# The "Our Planet Reviewed" Mitaraka 2015 expedition: a full account of its research outputs after six years and recommendations for future surveys

Julien Touroult, Olivier Pascal, Florian Barnier, Marc Pollet

► To cite this version:

Julien Touroult, Olivier Pascal, Florian Barnier, Marc Pollet. The "Our Planet Reviewed" Mitaraka 2015 expedition: a full account of its research outputs after six years and recommendations for future surveys. Zoosystema, 2021, 43 (32), pp.811-833. 10.5252/zoosystema2021v43a32. mnhn-04158868

HAL Id: mnhn-04158868

https://mnhn.hal.science/mnhn-04158868

Submitted on 11 Jul 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
zoosystema

2021 • 43 • 32

“OUR PLANET REVIEWED” 2015

LARGE-SCALE BIOTIC SURVEY IN MITARAKA, FRENCH GUIANA

Edited by Julien TOUROULT

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

The “Our Planet Reviewed” Mitaraka
2015 expedition: a full account of its
research outputs after six years and
recommendations for future surveys

Julien TOUROULT, Olivier PASCAL,
Florian BARNIER & Marc POLLET

art. 43 (32) — Published on 21 December 2021

www.zoosystema.com

la planète
envisitée

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

PUBLICATIONS

SCIENTIFIQUES

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
DIRECTEUR DE LA PUBLICATION / PUBLICATION DIRECTOR: Bruno David

Président du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle

RÉDACTRICE EN CHEF / EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Laure Desutter-Grandcolas

ASSISTANTE DE RÉDACTION / ASSISTANT EDITOR: Anne Mabille (zoosyst@mnhn.fr)

MISE EN PAGE / PAGE LAYOUT: Anne Mabille

COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE / SCIENTIFIC BOARD:

Nesrine Akkari (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienne, Autriche)

Maria Marta Cigliano (Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Argentine)

Serge Gofas (Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Espagne)

Sylvain Hugel (CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, France)

Marco Isaia (Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italie)

Rafael Marquez (CSIC, Madrid, Espagne)

Jose Christopher E. Mendoza (Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Singapour)

Annemarie Ohler (MNHN, Paris, France)

Jean-Yves Rasplus (INRA, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France)

Wanda M. Weiner (Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracovie, Pologne)

COUVERTURE / COVER:

Mitaraka Sud Massif showing inselbergs and associated forest vegetation (photo: Xavier Desmier). In medallion: preparation and management of the specimens for short term storage in the field laboratory.

Zoosystema est indexé dans / Zoosystema is indexed in:

- Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch®)

- ISI Alerting Services®

- Current Contents® / Agriculture, Biology, and Environmental Sciences®

- Scopus®

Zoosystema est distribué en version électronique par / Zoosystema is distributed electronically by:

- BioOne® (http://www.bioone.org)

Les articles ainsi que les nouveautés nomenclaturales publiés dans Zoosystema sont référencés par /
Articles and nomenclatural novelties published in Zoosystema are referenced by:

- ZooBank® (http://zoobank.org)

Zoosystema est une revue en flux continu publiée par les Publications scientifiques du Muséum, Paris / Zoosystema is a fast track journal published by the
Museum Science Press, Paris

Les Publications scientifiques du Muséum publient aussi / The Museum Science Press also publish:

Adansonia, Geodiversitas, Anthropozoologica, European Journal of Taxonomy, Naturae, Cryptogamie sous-sections Algologie, Bryologie, Mycologie, Comptes Rendus Palevol.

Diffusion – Publications scientifiques Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle
CP 41 – 57 rue Cuvier F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France)
Tél.: 33 (0)1 40 79 48 05 / Fax: 33 (0)1 40 79 38 40
diff.pub@mnhn.fr / https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr

© Publications scientifiques du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, 2021
ISSN (imprimé / print): 1280-9551 / ISSN (électronique / electronic): 1638-9387
# The "Our Planet Reviewed" Mitaraka 2015 expedition: a full account of its research outputs after six years and recommendations for future surveys

**Julien TOUROULT**

UMS 2006 Patrimoine naturel (« PatriNat »), OFB, CNRS, MNHN, case postale 41, 57 rue Cuvier, F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France)
[julien.touroult@ofb.gouv.fr](mailto:julien.touroult@ofb.gouv.fr)

**Olivier PASCAL**

Fonds de dotation Biotope pour la nature
22 Boulevard du Maréchal Foch, F-34140 Mèze (France)
[oli.pascal@gmail.com](mailto:oli.pascal@gmail.com)

**Florian BARNIER**

UMS 2006 Patrimoine naturel (« PatriNat »), OFB, CNRS, MNHN, case postale 41, 57 rue Cuvier, F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France)
[florian.barnier@mnhn.fr](mailto:florian.barnier@mnhn.fr)

**Marc POLLET**

Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels (Belgium); and Entomology Unit, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences (RBINS), Vautierstraat 29, B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
[mpollet.doli@gmail.com](mailto:mpollet.doli@gmail.com)

Submitted on 12 January 2021 | Accepted on 4 October 2021 | Published on 21 December 2021

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5B295F92-E3E7-42D2-BFCC-C82032E83DC6

Touroult J., Pascal O., Barnier F. & Pollet M. 2021. — The "Our Planet Reviewed" Mitaraka 2015 expedition: a full account of its research outputs after six years and recommendations for future surveys, in *Touroult J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed"* 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 43 (32): 811-833. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2021v43a32. http://zoosystema.com/43/32

## ABSTRACT

Six years after the expedition "Our Planet Reviewed – French Guiana 2015" in the Mitaraka massif, we present a synthesis of the taxonomic and faunistic results obtained from the analysis of the 108 published articles and the 10 600 observations that were databased and disseminated. In this relatively short period of time, 218 new species for French Guiana including 127 species new to science, and also four genera new to science have been published based on the expedition material. These are primarily insects, notably Coleoptera (98), Diptera (60), Lepidoptera (16) and Orthoptera (17). For the 2015 to 2020 period, approximately 13% of the descriptions of new animal species in French Guiana use material from the expedition. The 3100 species identified in Mitaraka represent nearly 15% of the 21 042 animal species known from French Guiana. The observation data from the expedition that are open access via the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) portal render the Mitaraka massif the area with the greatest documented and disclosed entomological richness on the Guiana Shield. Feedback has enabled us to draw up some recommendations for inventories aimed at taxonomic discovery: assign a person per taxonomic group to mobilize, coordinate, and motivate the taxonomic experts involved; deploy a variety of collecting strategies, from interception and attractive traps to active search; invest heavily in the sample processing phase; get a journal editor engaged to dedicate issues to thematic publications on the survey; and disclose the survey data through GBIF data sets and/or datapapers.

**MOTS CLÉS**
Neotropics,
Tumuc Humac,
Guiana Shield,
Amazonian forest,
ATBI,
sampling strategy,
collecting methods,
Linnean shortfall.
## RÉSUMÉ

L'expédition « La Planète revisitée » Mitaraka 2015 : bilan des résultats scientifiques après six ans et recommandations pour de futurs inventaires.

Six ans après l'expédition « La Planète revisitée – Guyane 2015 » dans le massif du Mitaraka, nous présentons une synthèse des résultats taxonomiques et faunistiques obtenus à partir de l'analyse des 108 articles publiés et des 10 600 données bancarisées et diffusées. Dans ce relativement court laps de temps, 218 nouvelles espèces pour la Guyane dont 127 nouvelles espèces pour la Science, ainsi que quatre genres nouveaux pour la Science ont été publiés à partir du matériel de l'expédition. Il s'agit très majoritairement d'insectes, notamment Coleoptera (98), Diptera (60), Lepidoptera (16) et Orthoptera (17). Pour la période 2015-2020, environ 13% des descriptions d'espèces animales nouvelles de Guyane utilisent du matériel issu de l'expédition. Les 3 100 espèces identifiées à Mitaraka représentent près de 15% des 21 042 espèces animales connues de Guyane. Les données de l'expédition diffusées en libre accès dans le portail du Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) font du massif du Mitaraka la zone avec la plus grande richesse entomologique documentée et partagée pour le plateau des Guyanes. Le retour d'expérience nous permet de formuler quelques recommandations pour les inventaires visant à la découverte taxonomique : identifier un responsable par groupe taxonomique pour coordonner et animer l'expertise ; déployer une diversité de stratégies de récolte, par interception, recherche active et pièges attractifs ; investir massivement dans la phase de tri du matériel ; prévoir un ouvrage thématique regroupant les articles sur la mission ; et documenter les données produites par un ou plusieurs datapapers.

## MOTS CLÉS
Région néotropicale,
Tumuc Humac,
Plateau des Guyanes,
forêt amazonienne,
ATBI,
stratégie
d'échantillonnage,
méthodes de collecte,
handicap taxonomique.

## INTRODUCTION

A large-scale biodiversity survey, part of the “Our Planet Reviewed” program, was organised in the Mitaraka range, in the southwest of French Guiana, in February-March and August 2015. Among the objectives pursued (Touroult et al. 2018), this concluding paper of the Zoosystema thematic issue focuses on the four objectives related to faunistic inventory and taxonomic discovery: 1) to discover species new for science and to describe them in a short time frame; 2) to discover and publish first records for the French Guiana territory (i.e., species known in other countries but not yet reported from French Guiana in the literature); 3) to carry out a biodiversity inventory as complete as possible of the fauna of a remote location in French Guiana. This should serve as a benchmark for biogeographical studies and conservation strategies at the scale of the Guiana Shield and, possibly, for the whole Amazonian basin; and 4) to manage and share these data with conservation managers and the scientific community within the framework of the “Inventaire national du Patrimoine naturel” (INPN, French natural heritage inventory), and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) at the international level.

Regarding these goals, we list the main results obtained until December 16, 2021 i.e., about six years after the fieldwork was completed, provide analyses with regard to the contribution of new knowledge for French Guiana and attempt to formulate methodological guidance for this type of wide-ranging biodiversity inventories.

As stated in the authors' conclusion of the introductory paper to the Mitaraka survey (Touroult et al. 2018), we aim at assessing the contribution of the survey in terms of both discovering and publishing species new to science and first records for the territory of French Guiana (objectives 1 and 2).

In other words, compared to the current background rate of discovery and taxonomic publications on French Guiana biodiversity (Brûlé & Touroult 2014), did the Mitaraka expédition generate a significant increase of scientific discoveries? A linked technical feedback question, that could improve the organisational aspect of biological inventories, refers to sampling methods and associated sample examination processes: what types of collecting techniques were used to find the novelties that were described? Also, should we favour passive traps (interception) or also keep targeted and “direct” collecting techniques (visual search, sieving, sweeping, light trap, etc.) in terms of sampling efficiency?

For the completeness of the species inventory (objective 3): have we been able to deliver new information on orders or classes of invertebrates that were hitherto poorly known in French Guiana? Has the project been able to mobilize post-field expertise beyond the one currently operational in this region? For objectives 3 and 4 (i.e., disclosure of collected biodiversity data), we checked how the Mitaraka inventory stands compared to other available data on insects at the Guiana Shield level. For data dissemination, we also analysed the management of traceability, the citation and deposition of specimens, requirements that are constrained by the implementation of the Nagoya protocol since 2014. In other words, for our Mitaraka case study: what is the proportion of publications that meets the different citation requirements? And finally, we questioned what factors affect this traceability?

## MATERIAL AND METHODS

### STUDY SITE AND TAXONOMIC FIELD PROTOCOLS

The study site and the taxonomic field protocols are described in detail in Touroult et al. (2018). Thirteen different trap
types were used including four types of interception traps and nine types of attraction-based traps. Active search methods (13 techniques) and extraction from the substrate (five techniques, including Winkler sieves, emergence from dead wood, etc.) completed the sampling framework.

## SPECIMEN MANAGEMENT

As for other projects of the “Our Planet Reviewed” program, the organization of the transmission of specimens to taxonomic experts after sorting has been developed through the appointment of a few key people, i.e., the taxonomic group coordinators (list given in Touroult et al. 2018). The benefit of this approach is twofold: first, the coordinators bring their own expertise and their network of experts to the project, adding to those already mobilized by the general project management. They also facilitate the splitting up of the samples into workable fractions for the experts, and the dissemination of these fractions. After a sorting phase that lasted less than a year for most groups, a network of 165 taxonomic experts was mobilized by the 12 coordinators to study the sorted specimens.

## DATA MANAGEMENT

An online database, CardObs (https://cardobs.mnhn.fr/), developed since 2007 to facilitate the entry of French data collected by naturalists, was used. This application is linked to TAXREF, the national French taxonomic backbone (Gargominy et al. 2019). In CardObs, taxa that are not (yet) recognized as described, are assigned to the appropriate higher taxonomic level. A free data entry field is provided to store the morphospecies name assigned by the identifier, or left empty if the genus is the most reliable level of identification. This database was updated each time identification lists were returned by coordinators or experts and/or when articles were published, ensuring a link between the specimen, the publication and the observation data. This database is connected to the portal of the National Inventory of Natural Heritage (INPN: https://inpn.mnhn.fr), which is periodically uploaded to the international portal of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF: https://www.gbif.org).

## IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS AS OF JULY 31, 2021

Since the Mitaraka fieldwork was accomplished in 2015, we have been tracking actual publications citing material from the expedition by keeping close contact with participants and by monitoring Google.scholar and the Zoological Record websites. For each publication using or citing at least one specimen from the expedition, we retrieved the following characteristics from the publications:

- taxon cited;

- date of publication and bibliographic reference;

- indication whether the publication is part of a thematic issue of the following journals or not: the current series of *Zoosystema* or ACOREP-France on the Beetles of French Guiana;

- species status: species new to science or only recorded for the first time in French Guiana;

- whether all the material, especially the holotype, originates from the expedition;

- collecting technique for the holotypes;

- compliance to the requirements for citation of the shipment, citation of the Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) permit, and deposition of types and part of non-type specimens in the MNHN collections.

For this screening and the analyses of the taxonomic results provided in this article, we did not take into account: 1) new citations for French Guiana that appeared in the identification lists but were not published; 2) new citations made in the survey report (unpublished literature); nor 3) the first genus records for French Guiana when they were not associated with a precisely identified species.

## REFERENCES FOR COMPARING THE OUTPUT OF THIS SURVEY

For comparison purposes, we used periods of 5 or 5.5 years, corresponding to the baselines used and the time when the analysis was carried out.

We used the national taxonomic backbone TAXREF (Version 14, Gargominy et al. 2020) as a reference to describe the pattern of descriptions of species of the French Guiana fauna, which lists all the cited species in French Guiana with their year of publication. From these data of the period prior to the survey (e.g. 2003-2013, analysed by Brûlé & Touroult 2014), it is possible to compare the production of new species in the 5.5 years period between July 1, 2015 December 31, 2020 and to infer the proportion that can be directly assigned to the Mitaraka survey (i.e. species described on the basis of Mitaraka 2015 survey specimens only).

We treat the GBIF portal (www.gbif.org) as reference for shared data. In this respect, on August 20, 2020, we examined the volumes of insect data (Insecta class in the GBIF search module) accessible in the Guiana Shield Region, with a precise geolocation of less than 1 km.

## RESULTS

We identified 108 publications related to the Mitaraka expedition (see references) including 100 taxonomic papers (see Table 1). New species and first records are listed in Appendix 1.

## NEW SPECIES AND FIRST RECORDS (OBJECTIVES 1 AND 2)

By July 31, 2021, 218 new species for the fauna of French Guiana had been published, based in whole or in part, on the material collected during the expedition. There are 127 species new to science, including 99 with a holotype produced by the Mitaraka 2015 survey (Table 1). Another 91 are first published records for French Guiana of species already known from elsewhere. Of these 218 new entries, 128 (60 new species and 68 first records) are based solely on samples collected at Mitaraka. Insects make up the bulk of these novelties (214), notably Coleoptera (98), Diptera (60), Orthoptera (17) and Lepidoptera (16). There were also discoveries in less diversified taxa, with two new scorpions (Arachnida, Scorpiones) and two new frogs (Amphibia, Anura) (Table 1).
<table><caption>TABLE 1. — Summary of the number of species described or reported for the first time for French Guiana on the basis of material collected during the Mitaraka expedition. The "first country records" do not include the new species described.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th colspan="2">Number of new species described based on material</th><th colspan="2">Number of first country records published based on material</th><th rowspan="2">References</th></tr><tr><th>from Mitaraka survey only</th><th>not exclusively</th><th>from Mitaraka survey only</th><th>not exclusively</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Actinopterygii (fishes)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Brosse et al. 2019; Cilleros et al. 2017, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Amphibia, Anura</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Fouquet et al. 2019b</td></tr><tr><td>Aromobatidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Fouquet et al. 2019a; Vacher et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Bufonidae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Rojas et al. 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Arachnida, Scorpiones</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Lourenço 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Buthidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Lourenço 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Chactidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Lourenço 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Blattodea</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Evangelista et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Octobiidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Evangelista et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Coleoptera</td><td>18</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>13</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Brendidae (incl. Apioninae)</td><td>–</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>Mantilleri 2015, 2017, 2018; Rheinheimer 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Buprestidae</td><td>4</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Brûlé 2015; Curletti & Brûlé 2015, 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Cantharidae</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>Biffi & Constantin 2018; Constantin 2015, 2016a, 2017a, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Cerambycidae</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Dalens 2016; Dalens & Touroult 2015; Touroult & Dalens 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Chrysomelidae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Constantin 2017b</td></tr><tr><td>Curculionidae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Rheinheimer 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Elateridae</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>Chassain 2016, 2018; Chassain & Touroult 2016, 2017, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Histeridae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Degallier et al. 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Paussidae</td><td>5</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Deuve 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Phengodidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Constantin 2016b</td></tr><tr><td>Scarabaeidae (incl. Dynastinae)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>Boilly 2015, 2018; Boilly et al. 2016; Dupuis 2016; Rojkoff 2016; Touroult et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Tenebrionidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>Gonzales et al. 2015; Gonzales & Yvinec 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Dermaptera</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>Girod & Matzke 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Spongiphoridae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>Girod & Matzke 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Diptera</td><td>20</td><td>–</td><td>40</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agromyzidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>Boucher & Pollet 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Asilidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>11</td><td>–</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Chloropidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Riccardi 2020; Riccardi et al. 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Dolichopodidae</td><td>7</td><td>–</td><td>4</td><td>–</td><td>Brooks et al. 2018; Pollet et al. 2018; Runyon & Pollet 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Drosophilidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Pirani & Grimaldi 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Keroplatidae</td><td>3</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Blagoderov & Pollet 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Muscidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Gomes & de Carvalho 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Pipunculidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>3</td><td>–</td><td>Marques et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Psychodidae</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Curler 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Ropalomeridae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>Ale-Rocha & Pollet 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Sciomyzidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Mortelmans & Pollet 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Sepsidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>8</td><td>–</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Tabanidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>9</td><td>–</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Tipulidae</td><td>3</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Mederos & Pollet 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Hemiptera</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coreidae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Brailovsky 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Pentatomidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>Lupoli 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Hymenoptera</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Braconidae</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>Belokobylskij et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Dryinidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Olmi et al. 2019a</td></tr><tr><td>Embolemidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Olmi et al. 2019b</td></tr><tr><td>Formicidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>Ladino & Feitosa 2020; Leonce et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Lepidoptera</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Apatelodidae</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Herbin 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Erebidae</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Barbut 2016; Cerda 2016; Gibeaux 2016a; Gibeaux 2016b; Laguerre & Vincent 2016</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Table 1. — Continuation.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th colspan="2">Number of new species described based on material</th><th colspan="2">Number of first country records published based on material</th><th rowspan="2">References</th></tr><tr><th>from Mitaraka survey only</th><th>not exclusively</th><th>from Mitaraka survey only</th><th>not exclusively</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Geometridae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Lévêque 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Lycaenidae</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Faynel 2019; Martins et al. 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Noctuidae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Barbut & Lalanne-Cassou 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Nymphalidae</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Fratello et al. 2015; Zacca et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Saturniidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>3</td><td>–</td><td>Bénéluz 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Mantodea</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Roy 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Photinaidae</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Roy 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Odonata</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Corduliidae</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Fleck 2017; Fleck & Juillerat 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Orthoptera</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Acrididae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Pocco & Cigliano 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Gryllidae</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Vicente & Robillard 2017; Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Phalangopsidae</td><td>8</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudophyllinae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Hugel 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Romaleidae</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>Pocco & Cigliano 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Phasmatodea</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudophasmatidae</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Conle et al. 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>58</td><td>60</td><td>61</td><td>17</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

Publications started soon after the survey and continued at a steady pace until mid 2021, with no downward trend (Fig. 1). In the first two years, many of the descriptions included only paratypes from Mitaraka, suggesting that the work had already been in progress prior to the survey and that additional specimens from the expedition had been swiftly integrated and/or triggered the publication. In contrast, since 2018, the vast majority of descriptions uses holotype material from the expedition (Fig. 1), suggesting specific work triggered by the dissemination of the expedition material.

Compared to the global rate of description of animal species from French Guiana (Fig. 2), publications related to the “Our Planet Reviewed” expedition encompass 13% of the 938 species described between 2015 and 2020. There are considerable differences between certain groups of insects though (Fig. 3A-C): the material from the expedition contributes moderately to the on-going dynamics of discoveries in Coleoptera and Lepidoptera but brings a strong increase in descriptions for some other orders of insects notably Diptera, Orthoptera and Hymenoptera.

In addition to this species-level analysis, four new genera are described with a type species from Mitaraka: two Psychodiidae (Diptera)- (Curler 2020), *Polletomyia* Curler, 2020 and *Myiomystax* Curler, 2020; and two Orthoptera (Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020), *Aracopsis* Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020 and *Mellomima* Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020.

In most of the groups, except for Lepidoptera and vertebrates, a large number of morphospecies were recognized which did not yet lead to new species descriptions. This has a significant impact on the conservative numbers given in this paper, considering only published novelties. For example, one of the coordinators (Marc Pollet) has received identification

results on some very small Diptera families that were considered not sufficient to dedicate a publication to, but might represent first records for French Guiana all together. And several unpublished identification lists (Pollet et al. 2018) include even genera new to science or for French Guiana that are discarded in the current analysis.

BIODIVERSITY OPEN ACCESS DATA (OBJECTIVES 3 AND 4)

Two datasets were produced compiling the results of each survey (February-March and August 2015) based on the lists of identifications delivered by the experts, and on the novelties published. These datasets are freely available and are updated once a year on the GBIF portal since the end of 2015 (Touroult et al. 2020a, b).

Both datasets combined contain 599 collecting events and 10 594 observations. These observations cover four animal phyla, 10 classes, 51 orders and 261 families, identified by 78 taxonomists, covering 3100 accurately identified species. These observations also include 2730 records concerning more than 550 taxa not identified to the species level. The 3100 identified species represent about 15% of the 21 042 terrestrial and freshwater animal species recorded from French Guiana (Gargominy et al. 2020).

These datasets include groups which have not been the subject of taxonomic or faunistic publications thus far: birds (223 species), reptiles (60 species), mammals (11 species, including one record cited by Catzeflis 2017), Gastropoda (31 taxa), and Clitellata (three taxa). Among insects, data are also available on the insect orders Blattodea (47 taxa), Neuroptera (11 taxa) and Megaloptera (one species).

As of 20 August 2020 (five years after the Mitaraka survey), GBIF contained 30 020 species level data on insect species with
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 1. — Number of species published by semester from the end of the expedition, with first semester: July-December 2015, and last semester: January-July 2021. The expedition was accomplished in August 2015.</figcaption></figure>

a geographical accuracy < 1 km for a vast area largely covering the Guiana Shield (GBIF.org, 20 August 2020, https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.4ukp5y). Among the 49 corresponding datasets, the February/March Mitaraka survey dataset is the largest (6805 insect data) and the August Mitaraka survey dataset ranks eighth, with 1186 data.

For 30% of the insect species for which data is available in GBIF at the scale of the Guiana Shield, the Mitaraka datasets are providing the only geographically accurate data. More than half (56%) of the species from the Mitaraka datasets do not have any other geographically accurate data available.

The data density map shows a clear concentration of data in the Mitaraka zone, in the southwesternmost corner of French Guiana (Fig. 4). This renders Mitaraka, despite its remoteness and challenging accessibility, the area with the highest documented species richness in the Guiana Shield region, based on accurate entomological open access data.

The Diptera data are compiled separately and will be made available at a later date, as part of a datapaper in preparation. This Diptera dataset currently contains over 4200 occurrence data of more than 1000 different species in 28 families with a combined total number of approx 13700 studied specimens, compiled on the basis of the identifications provided by 39 taxonomists. Both the total species richness and the proportion of new species for science varies greatly among families. Some families, like Dolichopodidae, even show an unprecedented species richness not documented anywhere else in the world (Pollet *et al.* 2018).

## COLLECTING TECHNIQUES THAT PRODUCED MOST NEW SPECIES TO SCIENCE (OBJECTIVE 3)

Measured by the holotype collecting technique (i.e., the technique that produced the ultimate holotype specimen), the three main collecting strategies which produced the most new species were (Fig. 5): 1) active search, 2) interception, and 3) attraction (see Touroult *et al.* 2018 for a descriptive summary of these strategies and methods). The substrate extraction techniques did not add any new species. Traps based on light attraction (classical light trap and light trap coupling a LED to a cross interception trap) brought the most novelties, mainly among Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. The passive interception traps, especially those of the Malaise type (SLAM and large Malaise trap of 6m), have also collected a lot of new species, in more groups, including Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera and even Odonata. The “active” techniques provided 22 holotypes, including the vast majority of Orthoptera (active search at night).

## COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD PRINCIPLES COMMITMENT (OBJECTIVE 4)

Our monitoring of publications precisely citing specimens from the survey (n = 90) shows overall good compliance with Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) citation, acknowledgement and deposition of material (type and non-type) clauses. The most respected clause is that of depositing part of the material in the MNHN collections (93% of the articles), followed by the citation of the survey in the Acknowledgements section (91% with more or less complete acknowledgements, and 78% fully compliant). The reference to the ABS authorization
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 2. — Number of new (non-marine) animal species of French Guiana's fauna described since 2000. New species collected during the Mitaraka survey are indicated in colour.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 3. — Number of new insect species in the fauna of French Guiana, described since 2000: A, all insect orders; B, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera; C, other insect orders (including Diptera, Hymenoptera, Orthoptera), both displaying the proportion from the Mitaraka survey.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 4. —Density map of the shared data from the GBIF portal (https://www.gbif.org) for insects at the scale of the Guiana Shield. Only data with a high occur- rence resolution ( < 1 km) are included.</figcaption></figure>

in relation to specimens (either in the Material and methods
section, or better in the citation of the Material examined
part of the species records) is respected in 79% of the articles.

The actual deposition of type material (and holotypes in
particular) in the Paris Museum collections has been verified.
As of November 15, 2020, only 19% of the holotypes of the
new published species were accessible online on the MNHN
collection portal (https://science.mnhn.fr/all/search). A survey
of about a quarter (27%) of the new species with holotypes
reported as ultimately being deposited in the museum collec-
tions reveals that this delay is partly (53%) due to the time
required to digitize the specimens at the Museum (in-house
delay) and to another part (47%) to the delay in sending
specimens to the Museum by contributors (external delay)
especially in a pandemic context.

We also analyzed possible reasons for not respecting instruc-
tions in 19 articles with the greatest violation of the rules.
The interaction of two criteria significantly characterized the
articles that did not comply with the clauses (Chi2 = 35.8,
df = 3, p<.001). These are articles produced by scientists not
directly involved in the survey and published outside the
Zoosystema thematic issues on Mitaraka or ACOREP-France
on the French Guiana Beetles (Fig. 6).

Moreover, after reading all the articles, it appeared that
those which do not comply with the clauses are often articles
mobilising a vast amount of material, of which the Mitaraka

specimens present only a small part (e.g., one specimen from
Mitaraka out of more than 100 from other sources) and non-
type material.

DISCUSSION

WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL OF FINDING NEW SPECIES
(OBJECTIVES 1 AND 2)

It is difficult to conclude if the publication of 218 new taxa
(either for science or as first record for French Guiana) makes
a real difference, especially if we place this figure in relation
to the work that remains to be accomplished globally. Being
able to describe new species at a reasonable rate to fill the im-
mense gap in invertebrate knowledge seems a losing battle to
many biologists (Costello *et al.* 2013). Nevertheless, placing
this discussion in the current depressing general context is
largely irrelevant. Indeed, this global vision covers very differ-
ent aspects and French Guiana represents a special case, since
it is one of the (rare) territories that is still rich in biodiversity
and where research has been conducted for decades. These
are essential reasons for having chosen French Guiana for this
edition of “Our Planet Reviewed” and we will thus narrow
down the discussion to the Guiana case which enables some
comparisons and lessons from the “with” or “without the Our
Planet Reviewed expedition” scenarios.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 5. — Number of holotypes collected according to the different techniques used. Abbreviations: BS, beating sheet; HC, hand collecting; PVB, cross flight intercept trap with a blue LED; PVP, *idem*, with pink LED; PGL, *idem*, with GemLight; BPT, blue pan trap; SLAM, sea and land air malaise trap; SW & NS, sweeping & net sweeping; WPT, white pan trap; YPT, yellow pan trap (for a more detailed description of the techniques, see Touroult *et al.* 2018).</figcaption></figure>

Focusing on insects, which represent a major part of the remaining terrestrial species to be discovered (Mora *et al.* 2011) in French Guiana as everywhere else in the world, the analysis of publication rates and an estimate of the number of species potentially present in French Guiana shows that the recent rate of discovery is faster than in the past (see Fig. 2). It, however, would still take about 250 years to obtain a “complete” inventory (Brûlé & Touroult 2014). At the time of the expedition (2015), the publication rate of entomological discoveries in French Guiana was estimated at 180 published species per year (Brûlé & Touroult 2014). The contribution of the Mitaraka expedition corresponds to about 22% of this 2014 baseline, or to 13% of the total production of new species described between 2015 and 2020. Some of these publications could have been published without the Mitaraka survey, based on available specimens from other localities in French Guiana (Table 1); therefore, the figure of 128 discoveries published solely with Mitaraka material is perhaps more accurate, i.e., about 13% of the pre-expedition discoveries background rate (or 6% of the new species published between 2015 and 2020). It is therefore a significant quantitative contribution, even though it will not solve the taxonomic impediment (“Linnean shortfall”, Whittaker *et al.* 2005). This result is not unexpected, as a short-term expedition makes it possible to explore sites that are hardly accessible and attract experts, while knowing it cannot have the ambition of a pluri-annual ATBI (see Ichter *et al.* 2017). Also, it is certainly not a substitute for in-depth, long term research and monitoring by local research institutions and associations.

As indicated in the ATBI guidelines (Leponce *et al.* 2010), the use of numerous collecting techniques and the combination of interception traps, attractive traps and active search remains essential to obtain novelties in many groups. We anticipated that the massive use of techniques of interception, coloured plates (pan traps) and automatic light traps (light source + interception) would have brought by far the most novelties, as this trap diversity and numbers are not often employed in the same manner as applied in Mitaraka. It can be noted that in terms of performance, the various Malaise traps and the automatic light traps were particularly effective. The pan traps technique, hardly employed in French Guiana, has, indeed, made it possible to collect new species but with a surprisingly low yield (Pollet *et al.* 2018). The “traditional” light trap remained an essential technique to collect many insect orders, although it requires a significant amount of time in the field compared to automatic traps.

In terms of active collection, search on sight at night is also advisable for many orders. This is especially true when individuals are mainly detected by their sound or their movement. Active search also provides more precise ecological information than large spectrum traps. Finally, it should be noted that for some groups, the collecting method has a strong influence on the quality of the study material: for example, some taxa rapidly degrade the preservative liquid quality in interception traps (Blattodea, Orthoptera). For these groups, active sampling is undoubtedly the preferred technique.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 6. — Level of compliance with recommendations for citation of expedition, ABS authorization and deposit of specimens according to two discriminating variables (n=90 articles).</figcaption></figure>

Two techniques, light trap and visual search, when applied by experts, make it possible to collect rarely encountered species in a very targeted manner. This can certainly accelerate the taxonomic work as the taxonomically most interesting specimens may be immediately sorted by the expert.

In contrast, interception traps and sieving will provide a lot of material, not very targeted and often of small size. A non-negligible part of these samples is not necessarily ready for further study quickly, with thousands of specimens in certain families of Hymenoptera, Coleoptera and Diptera, which must then be sorted to (sub-)family or eventribe to be studied by the appropriate experts, in case they exist.

Overall, no single collection strategy clearly outperformed the others and it is rather the combination of methods and their variants that produces the diversity in discoveries during the survey.

### WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL OF DEALING WITH POORLY STUDIED TAXA IN FRENCH GUIANA (OBJECTIVE 3)

Analysis of the taxonomic groups with new species from Mitaraka shows that 39 species discovered (new to science or first country records) belong to groups already relatively (rather) well studied in French Guiana: amphibians, Cerambycidae and Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera), Formicidae (Hymenoptera), Lepidoptera, Mantodea, Odonata, Acrididae (Orthoptera) and Scorpiones. For these groups, intensive and rather equivalent sampling efforts have been performed in other French Guiana study sites (see further). For the species described on the basis of a type specimen originating from Mitaraka (21 species), these discoveries suggest a biogeographical originality of the Mitaraka area on the French Guiana scale. This may

highlight either a center of endemism for (i) species that are not mobile (amphibians and Scorpiones for example); and/or (ii) species associated with isolated inselberg environments (case of *Zeale granvillei* Touroult & Dalens, 2015); and/or (iii) species with a wide Amazonian distribution reaching their northern limit in southern French Guiana (Boilly 2018; Bénéluz 2021).

Groups that have been poorly studied thus far also delivered many new species, thanks to the involvement of taxonomists working less regularly on the fauna of French Guiana. The most noticeable example is the order Diptera, which was considered one of the megadiverse but under-studied orders in French Guiana and globally (Brûlé & Touroult 2014). As a consequence of the mobilization of no less than 39 experts and the permanent motivation by the coordinator, 20 new species and 40 first records have been published (17 publications, see Table 1), and many more species still await description (see e.g., Pollet *et al.* 2018; Vieira *et al.* 2019). Without producing as many first records, an updated synthesis of Dermaptera has been published incorporating Mitaraka specimens (Girod & Matzke 2020).

Also noteworthy are the numerous discoveries of crickets (Grylloidea) (Vicente & Robillard 2017; Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020; Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020). Within the well-studied group of the Orthoptera, crickets exhibit a high rate of speciation, even at the scale of the Guiana shield (Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020). This implies that there remain more species to be discovered as compared to groups with a lower speciation rate.

Many of the groups targeted by the survey have not yet been published. As an order of magnitude, the publications cover approximately 25% of the families which yield occurrence data recorded in the datasets. In some cases, the provided species lists contain first records, in other cases there are no lists available yet. Among the groups that were sampled during the survey but which have not yet reported first records or new species are: Annelida (Clitellata, see Maggia *et al.* 2021 for an ecological analysis including Mitaraka barcoding data), Blattodea, Gastropoda, Araneae and Opiliones, many families of Hemiptera (in particular Auchenorrhyncha) and Hymenoptera. For the latter group, the need for a revision of entire New World families and genera certainly compromises the descriptions of new species in the near future. Beetles encompass the most novelties (66 new species, 32 first records, 41 publications) but with substantial heterogeneities in the progress of studies among families. For example, the family Cantharidae, poorly studied before the work of Robert Constantin, produced more than 28 species new to science (Constantin 2015, 2016a, 2017a, 2018; Biffi & Constantin 2018). In contrast Mitaraka Curculionidae (including Scolytinae), Elmidae, Erotylidae, Nitidulidae, and Staphylinidae are still being studied or have not been studied due to a lack of taxonomic expertise. The latter observation holds true for a number of lesser-known families in Diptera and Hymenoptera as well.
### WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL OF DOCUMENTING AND DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ABOUT THE FAUNA OF MITARAKA (OBJECTIVES 3 AND 4)

Analysis of the insect data available in GBIF reveals a major contribution of the Mitaraka expedition to the regional biogeographic knowledge, by providing numerous accurate data for many taxa, in a poorly accessible and hardly studied region, both on the French Guiana side and in adjacent areas in Brazil and Suriname. In spite of the satisfaction of making a significant contribution to the international reference database for biodiversity, this strong exposure rather highlights the lack of data compilation and sharing at the regional level of the Guiana Shield, at least for French Guiana, where we know that these surveys and associated databases exist. In terms of volume of shared data, Mitaraka stands out, as do other sites in French Guiana that have been studied regularly and intensively for a long time i.e., the Nouragues Research Station and the coastal area of Montagne de Kaw / Montagne des Chevaux. However, our knowledge of the work carried out in French Guiana since many years suggests that the massive inventories carried out by the Société entomologique Antilles-Guyane (SEAG) at the Montagne des Chevaux (12 years of inventory with intercept traps), Saül (one complete year of sampling with various traps – Brûlé *et al.* 2014), Les Nouragues (two years of massive sampling – Brûlé *et al.* 2011, and also other academic works in this research station) and/or on Mount Itoupé (at least three field surveys with the same type of insect traps as the one used in Mitaraka – Brûlé & Dalens 2012) could easily surpass the Mitaraka expedition in terms of species richness and associated data. In Mitaraka, pan traps were the most noticeable addition to sampling techniques but cannot explain the larger amount of shared data (see Fig. 5). One explanation for this lack of data exposure is that the abovementioned inventories did not have a proper data management plan nor sufficient resources to do so. It was one of the challenges – not to say duties – of a large scale biodiversity survey such as the “Our Planet Reviewed” program, driven by an academic institution, to proceed as far as possible in terms of management and public dissemination of data.

Even if it is likely not the largest biotic survey carried out to date in French Guiana, when considering the shared data, the expedition clearly renders Mitaraka the site of the Guiana Shield with the best documented faunal biodiversity. We sincerely hope that this outcome might trigger other researchers and entomologists to speed up data disclosure.

### CHOICE OF STUDY SITE LOCALITY

The rationale for choosing the Mitaraka site was given in Touroult *et al.* (2018). The high diversity of habitat types and topography, forest landscapes and associated animal, plant and fungal communities accessible in a limited study area (15 km²) were all indicators of a potentially high yield during the sampling campaign. The great diversity of trees observed in the field (c. 200 tree species / ha) subsequently confirmed the soundness of this choice, considering the highly positive correlation between arthropod richness, notably insects, and tree richness (Basset *et al.* 2012; Zhang

*et al.* 2016). However, as surprising as it may sound in a scientific paper, not all the reasons for choosing a location that would lead to a successful biodiversity inventory are science-related. Beyond the rational, science-based criteria of choice, it is generally recommended to take into account also more subjective criteria. Remoteness, “unknown” places (so-called terra incognita), are important factors to raise interest by naturalists, most of who are very occupied and in great demand to participate in inventory and identification operations, especially since they do so pro-bono. Wisely making use of this taste for the unknown, commonly shared within the naturalist community, is obviously to be recommended in the choice of the location. This is difficult to understand for researchers residing in French Guiana who live and work in a territory that they - rightly - think of as globally interesting and therefore able to satisfy the objectives of such a project almost anywhere. The Mitaraka expedition success certainly benefited from the mysterious and romantic aura of the Tumuc Humac Mountains chain.

### CONCLUSION: LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

#### MONITORING OF RESEARCH OUTPUT

Undoubtedly, we might have overlooked a few published papers during the post publication tracking exercise. This is hard to avoid for publications using material but incorrectly citing its origin. It should be noted that the level of compliance with the instructions (ABS, deposit of specimens, acknowledgements) would not have been as good if it had not been for the thematic issues of *Zoosystema* and the issues on French Guiana beetles. Also, coordinators widely distributed the relevant guidelines (generated by the expedition management, see appendix 3 in Touroult *et al.* 2018) among the involved taxonomic experts. The engagement of the editorial board of *Zoosystema* to dedicate a number of issues to this survey, and the deadline of September 2017 to submit a first MS, were a major motivation to many contributors. Indeed, many of the initially submitted manuscripts did not fully conform to the instructions but were ultimately adjusted in this respect and published.

Instead of monitoring the literature for papers including data collected during the concerned survey – which is time-consuming and not entirely error-proof –, we would recommend that participants/authors should be offered opportunities to engage in a centrally managed publication framework. This approach is also time-consuming but much more rewarding both in terms of compliance with the instructions concerning the content of articles and follow-up on results.

In the present paper, as well as in the taxonomic backbone TAXREF, we only considered first country records as valid when they are published in any kind of scientific (mostly peer-reviewed) literature; unpublished data sets were thus omitted in this respect. Such conservative approach underlines the importance of providing one or more additional datapapers (Chavan & Penev 2011) that describe the entire
dataset or large parts of it and include first country records and suspected novelties next to other occurrence data, while respecting the rules of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature. In this way data from identification lists that would never be published for various reasons, can be disclosed. Such a datapaper will be published in the forthcoming years, at least for the Diptera of the expedition.

## INVESTMENT IN POST FIELDWORK SAMPLE PROCESSING

We cannot stress enough the importance of putting an equal amount of effort and resources into the post survey sample processing as in preparing the field operation. Before being studied and eventually described, the collected specimens must first reach a competent taxonomist. To do this, samples have to be sorted by taxon (sometimes order, but more often family). This sorting phase is of the utmost importance, and funding for this phase should be thoroughly considered when planning the costs of a large biotic survey (Villemant et al. 2015). Planning and mobilizing beforehand (i.e., well before the fieldwork takes place) a large network of experts who formally engage to study the material is at least as important as the richness or size parameters of the target taxonomic groups (see Pollet et al. 2014). This step was relatively well managed for Mitaraka, with a budget and including a sorting phase by the participants just after the survey, precise sorting by some coordinators (e.g., Diptera), and a sorting phase by SEAG. However, two limitations, already pointed out by Villemant et al. (2015), can be noted: the technical capacity to sort a very large group of families and the difficult management of several phases of dissemination of the material over time. We found that the management was more efficient when the material was transmitted in one go (as was the case with Diptera). Indeed, on the contrary we faced difficulties in obtaining and managing all the data when there had been two or three shipments of specimens. For future surveys, we would recommend a simultaneous dissemination of the material to the specialists, even if this implies a delay in the examination phase of the process.

## THE HUMAN FACTOR

The role of the project scientific managers (including taxonomic group coordinators) as leaders, facilitators and coaches is crucial and must be sustained over the many years after the survey to produce the expected research outputs. Beyond the capacity to face new tasks which inevitably accumulates, the stability of the position of the leaders must be taken into account. This long-term management and monitoring work is actually better suited for those with a stable academic position (e.g., employed taxonomists or employed academics able to dedicate time to taxonomy), even though other researchers and even amateur naturalists are ever more important to deal with the tremendous amount of material coming from the field. To that purpose, collaboration between the academic and non-academic experts have to be strengthened (Fontaine et al. 2012).

One of the lessons learned about the organization of the specimen processing chain is the key role of the taxonomic group coordinators, as this is an effective way of multiply-

ing and facilitating access to the collected material by a large community of experts worldwide. However, while this is undoubtedly a plus, choosing the right person for this job is all but sufficient: it is as crucial to ensure the commitment of both group coordinators and expert taxonomists by negotiating beforehand the terms of a signed agreement. This agreement is not really binding as no financial aspect is involved but the material retainment/return clauses offer a certain level of reward and assurance that can motivate the experts (see appendix 3 in Touroult et al. 2018). But no matter how professional these taxonomic group coordinators are, there is always the risk that they face critical obstacles if their favorite group of organisms finds itself in a situation of taxonomic chaos on a scale larger than that of the region under consideration. The time needed to restore some order before assigning a species to a genus or even to a family may go well beyond the objective of a project like this. This raises a question, involving a certain amount of frustration, for a future inventory project in this format on whether or not to maintain collection and / or processing efforts in groups that require an almost total revision for their taxonomy. We cannot avoid to collect taxonomic groups in chaos when using wide spectrum collecting techniques as we did in the Mitaraka survey. The project management could have decided not to extract “orphan” taxa from the samples, but on the other hand, these specimens might just be the key to resolving systematic problems. We still think that splitting up all samples into workable fractions is the best guarantee for further disclosure of the material, regardless of present or future opportunities for study.

## Acknowledgements

The “Our Planet Reviewed” Guyane-2015 expedition in the Mitaraka range, in the core area of the French Guiana Amazonian Park, was organized by the MNHN and Pro-Natura international. The expedition was funded by the European Fund for Regional Development (FEDER), the Conseil régional de Guyane, the Conseil général de Guyane, the Direction de l'Environnement, de l'Aménagement et du Logement and by the Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche. It was realized in collaboration with the Parc amazonien de Guyane and the Société entomologique Antilles-Guyane. We would like to thank the following people for their active contribution to the setting up and success of the project: first of all Didier Fournier (DRRT, prefecture of French Guiana) for his continuous support of the project; for their help in many ways: Claude Suzanon, Gilles Kleitz, Raphaëlle Rinaldo and Bertrand Goguillon (Parc amazonien de Guyane); Denis Girou and Arnaud Anselin (DEAL Guyane), Pierre-Henri Dalens and Eddy Poirier (SEAG); Hélène Sirder and Frédéric Blanchard (Région Guyane), Charlotte Gourmel (provide help during sorting) and Olivier Brunaux (ONF). Finally, we thank the two reviewers, Line Le Gall and François Dusoulier, for their useful comments and Gino Nearns for checking the English wording.
## REFERENCES

ALE-ROCHA R. & POLLET M. 2019. — First records of Ropalomeridae (Diptera, Acalyptratae) from French Guiana, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (1): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a1.

BARBUT J. 2016. — Description d'une nouvelle espèce et changements nomenclaturaux pour le genre *Metria* Hübner, 1823 (Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Erebinae). *Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France* 121 (2): 207-212.

BARBUT J. & LALANNE-CASSOU B. 2019. — *Callopidria* Hübner, 1821 du massif du Mitaraka, Guyane, avec la description d'une nouvelle espèce (Noctuidae, Eriopinae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (20): 375-381. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a20.

BASSET Y., CIZEK L. & CUENOOD P, DIDHAM R., GUILHAUMON F., MISSA O., NOVOTNY V., ØDEGAARD F., ROSLIN T., SCHMIDL J., TISHECHKIN A., WINCHESTER N., ROUBIK D., ABERLENC H.-P., BAIL J., BARRIOS H., BRIDLE J., CASTAÑO G., CORBARA B., & LEPONCE M. 2012. — Arthropod Diversity in a Tropical Forest. *Science* 338: 1481-1484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226727

BELOKOBYLSKIJ S. A., DE CASTRO C. S., SHIMBORI E. M., ZALDIVAR-RIVERON A., PENTEADO-DIAS A. M. & BRAET Y. 2017. — Taxonomic revision of the Neotropical species of the braconid wasp genus *Pedinotus* Szépligeti, 1902 (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Doryctinae). *Zootaxa* 4327 (1): 1-102. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4327.1

BÉNÉLUZ F. 2021. — Liste commentée des Saturniidae (Lepidoptera, Bombycoidea) de Guyane, avec la liste des taxons récoltés au Mitaraka (extrême sud-ouest guyanais), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 43 (31): 759-809. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2021v43a31.

BIFFI G. & CONSTANTIN R. 2018. — A revision of *Macromalthinus* Pic, 1919 with description of six new species (Coleoptera: Cantharidae: Chauliognathinae). *Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia* 58: e20185858. https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2018.58.58

BLAGODEROV V. & POLLET M. 2020 — Diversity of *Lygistorrhina* (*Probolaeus*) Williston, 1896 (Diptera: Keroplatidae, Lygistorrhinae) of Mitaraka (French Guiana), with descriptions of three new species, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (30): 593-606. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a30.

BOILLY O. 2015. — *Dichotomius longiceps* Taschenberg, nouvelle mention pour la Guyane (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). pp. 83, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Tome IX. ACOREP-France, supplément au Bulletin « *Le Coléoptériste* », Paris, 128 p.

BOILLY O. 2018. — Les *Eurysternus* Dalman, 1824 de Guyane, une clef illustrée des espèces (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane, Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 12: 33-39.

BOILLY O. & VAZ-DE-MELLO F. 2021. — Description d'un nouveau *Dichotomius* Hope, 1838 du Brésil, du Suriname, du Venezuela et de Guyane (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Scarabaeinae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 13: 22-24.

BOILLY O., LAPEZE J., DALENS P.-H., GIUGLARIS J.-L. & **TOUROULT J.** 2016. — Les Phanaeini de Guyane : liste commentée, clés et iconographie (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 10: 86-97.

BOUCHER S. & POLLET M. 2021. — The leaf-miner flies (Diptera: Agromyzidae) of Mitaraka, French Guiana, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 43 (6): 113-125. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2021v43a6.

BRAILLOVSKY H. 2017. — Three new species of neotropical Coreidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Coreinae: Acanthocephalini: Anisoscelini). *Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad* 88 (2017): 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmb.2017.01.009

BROOKS S. E., CUMMING J. M., LIMEIRA-DE-OLIVEIRA F. & POLLET M. 2018. — New species and records of *Cheiromyia* Dyte from Brazil and French Guiana (Diptera: Dolichopodidae). *Zootaxa* 4444 (3): 267-282. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4444.3.3

BROSSE S., MELKI F. & VIGOUROUX R. 2019. — Fishes of the Mitaraka Mountains (French Guiana), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (8): 131-151. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a8

BRÜLÉ S. 2015. — *Dismorpha linearis* (Linnaeus, 1758), présence confirmée pour la Guyane (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). pp. 81-83, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Tome IX. ACOREP-France, supplément au Bulletin « *Le Coléoptériste* », Paris, 128 p.

BRÜLÉ S. & DALENS P.-H. 2012. — Étude et Inventaire entomologique du Mont Itoupé. Mission 2010 pour le compte du Parc Amazonien de Guyane. Rapport de la Société entomologique Antilles-Guyane, 23 p.

BRÜLÉ S. & **TOUROULT J.** 2014. — Insects of French Guiana: a baseline for diversity and taxonomic effort. *ZooKeys* 434: 111-130. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.434.7582

BRÜLÉ S., **TOUROULT J.** & DALENS P.-H. 2011. — Résultats de l'inventaire entomologique du site de Saut Pararé, réserve des Nouragues (Guyane), 2009-2010. Rapport de la Société entomologique Antilles-Guyane, SEAG, ONF, 120 p.

BRÜLÉ S., **TOUROULT J.**, POIRIER E. & DALENS P.-H. 2014. — Résultats de l'étude-inventaire entomologique du site de la Montagne Pelée, Saül (Guyane), 2010-2012. Rapport de la Société entomologique Antilles-Guyane, SEAG, PAG, 144 p.

CAMPOS L. DENADAI DE & DESUTTER-GRANDCOLAS L. 2020. — The Paroecanthini crickets (Orthoptera: Grylloidea: Gryllidae: Oecanthinae) from French Guiana, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (20): 355-398. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a20.

CATZEFLIS F. 2017. — *Hyladelphys kalinowskii* in French Guiana: new observations and first notes on its nesting biology. *Mammalia* 82 (5): 431-437. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2017-0107

CERDA J. A. 2016. — Addenda et corrigenda à la monographie « Euchromiini de Guyane française », Cerda, 2008 (1er partie) (Lepidoptera Erebidae Arctiinae Euchromiina). *Antenor* 3 (1): 65-77.

CHASSAIN J. 2016. — Description d'une espèce guyanaise nouvelle du genre *Pterotarsus* (Coleoptera, Elateridae), in **TOUROULT J.** (coord.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 10: 58-59.

CHASSAIN J. 2018. — Description d'un *Achrestus* nouveau de Guyane (Coleoptera, Elateridae, Dicrepidiinae). *Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France* 123 (2): 182-184.

CHASSAIN J. & **TOUROULT J.** 2016. — Les *Spilus* de Guyane (Coleoptera, Elateridae), in **TOUROULT J.** (coord.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 10: 34-51.

CHASSAIN J. & **TOUROULT J.** 2017. — Les *Atractosomus* de Guyane (Coleoptera, Elateridae). Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 11: 3-13.
CHASSAIN J. & TOUROULT J. 2018. — Les *Lacon* de Guyane (Coleoptera, Elateridae), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane, Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « *Le Coléoptériste* » 12: 74-86.

CHAVAN V. & PENEV L. 2011. — The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science. *BMC bioinformatics* 12 (S15), S2.

CILLEROS K., ALLARD L., VIGOUROUX R., & BROSSE S. 2017. — Disentangling spatial and environmental determinants of fish species richness and assemblage structure in Neotropical rainforest streams. *Freshwater Biology* 62 (10): 1707-1720. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12981

CILLEROS K., VALENTINI A., ALLARD L., DEJEAN T., ETIENNE R., GRENOUILLET G. & BROSSE S. 2019. — Unlocking biodiversity and conservation studies in high-diversity environments using environmental DNA (eDNA): A test with Guianese freshwater fishes. *Molecular ecology resources* 19 (1): 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12900

CONLE O., HENNEMANN F., BELLANGER Y., LELONG P., JOURDAN T. & VALERO P. 2020. — Studies on neotropical Phasmatodea XX: A new genus and 16 new species from French Guiana. *Zootaxa* 4814 (1): 1-136. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4814.1

CONSTANTIN R. 2015. — Les *Discodon* Gorham de Guyane (Coleoptera, Cantharidae), pp. 4-34, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 9: 4-34.

CONSTANTIN R. 2016a. — Contribution à l'étude des Chauliognathinae de la Guyane et description de cinq espèces nouvelles (Coleoptera, Cantharidae), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 10: 3-33.

CONSTANTIN R. 2016b. — Deux nouveaux Phengodidae de Guyane et du Guyana (Coleoptera, Elateroidea). *Le Coléoptériste*, 19 (3): 158-162.

CONSTANTIN R. 2017a. — Les *Silinae* de Guyane avec la description de quatorze espèces nouvelles (Coleoptera, Cantharidae). Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 11: 41-67.

CONSTANTIN R. 2017b. — A new species of flea beetle with foveate pronotum and costate elytra from French Guiana (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini). *Entomologische Blätter und Coleoptera* 113 (1): 47-53.

CONSTANTIN R. 2018. — Étude des Cantharidae de Guyane : nouvelles espèces de Dysmorphocerinae, Malthininae et *Silinae* (Coleoptera), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 12: 40-58.

CONSTANTIN R. 2021a. — Les genres d'altises de Guyane (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 13: 61-93.

CONSTANTIN R. 2021b. — Description d'un *Tucumanius* Pic, nouveau de Guyane et clé dichotomique des espèces sud-américaines du genre (Coleoptera, Melyridae, Malachiinae), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 13: 165-168.

COSTELLO M. J., MAY R. M. & STORK N. E. 2013. — Can We Name Earth's Species Before They Go Extinct? *Science* 339: 413-416. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230318

CURLER G. 2020. — Descriptions of two new genera of Marulinini (Diptera, Psychodidae, Psychodinae) from the Mitaraka range of French Guiana, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (10): 139-149. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a10

CURLETT G. & BRÜLÉ S. 2015. — Septième contribution à la connaissance des Agrilini de Guyane (Coleoptera, Buprestidae), *in*

TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 9: 43-60

CURLETT G. & BRÜLÉ S. 2016. — Huitième contribution à la connaissance des Agrilini de Guyane (Coleoptera, Buprestidae), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 10: 52-57.

CURLETT G. & BRÜLÉ S. 2021. — Treizième contribution à la connaissance des Agrilini de Guyane (Coleoptera, Buprestidae, Agrilinae), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 13: 94-96.

DALENS P.-H. & TOUROULT J. 2015. — A new *Pseudosparna* Mermudes & Monné, 2009 from Mitaraka Mountains, French Guiana (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). *Arquivos de Zoologia* 46 (11): 135-138. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-7793.v4i2-11p135-138

DALENS P.-H. 2016. — A new *Eupromerini* Galileo and Martins, 1995, from French Guiana (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Laminiæ). *Insecta Mundi* 0462: 1-4.

DÉGALLIER N., OROUSSET J. & LEMOINE M. 2015. — Révision du genre *Degallierister* Gomy, 2001 (Coleoptera, Histeridae, Dendrophilinae). *Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France* 120 (3): 341-372.

DÉGALLIER N., KOVARIK P. W., TISHECHKIN A. K. & CATERINI M. S. 2021. — Coleoptera Histeridae de Guyane. XIII. Nouvelles additions au catalogue et description de 4 genres nouveaux et 19 espèces nouvelles (Haeteriinae & Tribalinae), *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 13: 99-147.

DESUTTER-GRANDCOLAS L. & FABERON L. 2020. — Phalangopsidae crickets (Orthoptera, Grylloidea) from the Mitaraka biological survey, French Guiana, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (32): 739-797. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a32. http://zoosystema.com/42/32

DEUVE T. 2018. — Nouveaux *Ozaenini* de Guyane (Coleoptera, Caraboidea, Paussidae). *Coléoptères* 24 (3): 29-38.

DUPUIS F. 2016. — Contribution à la connaissance des Dynastidae de Guyane. Modifications nomenclaturales, signalements nouveaux et actualisation de la liste des espèces, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 10: 101-111.

EVANGELISTA D. A., KOTYKOVÁ VARADÍNOVÁ Z., JÚNA F., GRANDCOLAS P., LEGENDRE F. 2019. — New Cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattodea) from French Guiana and a Revised Checklist for the Region. *Neotropical Entomology* 48 (4): 645-659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-019-00677-6

FAYNEL C. 2019. — Le genre *Chalybs* Hübner, [1819] avec la description d'une nouvelle espèce du plateau des Guyanes (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Theclinae). *Lambillionea* CXIX (3): 4-34.

FLECK G. 2017. — Notes on the genus *Navicordulia* Machado & Costa, 1995 (Odonata: Anisoptera: Corduliidae s. str.): description of a new species, phylogenetic affinities and aspects of biogeography. *Zootaxa* 4272 (2): 251-262. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.6

FLECK G. & JUILLERAT L. 2019. — The genus *Navicordulia* Machado & Costa, 1995 (Insecta: Odonata: Corduliidae s.str.): new species, identification key for males and data on ecology and distribution, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (27): 553-565. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a27. http://zoosystema.com/41/27

FONTAINE B., VAN ACHTERBERG K., ALONSO-ZARAZAGA M. A., ARAUJO R., ASCHE M., ASPÖCK H., ASPÖCK U., AUDISIO P., AUKEMA B., BAILLY N., BALSAMO M., BANK R. A., BELFIORE
C., BOGDANOWICZ W., BOXSHALL G., BURCKHARDT D., CHY-
LARECKI P., DEHARVENG L., DUBOIS A., ENGHOFF H., FOCHETTI
R., FONTAINE C., GARGOMINY O., LOPEZ M. S. G., GOUJET
D., HARVEY M. S., HELLER K.-G., VAN HELSDINGEN P., HOCH
H., DE JONG Y., KARSHOLT O., LOS W., MAGOWSKI W., MAS-
SARD J. A., MCINNES S. J., MENDES L. F., MEY E., MICHELSSEN
V., MINELLI A., NAFRIA J. M. N., VAN NIEUKERKEN E. J., PAPE
T., DE PRINS W., RAMOS M., RICCI C., ROSELAAR C., ROTA E.,
SEGERS H., TIMM T., VAN TOL J. & BOUCHET P. 2012. — New
Species in the Old World: Europe as a Frontier in Biodiversity
Exploration, a Test Bed for 21st Century Taxonomy. PLoS ONE
7 (5), e36881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036881

FOUQUET A., VACHER J.-P., COURTOIS E., DESCHAMPS C., OUBOTER P., JAIRAM R., GAUCHER P., DUBOIS A. & KOK P. J. R. 2019a. — A new species of *Anomaloglossus* (Anura: Aromobatidae) of the *stepheni* group with the redescription of *A. baeobatrachus* (Boistel and de Massary, 1999), and an amended definition of *A. leopardus* Ouboter and Jairam, 2012. *Zootaxa* 4576 (3): 439-460. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4820.1.7

FOUQUET A., VIDAL N. & DEWYNTER M. 2019b. — The Amphibians of the Mitaraka massif, French Guiana, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (19): 359-374. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a19. http://zoosystema.com/41/19

FRATELLO S. A., NAKAHARA S., BRÉVIGNON C. R. & HARVEY D. J.
2015. — Two new species of *Euptychia* Hübner, 1818 (Lepidop-
tera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) from the Guiana Shield, with notes
on *E. marceli* Brévignon, 2005 and *E. rufocincta* Weymer, 1911.
*Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society* 69 (4): 293-306.

GARGOMINY O., TERCERIE S., RÉGNIER C., DUPONT P., DASZKIE-
WICZ P., LÉOTARD G., ANTONETTI P., RAMAGE T., VANDEL E.,
PETITTEVILLE M., LEBLOND S., IDCZAK L., BOULLET V., DENYS
G., DE MASSARY J.-C., LÉVÈQUE A., JOURDAN H., ROME Q.,
DUSOULIER F., TOUROULT J., SAVOURÉ-SOUBELET A., BARBUT
J., CANARD A., SIMIAN G., LE DIVELEC R., HAFFNER P., MEYER
C., VAN ES J., PONCET R., DEMERGES D., MEHRAN B., HOREL-
LOU A., MOULIN N., AH-PENG C., BERNARD J.-F., CAESAR M.,
COMOLET-TIRMAN J., COURTEUCISSE R., DELFOSSE E., DEW-
YNTER M., HUGONNOT V., KONDRATYEVA A., LAVOCAT BERNARD
E., LEBOUVIER M., LEBRETON E., MALÉCOT V., MOREAU P.-A.,
MULLER S., NOBLECOURT T., PELLENS R., ROBBERT GRADSTEIN
S., RODRIGUES C., ROUHAN G. & VÉRON S. 2020. — TAXREF
v14.0, Référentiel taxonomique pour la France. UMS Patri-
Nat, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Archive de
téléchargement contenant 8 Fichiers. https://Inpn.Mnhn.Fr/
Telechargement/Referentielespece/Taxref/14.0/Menu

GARGOMINY O., TERCERIE S., RÉGNIER C., R AMAGE T., DUPONT P., DASZKIEWICZ P. & PONCET L. 2019. — TAXREF v13, référentiel taxonomique pour la France: méthodologie, mise en œuvre et diffusion. Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Rapport PatriNat. 63 p. https://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs-web/docs/download/302170

GBIF.ORG (20 August 2020). — GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.4ukp5y

GIBEAUX C. 2016a. — Les *Bertholdia* Schaus, 1896, de Guyane française, avec la description d'espèces inédites (10e note) (Lepidoptera Erebidae Arctiinae Phaegopterina) (Lepidoptera Mimalonidae). *Antenor* 3 (2): 133-152

GIBEAUX C. 2016b. — *Ruforbifer*, nouveau genre néotropical (Lepidoptera Erebidae Arctiinae Phaegopterini). *L'Entomologiste* 72 (2): 71-81.

GIROD C. & MATZKE D. 2020. — Annotated checklist of the Dermaptera (Insecta) of French Guiana, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (4): 57-76. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a4. http://zoosystema.com/42/4

GOMES L. R. P. & DE CARVALHO C. J. B. 2018. — *Souzalopesmyia* Albuquerque, 1951 (Diptera: Muscidae): new species from South

America with an updated phylogeny based on morphological evidence, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (25): 539-546. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a25. http://zoosystema.com/40/25

GONZALES D. & YVINEC J.-H. 2016. — Contribution à l'étude des Tenebrionidae de Guyane. IV. Nouveaux signalements pour la Guyane (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 10: 75-78.

GONZALES D., YVINEC J.-H. & FERRER J. 2015. — Contribution à l'étude des Ténébrionides de Guyane. II. Nouveaux signalements pour la Guyane (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste »* 9: 98-107.

HERBIN D. 2017. — Description de nouveaux Hétérocères néotropicaux (Lepidoptera Apatelodidae). *Antenor* 4 (2): 114-134.

HUGEL S. 2019. — *Panoploscelis scudderi* Beier, 1950 et *Gnathoclita vorax* (Stoll, 1813): two katydids with unusual acoustic, reproductive and defense behaviors (Orthoptera, Pseudophyllinae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (17): 327-340. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a17. http://zoosystema.com/41/17

ICHTER J., LECCIA M.-F., TOUROULT J., BLANDIN P., ABERLENC H.-P., HOLTOF J.-F., FORET J., BONET R., PASCAL O., DUSOULIER F., GARGOMINY O. & PONCET L. 2017. — Les inventaires généraux de la biodiversité en France et dans le monde. Revue des AllTaxa Biodiversity Inventory. Rapport UMS PatriNat 2018-4. UMS Patrimoine Naturel (AFB/MNHN/CNRS), Parc national du Mercantour. Paris 52 p..

KROLOW T. K., HENRIQUES A. L. & POLLET M. 2017. — The Tabanidae of the Mitaraka expedition, with an updated check list of French Guiana (Diptera). *ZooKeys* 684:85-118. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.684.13197

LADINO N. & FEITOSA R. M. 2020. — Taxonomic revision of the genus *Prionopelta* Mayr, 1866 (Formicidae: Amblyoponinae) for the Neotropical region. *Zootaxa* 4821 (2): 201-249. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4821.2.1

LAGUERRE M. & VINCENT B. 2016. — Two new *Neonerita* Hampson species with redescription of Neonerita dorsipuncta Hampson, 1901 (Lepidoptera: Erebiidae: Arctiinae: Phaegopterina). *Journal of Insect Biodiversity* 4 (11): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.12976/jib/2016.4.11

LEPONCE M., MEYER C., HÄUSER C. L., BOUCHET P., DELABIE J., WEIGT L. & BASSET Y. 2010. — Challenges and solutions for planning and implementing large-scale biotic inventories. *Manuel of field recording techniques and protocols for All Taxa Biodiversity Inventories and Monitoring*. ABC Taxa, Meise: 18-48.

LEPONCE M., DELABIE J. H. C., ORIVEL J., JACQUEMIN J., CALVO MARTIN M. & DEJEAN A. 2019. — Tree-dwelling ant survey (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in Mitaraka, French Guiana, in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (10): 163-179. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a10. http://zoosystema.com/41/10

LÉVÈQUE A. 2015. — Deuxième contribution à l'élaboration d'un référentiel taxinomique des Géomètres de Guyane : les espèces du genre *Oospila* Warren, 1897 (Lepidoptera Geometridae Geometrinae). *Antenor* 2 (2): 232-246.

LOURENÇO W. R. 2016. — Scorpions from the Mitaraka Massif in French Guiana. II. Description of a new species of Ananteris Thorell, 1891 (Scorpiones: Buthidae). *Comptes Rendus Biologies* 339 (5-6): 214-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2016.04.002

LOURENÇO W. R. 2018. — The scorpions from the Mitaraka Massif in French Guiana (Scorpiones: Buthidae, Chactidae), in **TOUROULT J.** (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic
survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (14): 367-374. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a14. http://zoosystema.com/40/14

LUPOLI R. 2019. — The genus *Phalaecus* Stål, 1862 in French Guiana, description of *P. carmini* n. sp., and the female of *P. lineatus* Grazia, 1983 from Mitaraka (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). *Zoosystema* 41 (3): 21-28. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema-a2019v41a3. http://zoosystema.com/41/3

MAGGIA M.-E., DECAËNS T., LAPIED E., DUPONT L., ROY E., SCHIMANN H., ORIVEL J., MURIENNE J., BARALOTO C., COTTENIE K. & STEINKE D. 2021. — At each site its diversity: DNA barcoding reveals remarkable earthworm diversity in neotropical rainforests of French Guiana. bioRxiv 2020.09.21.307348. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.21.307348

MANTILLERI A. 2015. — Nouveaux genres et espèces de la tribu des Acratini (Coleoptera, Brentidae). *Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France* 120 (3): 267-296.

MANTILLERI A. 2017. — Do species of *Neacratus* with anchor-shaped sclerite of endophallus really belong to Neacratus (Coleoptera: Brentidae: Acratini)? *Annales de la Société entomologique de France* (N.S.). https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2017.1340095

MANTILLERI A. 2018. — Brentidae Acratini du massif du Mitaraka, en Guyane : une synthèse des données (Insecta, Coleoptera, Curculionoidea), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (15): 375-388. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a15. http://zoosystema.com/40/15

MARQUES D. W. A., RAFAEL J. A. & POLLET M. 2019. — First records of Pipunculidae (Diptera) from French Guiana, with the description of a new species, in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (13): 249-258. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a13. http://zoosystema.com/41/13

MARTINS A. R. P., FAYNEL C. & ROBBINS R. K. 2016. — Variation of male secondary sexual structures and the taxonomy of *Theritas lisus* and relatives (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Eumaeini). *Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington* 118 (4): 555-573. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.118.4.555

MEDEROS J. & POLLET M. 2019. — Three new species of *Lecteria* Osten Sacken, 1888 (Diptera: Tipulidae) from a scientific survey in Mitaraka (French Guiana), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (25): 497-512. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a25. http://zoosystema.com/41/25

MORA C., TITTENSOR D.P., ADL S., SIMPSON A.G.B. & WORM B. 2011. — How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? *PLoS Biol* 9 e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127

MORTELMANS J. & POLLET M. 2018. — New data and species of *Thecomyia* Perty, 1833 (Diptera: Sciomyzidae) from Mitaraka (French Guiana), with notes on the genus in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (17): 415-423. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a17. http://zoosystema.com/40/17

OLMI M., CAPRADOSSI L. & GUGLIELMINO A. 2019a. — Description of a new species of *Dryinus* Latreille (Hymenoptera: Dryinidae) from French Guiana. *Israel Journal of Entomology* 49 (1): 41-47. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3345819

OLMI M., CAPRADOSSI L., GUGLIELMINO A. 2019b. — Discovery of the first species of *Ampulicomorpha* Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Embolemidae) in French Guiana. *Israel Journal of Entomology* 49 (1): 49-55. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3524485

PIRANI G. & GRIMALDI D. A. 2019. — Rediscovery, redescription, and reclassification of the rare and unusual fly *Pyrgometopa penicillata* Kertész (Diptera: Drosophilidae). *Zootaxa* 4661 (3): 445-456. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4661.3.2.

POCCO M. E. & CIGLIANO M. M. 2020. — The grasshoppers

(Orthoptera, Acridomorpha) from the Mitaraka Mountain Range, French Guiana, in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (7): 105-114. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a7

POLLET M., PASCAL O. & TOUROULT J. 2014. — Flies from French Guiana: a unique opportunity. *Fly Times* 53: 3-6.

POLLET M., LEPONCE M., PASCAL O., TOUROULT J. & VAN CALSTER H. 2018. — Dipterological survey in Mitaraka Massif (French Guiana) reveals megadiverse dolichopodid fauna with an unprecedented species richness in *Paraclius* Loew, 1864 (Diptera: Dolichopodidae), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (21): 471-491. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a21. http://zoosystema.com/40/21

RHEINHEIMER J. 2017. — Neue Arten der Tribus Hylobiini und Cryptorhynchini aus Französisch Guayana (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Molytinae, Cryptorhynchinae). *Koleopterologische Rundschau* 87: 297-324.

RHEINHEIMER J. 2018. — Neue Apionidae aus Französisch Guayana (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea: Apionidae). *Koleopterologische Rundschau* 88: 237-258.

RHEINHEIMER J. 2021. — Cryptorhynchinae et Entiminae nouveaux pour la Guyane (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste»* 13: 53-60.

RICCARDI P. R. 2020. — Taxonomic revision of the genus *Chaethippus* Duda, 1930 (Diptera: Chloropidae) with the description of four species. *Zootaxa* 4802 (1): 129-140. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4802.1.8

RICCARDI P. R., BAZYAR Z. & ISMAY B. 2020. — A revision of the Neotropical genus *Metasiphonella* Duda, 1930 (Diptera: Chloropidae). *Zootaxa* 4885 (3): 437-446. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.7

ROBIN F. & DALENS P.-H. 2021. — Signalement de trois nouveaux Lamiinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) en Guyane, in TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste»* 13: 51-52.

ROJAS R. R., FOUQUET A., RON S. R., HERNÁNDEZ-RUZ E. J., MELO-SAMPAIO P. R., CHAPARRO J. C., VOGT R. C., DE CARVALHO V. T., CARDOSO PINHEIRO L., AVILA R. W., PIRES FARIAS I., GORDO M. & HRBEK T. 2018. — A Pan-Amazonian species delimitation: high species diversity within the genus *Amazophrynella* (Anura: Bufonidae). *PeerJ* 6:e4941. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4941

ROJKOFF S. 2016. — Introduction aux Orphninae de Guyane (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), Contribution à l'étude des Coléoptères de Guyane. *Supplément au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France « Le Coléoptériste»* 10: 79-82.

ROY R. 2019. — Les mantes (Dictyoptera, Mantodea) du massif du Mitaraka (Guyane), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (5): 59-70. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2019v41a5. http://zoosystema.com/41/5

RUNYON J. B. & POLLET M. 2018. — *Enlinia* Aldrich, 1933 of Mitaraka, French Guiana (Diptera: Dolichopodidae), in TOUROULT J. (ed.), "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (19): 453-468. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a19. http://zoosystema.com/40/19

SILVA V. C. & POLLET M. 2020. — The Sepsidae of the Mitaraka expedition, French Guiana (Diptera), in TOUROULT J. (ed.) "Our Planet Reviewed" 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 42 (14): 195-205. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a14. http://zoosystema.com/42/14

SMITH S. M. & COGNATO A. I. 2021. — A Revision of the Neotropical genus *Coptoborus* Hopkins (Coleoptera, Curculionidae,
Scolytinae, Xyleborini), In SPENCE J., CASALE A., ASSMANN T., LIEBHERR J. K. & PENEV L. (eds) Systematic Zoology and Bio-diversity Science: A tribute to Terry Erwin (1940-2020). *ZooKeys* 1044: 609-720. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1044.62246

TOUROULT J. & DALENS P.-H. 2015. — A new polymorphic Hemi- lophini Thomson, 1868 from the Tumuc Humac inselbergs, French Guiana (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae). *Zootaxa* 4012 (2): 379-385. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4012.2.9

TOUROULT J., DALENS P. H., GIUGLARIS J. L., LAPÈZE J., & BOILLY O. 2017. — Structure des communautés de Phanaeini (Coleop- tera: Scarabaeidae) de Guyane : étude par échantillonnage massif au piège d'interception. *Annales de la Société entomologique de France* (NS) 53 (3): 143-161). https://doi.org/10.1080/00379 271.2017.1319294

TOUROULT J., POLLET M. & PASCAL O. 2018. — Overview of Mitaraka survey: research frame, study site and field protocols, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 40 (13): 327-365. https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a13. http:// zoosystema.com/40/13

TOUROULT J., PASCAL O. & INVENTAIRE NATIONAL DU PATRIMOINE NATUREL 2020a. — *La Planète Revisitée, massif du Mitaraka, mission principale (février-mars 2015). Version 1.1.* UMS PatriNat (OFB-CNRS-MNHN), Paris. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/qubtcn accessed via GBIF.org on 2020-08-20.

TOUROULT J., PASCAL O., DALENS P.-H. & INVENTAIRE NATIONAL DU PATRIMOINE NATUREL 2020b. — *La Planète Revisitée, mission complémentaire entomologique, massif du Mitaraka, août 2015. Version 1.1.* UMS PatriNat (OFB-CNRS-MNHN), Paris. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/7wi9dc accessed via GBIF.org on 2020-08-20.

VACHER J.-P., KOK P. J. R., RODRIGUES M. T., LIMA J. D., LORENZINI A., MARTINEZ Q., FALLET M., COURTOIS E. A., BLANC M., GAUCHER P., DEWYNTER M., JAIRAM R., OUBOTER P., THÉBAUD C. &

FOUQUET A. 2017. — Cryptic diversity in Amazonian frogs: Integrative taxonomy of the genus *Anomaloglossus* (Amphibia: Anura: Aromobatidae) reveals a unique case of diversification within the Guiana Shield. *Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution* 112: 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.04.017

VICENTE N. & ROBILLARD T. 2017. — *Ligypterus najtae* n. sp. from Mounts Tumuc-Humac in French Guiana (Orthoptera, Grylloidea, Gryllidae, Eneopterinae). *Zoosystema* 39 (1): 125-136. https://doi.org/10.5252/z2017n1a14.

VIEIRA R., CAMARGO A., POLLET M. & DIKOW T. 2019. — Updated checklist of French Guianan Asilidae (Diptera) with a focus on the Mitaraka expedition, *in* TOUROULT J. (ed.), “Our Planet Reviewed” 2015 large-scale biotic survey in Mitaraka, French Guiana. *Zoosystema* 41 (23): 443-464. https://doi.org/10.5252/ zoosystema2019v41a23. http://zoosystema.com/41/23

VILLEMANT C., DAUGERON C., GARGOMINY O., ISAIA M., DEHAR- VENG L. & JUDSON M. L. I. 2015. — The Mercantour/Alpi Marittime All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI): achievements and prospects. *Zoosystema* 37: 667-679. https://doi.org/10.5252/ z2015n4a10

WHITTAKER R. J., ARAÚJO M. B., PAUL J., LADLE R. J., WATSON J. E. & WILLIS K. J. 2005. — Conservation biogeography: assess- ment and prospect. *Diversity and Distributions* 11: 3-23. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00143.x

ZACCA T., CASAGRANDE M. M., MIELKE O. H. H., HUERTAS B., NEILD A. F. E. & BENMESBAH M. 2017. — Description of a new species of Euptychiina (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) from South America. *Zootaxa* 4231 (3): 442-450. https://doi. org/10.11646/zootaxa.4231.3.10

ZHANG K., LIN S., JI Y., YANG C., WANG X., YANG C., WANG H., JIANG H., HARRISON R. D. & YU D. W. 2016. — Plant diversity accurately predicts insect diversity in two tropical landscapes. *Molecular Ecology* (17): 4407-4419. https://doi.org/10.1111/ mec.13770

Submitted on 12 January 2021;
accepted on 4 October 2021;
published on 21 December 2021.
APPENDIX

<table><caption>APPENDIX 1. — List of the new taxa and published first records based on the Mitaraka expedition specimens. Abbreviation: TS, type species of a new genus.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th rowspan="2">species</th><th colspan="3">new species</th><th rowspan="2">novelty based on material from Mitaraka survey only</th><th rowspan="2">references</th><th rowspan="2">comments</th></tr><tr><th>described from Mitaraka</th><th>holotype from Mitaraka</th><th>first country record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Amphibia, Anura</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aromobatidae</td><td>Anomaloglossus mitaraka Fouquet, Vacher, Courtois, Deschamps, Ouboter, Jairam, Gaucher, Dubois & Kok, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Fouquet et al. 2019a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Bufonidae</td><td>Amazophrynella teko Rojas, Fouquet, Ron, Hernández-Ruz, Melo-Sampaio, Chaparro, Vogt, Carvalho, Pinheiro, Avila, Farias, Gordo & Hrbek, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Rojas et al. 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Arachnida, Scorpiones</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Buthidae</td><td>Ananteris polleti Lourenço, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Lourenço 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Chactidae</td><td>Guyanochactas touroulti Lourenço, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Lourenço 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Blattodea</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ectobiidae</td><td>Ischnoptera hercules Rehn, 1928</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Evangelista et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Coleoptera</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Brentidae</td><td>Apionion aeneocaeruleum Rheinheimer, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Rheinheimer 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Fonteboanius lamellipes Senna, 1893</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mantilleri 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Neacratus obtusus (Lund, 1800)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Neacratus pascali Mantilleri, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Neacratus viridis Mantilleri, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Parateramocerus enervatus (Kleine, 1927)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Parateramocerus teko Mantilleri, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Rugosacratus eximius Mantilleri, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Rugosacratus punctirostris Boheman, 1840</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Mantilleri 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Teramocerus pulcher Soares & Dias, 1971</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mantilleri 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Buprestidae</td><td>Agrilus (Agrilus) emicyaneus Curletti & Brûlé, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curletti & Brûlé 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Agrilus (Agrilus) esasignatus Curletti & Brûlé, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curletti & Brûlé 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Agrilus itticicus Curletti & Brûlé, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curletti & Brûlé 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Agrilus miserrimus Curletti & Brûlé, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curletti & Brûlé 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Paradomorphus caelatus Curletti & Brûlé, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curletti & Brûlé 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Cantharidae</td><td>Caccodes decoratus Constantin, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Caccodes rubricollis Constantin, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Caccodes tuberosus Constantin, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Chauliognathus reductipennis (Pic, 1927)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Chauliognathus subsericeus Pic, 1937.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Daiphron (Championellum) proteum Gorham, 1881</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Daiphron abrahami Pic, 1927</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon arcuatum Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon dalensi Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon francillonnei Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon itoupense Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon mantillerii Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon pascali Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon platycorne Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon touroulti Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Discodon yvineci Constantin, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Macromalthinus guyanensis Biffi & Constantin, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Biffi & Constantin 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Macromalthinus santaremensis Brancucci, 1981</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1. — Continuation.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th rowspan="2">species</th><th colspan="3">new species</th><th rowspan="2">novelty based on material from Mitaraka survey only</th><th rowspan="2">references</th><th rowspan="2">comments</th></tr><tr><th>described holotype from Mitaraka</th><th>from Mitaraka</th><th>first country record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Cantharidae (continuation)</td><td>Malthesis mitarakaensis Constantin, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Malthoichthyurus guyanensis Constantin, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Maronius mitarakaensis Constantin, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2016a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Peltariosilis lamellata Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Peltariosilis mitarakaemontis Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Plectonotum hirticorne Constantin, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Polemius costatulus Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Polemius robini Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Polemius similis Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Silis brulei Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Silis dalensi Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Silis mitarakaensis Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Silis roseicollis Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Silis spinifera Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Silis touroulti Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Cerambycidae</td><td>Cacostola apyraiuba Martins & Galileo, 2008</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Robin & Dalens 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eupromera pascali Dalens, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Dalens 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudosparna ubirajara Dalens & Touroult, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Dalens & Touroult 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Zeale granvillei Touroult & Dalens, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Touroult & Dalens 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Chrysomelidae</td><td>Andiroba egléri Bechyné & Bechyné, 1965</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2021a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Carecuruna egléri Bechyné & Bechyné, 1965</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2021a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Heikertingeria nigripennis (Clark, 1865)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2021a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Myrmeconycha dogueti Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2017b</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Pedila rufa Clark, 1865</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2021a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Curculionidae</td><td>Sparnus rufonitidus Bechyné & Bechyné, 1965</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2021a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Stenophyma modesta Weise, 1921</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Constantin 2021a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Coptoborus gracilens Wood, 2007</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Smith & Cognato 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Coptoborus tolimanus (Eggers, 1928)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Smith & Cognato 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Coptoborus vespatorius (Schedl, 1931)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Smith & Cognato 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">DYNASTIDAE</td><td>Cylindrocorynus v-nigrum Rheinheimer, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Rheinheimer 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eubulus gymenti Rheinheimer, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Rheinheimer 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Heilipodus bifenestratus Reinheimer, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Rheinheimer 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Semnorhynchus perrinae Rheinheimer, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Rheinheimer 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Elateridae</td><td>Cyclocephala brevis Höhne, 1923</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Dupuis 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Stenocrates rufipennis (Fabricius, 1801)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Dupuis 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Elateridae</td><td>Achrestus dogueti Chassain, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Chassain 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Atractosomus amazonicus Casari, 2012</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Atractosomus submetallicus Chassain & Touroult, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Pterotarsus touroulti Chassain, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Spilus candezei Chassain & Touroult, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Spilus mitarakensis Chassain & Touroult, 2016</td><td>Spilus mitarakensis Chassain & Touroult, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Spilus nigriceps Chassain & Touroult, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Spilus rubriceps Chassain & Touroult, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Spilus serraticornis Chassain & Touroult, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Chassain & Touroult 2016</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1. — Continuation.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th rowspan="2">species</th><th colspan="3">new species</th><th rowspan="2">novelty based on material from Mitaraka survey only</th><th rowspan="2">references</th><th rowspan="2">comments</th></tr><tr><th>described holotype from Mitaraka</th><th>from Mitaraka</th><th>first country record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Histeridae</td><td>Degallierister greglamarrei Degallier, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Dégallier et al. 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Nymphister unstriatus Dégallier &amp; Tishechkin, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Dégallier et al. 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Plagiogramma amplistria Kovarik &amp; Dégallier, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Dégallier et al. 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Plagiogramma erwini Kovarik &amp; Dégallier, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Dégallier et al. 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Melyridae Paussidae</td><td>Tucumanius mitaraka Constantin, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2021b</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Goniotropis touroulti Deuve, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Deuve 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tachypeles mantilleri Deuve, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Deuve 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tachypeles mitaraka Deuve, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Deuve 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tachypeles perditus Deuve, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Deuve 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Phengodidae</td><td>Tachypeles simulans Deuve, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Deuve 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudomastinocerus mitarakae Constantin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Constantin 2016b</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Scarabaeidae</td><td>Aegidinus tricornis Colby, 2009</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Rojkoff 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Dichotomius latilobatus Boilly &amp; Vaz-de-Mello, 2021</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Boilly &amp; Vaz-de-Mello 2021</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Dichotomius longiceps Taschenberg, 1870</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Boilly 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eurysternus howdeni Génier, 200</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Boilly 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Tenebrionidae</td><td>Adelonia deplanatus (Pic, 1923)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Gonzales &amp; Yvinec 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Gnatocerus cornutus (Fabricius, 1798)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Gonzales &amp; Yvinec 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Platydema quindecimmaculata Chevrolat, 1878</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Gonzales et al. 2015</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Uleda diaperoides Laporte, 1840</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Gonzales &amp; Yvinec 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Ulomoides ocularis (Casey, 1891)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Gonzales &amp; Yvinec 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Xenius corallifer Gebien, 1928</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Gonzales &amp; Yvinec 2016</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Insecta, Dermaptera Spongiphoridae</td><td>Cosmogerax doesburgi Brindle, 1982</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Girod &amp; Matzke 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eugerax poecilum Hebard, 1917</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Girod &amp; Matzke 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Spongiphora buprestoides (Kirby, 1891)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Girod &amp; Matzke 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="15">Insecta, Diptera Asilidae</td><td>Andrenosoma pyrrhacra (Wiedemann, 1828)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Andrenosoma sarcophaga (Hermann, 1912)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Aphractia vivax (Hermann, 1912)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Dissmeryngodes amapa Artigas, Papavero &amp; Serra, 1991</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Dissmeryngodes nigripes (Macquart, 1838)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Holcocephala oculata (Fabricius, 1805)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Hybozelodes dispar (Hermann, 1912)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lampria clavipes (Fabricius, 1805)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Ommatius spinosus Scarbrough, 1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Pilica pyrrhopyga (Wiedemann, 1828)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Pilica rubidapex (Hermann, 1912)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vieira et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Chaethippus flavus Riccardi, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Riccardi 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Metasiphonella magnifica Duda, 1930</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Riccardi et al. 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dolichopodidae</td><td>Cheiromya brevitaris Brooks, 2010</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Brooks et al. 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Cheiromya fuscipennis Pollet &amp; Brooks, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Brooks et al. 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Cheiromya pennaticornis (Parent, 1931)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Brooks et al. 2018</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1. — Continuation.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th rowspan="2">species</th><th colspan="3">new species</th><th rowspan="2">novelty based on material from Mitaraka survey only</th><th rowspan="2">references</th><th rowspan="2">comments</th></tr><tr><th>described holotype from Mitaraka</th><th>from Mitaraka</th><th>first country record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Dolichopodidae (continuation)</td><td>Enlinia bova Runyon & Pollet, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Runyon & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Enlinia colossicornis Runyon & Pollet, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Runyon & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Enlinia dalensi Runyon & Pollet, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Runyon & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Enlinia loboptera Runyon & Pollet, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Runyon & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Enlinia mitarakensis Runyon & Pollet, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Runyon & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Enlinia touroulti Runyon & Pollet, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Runyon & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Neotonnoiria maculipennis (Van Duzee, 1929)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Pollet et al. 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Neurigona brevitibia Naglis, 2003</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Pollet et al. 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Stegana penicillata (Kertész, 1901)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Pirani & Grimaldi 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Keroplatidae</td><td>Lygistorrhina (Probolaeus) conica Blagoderov & Pollet, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Blagoderov & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lygistorrhina (Probolaeus) maculipennis Blagoderov & Pollet, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Blagoderov & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lygistorrhina (Probolaeus) mitarakensis Blagoderov & Pollet, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Blagoderov & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Muscidae</td><td>Souzalopesmyia polleti Gomes & de Carvalho, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Gomes & De Carvalho 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pipunculidae</td><td>Cephalops amapaensis Rafael, 1991</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Marques et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Cephalosphaera aurata Souza & Ale-Rocha, 2009</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Marques et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Psychodidae</td><td>Cistoabdominalis mitarakensis Marques & Rafael, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Marques et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eudorylas fortis Rafael, 1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Marques et al. 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ropalomeridae</td><td>Myiomystax trilineata Curler, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curler 2020</td><td>TS</td></tr><tr><td>Polletomyia subulata Curler, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Curler 2020</td><td>TS</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sciomyzidae</td><td>Ropalomera clavipes (Fabricius, 1805)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Ale-Rocha & Pollet 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Ropalomera tibialis Walker, 1852</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Ale-Rocha & Pollet 2019</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sepsidae</td><td>Thecomyia diedericki Mortelmans, 2018</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mortelmans & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Theocomyia longicornis Perty, 1833</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mortelmans & Pollet 2018</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Tabanidae</td><td>Archiseps armata (Schiner, 1868)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Archiseps diversiformis (Ozerov, 1993)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Archiseps peruana (Ozerov, 1994)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Meropliosepsis sexsetosa Duda, 1926</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Microsepsis armillata (Melander & Spuler, 1917)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Microsepsis furcata (Melander & Spuler, 1917)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Microsepsis mitis (Curran, 1927)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Palaeosepsioides erythromyrmus (Silva, 1991)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Palaeosepsioides mitarakensis Silva, 2020</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Silva & Pollet 2020</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Catachlorops amazonicus Henriques & Gorayeb 1999</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Chlorotabanus flagellatus Krolow & Henriques, 2009</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Chrysops ecuadorensis Lutz, 1909</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Chrysops incisus Macquart, 1846</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Cryptotylus cauri Stone, 1944</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Phaeotabanus phaeopterus Fairchild, 1964</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1. — Continuation.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th rowspan="2">species</th><th colspan="3">new species</th><th rowspan="2">novelty based on material from Mitaraka survey only</th><th rowspan="2">references</th><th rowspan="2">comments</th></tr><tr><th>described from Mitaraka</th><th>holotype from Mitaraka</th><th>first country record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Tabanidae (continuation)</td><td>Philipotabanus stigmaticalis (Kröber, 1931)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Stypommisa captiroptera (Kröber, 1930)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Tipulidae</td><td>Tabanus amapaensis Fairchild, 1961</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Krolow et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Lecteria (Lecteria) mitarakanea Mederos & Pollet, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mederos & Pollet 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Lecteria (Lecteria) teko Mederos & Pollet, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mederos & Pollet 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Lecteria (Lecteria) wayana Mederos & Pollet, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mederos & Pollet 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Insecta, Hemiptera</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Coreidae</td><td>Lucullia guilberti Brailovsky, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Brailovsky 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pentatomidae</td><td>Phalaecus lineatus Grazia, 1983</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Lupoli 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Insecta, Hymenoptera</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Apatelididae</td><td>Pantelodes iracoubo Herbin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Herbin 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pantelotes organabo Herbin, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Herbin 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Braconidae</td><td>Pedinotus columbianus Enderlein, 1912</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Belokobylskij et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pedinotus dispar Belokobylskij et Zaldívar-Riverón, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Belokobylskij et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pedinotus guyanensis Belokobylskij et Zaldívar-Riverón, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Belokobylskij et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pedinotus nitidus Belokobylskij et Zaldívar-Riverón, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Belokobylskij et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Dryinidae</td><td>Dryinus dalensi Olmi, Capradossi & Guglielmino, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Olmi et al. 2019a</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Embolemidae</td><td>Ampulicomorpha poirieri Olmi, Capradossi & Guglielmino, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Olmi et al. 2019b</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Formicidae</td><td>Camponotus trapezoideus Mayr, 1870</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Leponce et al. 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pheidole flavens Roger, 1863</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Leponce et al. 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pheidole kukrana Wilson, 2003</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Leponce et al. 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pheidole obscurior Forel, 1886</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Leponce et al. 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pheidole pepo Wilson, 2003</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Leponce et al. 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pheidole tristops Wilson, 2003</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Leponce et al. 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Prionopelta dubia Ladino & Feitosa, 2020</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td>Ladino & Feitosa 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Erebidae</td><td>Bertholdia neglecta Gibeaux, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Gibeaux 2016b</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Metria pascali Barbut, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Barbut 2016</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Myrmecopsis wayampica Cerda, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Cerda 2016</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Neonerita martinezi Laguerre & Vincent, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Laguerre & Vincent 2016</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Ruforbifer coccinommatus Gibeaux, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Gibeaux 2016a</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Lycaenidae</td><td>Ruforbifer dicyclophorus Gibeaux, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Gibeaux 2016a</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Chalybs mitaraka Faynel, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Faynel 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Theritas silma Martins, Faynel, & Robbins, 2016</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Martins et al. 2016</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Noctuidae</td><td>Callopistria longipilosa Barbut & Lalanne-Cassou, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Barbut & Lalanne-Cassou 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Nymphalidae</td><td>Euptychia aquila Fratello, Nakahara & Brévignon, 2015</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Fratello et al. 2015</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Magneuptychia andrei Zacca, Casagrande & Mielke, 2017</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Zacca et al. 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Saturniidae</td><td>Dirphia aculea Vuillot, 1892</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Bénéluz 2021</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hylesia ernestonis Strand, 1920</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Bénéluz 2021</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hylesia inducayalex Brechlin & Meister, 2016</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>x</td><td>Yes</td><td>Bénéluz 2021</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Insecta, Mantodea</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Photinaidae</td><td>Microphotina viridula Roy, 2019</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Roy 2019</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 1. — Continuation.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Higher classification</th><th rowspan="2">species</th><th colspan="3">new species</th><th rowspan="2">novelty based on material from Mitaraka survey only</th><th rowspan="2">references</th><th rowspan="2">comments</th></tr><tr><th>described holotype from Mitaraka</th><th>from Mitaraka</th><th>first country record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Insecta, Odonata<br>Corduliidae</td><td>Navicordulia pascali Fleck & Juillerat, 2019</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Fleck & Juillerat 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Navicordulia tumucurakensis Fleck, 2017</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Fleck 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Orthoptera<br>Acrididae</td><td>Schistocerca pallens (Thunberg, 1815)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>×</td><td>Yes</td><td>Pocco & Cigliano 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Gryllidae</td><td>Adenophallusia legendrei Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Cylindrogryllus (Apterotrypa) guyanensis Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Cylindrogryllus (Apterotrypa) mitarakensis Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Ligypterus najtae Vicente & Robillard, 2017</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Vicente & Robillard 2017</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Stenoecanthus planixiphus Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Tafalisca hugeli Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Campos & Desutter-Grandcolas 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Aracopsis hugeli Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>TS</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Phalangopsidae</td><td>Ectecous lamelliferus Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Lerneca mitarakensis Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Luzaridella maculata Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Luzaridella miniata Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Mellomima guyanensis Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>TS</td></tr><tr><td>Paraclodes cunicula Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Paraclodes furcata Desutter-Grandcolas, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>Yes</td><td>Desutter-Grandcolas & Faberon 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Panoploscelis scudderi Beier, 1950</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>×</td><td>Yes</td><td>Hugel 2019</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Trybliophorus sulcatus Descamps, 1981</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>×</td><td>Yes</td><td>Pocco & Cigliano 2020</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Insecta, Phasmatodea<br>Pseudophasmatidae</td><td>Parastratocles fuscomarginatus Conle, Hennemann, Bellanger, Lelong, Jourdan & Valero, 2020</td><td>×</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No</td><td>Conle et al. 2020</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>