.6.2003)
A pair of Grammoptera gracilis were collected on Sakhalin by R.V.Filimonov (Sakhalin,
Susunai Ridge, 10km E Novoalexandrovsk, 29.06.91).
Tetrops formosa was described from Issyk-Kul (Kirgizia). I've seen (2002) several specimens of
Tetrops fomosa in Heyrovský's collection (Prague) with labels: "Kreise Karakol, Issyk-Kul, 2.6.31,
V.Parfentiev" and "Issyk-Kul, Terski-Tau, 6.1902, coll. Hauser". It has red elytra and totally red antennae
and pronotum. I treat as nominative my two specimens from near Merke (Kazakhstan at the border with Kirgizia).
Tetrops formosa bivittulata Jankowski, 1934, described from Zailiisky Alatau (Alma-Ata) as a
variation differs from the nominative subspecies by dark general colour and specially by usual presence
of elongated elytral black spots. It was regarded as a subspecies distributed in Zailiisky Alatau by
Kostin (1973: 206) under the name "Tetrops formosa bivittulata Plavilstshikov". Wrong attribution
of the name to Plavilstshikov was repeated by Lobanov et al. (1981: 790-791) in the wrong synonymization:
"Tetrops formosa formosa Baeckmann, 1903 = Tetrops formosa bivittulata Plavilstshikov, 1954
(sensu Kostin, 1973)". Tetrops formosa bivittulata has usually black elongated spot on each elytron
and black two basal antennal joints, but sometimes elytra and antennae are totally red.
Tetrops formosa songarica (Dzhungarsky Alatau near Lepsinsk - Chernaia Rechka) is similarly
red as the nominative subspecies, but pronotum is always partly black, sometimes elytra are with dark spots.
O.Mehl reared a series of Tetrops formosa ssp.n. from Malus twigs collected (1991)near
Arslan-Bob in Fergansky Ridge (Kirgizia). Specimens are daker than Tetrops formosa formosa, but in
general lighter than Tetrops formosa bivittulata, though black elytral stripes are often present,
as well as only two basal antennal joints are black.
Possibly similar form is distributed near Terek-Say (Kassan-Say River - central part of the south slope
of Chatkal Ridge - one female in my collection with only two basal antennal joints black and black elytral spots.
Another new subspecies of Tetrops formosa must be distributed in Kirgizia near At-Bashi, according
to my single specimen, which is coloured similar to Tetrops formosa songarica, but pronotum with very
dense recumbent pubescens among erect setae.
Tetrops hauseri hauseri up to now seems to be known only from Sary-Chelek. According to a series
of Tetrops hauseri hauseri, collected by me in Sary-Chelek (2004), it can be with only two basal
antennal joints black (that is why Tetrops formosa m. bicoloricornis Plavilstshikov, 1959 was
decribed from Saery-Chelek) and with rather red elytra (with only small black elonagated spots). So the
colour patterns of Tetrops hauseri and Tetrops formosa can be same. Both species can be easily
distinguished by the character of pronotal punctation, which is very fine in Tetrops hauseri.
The species attribution of Tetrops hauseri nigra (unknown to me) from Tekes River valley near Narynkol
in Kazakhstan is doubtful. It can be a form of Tetrops formosa.
The statement of Kostin (1973), that in Ily valley two Tetrops species: "Tetrops plavilstshikovi"
(= elaegni) and Tetrops formosa songarica live together is wrong. According to his materials in
Zoological Museum (St.-Petersburg), he identified less pubescent Tetrops elaeagni from Ily valley as
Tetrops formosa songarica. So Tetrops formosa songarica is distributed only in Dzhungarsky
Alatau and absent in Ily River valley.
Tetrops elaeagni seems to be first recorded for Russia by Althoff, Danilevsky (1997).
I've put this record on the base of my two specimens from Dzhanybek, which is situated exactly on
Russia-Kazakhstan border. The species is also known from Amu-Darja River Valley in Turkmenia (see Kostin,
The iterpretation of two species of European Stenostola is different in different publications.
According to Bílý and Mehl (1989), the species with more developed metallic lustre and rough elytral
punctationis is Stenostola ferrea ("Body black with slight metallic lustre. Elytra with coarse
punctuation." Villiers (1978) accepted same position: "Corp d'un noir ardoisé, a net reflet métallique."
But for Bense (1995) Stenostola ferrea: "Elytra macroscopically without a blue metallic shine; ...",
and Stenostola dubia: "Elytra macroscopically with a distinct blue shine; ...". This position was
accepted by Heyrovský (1955), Plavistshikov (1965) and many other authors incuding Danilevsky and Miroshnikov
(1985 - so Stenostola ferrea maculipennis Holzschuh belongs to European species with less metallic lustre,
finer punctuation and denser pubescence). That is why all faunistical records of two species are doubtful.
According to Plavilstshikov (1965) Stenostola in the European part of the USSR was distributed
southwards from the south of forest areas. According to Bense (1995), Stenostola ferrea is distributed in
Baltic Republics; according to Alexandrovitch et al. (1996) Stenostola presents in Belarus. I've got
two males of Stenostola dubia (sensu Bense) from Vladimir Region (Koltchugino Distr., Zhuravlikha,
on Salix caprea, 9.5.2001, Svetlov leg.).
One pair of Anaesthetis flavipilis (Barnaul env., Goretovskaia, 2.6.1901) is preserved now
(2001) in Zoological Museum (St.-Petersburg). According to the original description, two syntypes were
collected in Barnaul env. (10-13.6.1899 and 2.6.1901). The species is very similar to Anaesthetis
confossicollis and differs only by yellow colour of pubescence. Both Siberian species differs from
Anaesthetis testacea by big and scattered pronotal punctuation.
Up to now Anaesthetis flavipilis seems to be knowm only from type locality and was never collected
after original description.
The synonymisation of Breuning (1975): Anaesthetis flavipilis = Mimosophronica strandiella (which was
described from Kuldzha) looks very doubtful.
All Anaesthetis testacea from different parts of Caucasus (from Ciscaucasia to Transcaucasia)
differ from European specimens by longer pronotal pubescence and denser pronotal punctuation. So they represent
a separate subspecies, which can be named Anaesthetis testacea rufescens Beckmann, 1903. The taxon
was described as Anaesthetis testacea var. rufescens from Beshtau Mt. (Stavropol Reg. of Russia
near Piatigorsk) after specimens with reddish head, antennae and legs. Such coloured specimens are not rare
in Anaesthetis testacea rufescens, but normally colored beetles with black head, legs and
antennae are more numerous. Specimens from certain populations in Transcaucasia (Megri environs in Armenia)
have so long pronotal pubescence that are close to Anaesthetis lanuginosa. Similar specimens must be
distributed in the south part of Anaesthetis testacea Asian area.
In Cenral Asian Republics Pilemia hirsutula seems to be represented only in Turkmenia
(as Pilemia hirsutula homoiesthes). In Kazakhstan it was recorded by Kostin (1973) for west,
center and south. I do not know the species from South Kazakhstan, but if it is really distributed here,
its subspecies attribution is uncertain.
According to personal communication (2001) of R.V.Filimonov, he collected Pilemia hirsutula hirsutula
in Aktiubinsk Region of Kazakhstan (7 ex., Temir River Valley near Pokrovskaia, 5.1999 on Phlomis tuberosa),
as well as in Kurgan Reion of Russia (2 ex., Ust-Uiskoe, 6.2000).
The genus Turanium was revised by Danilevsky (2001e).
The attribution of the name Stenocorus tataricus (Gebler, 1841), described as Toxotus, to the
species from Kirgizia and Uzbekistan by Plavilstshikov (1936) was wrong (it was accepted by him after Reitter,
1907). In fact Toxotus tataricus was described from: "deserto ad fl. Ajagus" (east Kazakhstan).
Stenocorus "tataricus" sensu Reitter (1907, 1913) and Plavilstshikov (1936), totally absent in
Kazakhstan, as it was already mentioned by Kostin (1973). In fact under the names Toxotus tataricus and
Toxotus minutus Gebler (1841: 375 - both descriptions in one page!) described big and small specimens
of one species. It is really distributed from Aiaguz River Valley and Ust-Kamenogorsk to Tarbagatai Mountains,
Zaisan Lake Valley and Markakol Lake Valley (so very possible in neihbour China regions and in Russian Altai).
The type locality of Toxotus minutus was not mentioned by Gebler, but Toxotus minutus also
originated from east Kazakhstan, as all Gebler's desriptions of that paper were based on Dr. Screnk's
expedition (1840) materials "von Semipalatinsk aus in die südöstliche Kirgisensteppe den Fluss Ajagus hinab
zum See Balchasch, von da in die südösrlich um diesen See gelegenen Steppen und zu den sie begränzenden
Gebirgen Alatau und Tarbagatai ...". I prefer to leave for this species the name Stenocorus minutus
(Gebler), which was used for it by several authors (Plavilstshikov, 1936; Gressitt, 1951; Kostin, 1973;
Lobanov et al., 1981). So, Stenocorus minutus = Stenocorus tataricus. Big specimens of Stenocorus
minutus really have round elytral apices as it was mentioned by Gebler, while for small specimens
obliquely truncate apices are more usual. Males and females of Stenocorus minutus can be totally
black, or black with pale-brown elytra, or also with brown abdomen. Legs and antennae from totally black to
totally brown, often antennae apically as well as femora and tibia are darkened.
Both Stenocorus (Toxotochorus) taxa from Uzbekistan and Kirgizia are characterized
by special antennal structure with big and flattened joints. Sure this character was not mentioned by
Gebler for his Toxotus tataricus and Toxotus minutus.
Stenocorus "tataricus", sensu Plavilstshikov, is distributed in Fergana Valley (Uzbekistan) and
neihbour regions of Kirgizia: south slope of Chatkal Ridge (Sary-Chelek, Sumsar) and SW slope of Fergana
Ridge (Kara-Alma). This taxon was described as Toxotus validicornis Pic. The name was originally
published without description (Pic, 1900), but with a short geographical data: "? Turk." and was attributed
by Pic to Kraatz. The description of Toxotus validicornis was published later (Pic, 1906), but
without locality. I have studied the holotype of Toxotus validicornis in Paris (2002). It is small
male with totally brown elytrae, without geographical label, but with the label indicated its origin
from Kraatz collection. Based on the morphology of the holotype I can suppose the type locality as
Fergana Valley with surrounding mountains. The holotype of Toxotus validicornis var. alaiensis
Pic, 1906 (similar but bigger)described from Alai Mts is also preserved in Pic's collection.
Another Central Asian Stenocorus was described as Stenochorus (sic!) univittatus
Reitter, 1913 from "Taschkent, Ala-Tau". The taxon is very numerous on Chimgan Mt. (west part of Chatkal Ridge
in Uzbekistan). Rather special populations, which up to now are regarded as Stenochorus univittatus,
are known from Aksu-Dzhabagly Nat. Reserve (Kazakhstan) and Karatau Ridge (Kazakhstan). I've got one specimen
of Stenochorus univittatus from Kandara (Gissar Ridge in Tadzhikistan).
The taxonomical status of Stenochorus validicornis and Stenochorus univittatus is not evident.
In general populations from near Fergana Valley are represented by specimens with a little more dense elytral
pubescence, and elytra are always uniformly colored (black or brown). Specimens with longitudinal yellow
elytral stripes are not known from the area. From the other side specimens from Chimgan Mt. are very often
unicolored, and sometimes are not distinguishable from specimens from Sary-Chelek. So, now I prefer to
regard both taxa as subspecies. The populations from Karatau Ridge and from Aksu-Dzhabagly represent two
another subspecies (not described yet). The attribution of Gissar population needs new materials. I've also got
one totally black male with poorly pubescent elytra from the southmost point of Fergana Ridge just from
China border (Tar River), which subspecies attribution is also not clear. Recently "Stenocorus
univittatus" (so, Stenochorus validicornis univittatus) was recorded for Zhetyzhel Mountains
(westernmost part of Zailiisky Alatau Ridge) from near Karakastek Village, (10.6.1997, 1500m) after one
female (Kadyrbekov et al., 1998). The species attribution of this female rests unclear.
Toxotus tataricus Gebler, 1841 is the type species of Toxotochorus Reitter, 1907 (monobasic),
but in fact it was wrong determination of Toxotus validicornis Pic, 1906: "Toxotus tataricus
Gebler, den ich wenigstens dafür halte, hat abweichend gebildete Fühler; sie sind nämlich schon vom dritten
Gliede an etwas abgeflacht und ihre äußeren Apicalwinkel stumpfeckig vortretend. Ich errichte darauf die
Sektion Toxotochorus nov." So, according to the Article 70.3 of ICZN (1999) I regard Toxotus validicornis
Pic, 1906 as the type species of Toxotochorus.
Toxotus turkestanicus Ganglbauer, 1889 described after 1 female: "aus Turkestan" was regarded as
a synonym of Toxotus tataricus by Aurivillius (1912) and Gressitt (1951), that was evidently wrong,
because according to the original description: "Flügeldecken
, auf Rücken mit 2 schwach erhabenen
Längslinien." I accepted here the synonymysation of Reitter (1913): "Stenochorus" vittatus = Stenocorus
The name Tetrops hauseri nigra Kostin, 1973 is homonyme (not Kraatz, 1859) and must be changed.
Tetrops rosarum was recorded for Mongolia by Tsherepanov (1985) and Krivolutzkaia
(in: Tsherepanov, 1996) without special comments. Most probably the records were based on Tetrops
mongolicus Murzin, 1977.
I've got two males of Asias tuvensis from Mongolia: "North Mongolia, Zuun-Erzu, 5.8.63",
another locality is not readable (5.8.62).
Cortodera holosericea was recorded for Rostov Region (Donleskhoz near Shakhty-city, 13.6.96)
and for Stavropol by D. Kasatkin (1998).
Cortodera ruthena was recorded for two localities of Rostov Region by D. Kasatkin (1998).
He also mentioned it for Lugansk Region (first record for Ukraine?), but without concrete data.
Isotomus comptus was recorded for European Russia: Borisoglebsk near Voronezh, 8.1984,
A.Fomichev leg. (Arzanov et al., 1993; Kasatkin, 1998).
Two interesting series of Dorcadion are preserved in the collection S.Kadlec (Litvinov, Czechia):
1. Dorcadion glicyrrhizae glicyrrhizae, 2 males and a female: "Emba River near Guriev, 6.1983,
2. Dorcadion globithorax: "Kazakhstan, Shengeldy (eastwards Kapchagai), 10.V"
According to the remark (2002) of S.Kadlec: if Plavilstshikov (1968) was right, including
Agapanthia subnigra Pic, 1890, described from "Georgie", in Agapanthia subchalybaea Reitter, 1898,
the name of the species must be Agapanthia subnigra.
The name Rhabdoclytus for Clytus acutivittis Kraatz was mentioned by Plavilstshikov (1940: 493)
with reference to Jakobson (1913, v.71, f.28). According to personal communication by Kasatkin (2002),
Rhabdoclytus Ganglbauer was mentioned by Pic (1900, Catalogue bibliographique et sinonymique... p.64)
with reference to "Cat. Mars: 479"
The name Rhabdoclytus is a senior synonym of Hayashiclytus and can be valid.
According to personal communication (2002) by D.Kasatkin, the record of C. reitteri
for Salsk by Plavilstshikov (1936) was connected with the black female from "Salsk District, village
Kichkin, 27.05.28" preserved in Zoological Museum of Moscow Univ. (and unknown to me).
Now it is Kichkino of Zavetnoe District in about 200 km NE Salsk.
Tetropium fuscum seems to be absent in the east of Asian continent, but is known from Hokkaido.
The remark by S.Bílý and O.Mehl (1989: 91): "from the Caucasus over Siberia to Japan" was not based on
According to many publications (Bílý and Mehl, 1989; Burakovsky et al., 1990 and others), the author
of genus Prionus is O.F.Müller (1764).
Pogonarthron = Pseudomonocladum according to Danilevsky (1999b).
A revision of the genus was published by Danilevsky (2004d).
Pogonarthron petrovi was described from Tadzhikistan (Babatag Ridge, 15km SW Gissar, 600m.
Pogonarthron tschitscherini up to now seems to be definitely known only from the lower part of
Naryn River Valley in Kirgizia.
I have studied the holotype (male with the label: "Alexander Gebirge") of Agapanthia alexandris
in Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris) in September, 2002. The taxon, described after 1 specimen
from "Asie Centrale: Monts Alexandre" (now Kirgizsky Ridge), was wrongly regarded as a synonym
Agapanthia muellneri (Plavilstshikov, 1968). The type differs considerably from Agapanthia
muellneri (described from near Tashkent; I've see the type in Budapest; in my collection from
Uzbekistan: Chimgan and Aktash in Tashkent env., Kuramin Ridge and Kirgizia: Sary-Chelek, Naryn Ridge)
by very dense and bright yellow elytral pubescence with very distinct grey humeral stripe. I have collected
a big series of Agapanthia alexandris in Kazakhstan near Rgaity (south part of Chu-Ily Mountains,
9.6.2002). Some of new specimens with poorly developed humeral stripe. The records of Agapanthia muellneri
for Zailiisky Alatau could be based on Agapanthia alexandris.
According to C.Holzschuh (1999: 11), Pseudalosterna elegantula (mainland) and Pseudalosterna
misella (Japan) are different species. No Pseudalosterna are known to me from Sakhalin or Kuril Islands.
P.vácha (personal communication, 2002) received from Japan the larvae of Nupserha marginella
As it was mentioned by me before (Danilevsky, 2001: 18b) the size of Cortodera haemorhoidalis
(= Cortodera analis) mentioned by Pic as 13-14 mm was too big for Cortodera analis. In September
2002 I have studied the unique female of Cortodera haemorhoidalis in Pic's collection (Paris). It
is normal Cortodera analis with red antennae, legs and abdominal apex. The specimen with labels:
"HOLOTYPE", "Siberie", "ex coll. Gebler" is 11.5 mm long, so big, but not unusual.
I've also studied the holotype of Cortodera analis var. ruficornis described from "Altai".
The small black female with reddish anterior legs and antennae has a label: "Telezk See, Altay, Gessner".
Teletskoe Lake was not mentioned before as a locality of Cortodera analis and is situated far eastwards
from the reliably known localities.
Semiangusta was restored as a separate genus by Sama and Rejzek (2002) with the desination of
Conizonia delagrangei Pic, 1891 as its type species. Phytoecia pici and Phytoecia erivanica
were excluded from Semiangusta. Now both could be placed to Phytoecia (s.str.), as it was
done by Breunig (1951). So, Semiangusta absent in the territory of USSR.
Anoplophora glabripennis was recorded for Khabarovsk Region of Russia by Lingafelter and Hoebeke
(2002). The map of its area includes a dot (with question mark) near north part of Bureinsky Ridge
(without any comments in the text). Several China localities of the species are situated just on the border
of Russia: at the lower part of Argun River Valley (Chita Region) and in the middle part of Ussuri River
Dinoptera minuta (described from Nerchinsk) seems to be absent in Japan, where it is replaced
by very close Dinoptera criocerina (Bates, 1873). Dinoptera minuta was recorded for Sakhalin by
Plavilstshikov (1936) and Tsherepanov (1979, 1996). Both species absent in Hokkaido and Sakhalin.
The taxon was described as "Leptura (Pachytodes) erratica race bottcheri" from "Altai"
after one specimen with rather black elytra (yellow colour is represented by small spots only), and
was regarded as a China subspecies of Anoplodera (Pachytodes) erratica by Gressitt (1951). I do not
know such specimens, but still Pachytodes erraticus from Altai (Ust-Kamenogorsk environs) differs
from European and Caucasus populations considerably: abdomen and elytral apex never reddish, yellow elytral
colour much paler. So, easten populations (eastwards Urals?) represent a subspecies named preliminary as
Pachytodes erraticus bottcheri.
Amarysius altajensis ussuricus was described from near Ussuriisk (South of Primorsky Region).
In the original description the taxon was compared with the specimens of Amarysius from West Siberia
collected from Spiraea and wrongly regarded by the author as Amarysius altajensis altajensis.
Later Tsherepanov (1980) explained his mistake and described the taxon from Spiraea as Amarysius
duplicatus distributed in Salair Ridge and Tuva. On the base of this situation Amarysius altajensis
ussuricus was cancelled by Lobanov et al. (1981: 789), and Tsherepanov (1982) accepted the synonymy:
Amarysius altajensis = Amarysius ussuricus.
In 2002 I've collected a lot of Amarysius altajensis in about its type locality near Ust-Kamenogorsk.
The specimens of the nominative population differ from the easten specimens (in my materials from Buriatiya
and Chita Region to Primorie Region) by different pronotal sculpture and different shape of black elytral
field, which often reachs scutellum and usually notched posteriorly. So the easten subspecies
Amarysius altajensis ussuricus must be restored.
Amarysius duplicatus, described from Salair Mts. (near Novosibirsk) and Tuva, was recorded
for Far East Russia (Amur Region and Primorsky Region) by Danilevsky (1998a) and so must be distributed in
East Siberia, North China and probably in Mongolia. Three males from Kazakhstan (Ust-Kamenogorsk env.) are
represented in my collection. Here both Amarysius species occur sympatrically.
Breuning (1975: 25; 1963: 518, in Breuning, 1958-1969) used wrong spelling "Pogonocherus siewersi"
of Pogonocherus sieversi Ganglbauer, 1886: 139. The species was described from Manglisi southwards
The species was recorded for Crimea by Zahaikevitch (1991: 153).
Pachytodes longipes was recorded for Altai by Plavilstshikov (1936) and for Altai and Tuva
by Tsherepanov (1979). In my materials the most western locality is in Buriatia (Transbaicalia).
Pachytodes orthotrichus is definitely known from Tuva and Khakassia to Irkutsk Region (Sarma River
in my collection). The species must occur in Mongolia, though up to now (2002) no exact records were published.
It was recorded for Mongolia and for West Siberia by Lobanov et al. (1981), but without any comments.
The main distinguishing character of two species mentioned by many authors is pronotal pubescence.
Pronotum of Pachytodes longipes is always without erect setae. But only males of Pachytodes orthotrichus
have pronotum with erect setae, in females erect setae absent. This fact can lead to wrong identification of
corresponding females. In reality females of both species can be very similar, but in Pachytodes longipes
antennae are usually distinctly longer.
The records of Chlorophorus sartor for West and East Siberia (Plavilstshikov, 1940) seems to be
rather doubtful and were not confirmed by new materials. It was not collected in Siberia by Tsherepanov (1982).
Tetropini were separated by Planet (1924) and supported by Namkhaidorzh (1976) and Danilevsky,
Nivellia sanguinosa and Anastrangalia sequensi were regarded as possible for East Kazakhstan
Menesia albifrons was recorded for Altai by Tsherepanov (1985); Menesia bipunctata was
recorded for Mongolia by Namhaidorzh (1979); Menesia flavotecta and Ropaloscelis unifasciatus were
recorded for Mongolia by Lobanov et al. (1982) most probably on the base of specimens which are now not in
The record of Pidonia puziloi for Mongolia (Lobanov et al., 1981) is rather doubtful.
The reasons for supposition of Dokhtouroffia nebulosa for Mongolia (Lobanov et al., 1981) are not clear.
The area of Amarysius sanguinipennis was enlarged eastwards by Tsherepanov (1982) to Altai and Tomsk.
According to Namhaidorzh (1972), all records of Eodorcadion brandti for Mongolia are doubtful.
Due to the courtesy of Dr.M.Hasegawa I've got the possibility to study the article by S.Matsumura (1911)
with many new descriptions from Sakhalin Is. Many new names introduced in this paper were synonyms:
Stenocorus amurensis = Toxotus sachalinensis Matsumura, 1911
Acmaeops angusticollis = Acmaeops viridula Matsumura, 1911
Oedecnema gebleri = Leptura decemmaculata Matsumura, 1911
Nivelia sanguinosa = Leptura rubripennis Matsumura, 1911
Rhaphuma gracilipes = Clytanthus sachalinensis Matsumura, 1911
The name "Leptura fulva" was most probably used for corresponding forms of Anastrangalia sequensi.
At least two pairs of names used in this paper as names of 4 different species are now regarded as pairs of
Asemum striatum = Asemum amurense
Leptura aethiops = Leptura aterrima
The name Leptura (Pidonia) shirarakensis Matsumura, 1911 was most probably connected with
Oedecnema gebleri, because of some characters mentioned in the original description:
"Antennen schwarz, vom 6ten an bis 10ten Glieder an der Basis rötlichbraun. ... Elytren schmutziggelb,
je mit 4 schwarzen Flecken, von denen 2 nahe der Basis, ein anderer fast in der Mitte und übrige an der Spitze
occupirend. ... Länge 12mm ... Der Form nach Pachyta cerambyciformis Schrank etwas änliche."
Another Sakhalin species with elytral pattern, which can be similarly described, is
Judolia sexmaculata, but in Judolia sexmaculata antennal joints can never be with yellow bases.
Kanoa granulata was recorded for Sakhalin (as Leptura granulata). The species (widely
distributed in Hokkaido) seems to be never recorded from Sakhalin afterwards.
Agapanthia alternans was wrongly regarded as a synonym of Agapanthia dahli by Lobanov et al. (1981)
following Kostin (1978). In fact it is not close to Agapanthia dahli and can not be regarded as its subspecies
(Kostin, 1973), as both often inhabit one locality in East Kazakhstan (Ust-Kamenogorsk env., Samarka env.).
Agapanthia dahli was recorded for Mongolia by Lobanov et al. (1982). The occurrence of the species in
Mongolia does not look impossible as I have a typical Agapanthia dahli from Khakassia (Maina, southwards
Abakan); and I saw (collection of Iu.Zappi, Casalecchio di Reno) two typical pairs with the label:
"Irkutsk Reg., Zalari Distr., Tungui, 5km E Zalari, 18.6.1997, A. Anischenko leg."
Several more interesting localities of Agapanthia dahli represented in my collection: Russia -
Novosibirsk, Altai (Chemal, Gorno-Altaisk), Kurgan, Cheliabinsk; Kazakhstan: Petropavlovsk, Aktiubinsk, Astana,
Arkalyk, Chimkent, Chulakkurgan, Lepsinsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Zyrianovsk, Samarka, Marka-Kol Lake, Ily Valley;
Tadzhikistan: Revad in Zeravshan valley.
Recently (2002) D.Kasatkin (personal communication) discovered considerable differences between
Agapanthia detrita and Agapanthia obydovi in the structure on the internal sac of aedeagus.
Enoploderes sanguineum was recorded for Rostov Region of Russia by A.Miroshnikov (2000).
Pyrenoploderes Hayashi, 1960 was regarded as a subgenus of Enoploderes.
Monochamus urussovi was recorded for North Caucasus by Kasatkin and Arzanov (1997): "Piatigorsk, 11.6.1954".
Due to the curtsy of D.Kasatkin, I received the manuscript of the publication by Runich et al. (2000).
The publication itself is still inaccessible for us both. It conteins several important positions:
- Pseudovadonia livida caucasica Daniel was recorded for Mashuk and Zheleznovodsk. The taxon was never described,
so Pseudovadonia livida caucasica Runich, Kasatkin, Lantzov, 2000 must be regarded as nomen nudum.
- Dorcadion sareptanum and Dorcadion kubanicum (= Dorcadion sareptanum euxinum) were recorded
from same localities as sympatric (Kumgorsk, 19 IV 1950; Proval, 7 V 1949). The records were evidently based on
red and black specimens from one population. The border line between two subspecies of Dorcadion sareptanum is
not clear, but now I prefer to regard all Dorcadion sareptanum from Caucasus and Ciscacasia as
Dorcadion sareptanum euxinum.
- Agapanthia subchalybaea was recorded from Mashuk Mt.(7-12.V.1947,18.V.1948,12.V.1949).
- Phytoecia volgensis and Phytoecia tuerki were both recorded from Mashuk Mt. Undoubtedly
both records belong to one taxon represented by specimens with red pronotum and black pronotum.
According to my materials, in the region from Dagestan to about Piatigorsk the specimens with pale-grey elytral
pubescence are dominated. So those populations can be regarded as Phytoecia (Musaria) nigripes volgensis
(described from near Volgograd).
According to Kasatkin and Arzanov (1985), Aromia moschata ambrosiaca is distributed in North
Caucasus: Naur, Essentuki, Kislovodsk and northwards to the lowest part of Kuma River Valley.
The subspecies status of those populations depends on the percentage of red thorax specimens.
All my specimens from Dagestan are with partly red thorax, but all from Krasnodar Region are with green
prothorax. According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication, 2002) specimens with partly red prothorax
are distributed in Krasnaia Poliana environs.
I've got a male of Aromia moschata moschata from Turkmenia (Kopet-Dag). The record of Aromia moschata
ambrosiaca for Central Asia by Plavilstshikov (1940) was connected with Aromia moschata cruenta.
Aromia moschata cruenta was recorded (without any comments) for Kirgizia by Ovtchinnikov (1996),
but I am not ready to accept such data as reliable (Danilevsky, 2000).
Very rare Aromia moschata specimens with red thorax and dark legs from Fergana most probably
represent a new subspecies.
One male of Dorcadion beckeri from near Suchumi (4.4.1979, I.Sokolov leg.) is preserved in my collection.
Oberea euphorbiae was recorded for Transcaucasus by Heyrovský (1955), for Caucasus by
Tsherepanov (1985) and for North Caucasus by Kasatkin (1999): male and female from Maikop (07.1954)
preserved in Zoological Institute (St.-Petersburg).
Phytoecia varentzovi was recorded for Dagestan (Krainovka, 18.5.1963, Vorobiov leg.)
by Miroshnikov (1990a) - first record for Russia.
Kasatkin (1998) recorded Phytoecia puncticollis for Dagestan (female from Kurush, 5.4.1953)
- first record for Russia.
Kasatkin (1999) recorded for Crimea: Dorcadion pedestre (Mt. Chatyr-Dag) and Semanotus
Xestoleptura rufiventris was recorded for Far East Islands of Russia by Lobvanov et al. (1981)
without any comments (as Anoplodera). Now it looks like a mistake.
The synonymysation Leptepania = Molorchinus, as well as the combination Leptepania okunevi
was established by Namhaidorzh (1979). Contemporary the species was recorded for Mongolia.
The spelling Pseudallosterna (Plavilstshikov, 1936) was wrong. Original spelling is
Pseudalosterna Plavilstshikov, 1934.
Only one species of Rhagium (Rhagium inquisitor inquisitor) was recorded for Crimea
(Bartenev, 1989). I regard three more species (Rhagium bifasciatum, mordax and sycophanta)
as very possible for the region.
Phytoecia stenostoloides, described from "Verkhneudinsk" (now Ulan-Ude in Transbaikalia)
and missed in Tsherepanov's (1985) monograph, was recorded for far-east Primorie Region of Russia
Hybometopia was usually regarded in Saphanini (Aurivillius, 1912; Plavilstshikov, 1940).
The taxonomic affinities of Hybometopia out of Sapahanini was shown by Mamaev and Danilevsky (1973).
Axinopalpis and Hybometopia were placed in Callidiopini by Lobanov et al. (1981), but
most probably wingless Hybometopia better must be separated in a new tribe.
According to G.Sama (2002), the author of Axinopalpis and Anisarthron is Dejean (1835);
before (Sama, 1988): Axinopalpis Duponchel et Chevrolat, 1842 and Anisarthron Redtenbacher, 1845.
Penichroa was placed in Hesperophanini by Villiers (1978).
Cerambyx hieroglyphicus Pallas, 1773 was described from "Siberia". The taxon was accepted as
easten subspecies by Breuning (1952: 177) and Gressitt (1951: 554). It is characterized by constantly
blue colour of pale pubescence. It is agree with my specimens from Tuva and Russian Primorie Region.
The subspecies was recorded for "Lappland" by Breuning (1952), so it can be distributed in North of
the European part of Russia, as well as in Norway, Sweden and Finland; for Sakhalin Is. by Matsushita et
Tamanuki (1935) - afer Gressitt (1951); and for Mongolia by Heyrovský (1973b),as well as for "Nordeuropa".
According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication of 2003), Brullé (1832: 258) introduced:
"Lamia (Morinus Serville ined.) lugubris Fabricius" and "Lamia (Morinus
Serville ined.) funesta Fabricius", but in same publication in "Errata": "Morinus, lisez
Morimus". So the name Morimus Brullé, 1832 must be used and proposal of G.Sama (1991: 126):
"Morinus Brullé, 1832 = Morimus Serville, 1835" can not be accepted.
According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication of 2003), the original spelling is
Plagionotus bartholomei and Phytoecia bithynensis. Both can not be accepted, as
"bartholomaei" and "bithyniensis" are "in prevailing usage" according to the
Article 33.3.1 of ICZN.
A.Miroshnikov (1998: 392), affirmed, that E. Reitter's "Fauna Germanica. Die Käfer des Deutschen
Reiches. 64. Familie: Cerambycidae" was published in 1913 (and not in 1912 as it is generally accepted).
So, according to his personal communication (2003), several names must be dated 1913:
Xylosteina [Xylosteini] Reitter, 1913: 5.
Megarhagium Reitter, 1913: 6 [Rhagium subgen.].
Lepturobosca Reitter, 1913: 17.
Lepturalia Reitter, 1913: 20.
Callidostola Reitter, 1913: 37 [Callidium subgen.].
Melasmetus Reitter, 1913: 39 [Phymatodes subgen.].
Phymatoderus Reitter, 1913: 39 [Phymatodes subgen.]
Phymatodes (Poecilium) alnoides Reitter, 1913: 40 [Phymatodes (Poecilium) alni ssp.].
Phymatodellus Reitter, 1913: 40 [Phymatodes subgen.].
Megasemum sharpi Reitter, 1913: 43 (syn. for Megasemum quadricostulatum Kraatz, 1879).
Hesperandrius Reitter, 1913: 44-45 (syn. for Trichoferus Wollaston, 1854).
Xyloclytus Reitter, 1913: 46 [Xylotrechus subgen.].
Pseudosphegesthes Reitter, 1913: 50.
According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication, 2003), Ganglbauer's "Bestimmungs-Tabellen der
europaischen Coleopteren. VII. Cerambycidae" and "Bestimmungs-Tabellen der europaischen Coleopteren. VIII.
Cerambycidae" were first published in "Verhandlungen der k. k. zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien",
1881 (Bd. XXXI, S. 681-757, Taf. XXII) and 1883 (Bd. XXXIII, S. 437-586).
The same works were published as separata in 1882 [S. 3(681)-79(757), Taf. XXII] and 1884
[S. 3(437)-152(586)] that caused a big confusion in subsequent citations.
Here are several important names from original publications by Ganglbauer (1881, 1883):
Cyrtoclytus: 688, 736.
Cortodera pumila: 710.
Rhagium pygmaeum: 718.
Clytus arietis lederi: 730.
Paraclytus reitteri: 737.
Paraclytus raddei: 737.
Icosium tomentosum atticum: 743.
Ropalopus lederi: 747.
Neodorcadion: 437, 508.
Dorcadion litigiosum: 454.
Dorcadion transsilvanicum: 462. D. songaricum: 477.
Dorcadion semenovi: 479.
Dorcadion tuerki: 486.
Dorcadion plasoni (syn. for Dorcadion laeve Faldermann): 481.
Dorcadion talyschense: 491.
Dorcadion reitteri: 492.
Eodorcadion carinatum blessigi: 512.
Exocentrus stierlini: 530.
Leiopus pachymerus (syn. for L. femoratus Fairmaire): 532.
Acanthocinus elegans: 534.
Agapanthia lateralis: 541.
Agapanthia lederi: 542.
Agapanthia intermedia: 543.
Agapanthia daurica: 544.
Phytoecia affinis boeberi: 559.
Phytoecia affinis tuerki: 575.
Phytoecia fatima: 570.
Phytoecia plasoni: 571.
Phytoecia puncticollis stygia: 572.
Phytoecia kurdistana: 572.
Phytoecia bithynensis: 573.
According to Miroshnikov (personal communication, 2003) the original spellings are -
Dorcadion talyschense and Purpuricenus talyschensis.
The original spelling: "Dorcadion talyschensis" was used by Breuning (1962) - so must be
accepted, but the necessity to return to original spelling of Purpuricenus talyshensis is not
evident because of the Article 33.3.1 (ICZN).
According to Miroshnikov (personal communication, 2003) the original description of
Exocentrus stierlini was published two times in 1883: "Verhandlungen der k. k. zoologisch-botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien",Bd. XXXIII: 530 and in "Wiener Entomologische Zeitung", II. Helf. 12. S. 298-299.
Taf. IV, Fig. 3. According to "Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien" the type locality is "Deutschland, Oesterreich",
according to "Wien. Entom. Ztg." - the type locality is "Europa media".
According to A.Miroshnikov (personal communication of 2003), the separata of Jakowleff's article
"Nouvelles especes du genre Dorcadion Dalm." from "Horae Soc. Ent. Ross."(t. XXXIV, p. 59-70) were
distributed in May 1899. So, Jakowleff (1899) is the author of:
Dorcadion ciscaucasicum: 1(59).
Dorcadion apicipenne 3(61). (so the name can be older than Dorcadion jacobsoni Jakowleff, 1899).
Dorcadion bisignatum: 8(66).
Dorcadion phenax: 10(68).
Dorcadion glaucum was described from "Persien" and was recorded for Talysh Mts. (Breuning, 1962).
It was recorded for Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaidzhan by Plavilstshikov (1958). But before
Plavilstshikov (1948) was not sure, that the species occurs in Soviet Armenia. In fact no specimens exist
from the territory of the former USSR with good collecting data. Most probably Dorcadion glaucum was
never collected here. It is rather common in North Iran very close to Armenien border. In my collection
it is represented by two series:
IR (Azerbaidzhan), Pass 1900m, ca. 10km n Kaleybar, 30.5.1998, W.Heinz leg.
NE Azerbaidzhan, Kaleybar, 2100m, 25.6.02, Th.Deuve leg.
Ch. motschulskyi was recorded for Mongolia by Namkhaidorzh (1976: 208).
One male with a label: "Verkhneudinsk [now Ulan-Ude] env, Berezovka, 21.6.1920" is preserved
in my collection.
In 2002 looking throug Heyrovský's collection in Prague I've found two syntypes of
Dorcadion songaricum m. scopini Heyrovský, 1966 (unavailable name) described from Ketmen
Mts in Kazakhstan. In reality it is Dorcadion arietinum, described by me as
Dorcadion arietinum ketmeniense.
As it was written to me by G.Sama (personal communication, 2003): "Semenov (1914) introduced
Asias a new name replacing Anoplistes Serville, 1833 not Westwood, 1831 (Diptera).
I was able to consult Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus, 1939, 1: 216); according to it,
Anoplistes was described by Westwood only in 1835 (Anoplistes Westwood, 1835, London et
Edinburg, Phil. Mag., 3(6) (34): 280). This is confirmed by Horn et Schenkling, 1929 (Index Litteraturae
Entomologicae, series 1, band 4: 1312) where any Westwood's paper dealing with Diptera is listed in 1831,
while is confirmed for 1835 the description of "Insectorum novorum exoticorum". Phillos. Mag. (3),
So, the name Anoplistes Serville, 1833 is valid.
Polylobarthron margelanicus is widely distributed in South Kazakhstan (not mentioned by Kostin,
1973). It was collected in Karzhantau by V.Lukhtanov (22-23.6.2000 - one male in my collection), in Keles
River Valley by me (21.5.2000 - one male), besides I've got a male with the label: "Ala-tau, Kurdai,
Exocentrus stierlini from Far East Russia was preliminary identified as
Exocentrus dalbergianus Gressitt, 1951 (Danilevsky, Miroshnikov, 1985: 353).
Now (2003) I regard that identification as wrong.
Exocentrus stierlini is represented in my collection by specimens from Poland, West and East
Ukraine, North-East Caucasus (Terek River Valley), Barnaul, Chita and Ussuri Land. According to P.Svacha
(personal communication, 2003), there are several specimens from Orenburg Region in Cherepanov's collection;
one specimen from Staroaleiskoe (Altai Region just near Kazakhstan border) is preserved in his own collection. So, undoubtedly, the species is distributed in North Kazakhstan.
Asaperda stenostola was recorded for Kazakstan by Lobanov et al. (1982) most probably on
the base of specimens from East Kazakhstan, which now are not in my disposal. I've got a female from
Altai Mts. (Chemal, 6.1988, E.Matveev leg.)
Brachyta interrogationis was recorded for Georgia by Miroshnikov (1990).
Molorchus umbellatarum was recorded for Central Asia by Lobanov et al. (1982) on the base
of publication by Mamaev and Danilevsky (1975: 187). Later those materials were identified as
Molorchus semenovi (vácha, Danilevsky, 1988: 207)
The species was also recorded for South Urals by Tsherepanov (1981).
Molorchus tianshanicus was recorded for Kazakhstan by Lobanov et al. (1982) without any comments.
Callimus angulatus was recorded for Ukraine (Carpathians) by Zahaikevitch (1991: 154).
Callimoxys gracilis was recorded for Central Asia by Lobanov et al. (1982) without
any comments. I've got a male from Turkmenia (Kara-Kala).
Deilus fugax was recorded for NW Kazakhstan (Embulatovka River) by Tsherepanov (1981).
Ropalopus femoratus was recorded for Central Russia by Althoff and Danilevsky (1997)
without any comments. The species was recorded for SW of USSR by Plavilstshikov (1965) and was
mentioned by Zahaikevitch (1991).
Traditionally (at least before 1993) Ropalopus nadari was often mixed with Ropalopus mali.
All Ropalopus nadari known to me were collected in Tadzhikistan, but species is sure distributed in
similar landscapes in Uzbekistan and possibly in Kirgizia. The record of Ropalopus nadari for
Aksu-Dzhabagly in South Kazakhstan (Kryzhanovsky, 1974) was evidently connected with Ropalopus mali.
The record of Ropalopus nadari for East Siberia by Lobanov et al. (1982) seems to be just a mistake.
I have collected a lot of Turanium rauschorum (with larvae) on Atraphaxis sp. in South
Kazakhstan (8.5.1998) near Rgaity (Danilevsky, 2001).
Semanotus semenovi was recorded for Kazakhstan part of Talas Ridge by Kostin (1973).
Xylotrechus rusticus was recorded for Stalinabad (Tadzhikistan) by Plavilstshikov (1955: 525).
Xylotrechus pantherinus was recorded for Central Asia by Lobanov et al. (1982)
most probably by mistake.
Agapanthia nitidipennis was described after one male from near Tbilisi (Dzvari, 22.5.1975).
I saw the holotype and received one specimen from Holzschuh's collection: Azerbajdzhan, Besh-Barma
(Zarat), 13.6.1979. In my own materials the species is represented by series from Georgia (Tbilisi,
Tzhneti, Dzagvi, Mleta), Azerbajdzhan (Altyagach) and from Daghestan: Rutul env., 24.6.2001, M.Ismailova leg.
The subspecies rank of Agapanthia cardui pannonica was established by J.M.Gutowski (1992).
Due to the courtesy of Dr.Michiaki Hasegawa I received three specimens of Pseudanaesthetis
rufipennis (Matsushita, 1933) from Taiwan (originally described as Eupogonius).
Without any doubt Pseudanaesthetis rufipennis and my Ussurella napolovi belong to one
genus (species are different). The type species of Pseudanaesthetis: Pseudanaesthetis langana
Pic, 1922 described from "Tonkin" is not known to me, but it seems to be not close to
Pseudanaesthetis rufipennis because of elongate cylindrical prothorax (a very small color photo
was published by Lizhong Hua et al., 1993).
Several publications (Gressitt, 1951; Nakamura et al., 1992) supposed Eupogonius rufipennis
Matsushita, 1933 = Hirayamaia fuscorufa Matsushita, 1937 (also from Taiwan). Hirayamaia fuscorufa
is a type species of genus Hirayamaia Matsushita, 1937, which soon received a new name:
Falsoterinaea Matsushita, 1938. So, if the synonymysation is right, then at least: Falsoterinaea
Before the final dicision of the problem I keep the name Ussurella as valid and transfer
Pseudanaesthetis rufipennis into Ussurella.
Pseudosphegestes brunnescens seems to be never recorded for Turkey. I've studied a female
with the label: "Anatolien, prov. Artvin, 12.6.1973" from collection of C.Holzschuh.
Turanium johannis = Turanium juglandis by Danilevsky (2001) was wrong, as the colour
differences between different populations of the species are very distinct. Now three subspecies can be
recognized: the nominative subspecies from the north slope of Talas Ridge (Karagaily) - no specimens were
collected after 1907 - all known specimens with totally red antennae and legs. Turanium johannis juglandis
from Chatkal and Uzun-Akhmat ridges - usually with dark antennae and legs - very rare antennae and legs are
totally red. A new subspecies from south slope of Fergana Ridge (Kara-Unkiur River, Arslan-Bob, Kara-Alma) -
usually with red antennae and legs, elytral pubescence grey or red-orange; it differs from the nominative
subspecies and from Turanium badenkoi by the shape of prothorax and pronotal punctation. Here can be
attributed a male from the collection of C.Holzschuh: "Kirgisistan; Narynskaia; Dist. Dzhumgalsky; Tal Fluss
Kobuksu; N Sary-Kamysh Mt. 41.55N, 74.05E, 2400m, 4.7.1996, H.& R. Rausch leg." The attribution of the
specimens (unknown to me) from Kirgizsky Ridge (Alamedin River) is uncertain.
Acmaeops marginatus was recorded for Turkey (Kizilcahaman) by Demelt (1967).
I prefer to regard genus Nana Sama, 2002 (type species: Leptura regalis), as a subgenus
According to G.Sama (2002):
Acmaeops = Gnathacmaeops
Stictoleptura Casey, 1924 = Aredolpona = Corymbia = Melanoleptura = Batesiata
Callidium = Callidostola = Palaeocallidium
Poecilium = Phymatoderus = Phymatodellus = Paraphymatodes
Plagionotus = Echinocerus
Mesosa = Aphelocnemia
Pogonocherus = Eupogonocherus = Pityphilus
Saperda = Anaerea = Compsidia = Argalia = Lopezcolonia
G.Sama (2002) supposed Leptura saucia, described from Crimea, (he evidently did not see the type)
to be a synonym of Vadonia bipunctata mulsantiana. In the case of the real synonymy the name "saucia"
is not valid because the name "mulsantiana" is in "prevailing usage" according to the
Art. 23.9.1 (ICZN, 1999).
According to G. Sama (2002): Agapanthia cardui = Agapanthia pannonica, but he accepts two
geographical morphology types of the species: "southern fenotype" and "northern fenotype". So, according to
his own position, Agapanthia pannonica is a northern subspecies. All old names, which G.Sama mentioned
for "northern fenotype" were described from the area of southern subspecies (which is very natural), so
Agapanthia pannonica (or Agapanthia cardui pannonica) is a valid name.
According to S.Sama (2002), Carinatodorcadion must be regarded as a genus on the base of
endophallus structure; Pedestredorcadion is also treated as a genus because it is "sufficiently
different" from Dorcadion s.str. From the other hand, Neodorcadion, Iberodorcadion,
Hispanodorcadion and Baeticodorcadion are declared so close to Pedestredorcadion
(because of the structure of a membrane between labrum and clypeus), that do not merit even subgeneric level.
The new synonymy was not proposed until "a complete revision".
Mesosa obscuricornis was regarded as a subspecies of Mesosa nebulosa by G.Sama (2002).
Agapanthiola was regarded as a genus by G.Sama (2002).
On the base of indirect arguments (without type study) G.Sama (2002) proposed to regard
Monochamus rosenmuelleri = Monochamus usussovi, istead of generally accepted before
(Plavilstshikov, 1958) Monochamus sartor = Monochamus rosenmuelleri. Such name change of one of the
most important forest and wood pest can not be regarded as necessary and may cause a greate harm to the
international forest protection system and wood industry.
The attribution of Tetrops to Kirby (1826) by many authors was wrong (see Vives, 2000).
Tetrops Kirby, 1826 was described for Lamia tornator Fabricius, 1775
(= Cerambyx tetrophthalmus Forster, 1771) - now in Tetraopes.
According to J.Morati (2003), holotype and two paratypes of Oberea ruficeps muchei
("Tadzhikistan, Siddi env., 2000-2500m, 1.7.1980, Heinz, Muche leg.") are preserved in Muséum d'histoire
I've got a series (males and females) of Cortodera kaphanica from Megri Pass (2500m) collected
1.7.1986 by A.Dantchenko and O.Gorbunov. I've collected near Kadzharan (27.6.2003, 2000m) on small
Centaurea sp. (with blue flowers) a lot of Cortodera kaphanica (with three forms of females:
densely pubescent, sparsely pubescent with red elytra, sparsely pubescent with black elytra). First
form was not represented in the type series. Same day (27.6.2003) I've collected on Megri Pass a
big series of Cortodera colchica kalashiani (only females, including 1 specimen with red elytra).
In same locality on same flowers (big Centaurea sp. with white flowers) several males of
Cortodera kaphanica were also collected, sometimes "in copula" with females of Cortodera colchica kalashiani.
So on Megri Pass Cortodera colchica kalashiani occur sympatrically with Cortodera kaphanica (which
is very close to Cortodera holosericea and can be regarded as its subspecies).
Mallosia herminae from Armenia (Khosrov Nat. Reserve - south portion, Gndazar, 27.6.2002, K.Yeranian
leg. - two males in my collection) differs from Mallosia herminae of Nakhichevan Republic by darker
elytra and several white spots near scutellum; so it is a little similar to Mallosia caucasica.
But antennae are typically black and tibiae pubescece is also typical for Mallosia herminae.
Eodorcadion ptyalopleurum, described from Barlyk River, is distributed eastwards up to Chadan.
It is also known from Shui River, from the environs of Teeli, from Ak-Dovurak and from Ak-Sug River.
The taxon is characterized by presence of several granules on shoulders, but usually without elytral carinae and
without white elytral stripes; only bright white apical parts of humeral elytral stripes are usually
present, abdomen with dense white pubescence. Dorsal elytral carinae with dorsal stripes are known in males
(ab. multivittatum). Similar female aberration also exists, but seems was never published.
Several labels from my collection:
- Teeli (30km SW Ak-Dovurak), 14-25.7.1976, Tsherepanov leg.; same locality, 26-27.6.1971,
Korotiaev leg. (incl. males and females of ab. multivittatum)
- Barun, 21.6.1972 B.Korotiaev
- Chadan, 17.7.1976 Tsherepanov leg. (incl. males and females of ab. multivittatum)
- Khondergei (20km S Chadan), 6.7.1976, Tsherepanov leg.; same locality, 18.8.1968 (incl. males
and females of ab. multivittatum)
- Shui River (30km S Teeli), 16.7.1976, Tsherepanov leg. (typical form)
- Ak-Sug River upper Monchurek (30km NE Ak-Dovurak), 2.8.2000, D.Obydov leg. (typical form)
Eodorcadion tuvense: most part of the type series was collected near Chaa-Hol, but holotype is from
Chadan environs. The taxon is also known from Shagonar environs. It is characterized by dull elytra without
humeral granules and without apical stripes; elytra always with very special white sparce pubescence.
Forms with regular white elytral stripes or with deep longitudinal furrows are known both in male and in
females (ab. semivirgulatum). According to my observations, near Ishtii-Khem Eodorcadion tuvense
occurs sympatically with Eodorcadion quinquevittatum quinquevittatum. Several labels from my collection:
- Chaa-Khol, 5.8.1995, Avdeev leg.; same locality, 7.7.1976, Tsherepanov leg; (incl. males and females
of ab. semivirgulatum)
- Shagonar, 8.7.1976 Tsherepanov leg; (incl. males and females of ab. semivirgulatum)
- Ishtii-Khem (30km S Chaa-Khol), VIII.1973, M.Danilevsky leg.; same locality, 10.7.1979,
S.Korolev leg. (typical form)
The area of Mesoprionus angustus described by Plavilstshikov (1936) iz not exact. I.Kostin (1973)
recorded the species from several new localities in Kazakhstan: Karatau Ridge, Chu district, southwards
Balkhash Lake (I've also got specimens from near Bakanas).
But the species penetrates far in the North Kazakhstan: "Turgai-River Valley, Akchiganak, 26.6.1987,
S.Ovtchinnikov leg." - 1 male in my collection.
The occurrence of the species in Fergana Valley (recorded by Plavistshikov, 1936) is doubtful.
The easten most localities in Central Asia (definitely known to me) are situated in Vakhsh River Valley
in Tadzhikistan: "Tigrovaia Balka, 20.5.1987, A.Kompantzev leg." - 2 females in my collection; "25 km
S Kurgan-Tuibe, Tabakchi Ridge, 6.2002, V.Shablia leg."- 1 male in A.Petrov collection (Moscow).
Paraclytus sexguttatus was recorded for Bulgaria by Georgiev and Stojanova (2003), as well as
Agapanthia cardui cardui (together with Agapanthia cardui pannonica).
Apatophysis caspica was recorded for Jordan (Sama et al., 2002).
Saperda alberti is distributed in Sakhalin Is.: 4 specimens in my collection: male and female,
Kuznetzova cape, 5.6.1985 (from Salix) and 12.6.1985, M.Danilevsky leg.; two females, Naiba river,
Bykov, 19.8.1991, V.Grachev leg.
Cortodera kiesenwetteri subtruncata was originally described by M.Pic (1934: 19), as variation
and so the name is valuable, but not by N.N. Plavilstshikov (1936) as aberration, as it was wrongly declared
by M.Danilevsky (2001b). So the author of the subspecies is M.Pic.
One male of Cortodera kiesenwetteri subtrunctata (without labels) in good condition is preserved
in Deutsches Entmologisches Institut, Eberswalde. Holotype (from near Samara) in the Zoological Museum of
Moscow University is without antennae and with brocken legs.
All records of Pedostrangalia revestita and Pedostrangalia emmipoda for Caucasus
(Lobanov et al., 1981; Danilevsky, Miroshnikov, 1985) were based on same data as N.N. Plavilstshikov's (1936)
records of Pedostrangalia revestita for Georgia (Borzhomi, Batumi), which were regarded as doudtful
by G.Sama (2002); and records of Pedostrangalia emmipoda for Armenia (Sevan), based on Leder-Schneider
(1878) and later regarded as doubtful (Plavilstshikov, 1948) and Georgia (Batumi).
The records of Pedostrangalia revestita for Turkey (ignored by Sama, 2002) by Demelt and Alkan,
(1962) and Gfeller (1972) look also doubtful. The next Demelt's publication (1963) did not include
Pedostrangalia revestita, but all its locality data were attributed to Pedostrangalia emmipoda,
so first identification was wrong.
Pedostrangalia verticalis was recorded for "sud-vestul Transcaucaziei" by Panin and Savulescu
(1961). The species was regarded as rather probable for that region by N.N. Plavilstshikov (1936), as far
as it was found in Artvin. Besides it is known from south-east Rumania, very close to Russian and Moldavian
"Clytus arietis gazella Fabricius" was recorded for Artvin (Turkey) by G.Sama (1982). According to
personal communication by G.Sama (2004), the name was introduced by Fabricius for a colour form (black femurs)
of Clytus arietis from "Kiliae = Kiel" and does not represent a separate taxon.
Dorcadion holosericeum was recorded for "Transcaucasia" (Georgia?) by Plavilstshikov (1958).
The record was repeated by Danilevsky and Miroshnikov (1985). I do not know any other data for
Dorcadion holosericeum in Transcaucasia. The species seems to be absent in Transcaucasia.
Dorcadion nobile was recorded by Plavilstshikov (1958) for south Azerbaidzhan (montains along Arax
River and Talysh Ridge) and for south Georgia. All records need confirmations as no specimens are available
from Transcaucasia. The species definitely absent in Talysh Ridge, as the region can be regarded as well
I do not know any record of Phytorcia (Helladia) armenica from Georgia. I've got a specimen from Rustavi.
Phytoecia circumdata pilosicollis was described from near Karatau Ridge in Kazakhstan. I've got
a mail from Uzbekistan: W Chatkal, Karankul-Sai, 8.6.1998, O.Legezin leg.
According to A. Shapovalov (Orenburg), Trichoferus campestris is rather common in Orenburg Region.
A series of specimens was collected by him at about 12 km E Orenburg in July 2001.
A series of Clytus rhamni was also collected by A. Shapovalov in Orenburg Region: Totzk District,
Plagionotus arcuatus is rather common in Kirgizia. The fact seems to be never published.
It was not known for N.N. Plavilstshikov (1940), J. Jankowski (1934) or S.V. Ovtchinnikov (1996).
Kirgizian specimens were represented in my collection from long ago. Now the species is known for
1. 2 males, 1 female: Fergana Ridge, Kara-Alma, 24.5.1976, V. Janushev leg.
2. 1 male: Chatkal Ridge, Sary-Chelek, 10.8.1978, A.Kompantzev leg.
3. 5 males, 1 female: Fergana Ridge, Kara-Unkiur River, Kyzyl-Unkiur, 1100m, 1.7.2004, Y.Yokoi leg.
Kirgizian populations are connected with Juglans regia. The food plant seems to be never published
for Plagionotus arcuatus. The easten border of the European area of the species is about 2000 km north-westwards
in Ural River Valley (Kazakhstan).
According to Danilevsky (2004c), Dorcadion laterale is a subspecies of Dorcadion abakumovi.
The type locality of Dorcadion abakumovi is recognized as Lepsinsk environs in Dzhungarsky Alatau:
45°33'N, 80°37'E. The type locality of Dorcadion abakumovi laterale is recognized as Gerasimovka
environs in Dzhungarsky Alatau: 45°47'N, 80°53'E.
Dorcadion abakumovi lepsyense is described from Lepsy River Valley, Andreevka (now Kabanbai) env.,
Dorcadion abakumovi sarkandicum is described from north foothills of Dzhungarsky Alatau:
10 km SW Sarkand (now Sarkan).
The morphology of everted and inflated Dorcadionini endophallus is described and figured by
Danilevsky et al. (2004) on the base of dry constant samples of 127 species and subspecies of four genera:
Neodorcadion, Eodorcadion, Iberodorcadion and Dorcadion of all subgenera. The
homology of different endophallus parts is established. The original terminology is proposed. All genera
and subgenera of Dorcadionini are clearly delimited on the base of endophallic structures. New compositions
of Dorcadion (s. str.) and Eodorcadion (s. str.) are proposed. The phylogenetic relations
inside the tribe are discussed. A key for 4 genera and all subgenera is proposed on the base of endophallic
According to Danilevsky et al. (2004):
Eodorcadion (Humerodorcadion, subgen. n.) - type species: Dorcadion humerale Gebler, 1823.
Dorcadion (Acutodorcadion, subgen. n.) - type species: Dorcadion acutispinum Motschulsky, 1860.
The unique taxonomical position of Dorcadion (Politodorcadion) is demonstrated; possible
generic level (close to Eodorcadion) of the taxon is supposed.
Dorcadion (s. str.) = Dorcadion (Compsodorcadion); Dorcadion (Cribridorcadion)
= Dorcadion (Pedestredorcadion), syn. n. = Dorcadion (Dzhungarodorcadion), syn. n.
Dorcadion (s. str.) consists of 8 species: Dorcadion glicyrrhizae, Dorcadion crassipes,
Dorcadion cephalotes, Dorcadion gebleri, Dorcadion ganglbaueri, Dorcadion alakoliense,
Dorcadion abakumovi, Dorcadion laterale, Dorcadion tenuelineatum; other 31 species,
which were traditionally included in Dorcadion (s. str.), are placed in Dorcadion (Acutodorcadion subgen. n.).
Eodorcadion (Humerodorcadion subgen. n.) consists of two species: Eodorcadion humerale
and Eodorcadion lutshniki.
Eodorcadion quinquevittatum, Eodorcadion leucogrammum, Eodorcadion tuvense,
Eodorcadion ptyalopleurum and Eodorcadion maurum, as well as Eodorcadion sifanicum
and Eodorcadion glaucopterum are placed in Eodorcadion (s. str.).
Dorcadion klavdiae is transferred from Dorcadion (Carinatodorcadion) to
Dorcadion turkestanicum is placed in Dorcadion (Cribridorcadion).
The endophallus morphology of Dorcadion tschitscherini, Dorcadion mystacinum rufogenum
and Dorcadion optatum matthieseni (all three taxa were sometimes regarded as Pedestredorcadion)
is typical for Dorcadion (Acutodorcadion, subgen. n.).
Dorcadion danczenkoi, stat. n. is raised to the species rank.
Several taxons are proposed to be accepted as subspecies: Eodorcadion carinatum blessigi
(Ganglbauer, 1883), Eodorcadion carinatum bramsoni Pic, 1901, stat. n., Eodorcadion carinatum altaicum
(Suvorov, 1909), stat. n., Dorcadion cinerarium caucasicum Küster, 1847, stat. n.,
Dorcadion sareptanum euxinum Suvorov, 1915, stat. n., Dorcadion sulcipenne goektschanum
Suvorov, 1915, stat. n.
The relations between Politodorcadion and Eodorcadion was shown by Danilevsky et al. (2004).
Now I prefer to regard Politotorcadion as a genus.
|to main page
|to previous page
© September 10, 2004