Comisteisa Gistel 1848
Creators: name: Bezděk, Jan
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Chrysomelidae
Comisteisa

description: Comisteisa Gistel, 1848   
 Comisteisa Gistel, 1848a: 403; GISTEL (1848b): xi, 123; GISTEL (1851): xi, 123.   
 Type species. Comisteisa xanthoptera Gistel, 1848 by monotypy.   
 Current status. Junior objective synonym of Elytrosphaera Blanchard, 1845 (see Comments).   
 Comments. MONRÓS & BECHYNÉ (1956) mismatched some of Gistel’s publications. They used the reference ‘Gistl, 1837: 403’ for Comisteisa, which in fact refers to GISTEL (1848a). Using this wrong dating they gave the priority to Comisteisa over Elytrosphaera and synonymized them. Bechyné used Comisteisa as a valid genus name in his subsequent papers (BECHYNÉ 1957, BECHYNÉ & SPRINGLOVA DE BECHYNÉ 1965). On the contrary, SEENO & WILCOX (1982) and DACCORDI (1994) listed Comisteisa as a synonym of Elytrosphaera Chevrolat, 1843. However, neither application is correct.   
 GISTEL (1848a) attributed Comisteisa xanthoptera to Perty but I was not able to find Pertyʼs description; therefore, the taxon has Gistel’s authorship as it is not clearly stated that Perty provided the description. However, Comisteisa xanthoptera was mentioned in three publications which were published earlier but always as a nomen nudum: PERTY (1830: 18) as ‘ Chrysomela xanthoptera Pty.’; GISTEL (1834) as ‘ Doryphora xanthoptera Pty.’; and GISTEL (1846: 134) as ‘Nov. Gen. (Chrys. xanthoptera Perty)’.   
 Also, the situation with Elytrosphaera is complicated as the authorship and type species have been unclear during the entire history of the genus. Most authors attributed Elytrosphaera to Chevrolat in DEJEAN (1836) (e.g. CHAPUIS 1874, DACCORDI 2008), to Chevrolat in D’ORBIGNY (1843: 655) (e.g. WEISE 1916, BLACKWELDER 1946, BECHYNÉ 1952, SEENO & WILCOX 1982, DACCOR- DI 1994), or to Chevrolat without specification (e.g. BLANCHARD 1845, STÅL 1858, MOTSCHULSKY 1860: 250, BECHYNÉ 1950, MONRÓS & BECHYNÉ 1956). On the other hand, STÅL (1860, 1863) and JACOBY (1883, 1891) cre- dited Elytrosphaera to STÅL (1858), and, finally, BALY (1858, 1859) and BOUCHARD et al. (2011) attributed it to BLANCHARD (1845).   
 Elytrosphaera was mentioned for the first time in DEJEAN’ s (1836) catalogue with Chevrolat’s authorship and accompanied by three nomina nuda: ‘ flavipennis Dej. (= auripennis Chevrolat, = inflata Mannerheim)’, ‘ sanguinipennis Buquet’, and ‘ testudinaria Dej.’. Thus, Elytrosphaera in DEJEAN (1836) is also a nomen nudum (see BOUSQUET & BOUCHARD 2013). Chevrolat in D’ORBIGNY (1843: 655) listed Elytrosphaera without any description within the entry on ‘Chrysomélines’ and accompanied it by the name ‘ auripennis Chevrolat’, which is a nomen nudum. Chevrolat also provided a simple identification key to the genera of Chrysomélines but the entry with Elytrosphaera is ambiguous as it contains also other genus and therefore it cannot be considered a valid description. Chevrolat in D’ORBIGNY (1844: 283) again listed Elytrosphaera under the letter E but also without description and accompanied by the same nomina nuda which appeared in DEJEAN (1836). To sum up, Elytrosphaera in DEJEAN (1836) and D’ORBIGNY (1843, 1844) is a nomen nudum.   
 The first description of Elytrosphaera was published by BLANCHARD (1845) but without any species included; however, the name is available according to Article 67.2.2 (ICZN 1999). The nominal species that were first subsequently included and thus are deemed to be the only originally included nominal species are those described by STÅL (1858): Elytrosphaera xanthopyga Stål, 1858, E. breviuscula Stål, 1858, E. noverca Stål, 1858, E. fulminigera Stål, 1858, E. testudinaria Stål, 1858, E. hospes Stål, 1858, and E. flavolatera Stål, 1858. BLANCHARD (1845) used the spelling Elytrosphoera; however, since then it has been used only by CHAPUIS (1874) and BOUCHARD et al. (2011). An incorrect subsequent spelling Elytrosphaera is in prevailing usage as it has been used by all other authors, thus it is deemed to be the correct original spelling based on Article 33.3.1 (ICZN 1999). MOTSCHULSKY (1860: 188) introduced this genus as ‘ Elythrosphaera Motsch.’, which I consider an incorrect subsequent spelling not in prevailing usage. Motschulsky’s authorship is an evident mistake because in the index on p. 250 he attributed it to Chevrolat.   
 Chevrolat in D’ORBIGNY (1843: 655) clearly mentioned ‘ auripennis Chevrolat’ as the type species of Elytrosphaera; however, it is a nomen nudum and therefore the designation is invalid. Similarly, MOTSCHULSKY’ s (1860: 250) designation of ‘ Elytrosphaera flavipennis Dej.’ is also invalid. Elytrosphaera flavipennis was formally described by BALY (1859) but it is not among the species originally included in Elytrosphaera by STÅL (1858). The type species of Elytrosphaera is E. xanthopyga Stål, 1858 designated by ACHARD (1923).   
 Elytrosphaera Blanchard, 1845 has priority over Comisteisa Gistel, 1848. Because the type species of Elytrosphaera and Comisteisa (E. xanthopyga Stål, 1858 and C. xanthoptera Gistel, 1848) were synonymized by MONRÓS & BECHYNÉ (1956), Comisteisa is here confirmed as a junior objective synonym of Elytrosphaera.
description: Published as part of Bezděk, Jan, 2020, Review of the genus-level names proposed by Johannes Gistel in Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera), pp. 173-188 in Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 60 (1) on page 181, DOI: 10.37520/aemnp.2020.011, http://zenodo.org/record/3879369