Notas Nomenclaturales / Nomenclatural Notes Gompelia , a replacement name for Olotelus Mulsant & Rey , 1866 ( Coleoptera , Aderidae )

Mulsant & Rey (1866a: 22) proposed the subgenus Olotelus for four species of the genus Xylophilus Latreille, 1829 (now a synonym of Aderus Stephens, 1829), namely, X. punctiger Mulsant & Rey, 1866 (now a synonym of Cobososia pallescens (Wollaston, 1854), X. pruinosus Kiesenwetter, 1861, X. flaveolus Mulsant & Rey, 1866 and X. neglectus Jacquelin du Val, 1863. They neither designated a type species nor noticed that their new taxon was a homonym of the genus Olotelus Solier, 1851 (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). The name is an incorrect latinization of the Greek adjective holótele-s, meaning “quite complete” (Schenkling, 1917). They repeated the description (Mulsant & Rey, 1866b: 110) in the journal version of their book. However, it is not clear which of the two versions has the precedence. Mroczkowski (1987: 139) created the replacement name Otolelus for Olotelus Mulsant & Rey, but he did not designate a type species, thus failing to fulfill the requirements of the article of the Code then in force (3 Edition) equivalent to article 13.3.1 in the present Code (ICZN, 1999). In consequence, Otolelus Mroczkowski, 1987 is an unavailable name. Even so, it has been used by some authors (Nardi & Mifsud, 2000; Gompel & Barrau, 2002). Klinger (2000: 275) made use of the unavailable name Otolelus Mroczkowski and designated a type species for it: Xylophilus pruinosus Kiesenwetter, 1861. However, this action is contrary to the Code, since an unavailable name cannot have a type species by subsequent designation, only available names described before 1931 can have it. Article 67.8 only allows the designation of a type species for a genus published before 1931 without it, through a new replacement name in the same work where the replacement name is being proposed. Klinger (l.c.) did not propose a new replacement name, he was using Otolelus Mroczkowski, which is unavailable, as shown above. Some authors (v.g. Nardi, 2001: 163) have assigned the authorship of the nominal genus Otolelus to Klinger, but this author never indicated that he was proposing a new name, failing thus to fulfill the requirements of the Art. 16.1 of the Code for new taxa proposed after 1999. The name could have been made available by Klinger one year before, under the 3 Edition of the Code, which did not request the explicitness of the intention to establish new taxon. “Otolelus Klinger, 2000”, as used by Nardi (2001) or, even more unfortunately, by Nardi (2008), and others, simply does not exist, it is an invention, but Nardi (2007: 25) failed to recognize this. The nomenclatural situation now, therefore, is exactly the same as that before Mroczkowski’s unsuccesful intent to create a replacement name. Olotelus Mulsant & Rey is still the only available generic name for this group of species and still has no validly designated type species. To remedy this, I propose here the following replacement name:

since an unavailable name cannot have a type species by subsequent designation, only available names described before 1931 can have it.Article 67.8only allows the designation of a type species for a genus published before 1931 without it, through a new replacement name in the same work where the replacement name is being proposed.Klinger (l.c.) did not propose a new replacement name, he was using Otolelus Mroczkowski, which is unavailable, as shown above.
Some authors (v.g.Nardi, 2001: 163) have assigned the authorship of the nominal genus Otolelus to Klinger, but this author never indicated that he was proposing a new name, failing thus to fulfill the requirements of the Art.16.1 of the Code for new taxa proposed after 1999.The name could have been made available by Klinger one year before, under the 3 rd Edition of the Code, which did not request the explicitness of the intention to establish new taxon."Otolelus Klinger, 2000", as used by Nardi (2001) or, even more unfortunately, by Nardi (2008), and others, simply does not exist, it is an invention, but Nardi (2007: 25) failed to recognize this.
The nomenclatural situation now, therefore, is exactly the same as that before Mroczkowski's unsuccesful intent to create a replacement name.Olotelus Mulsant & Rey is still the only available generic name for this group of species and still has no validly designated type species.To remedy this, I propose here the following replacement name: Gompelia Alonso-Zarazaga, nom.nov.
Replacement name for Olotelus Mulsant & Rey, 1866a.Type species by present designation for this genus: Xylophilus neglectus Jacquelin du Val, 1863.Gender feminine.Named after my good colleague and friend Dr. Nicolas Gompel (Marseille, France).This type species, directly designated for Olotelus, is also the type species of Gompelia, under the Art.67.8.

New combinations are:
Gompelia africana (Pic, 1902) (from Hylophilus) Gompelia apicicolor (Báguena-Corella, 1948)  Since there is no information about the relative precedence of both descriptions of Olotelus Mulsant & Rey (1866a or 1866b), and to avoid possible future complications, I designate here as well X. neglectus Jacquelin du Val, 1863 as the type species of Olotelus Mulsant & Rey, 1866b.Both names are available, but one of them is superfluous.
I have ruled out the possibility of designating Xylophilus pruinosus Kiesenwetter, 1861 as Klinger (l.c.) tried to do, because Gompel et al. (2010) have demonstrated, beyond all doubt in my opinion, that this species belongs to Cobososia Collado & Alonso-Zarazaga, 1996, even if the authors were reluctant to propose the new combination, as I am doing here: Cobososia pruinosa (Kiesenwetter, 1861); a new combination is also necessary for its subspecies: Cobososia pruinosa uniformis (Pic, 1925) (from Hylophilus).The structure of the pronotum and of the male aedeagus (linear, subparallel and undivided in Gompelia, with a subarticulate and widened basal part in Cobososia) is enough evidence.Moreover, Gompel et al. (2010: 528) made the following incorrect statement: "Therefore, we believe that the genus Cobososia Collado & Alonso-Zarazaga, 1996 should be considered a junior synonym of Otolelus Klinger, 2000".Cobososia has precedence over "Otolelus" because of its publication date, so the reverse should have been written.Now the remaining task is to check the male genitalia of the species hitherto assigned to "Otolelus" by different authors (as in the above list) and confirm their placement or not.From Klinger's (2000) descriptions, it is clear also that the following new combinations must be proposed: Cobososia semiobscura (Pic, 1893) (from Euglenes) and Cobososia symphoniaca (Klinger, 2000) (from "Otolelus").
I want to thank here my good colleague and friend Dr. Nicolas Gompel for his help in locating and making available some of the literature needed for this note and his observations.