An Annotated Inventory of the Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) Described by Thomas Say

2018·0.45 MB·English

by  Jens Prena

AN ANNOTATED INVENTORY OF THE WEEVILS (COLEOPTERA:
CURCULIONOIDEA) DESCRIBED BY THOMAS SAY
JENSPRENA1
ABSTRACT. Acomprehensivesearchwasconductedto synonyms are Aramigus tessellatus pallidus Horn,
ascertainthefateoftheweevilsnamedanddescribed 1876, Asynonychus santafecinus Lanteri, 1987, A.
by the early North American naturalist Thomas Say. viridipallensHustache,1947,Eurymetopuschevrolati
The historical context of each of his weevil papers is Voß, 1934, E. griseus Voß, 1934, and Pantomorus
givenalongwiththeapproximatedateofpublication. biseriatus Hustache, 1947 [all of Aramigus durius
Atleast117extanttypespecimenswerelocatedfor92 (Germar, 1823)]; Baridius sulcipennis Heyden, 1868,
(possibly 98) of his 132 nominal species in museum B.sulcipennisBrisout,1870,andB.strenuusLeConte,
collections in Berlin, Cambridge, Halle, and Stock- 1869 [all of Baris transversa (Say, 1832)]; Balaninus
holm. Supporting evidence for their authenticity is nasicusSay,1832[ofCurculioproboscideusFabricius,
presented. Actions are taken to stabilize eight genus 1775]; B. ordinatus Casey, 1910 [of Curculio auctus
group names. Species names are fixed when reason- (Casey, 1910)]; Cryptorhynchus fuscatus LeConte,
ablysoundtaxonomicrevisionsareavailable.Primary 1876 [of C. obliquus Say, 1832]; C. palmacollis Say,
homonyms found are Baridius sulcipennis Brisout, 1832 [of Rhyssomatus palmicollis (Say, 1832)]; Dera-
1870 (not Heyden, 1868), and Lixus marginatus Say, canthus pallidus Say, 1832 [of Aracanthus tessellatus
1832 (not Beck, 1817). Lectotypes aredesignated for (Say,1824)];DorytomussquamosusLeConte,1876[of
Balaninus nasicus Say, 1832; B. rostratus Gyllenhaal, D. rufus (Say, 1832)]; Otidocephalus myrmecodes
1835; Cleonus trivittatus Say, 1832; Cryptorhynchus Chevrolat, 1833, and O. chevrolatii Horn, 1873 [of
umbrosus Boheman, 1837; Liparus tessellatus Say, Myrmex myrmex (Herbst, 1797)]; Sphenophorus
1824; L. vittatus Say, 1824; Rhynchaenus constrictus destructor Chittenden, 1906 [of S. venatus (Say,
Say, 1824; Rhynchites aeratus Say, 1831; Rhyncho- 1832)];S.parvulusGyllenhaal,1838[ofS.interstitialis
phorus immunis Say, 1832; R. placidus Say, 1832; R. (Say, 1832)]; S. sayi Gyllenhaal, 1838 [of S. immunis
venatusSay,1832;andTanymecusconfususSay,1832. (Say, 1832)]; Tanymecus confusus Say, 1832 [of
The holotype of B. sulcipennis Heyden is designated Hylobius pales (Herbst, 1797)]; and Tyloderma
as neotype for Baridius transversus Say, 1832. capitaloides Wibmer, 1981 [of T. aereum (Say,
Resurrected names are (formerly used names in 1832)]. Tyloderma wibmeri new species is proposed
square brackets) Curculio auctus Casey, 1910 [ante: forT.aereumauctt.
C. nasicus auctt.]; Pseudobaris crenata (Boheman,
1836)[ante:Craptusundatusauctt.];Aramigusdurius Key words: Insects, Collections, Naturalists, New
(Germar, 1823) [ante: A. tessellatus auctt.]; Spheno- Harmony,NorthAmerica
phorus compressirostris Germar, 1823 [ante: S.
germari Horn, 1873]; S. cultrirostris Gyllenhaal,
1838 [ante: S. compressirostris (Say, 1824)]; S. INTRODUCTION
immunis(Say,1832)andS.placidus(Say,1832)[ante:
The impetus for this study came approx-
S.venatusauctt.];Dorytomusrufus(Say,1832)[ante:
Ellescus ephippiatus (Say, 1832)]; Cryptorhynchus imately10yearsago,whenInoticedseveral
umbrosus Boheman, 1837 [ante: C. obliquus auctt.]; misinterpreted and allegedly lost type spec-
and Tanymecus confertus Gyllenhaal, 1834 [ante: T.
imens of North American weevils described
confusus auctt.]. New or reestablished combinations
by Thomas Say (1787–1834). The first
areAracanthustessellatus(Say,1824)[fromAramigus
Horn],Auleutescurtus(Say,1832)[fromAcanthosce- specimens were encountered rather acci-
lidius Hustache], Dorytomus rufus (Say, 1832) [from dentallywhileresolvingtheoriginalusageof
EllescusDejean],andOnychobarisundata(Say,1832)
a name that had been applied in the past to
[from Craptus Casey]. New or reestablished junior
two similar but distinct species of Odonto-
1 Mu¨hlendamm 8a, 18055 Rostock, Germany corynus Scho¨nherr (Prena, 2008). A more
([email protected]). methodical approach based on collection
Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 161(9): 323–401, March, 2018 323
324 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 161, No. 9
inventories and literature suggested that collection at Harvard University were doc-
more syntypes may occur unrecognized in umented by Mawdsley (1993).
certain historical collections. Subsequent John L. LeConte made two statements
random searches in the natural history that have influenced generations of ento-
museums of Berlin and Stockholm not only mologists. In the foreword of his compila-
revealed an unexpected plethora of what tion of Say’s entomological papers
appearedtobesyntypes,butthediscovered (LeConte, 1859), he stated that all insects
specimens also threatened to undermine described by Say were destroyed. Without
much of the very foundation of North question, he was alluding to the boxes that
American weevil taxonomy established by Thaddeus Harris had returned to the
John LeConte and George Horn (e.g., Academy in 1842 (Elliot, 2008). It is
Horn, 1873; LeConte and Horn, 1876). unknown what exactly happened to them
Through the intervening years, I searched afterward. Ruschenberger (1852) reported
about a newly established insect collection
for clues on how and when this material
at this institution with modern, book-like
cametotheseandperhapsothercollections
drawers. However, the remarkable number
and what had instigated the resulting
of specimens still preserved today (Mawds-
taxonomic confusion.
ley, 1993) makes it unlikely that the bulk of
The dissent between my initial results
Say’sboxeswasremovedanddiscardedona
and the widely prevailing perception about
single occasion. When LeConte took resi-
the fate of Say’s insects directed my
dence in Philadelphia in 1852, it is curious
attention more and more to the scientific
why he should have been unable to gain
correspondence among contemporary ento-
access to, or at least accurate information
mologists, whereas numerous secondary
about, Say’s remaining insects while others
sources turned out to be marred by
succeeded even 50 years later (Mawdsley,
unsupported, sometimes entirely imagina-
1993). A second, similarly misleading claim
tive views. The latter not only applied to
was made when LeConte (Ref. 25, see
Say’s own life and work, but also to the
further below) unnecessarily inflated the
entomologists of the Melsheimer family
scientific value of his own collection by
with whom Say interacted. Details about
stating that his specimens were compared
Say’s and the Melsheimers’ work on beetles
with Say’s. These two statements stand in
and the historical events that led to an
conflict to each other and should be taken
exchange of their material can be found in
cautiously. I think it quite possible that the
Prena (2015). During the course of my
earlyrivalries at theAcademy stillreverber-
studies,Icameacrossmorethan500letters
ated in LeConte’s perceptions. Say, a
I consider pertinent for somebody wishing fourth-generation born American, passion-
to study the beginning of entomology in ately had argued against the description of
North America. However, these probably North American species by European nat-
represent only a minor fraction of what has uralists while others, still with strong and
been preserved in museum archives and intimate connections to the scholarly com-
libraries. Of these, I am using here only munities in Europe, supplied them (rather
those that are relevant to Say’s weevils. All than him) with specimens. However, Say
other insects, including the slightly over himself described species from foreign
1000 remaining beetle names, are beyond countries, so that, retrospectively, his na-
the scope of this study. Say’s carabid types tionalism seems somewhat biased by a
(only those curated in Paris) were docu- general grudge against others who did not
mentedbyLindrothandFreitag(1969),and accepthimasthenationalauthorityon(and
the labeled remnants of his personal insect duerecipientof)NorthAmericaninsects.It
Weevils Described by Thomas Say (cid:2) Prena 325
wasinthiscontextthatSayreproachedJohn men distributed specimens under these
Eatton LeConte, J. L. LeConte’s father, of names at different times, and often it
having donated his beetles to Dejean (Ref. remains uncertain on what the published
16),andthisold feudmaywellhavecurbed description was based. Second, journal
J. L. LeConte’s interest in Say’s insect editors withheld one or more of Say’s
collection, however battered it may have submissions in the years following his
been. departure from Philadelphia. In a letter to
The objective of this paper is to docu- Harris (Ref. 7), Say wrote: ‘‘I shall publish
ment the presently known extant weevil part of my Mss on Coleoptera as soon as
specimens used by Say in his descriptions they can be admitted into our Journal, they
and to confirm actual losses. If a particular have been all ready this long time, but the
genus has been revised, I update the press of matter excludes them.’’ Third, Say
current taxonomy and take necessary no- himself withheld descriptions he had pre-
menclatural actions when deemed neces- pared and hoarded for his personal usage
sary. In all other cases, the catalog provides during the 1820s.
information about the currently known Using a common practice in those days,
specimens available for study. Unlike Lin- Say usually labeled only the first specimen
droth and Freitag (1969), I give strict of each species and provided rarely more
preference to Say’s original specimens and than the taxonomic name. To my knowl-
set aside subsequent neotype designations edge, his original identification labels are
in accordance with ICZN Article 75.8. preserved only in the Harvard Collection.
Reasons for doing so are the complexity of They represent different episodes of Say’s
many taxonomic and nomenclatural prob- entomological work and may be mixed with
lems that involve also other dispersed labels written by other persons. However,
collections with North American beetles, when Say mailed specimens to his corre-
like those of Dejean, Eschscholtz, Germar, spondents, he attached numbers and listed
Gundlach, and Olivier. Moreover, the type thecorrespondingdataintheaccompanying
status of most specimens described by Say letter. The recipient wrote new labels and
(1831b, 1832b,c) and forwarded to integrated the specimens in his own collec-
Scho¨nherr is well documented and not tion. Scho¨nherr almost always noted on the
contestable. label and in his publications the previous
owner and the collecting site; Germar and
Harris often noted the initials on a small
MATERIALS AND METHODS
piece of paper. In numerous cases these
General Approach
labelswereremovedagainbymuseumstaff.
Factors that impair the recognition of I also noticed that Germar and Scho¨nherr
Say’s type specimens are lag time between pinned several originally card-mounted
description and publication, absence of specimens, and those may be unrecogniz-
original labels, dispersal and integration in ablewhenmixedwithothermaterial.Harris
other collections, and indifference to the generally attached only minute labels with
matter itself. numbers and recorded the associated data
Considerable time frequently elapsed in notebooks; I was unable to trace Say’s
between the first usage of a manuscript weevil types with these resources. More
name, the drafting of a description, and confusion was added when Harris was in
their formal publication, for the following charge of Say’s insect collection, forwarded
reasons. First, Say used many manuscript specimens to previous recipients (e.g.,
names previously proposed by Knoch and GermarandScho¨nherr)alongwithmaterial
Melsheimer (Melsheimer, 1806). All three fromothersources, replacedoriginal labels,
326 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 161, No. 9
and transferred specimens to his own correspondencestartingaround1824(when
collection. he began publishing weevil descriptions)
ThealreadytaxingrecognizabilityofSay’s and refrained from further random search-
insects is exacerbated even further by their es. Additionally, I tracked the specimens
convoluted history of dispersal to, and sent by Harris to Scho¨nherr (among them
integration in, other collections. Several Say material) because some subsequent
collections of primary recipients (e.g., De- type designations made from this material
jean, Germar, Winthem) were divided and were flawed. The following abbreviations
sold or donated in parts to other collectors areusedtorefertorepositoriesandarchives
(e.g., Cande`ze, Dohrn, Kraatz, Lu¨ders, in the text:
Oberthu¨r, Roelofs, Sommer) before they
came to museums or universities. Addition- ANSP Academy of Natural Sciences,
ally, single specimens might have been Drexel University, Philadelphia,
donated or exchanged already by the first USA
or any of the subsequent owners. Although MCZ Museum of Comparative Zoology,
the survival of some of Say’s insects has Harvard University, Cambridge,
been known for decades (Kuschel, 1952; Massachusetts, USA
Lindroth and Freitag, 1969; Smith, 1986; MfN Museum fu¨r Naturkunde, Berlin,
Mawdsley, 1993; F. C. Thompson, personal Germany
communication), there is no general over- MLUH Institut fu¨r Zoologie, Martin-Lu-
view about where the bulk of the material ther Universita¨t, Halle, Germany
went. My original intention was to search NHRS Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Stock-
also in other museum collections which are holm, Sweden
likely to house Say specimens. However, I SDEI Senckenberg, Deutsches Entomo-
eventually dismissed the plan because it logisches Institut, Mu¨ncheberg,
involved several hundred beetles, a fair Germany
number of European museums, and the SUBH Staats- und Universita¨tsbibliothek,
need to decipher substantially more histor- Hamburg, Germany
ical correspondence. What became clear, USNM Smithsonian, National Museum of
though, is that many beetle types were lost Natural History, Washington, USA
ordestroyed,indeed,althoughinadifferent WMI Working Men’s Institute, New
wayandmuchlaterthangenerallyassumed, Harmony, Indiana, USA
such as those sent to Gravenhorst and
Winthem. I also studied photos of an old insect
Notwithstanding the objective challenges collection housed at WMI, which were
mentionedabove,notafewtaxonomistsand taken and kindly made available to me by
curatorsfailedevenwhenavailableresourc- Roman Rakitov in 2011. One of the five
es readily linked existing museum material boxes contains approximately 40 North
with Say. Reasons for this are manifold and American and a few foreign weevil speci-
often have to do with limited availability of mens, some of them provided with num-
original literature, insufficient familiarity bers. Initially I saw no connection to Say
with languages, historical failures of collec- but, with more documents at hand, had to
tion managers, and the prevailing low rescind my view. The handwritten text on a
priority of museum collection management few miscellaneous labels, the style and
involving the detailed histories of acquired scientific nature of the notes contained in
materials. thelidsoftheboxes,andtheoverallspecies
For all these reasons, I focused on those composition suggest that this material in-
specimens that Say documented in his deed belonged to Say, not Charles-Alexan-
Weevils Described by Thomas Say (cid:2) Prena 327
dre Lesueur or some other resident of New Germar’s last letter and shipment from 1
Harmony. Regrettably, original identifica- October 1823 expressing gratitude for
tions are lacking and one should be aware having received copies of Insectorum spe-
that the boxes probably contain also spec- cies novae and Fauna europeae, volumes 4–
imens of the Harris Collection received in 6 and 8. Source: SDEI.
March 1834. Nevertheless, these and Ref. 5. Letter by Thaddeus Harris,
Knoch’s Melsheimer specimens might be Milton, to Thomas Say, Philadelphia, dated
of interest in future interpretations of still 18 November 1824. In English. Announces
unrecognized species. The autographs and that Mr. Fuller will convey two boxes with
documents referred to in the text are as insectsforidentification;providesadditional
follows: observations on some of them. Source:
Ref. 1. Letter by Thomas Say, Philadel- MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library (also published
phia, to Johann Friedrich (aka John Fred- by Scudder, 1891).
erick) Melsheimer, Hanover, dated 29 Ref. 6. Letter by Thomas Say, Philadel-
August 1821. In English. Brief account phia, to Johann Friedrich (aka John Fred-
about the Rocky Mountain Expedition erick) Melsheimer, Hanover, dated 1
under Major Long, with a statement that December 1824. In English. Informs that
the official repository of the collections American Entomology volume 1 is pub-
would be Peale’s museum in Philadelphia. lished. Source: ANSP, Archives Collection
Source: ANSP, Archives Collection 13 (also 13.
published by Fox, 1901). Ref. 7. Letter by Thomas Say, Philadel-
Ref.2.LetterbyErnstFriedrichGermar, phia, to Thaddeus Harris, Milton, dated 8
Halle, to Wilhelm von Winthem, Hamburg, January 1825. In English. Contains com-
dated 8 October 1823. In German. Com- ments on specimens sent by Harris on 18
panion letter going with several separate November 1824 (Ref. 5) and list with 176
boxes addressed to Langsdorff, Scho¨nherr, identifications. Letter and box conveyed by
Westermann, Wiedemann, and Winthem Thomas Nuttall. Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr
himself. Germar refers therein specifically Library.
to a copy of his recently published Insecto- Ref. 8. Thomas Say’s retained copy of the
rum species novae as being included in list with identified species returned to
Scho¨nherr’s lot (dated 5 October 1823 Thaddeus Harris, Milton; undated (corre-
according to Scho¨nherr’s response letter sponds with Ref. 7). Source: ANSP, Ar-
from 28 February 1824, SDEI). Informs chives Collection 455.
about death of Christian Hendel who had Ref. 9. Letter by Thomas Say, Philadel-
printed the book and that Scho¨nherr has phia, to Thaddeus Harris, Milton, dated 21
submitted a new weevil classification to Isis November 1825. In English. Announcing
(which apparently had not appeared yet). his departure to New Harmony within the
Source: SUBH, Nachla¨sse und Autogra- nextfewdaysandtherecentsubmissionofa
phen. manuscript on Coleoptera to the Journal of
Ref. 3. Letter by Prince Maximilian of ANSP. Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library,
Wied,Neuwied,toErnstFriedrichGermar, sfMu 1308.43.1.
Halle, dated 10 November 1823. In Ger- Ref. 10. Thomas Say’s retained copy of
man.Acknowledgmentforhavingreceiveda the list with the species mailed to Ernst
copy of Insectorum species novae. Source: Friedrich Germar in Halle, Germany. One
SDEI. double-sided sheet listing 143 Coleoptera
Ref. 4. Letter by Comte Dejean, Paris, to (64 tagged as syntypes but many still being
Ernst Friedrich Germar, Halle, dated 19 manuscript names) and 5 Lepidoptera.
November 1823. In French. Response to Dated December 1827, probably mailed in
328 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 161, No. 9
early January 1828 when passing through arecrossedoutandsymbolizedhereinasn),
New Orleans with William Maclure, on the and the note, ‘‘to be returned in case there
way to Mexico. Source: ANSP, Archives is no other sp. of that genus in the box.’’
Collection 455. Taxa listed with an asterisk and described
Ref. 11. Thomas Say’s retained copy of shortly afterward in the Curculionites pam-
the list with the species mailed to Wilhelm phlet are considered herein as holotypes;
von Winthem in Hamburg, Germany. One those with an asterisk but described in the
double-sided sheet listing 125 Coleoptera. 1820s are considered as likely syntypes.
Dated December 1827, probably mailed in Drafted before 18 March 1830 (Ref. 18),
early January 1828 when passing with with subsequent additions and changes
William Maclure through New Orleans on made in connection with Refs. 18 and 19.
the way to Mexico. Apparently donated in Source: ANSP, Archives Collection 455.
return for a box with specimens sent by Ref. 16. Letter by Thomas Say, New
Winthemon11March1825.Source:ANSP, Harmony, to Thaddeus Harris, Milton,
Archives Collection 455. dated20May1830.InEnglish.Reproaches
Ref. 12. Thomas Say’s retained copy of John Eatton LeConte for being unable to
the list with Mexican plant material sent to describe the new species of his insect
Robert Carr at Bartram’s Garden in Phila- collection even with the help of Dejean
delphia on 23 July 1828. ANSP, Archives andforhavingdonatedallhisColeopterato
Collection 433. the latter. Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr
Ref. 13. Letter by Fre´de´ric Auguste Library, sfMu 1308.43.1.
Ismar, New Orleans, to William Maclure, Ref. 17. Companion letter and list going
Mexico City, dated 15 November 1829 with two boxes of insects (ca. 140 species)
(probably error for 15 December 1829). In sent by Thomas Say, New Harmony, to
French. Personal information about pro- Friedrich Klug, Berlin, dated 10 December
gress of his voyage to New Harmony. 1830. In English. Source: MfN, Historische
Source: WMI, New Harmony Collections, Bild- und Schriftgutsammlungen.
VAA4026-0231. Ref.18.LetterbyCarlJohannScho¨nherr,
Ref. 14. Letter by William Bennett, Skara,toThomasSay,NewHarmony,dated
Mexico City, to Marie Fretageot, New 23 April 1831. In Latin. Refers to Say’s box
Harmony, dated 20 February 1830. In withweevilsmailedon18March1830(Ref.
English. Provides details about his arrival 15) which arrived damaged on 1 October
in Mexico: left Veracruz for Mexico City on 1830. Provides comments on the first 25
20 January 1830, traveled via Orizaba and species on Say’s list (fact mentioned in Ref.
Puebla instead of Xalapa. Source: WMI, 19), but this part and the envelope appar-
New Harmony Collections, VAA4026-0244. ently are lost. Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr
Ref. 15. Thomas Say’s retained copy of Library, BMs 31.20.19.
the list with the species sent to Carl Johann Ref.19.LetterbyCarlJohannScho¨nherr,
Scho¨nherr in Skara, Sweden. One folded Skara,toThomasSay,NewHarmony,dated
sheet with four pages (Prena, 2015, fig. 1), 22 October 1831. In Latin. Response to
dated 1830, listing 125 species (mostly Say’s letter from 1 August 1831 (which was
manuscript names) plus two unnamed about Scho¨nherr’s shipment of 345 species
species A and B, with cross references to and several books, all not arrived yet), with
the number of the corresponding name in commentsonspecies26–127ofSay’searlier
Melsheimer (1806), annotations (including shipment (Ref. 15). Upon receipt, Say
asterisks [*], which probably denote single- marked with a semicircle the comments of
tons [originally unique or last remaining thosespecieswhichhewasabouttoinclude
specimenofaformerseries];someasterisks in the Curculionites pamphlet; in the same
Weevils Described by Thomas Say (cid:2) Prena 329
fashion he marked the corresponding re- Boston. The first descriptions appear ca.
cords (only between 73 and 103) on his 2.5 years later in Scho¨nherr (1839). Source:
retainedlist(Ref.15;Prena,2015,figs.1,2). MCZ,ErnstMayrLibrary,bMu1308.10.31.
Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library, bMs Ref. 25. Letter by John Lawrence Le-
31.20.19. Conte, Philadelphia, to Alexander Agassiz,
Ref. 20. Letter by Thomas Say, New Museum of Comparative Zoology, dated 28
Harmony, to Thaddeus Harris, Cambridge, April 1875. Offer to bequeath his personal
dated 21 December 1831. In English. collection of Coleoptera to the museum.
Encourages Harris to forward insects for Outlines its scientific value and gives
identification. Informs about ongoing work recommendations on conservation and
on a paper containing his weevil descrip- maintenance (e.g., restricted accessto types
tions and his intent to describe more in a and strict retention of original labels).
supplement. Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library (also
Library, sfMu 1308.43.1. published in Appendix B of the Annual
Ref. 21. Letter by Thomas Say, New Report of the Trustees of the Museum for
Harmony, to Thaddeus Harris, Cambridge,
1875 and in The Coleopterists Bulletin
dated 8 September 1832. In English.
15(4): 1961).
Informs that Harris’ shipment with Coleop-
terahasnotarrivedyetin NewOrleansand Collecting Sites and Dates
that he is printing now a supplement of the
Many of the weevils described by Say in
Curculionites pamphlet. Source: MCZ,
the 1820s were collected during the early
Ernst Mayr Library, sfMu 1308.43.1.
explorations of the interior parts of North
Ref. 22. Letter by Ernst Friedrich Ger-
America, which the United States had
mar, Halle, to Thomas Say, New Harmony,
acquiredfromFrancein1803(theso-called
dated 10 June 1833. In German. Response
Louisiana Purchase). The area initially was
to Say’s letter from 26 December 1832.
divided along the 33rd parallel into the
AcknowledgesreceiptofCurculionitespam-
Territory of Orleans to the south and the
phlet and mentions that he has several of
DistrictofLouisianatothenorth.Thelatter
the newly described species from Nicolas
was redesignated as the Louisiana Territory
Hentz (obviously confusing shipments).
in 1805 and renamed Missouri Territory in
Laments about having hassles with customs
1812 when the Orleans Territory and
when shipments come though England or
adjacent Spanish claims became the State
Holland; urges Say to mail via Winthem in
Hamburg or Eggers & Franke in Bremen. of Louisiana. The southern part of the
Source: MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library, bMs Missouri Territory became the Territory of
31.20.9. Arkansaw in 1819. A relatively small part of
Ref. 23. Letter by Thomas Say, New the remaining Missouri Territory became
Harmony, to Thaddeus Harris, Cambridge, the State of Missouri in 1821. Say used
dated 7 August 1834. In English. With thesehistoricalexpressionsratherarbitrarily
statement about unpublished descriptions in abbreviated form and one should be
andmanuscriptnames.Source:MCZ,Ernst aware that some meant different things at
Mayr Library, sfMu 1308.43.1. different times. This is important because
Ref. 24. Thaddeus Harris’ draft and Say also received specimens from other
retained copy of the list with the species collectors,inparticularthebotanistThomas
mailed to Carl Johann Scho¨nherr in Skara, Nuttall (1786–1859). Nuttall participated in
Sweden. Dated December 1836, with 42 the first stage of the Astor Expedition 1811
Coleoptera species from his own and 77 (duringwhichhecollected,forexample,the
from the Natural History Collection in type series of the Colorado potato beetle,
330 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 161, No. 9
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), Chryso- inthemuseumofCharlesWillsonPeale,he
melidae) and collected along the Arkansas also had access to specimens of the Lewis
and Red rivers in 1818–20, thereby being and Clark Expedition (1804–06), but none
ahead of Say and Major Long’s Rocky are documented. I have not noticed any
Mountain Expedition. unlikely or obviously incorrect collecting
Nuttall’s locality ‘‘Missouri’’ applies to data, although the data published by
specimens collected in 1811 along the Scho¨nherr (1833–45) disagree occasionally
Missouri River, between present-day St. with Say’s retained list, probably because of
Louis, Missouri, and Mandan, North Dako- misinterpretations of dashes and ditto
ta. Say’s ‘‘Missouri’’ applies to specimens marks. Nevertheless, Say normally did not
collected along the same river during June– write locality data on labels and made
July 1819 in today’s State of Missouri but several changes on his retained species list
possibly also to collections made in the (Ref. 15), possibly based on field notes or
vicinity of present-day Topeka, Kansas. from memory. Therefore, inaccuracies and
Only the collections from Engineer Can- errors may have occurred and cannot be
tonment, the 1819–20 winter camp on the
ruled out.
Missouri near present-day Omaha, Nebras-
Say described four weevils from Mexico,
ka,havepreciselocalitydata(Genowaysand
among them the first one ever described
Ratcliffe, 2008). Nuttall’s locality ‘‘Arkansa’’
from there, without providing details on
appliestospecimenscollectedin1819along
collecting localities or dates. It is relatively
the Arkansas River in present-day Arkansas
certain that these specimens came from his
(mostly around Ft. Smith) and eastern
1828 journey with William Maclure. Barber
Oklahoma.Likewise,Say’s‘‘Arkansa’’refers
(1928) determined as Say’s travel route the
to the river of that name rather than to the
old road between Veracruz and Ciudad de
historic Arkansaw Territory. His specimens
Me´xico via Xalapa and Puebla. His conclu-
from ‘‘Arkansa near the Rocky Mountains’’
sion is corroborated by the collecting
were taken around July 1820 in today’s
localities of plants and seeds, which Say
Colorado, all other records from ‘‘Arkansa’’
forwarded to Bartram’s Garden (Ref. 12).
may refer to collections made between
Most of these items came from local
August and early October further down-
markets or were collected in the vicinity of
stream in today’s Kansas, Oklahoma, and
Ciudad de Me´xico (e.g., Tacubaya [spelled
Arkansas. Finally, collections along the
Tacubya], Chapultepec, Lago de Chalco,
Mississippi River were taken in October
and the hills around the city). Say stayed in
1820 when sailing down from Cape Gir-
Me´xicofromJanuarytoApril1828.William
ardeau, Missouri, to New Orleans, Louisi-
Bennett had been instructed to make
ana. The Louisiana specimens obtained
further collections for Say, but his travel
fromJosephBarabinoandFre´de´ricAuguste
itinerary(Ref.14)makesitunlikelythatany
Ismar are from the New Orleans area, not
of these specimens were sent to Scho¨nherr.
the historic Louisiana Territory or subse-
My preliminary results indicate that they
quent State of Louisiana. The records from
were taken by Lesueur and forwarded to
the Northwest Territory may refer to (i) the
‘‘TerritoryNorthwestoftheRiverOhio,’’an Chevrolat and Dupont.
organized incorporated territory of the
Dates of Publication
United States that existed from 1787 to
1803, or (ii) the so-called North-Western Say sometimes typeset, printed, and
Territory, a historical region northwest of distributed individual signatures of a par-
Rupert’s Land that existed until 1870. ticular work at different dates (Bousquet,
BecauseSayworkedforawhileasacurator 1993; Prena, 2015). For example, Say wrote
Weevils Described by Thomas Say (cid:2) Prena 331
to Klug (Ref. 17), ‘‘I send you, so far as it is Lyal (1999) considered Ophryastes Say,
printed, a paper that I am now occupied 1831 (actually 1832b), an available name
with on new North American insects, as far and junior homonym of Ophryastes Ger-
as page 41.’’ Two aspects need to be mar, 1829.
considered in this context, i.e., date priority The genus group names contributed by
(which affects the validity of names and the Scho¨nherr to the Curculionites pamphlet
fixation of type species) and occurrence of were Pterocolus (p. 5), Graphorhinus (p. 8),
name variants in separately issued parts Callopistus(p.9),Aphrastus(p.9),Agraphus
(which determines their availability). Two (p. 13), and Analcis (p. 29). Authors who
instances of nearly simultaneously pub- recognized them as being made available in
lished homonyms deserve special mention. this work generally attributed them to Say.
There is compelling evidence (see under The authorship issue is regulated by ICZN
Calandra compressirostra in the text and (1999)Article50.1.1(ortherespectivearticle
Bousquet, 2016) that Germar’s Insectorum in previous editions) which stipulates that if
species novae was published in 1823 rather some person other than an author of the
work is alone responsible both for the name
than 1824, as stated on the title page, and
or act and for satisfying the criteria of
therefore has date priority over the sections
availability other than actual publication,
of a paper printed in the Journal of the
then that other person is the author of the
Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia
name or act. Four of the six aforementioned
(3[2]) for which Say claimed authorship
genus group names were made available by
priority based on the date of the meeting at
indication,i.e.,byusageincombinationwith
which the manuscript was presented. The
an available species name (ICZN, 1999,
other case is Odontopus, a genus name
Article 12.2.5). Because Say was responsible
introducedbySayinthesecondsignatureof
for the publication but Scho¨nherr for the
his Curculionites pamphlet before May
namesandacts,itisjustifiedtoacknowledge
1832, by Silbermann in his Revue Entomo-
Scho¨nherr(inSay,1831–32)astheauthorof
logique in April 1833 (stated in description)
Graphorhinus, Callopistus, Aphrastus, and
and by Laporte in his Magasin de Zoologie
Analcis, with theyear of publicationcorrect-
around1832–33(readon29February1832;
ed from 1831 to 1832 for the latter three
provisional date of publication determined
names (see Prena, 2015, and catalog section
by Harris [1942] as 1833 and fixed in
below for dates). Of these four, only Graph-
Direction 63 (10); ICZN, 1957).
orhinus Scho¨nherr, 1831 (not Scho¨nherr,
1833a; not Scho¨nherr, 1833b), and Aphras-
Authorships
tus Scho¨nherr,1832(not Scho¨nherr, 1833a),
The Curculionites pamphlet (Say, 1831b, are valid. Callopistus Scho¨nherr, 1832, is a
1832b,c) contains 10 new genus group subjective junior synonym of Compsus
names. Say wrote in a footnote on the first Scho¨nherr, 1823; and Analcis Scho¨nherr,
pagethatsomeofthemwerecontributedby 1832 (not Wagler, 1830; not Scho¨nherr,
Scho¨nherr. Those appeared in the paper 1833a), is a subjective junior synonym of
usually with ‘‘Schoenh. in litt.’’ (in the first Tyloderma Say, 1832b. Say remains the
signature only with ‘‘Sch.’’), whereas Say’s author of the other two Scho¨nherr genera
ownnamesweremarkedwith‘‘Nob.’’orthe because it was he who published the first
context made it obvious that he himself was descriptions: Pterocolus Say, 1831b (not
proposing the name. Additionally, Scho¨nherr, 1833), and Agraphus Say, 1832b
‘‘Ophryastes Germ.’’ appeared on page 13 (not Scho¨nherr, 1833; not Scho¨nherr,
in combination with a brief diagnosis and 1834b). The four genuine genus group
two species names; Alonso-Zarazaga and names proposed by Say himself in this work
332 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 161, No. 9
are (with the corrected dates) Thecesternus Notes. In addition to his own expedition
Say,1831b;AracanthusSay,1832b;Odonto- material, Say also included in the descrip-
pus Say, 1832b; and Tyloderma Say, 1832b. tionsspecimensoftwocollectingtripsmade
by Nuttall to the same general region
Conventions and General Arrangement (Nuttall, 1821; Beidleman, 1956) as well as
Because of the nomenclatural signifi- matching specimens from Pennsylvania and
cance of dates, the arrangement of the from the 1817–18 expedition to the sea
catalog section follows the temporal se- shores of Georgia and Florida (Bennett,
quenceofpublishingratherthantheformal 2002). The official repository for the mate-
titles of Say’s papers. At the beginning of rial collected by the Long Expedition was
each of these sections, I provide the date of Charles Willson Peale’s museum in Phila-
publication along with supporting evidence. delphia(Ref.1).Sayapparentlykeptatleast
Asummaryoftheoriginalnames,withtheir some specimens and probably everything
present generic assignment and nomencla- received from Nuttall.
tural status, is given in Table 1. All
Cryptorhynchus oculatus Say, 1824a: 308
information from Say’s correspondence is
cited verbatim, including crossed-out words Modern Name. Lechriops oculatus (Say).
and later additions. My interpretation of his Origin of Specific Name. Proposed by
symbols is given under Ref. 15; own Say.
comments are placed in square brackets. Type Locality. Missouri [stated in de-
Page numbers are used in citations to refer scription;interpretedasSt.Louis,Missouri,
to specific information in a particular by Sleeper (1963)].
reference. Exchange of Specimens. Say sent
Numerousauthorsspelledtheirnamesin Scho¨nherr one specimen as ‘‘*50 oculatus,
different ways, often adjusted to the lan- n. J.A.N.S.’’ (Ref. 15).
guage of the respective publication. I Interpretations. The name is being used
standardize them here to their native in the sense of LeConte (in LeConte and
spelling, i.e., Gyllenhaal (see Palmblad and Horn, 1876: 260). Scho¨nherr (1838: 650,
Wieselgren, 1839: 313), Scho¨nherr (see 1845: 231) was unfamiliar with C. oculatus,
Palmblad and Wieselgren, 1847: 177), and so I assume that species 50 did not arrive
Voß (as in cited references and his early undamaged with the 1830 shipment.
publications). Extant Types. In the Harris Collection
(MCZ) is one specimen with the type
number 26422, apparently from the Say
CONSPECTUS OF THE WEEVILS
Collection and labeled in Say’s hand ‘‘Zy-
(CURCULIONOIDEA) DESCRIBED BY
gops/ oculatus? S.’’ The question mark
SAY
indicates that this is a tentative identifica-
Descriptions of Coleopterous Insects
tion, probably made much later than 1824,
Collected in the Late Expedition to the
so the specimen may not be a syntype.
Rocky Mountains, Performed by Order of
Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of War, under the Cryptorhynchus operculatus Say, 1824a:
Command of Major Long. (Continued.) 308
JournaloftheAcademyofNaturalSciences
Modern Name. Cylindrocopturus oper-
Philadelphia, 3(2)[part]: 298–320. culatus (Say).
Date of Publication. [31] March 1824 Origin of Specific Name. Proposed by
(Fox, 1913: viii). Say.