THE TYPES OF PALAEARCTIC SPECIES OF THE FAMILIES APIONIDAE , RHYNCHITIDAE , ATTELABIDAE AND CURCULIONIDAE IN THE

The study of 131 more or less complete Curculionoid specimens of the collection Étienne Louis Geoffroy, conserved in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris (Entomologie) has permitted the identification of several nominal species that were nomina dubia and the establishment of several new synonymies and combinations, and, in some cases, the reversion of precedence following Art. 23.9 of the Code, declaring nomina protecta and nomina oblita. New synonymies are (the first term is the valid name): Lixus filiformis (Fabricius, 1781) = Curculio longus Gmelin, 1790; Lasiorhynchites cavifrons (Gyllenhal, 1833) nom. protectum = Rhinomacer viridis Geoffroy, 1785, nom. oblitum; Byctiscus betulae (Linnaeus, 1758) = Rhinomacer auratus Geoffroy, 1785; Neocoenorrhinus pauxillus (Germar, 1824) nom. protectum = Rhinomacer caeruleus Geoffroy, 1785, nom. oblitum; Deporaus betulae (Linnaeus, 1758) = Curculio nigrostriatus Goeze, 1777 = Rhinomacer niger Geoffroy, 1785 = Curculio fuliginosus Gmelin, 1790; Coniocleonus hollbergii (Fåhraeus, 1842) = Curculio sulcatus Goeze, 1777 = Curculio sulcatus Geoffroy, 1785 = Curculio sulcatus Gmelin, 1790; Larinus iaceae (Fabricius, 1775) = Curculio carduelis Goeze, 1777; Hypera postica (Gyllenhal, 1813), nom. protectum = Curculio fasciolatus Geoffroy, 1785, nom. oblitum; Charagmus griseus (Fabricius, 1775) = Curculio cupreosquamosus Goeze, 1777 = Curculio intersectus Geoffroy, 1785 = Curculio squamosus Gmelin, 1790; Sitona hispidulus (Fabricius, 1777) = Curculio griseus Goeze, 1777 = Curculio modestus Geoffroy, 1785 = Curculio geoffroaei Gmelin, 1790; Aulacobaris cuprirostris (Fabricius, 1787) = Curculio viridisericeus Goeze, 1777; Cleopomiarus plantarum (Germar, 1824), nom. protectum = Curculio nigrostriatus Goeze, 1777 = Curculio floriger Geoffroy, 1785, nom. oblitum = Curculio subglobosus Gmelin, 1790, nom. oblitum; Anisorhynchus scabrosus (Geoffroy, 1785) = Curculio barbatus Rossi, 1794; Hylobius abietis (Linnaeus, 1758) = Curculio tigris Gmelin, 1790; Sitophilus granarius (Linnaeus, 1758) = Curculio contractus Geoffroy, 1785; Phyllobius pomaceus Gyllenhal, 1834 = Curculio auratus Geoffroy, 1785; Hylobius transversovittatus (Goeze, 1777) = Curculio fascialis Gmelin, 1790. New combinations are: Leucophyes occidentalis (Dieckmann, 1982) (from Leucosomus) and Anisorhynchus scabrosus (Geoffroy, 1785) (from Curculio). The following names have been reinstated (stat. res.) as valid: Trachyphloeus spinosus (Goeze, 1777) for the species known as Trachyphloeus olivieri Bedel, 1883, Lixus pulverulentus (Scopoli, 1763) for the species known as Lixus angustatus (Fabricius, 1775). Hypera melancholica (Fabricius, 1793) is confirmed as the valid name for the species hitherto named Hypera fuscocinerea (Marsham, 1802) or Hypera murina (Fabricius, 1793). The following names are considered nomina dubia, since there is no identifiable type material: Curculio pulex Goeze, 1777, Rhinomacer minutus Geoffroy, 1785, Curculio pulex Gmelin, 1790 (non Goeze, 1777), Rhinomacer striatus Geoffroy, 1785, Rhinomacer fulgidus Geoffroy, 1785, Curculio transversofasciatus Goeze, 1777, Curculio fasciatus Geoffroy, 1785 (non Scopoli, 1763, nec Ström, 1768, nec Degeer, 1775, nec Müller, 1776), Curculio fuscatus Gmelin, 1790, Curculio sulcatus Goeze, 1777: 410 (non Fabricius, 1775, nec Goeze, 1777: 381), Curculio incisus Geoffroy, 1785, Curculio exaratus Gmelin, 1790, Curculio quadratus Goeze, 1777, Curculio quadrilis Geoffroy, 1785, Curculio griseosericeus Goeze, 1777, THE TYPES OF PALAEARCTIC SPECIES OF THE FAMILIES APIONIDAE, RHYNCHITIDAE, ATTELABIDAE AND CURCULIONIDAE IN THE COLLECTION OF ÉTIENNE LOUIS GEOFFROY (COLEOPTERA, CURCULIONOIDEA) MAAZ 19/6/08 19:03 Página 17


Introduction
Étienne Louis Geoffroy (1727Geoffroy ( -1810) ) was a medical doctor born in Paris who died in Chartreuse, near Soissons.No obituary was ever published for him, to my knowledge.
Geoffroy (1762) described many insect species in his work devoted to the fauna of the surroundings of Paris, without giving them Linnaean binomina.Binomina were later provided in the abridged edition of his work prepared by Fourcroy (1785) with the binomina proposed by Geoffroy himself.Geoffroy also added some new species in this work, as is credited by the editor's (Fourcroy's) words in the foreword.The papers of Cameron (1988) and d 'Aguilar & Raimbault (1990), and also Colonnelli's comments (1998: 134-5), can be consulted to find very useful data on Geoffroy's entomological works as well as on the authorship of some of the names proposed in these.
His collection is now housed in the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Section d'Entomologie, in Paris.It is placed in a small wooden cabinet (Fig. 1) with a copper plate reading: "Collection E. L. Geoffroy / Don de Mme Georges Coujard de Laplanche / née Geoffroy de Villeneuve / 1909" (Fig. 2).The collection is made up of 24 wooden drawer-boxes of different sizes, in two columns; the Coleoptera, French and foreign (mostly tropical), take up ten boxes on the right column plus one box covered with green paper on the left column.Leraut (1981) has published a study of the Elateridae of his collection and Caldara (1990) did the same with the Curculionidae Tychiini, but the other insects remain to be studied.
The representatives of the superfamily Curculionoidea can be found in the second box on the right.All the weevils are glued to card squares or rectangles, with the angles cut and Geoffroy's species names written.It seems that the cards have been cut after being written, since the writing is sometimes interrupted at the margins (I note this situation with a vertical line | in the treatment of the species).These cards are glued to small cork pieces or to elder pith cylinders, and these, for their part, are glued to the bottom of the box as well (similar to what can be seen in a box of Cerambycidae, Fig. 3).
In the preparation of this study, I had to remove most of the cards bearing small weevils to get them properly identified.These have been placed in a new box in the General Collection (Fig. 4), and Geoffroy's box was provided with a label stating this fact and the number of the new box where the absent specimens are now stored.Some of the larger insects show signs of having been pinned before having been prepared in the way described above.The collection has suffered from Anthrenus attacks and is in a rather poor state of preservation but, happily, most of the weevils are not ruined, except for a few isolated specimens.Nevertheless, the vestiture is often ruined or absent, which makes it very difficult to recognize the extant species.
In some cases, there is no specimen on the card, and there is no evidence that there ever was.At least, there is no gum drop remaining on these cards.This absence was probably the case when the collection was prepared, at a date unknown to me.Graellsia, 64(1), Junio 2008, pp.17-44 -ISSN: 0367-5041

Systematic importance of Geoffroy's collection
Geoffroy's work ( 1762) is only partially valid for nomenclatural purposes (rejected first in Opinion 228 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1954; later some generic names were deemed to be available, Op. 1754, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1994).As noted above, Geoffroy did not initially use binominal nomenclature in naming his species, and these have been made nomenclaturally available by later authors using Linnaean nomenclature consistently.The first of these were Goeze (1777), Geoffroy (in Fourcroy, 1785), and Gmelin (1790).Villers (1789) only used names provided by authors preceding him (as far as Geoffroy's species are concerned) and will not be mentioned in the synonymies, unless the name he used is different from that of Goeze or Geoffroy in Fourcroy.No new name appears in the 3rd edition of Geoffroy's work (1799), even though this has a binominal supplement on pages 514-545, recording the species described for the first time in Geoffroy (1785) with somewhat amplified descriptions.
These authors merely redescribed the insects briefly, giving a reference to Geoffroy's work using either the phrase-name heading the Geoffroyan descriptions or the genus and species number.They also gave binominal names to these insects, these being objective synonyms, since they have the same specimen as type (Art. 61.3.4), according to the designations made by other authors or below.
Many of these names have been used by later authors without verifying whether their concepts of the species matched that of Geoffroy (through his types).It is not surprising, therefore, to find impor-tant mistakes needing correction affecting known (not to say banal) species.I have to point out that I first started this study in 1986 by looking at the types of Apionidae, but, shocked by the wrong interpretations, I decided to return to this box, which took longer than expected.However, I had communicated my discoveries to the late lamented Dr. L. Dieckmann (who encouraged me to go on with this study and recognized them by writing, cf.Dieckmann, 1991: 305), and to Drs.R. Caldara (Curculionidae Tychiini; cf.Caldara, 1990) and E. Colonnelli (Curculionidae Ceutorhynchinae).My studies ended with a visit during April 1997.
In the following treatment of every Geoffroyan name, I use as a title (in the order of his 1785 work) the descriptive phrase given by Geoffroy (1762 or 1785) and the 1762 page where it is found.Then I give the numbers and words written on the cards, separated by slashes (/), the first line always heading, the second and third (when these exist) below, this direction being taken here as "up" and "down" for the description of the insect placements.After that, I give the objective synonym binominals taken from Goeze (1777), Geoffroy (1785) and Gmelin (1790), and from some other authors if they are based on Geoffroy's descriptions.
A brief description of the weevils found and their condition follows, if needed.If the insects are prepared "head up" (i.e., head directed to the front margin of the card in the direction of reading of the words written on it), this situation is not described, but assumed as normal.It is clear that the collection has suffered re-curation, perhaps by Geoffroy's family for conservation purposes, but it seems that in some cases insects looking similar to those already there have been added, perhaps to enrich the collection.This could explain some of the inconceivable mixes that can be observed and that would not have escaped a fine observer like Geoffroy.I have compared descriptions and specimens very carefully.
I give here the new combinations arising from this study, as well as the pre-1800 synonyms (with some exceptions).I have studied the specimens classified by Geoffroy in his Rhinomacer (Becmare, abbreviated B.) and Curculio (Charançon or Charanson, abbreviated C.).The study of the Anthribidae is set aside for a future contribution.Geoffroy (1762) described 11 Rhinomacer and 34 Curculio.These numbers were raised to 13 and 59 respectively in Geoffroy (1785).
Those species treated only in Geoffroy in Fourcroy (1785) have been separated with an asterisk (*).From number 36 on, I have placed   Geoffroy's (1762) numbers between square brackets.Only the Curculio 60 of his collection has not been described in any of his works.It is also named in its place as a reminder.For the species described for the first time in Geoffroy (1785), I have added the reference to the longer description in Geoffroy (1799) as well.The current taxonomic placement of these names has been checked in Schoenherr (1833-1845), Bedel (1882Bedel ( -1888)), Tempère & Péricart (1989), and the different parts of the Coleopterorum Catalogus, since there is no updated catalogue of the western Palaearctic Region.
One of the goals of the present paper is to contribute to the latter.
All the species have as type locality "les environs de Paris" (the surroundings of Paris), except for the Charansons nos.36 (Normandie) and 45 (Meudon).Measurements given by Geoffroy (1762Geoffroy ( , 1785) ) are French lines (one line is 2.25 mm).
For lectotype designations, I am following Declaration 44 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; all designations are made for taxonomic purposes.
There are also three glued specimens, the third formed only by a hind body with dark blue-violet elytra, which seems to belong to a Lasiorhynchites species [maybe also to Lasiorhynchites cavifrons (Gyllenhal, 1833)].The first is a female of Byctiscus betulae (Linnaeus, 1758), the second a small male of Rhynchites bacchus (Linnaeus, 1758), both of a golden green colour.Schoenherr (1833: 222) synonymized the records of Geoffroy and Gmelin with Byctiscus populi (Linnaeus, 1758) (sub Rhynchites).Bedel (1886: 223) synonymized Geoffroy's nominal species with the same species, again erroneously.I hereby designate as the lectotype of Geoffroy's species the first specimen (female of Byctiscus betulae).The synonymy is as follows: Byctiscus betulae (Linnaeus, 1758)    There are no specimens in the collection.Schoenherr (1833: 213) placed these nominal species in the synonymy of Rhynchites aequatus (Linnaeus, 1758), and Bedel (1886: 224) did the same.This placement as a synonym of Tatyanaerhynchites aequatus (Linnaeus, 1758) is in agreement with the data in the description and is agreed here.There should be three specimens on this card, but one is represented by an empty drop of gum, and another by a single glued leg.However, the third is in a good state and can be identified as Neocoenorrhinus pauxillus (Germar, 1824), which, being in accordance with the description, is hereby designated as the lectotype of Geoffroy's nominal species.
There are just two specimens, and one drop of gum with almost unidentifiable remains (head and prothorax) on the right.The specimens are one male and one female of Taeniapion rufulum (Wencker, 1864).Bedel (1887: 361) synonymized, probably following Olivier (1789Olivier ( , 1807) ) and with some doubt, Goeze's and Geoffroy's nominal species with Apion malvae (Fabricius, 1775), now Malvapion malvae, to which the remains of the third specimen could belong.The description does not fit any of the species.For the moment, I prefer to keep these nominal species as nomina dubia, although I suspect that the description is probably a mixture of characters of both species.There are four specimens of the common Attelabus nitens (Scopoli, 1763) on the card, glued with their heads directed towards the central point of the card and the hind bodies pointing towards each corner of it.I hereby designate as lectotype of Rhinomacer coccineus Geoffroy the specimen on the front left corner.This synonymy stands from Olivier (1789: 279) and is recorded by Bedel (1886: 222) and Dalla Torre & Voss (1930: 21) No specimens are present in the collection.Schoenherr (1833: 188-9) placed Geoffroy's and Gmelin's records in synonymy of Apoderus coryli (Linnaeus, 1758), since the description does not cast any doubt on it.
The only specimen present, in accordance with the description, is a Coniocleonus hollbergi (Fåhraeus, 1842).Bedel (1886: 250) synonymized with some doubt Goeze's and Geoffroy's nominal species with Rhytideres plicatus (Olivier, 1790), a species that does not fit the original description.The synonymy is as follows: Coniocleonus hollbergii (Fåhraeus, 1842) = Curculio sulcatus Goeze, 1777(non Fabricius, 1775) Three Lixus specimens are glued on the card.The middle specimen is Lixus spartii Olivier, 1807, in good condition; it has a blackish suture, but does not not fit the original description in lacking the dark oblique bands running at an angle against this suture.The two lateral specimens are Lixus punctiventris Boheman, 1835, which do not show any trace of blackish sutural band, and are thus not in accordance with Geoffroy's original description.Since none of these specimens can be selected as lectotype for the two nominal species implied, any author that may think that the identity of this species is doubtful may designate a neotype for Coniocleonus nigrosuturatus (Goeze, 1777) in its current sense.I consider that it is not necessary now.There are two specimens, the one on the right lacking a head, both belonging to the species commonly known as Hypera zoilus (Scopoli, 1763), and agreeing with Geoffroy's description.I hereby designate as lectotype of Curculio pictus Geoffroy the specimen on the left.This synonymy had already been established by Schoenherr (1834: 401) mentioning the "Charanson no 5" of Geoffroy and the C. pictus of Villers under Phytonomus punctatus (Fabricius), and for Geoffroy's nominal species by Bedel (1886: 255) with Hypera punctata (Fabricius) There is a single insect on the card (on the left) and an empty gum drop (on the right).The only specimen is Leucophyes occidentalis (Dieckmann, 1982), comb.nov.(from Leucosomus), measuring 13.5 mm long (r.i.).The length and other features of this specimen are not in agreement with the description.The only species inhabiting France and reaching 9 lines long (20.25 mm) is Larinus onopordi (Fabricius, 1787) which, however, does not reach the Seine basin.It is possible that this specimen has been added after the description was prepared, and that the lost specimen (represented by the empty gum drop) was the one matching the description, but its identity is unknown.Thus, the only specimen cannot be considered a syntype and the above mentioned names are to be considered as nomina dubia.There are two specimens belonging to two different Larinus species, which is reflected by the two measurements given in the description.On the left is a big specimen of Larinus flavescens Germar, 1824, easily identifiable by the bifid vestiture of the two first abdominal sternites; on the right is a small specimen, apparently a male, of Larinus iaceae Graellsia, 64(1), Junio 2008, pp.17-44 -ISSN: 0367-5041 (Fabricius, 1775).The description is a mixture of characters and partly applicable to each of the two specimens.I designate as the lectotype for the three nominal species the specimen on the right, in order not to disturb greatly the current nomenclature.The synonymy is as follows: Larinus iaceae (Fabricius, 1775)  Glued on the card are, from left to right, one cocoon and two adults and, under these, another transversely placed cocoon.The cocoons are empty (although there are larval exuviae of Anthrenus inside).Both specimens are Sphenophorus striatopunctatus (Goeze, 1777) as usually understood, although this genus needs an in-depth revision in the Palaearctic.The specimen on the left is 9.0 mm long (r.e.), its elytral interstriae (odd and even) are more or less equal in width, the second desmomere is isodiametric; the specimen on the right is 8.5 mm long (r.e.), the even elytral interstriae are narrower than the odd ones, the second desmomere is clearly oblong.I hereby designate as the lectotype of the three above mentioned nominal species the specimen on the right.Schoenherr (1838: 933) has synonymized Gmelin's species with Sphenophorus mutilatus (Laicharting), while Bedel (1887: 353)  No specimens are present.Goeze named two Geoffroyan species as Curculio sulcatus, the other (on page 381) is here treated under Charanson no. 3 and, acting as First Reviser, I am giving precedence to the latter over the one treated here.Schoenherr (1838: 1064) synonymized with doubt Geoffroy's nominal species with Rhyncolus chloropus sensu Fabricius, 1775 [a misidentification of the species Rhyncolus ater (Linnaeus, 1758)].The description alone does not permit an assessment to be made as to the accuracy of this supposition, so in my opinion it is better to place these names as nomina dubia.
12. CURCULIO squamoso-viridis, rostro thorace breviore, pedibus rufis.There are two glued specimens (left and central) and an empty drop on the right.The specimen on the left has black legs and is Polydrusus prasinus (Olivier, 1790); it does not fit the original description because of the leg colour.The central specimen has yellowish legs and is Polydrusus formosus (Mayer, 1779).Since all names treated here are misidentifications, there is no need to select a lectotype.However, the only specimen fitting the description is the latter.Mayer's name was reestablished by Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal (1999: 175)  There are three glued specimens.From left to right these are two Hypera postica (Gyllenhal, 1813) and one Sitona lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758).The central specimen is severely damaged, while the one on the left has very well marked lines of pronotal vestiture.The third specimen has an almost non-existent scaly vestiture on head and pronotum, and the elytral scales are etiolated and do not fit the description ("rostro thoracis longitudine").This species has been wrongly synonymized with Hypera adspersa (Fabricius, 1793) by Schoenherr [1834: 372, with doubt, under Phytonomus pollux (Fabricius, 1801)] and by Csiki (1934: 28, quoting Villers as author).I hereby designate as lectotype of Curculio fasciolatus Geoffroy the left specimen, establishing the synonymy given below.
These three synonyms must be removed from the synonymical list of Sitona lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758), where the first was placed by Bedel (1886: 254), the second by Olivier (1807: 382)  A strongly discoloured specimen is glued on the card.It is a specimen of Sitona hispidulus (Fabricius, 1777), fitting the description.I hereby designate it as lectotype of the three above mentioned nominal species.The synonymy is as follows: Sitona hispidulus (Fabricius, 1777) = Curculio hispidulus Fabricius, 1777 = Curculio griseus Goeze, 1777(non Fabricius, 1775, nec Müller, 1776), syn.nov.= Curculio modestus Geoffroy, 1785(non Fabricius, 1781), syn.nov.= Curculio geoffroaei Gmelin, 1790, syn.nov.= Curculio hirtus Gmelin, 1790.Bedel (1886: 236)  There are two specimens glued to the card, both lacking antennae and legs.On the left is a bright green Baris cuprirostris (Fabricius, 1787), on the right a Baris chlorizans Germar, 1824 which has lost almost all the metallic shine from its body (it seems to have originally been dark blue or violet, but now the brownish colour of the sclerotized tegument is predominant).Geoffroy commented on both specimens, mistaking them for colour varieties.Hustache (1938: 75)  No specimens are present.According to the description, it should be a Baridinae with a squamose ventral surface, which is a feature known only from the species of genus Limnobaris Bedel, 1885. Dieckmann (1991: 305), in his revision of the European species of this genus, was of the same opinion.He designated a male neotype, housed in Geoffroy's collection, because the taxonomic situation required it.The synonymy proposed by Dieckmann (1991: 310)  There should be four specimens on the card, but the second is represented by a few remains on a gum drop.All of the remaining three specimens are almost completely devoid of vestiture.The first specimen has yellowish head and rostrum and has been eaten by Anthrenus, which have emptied it (a hole in the apical third of the elytra allows a view of its interior); it is Rhynchaenus quercus sensu Hoffmann.The third, head down, is Rhynchaenus rufus sensu Hoffmann (and it seems that the second was also of this species, from the remains), with black head and yellowish rostrum.The fourth, with black head and rostrum, is Rhynchaenus saltator sensu Hoffmann [= Curculio alni Linnaeus, 1758); cf.Viramo, 1970; the synonymy between Rhynchaenus alni (Linnaeus) and Rhynchaenus saltator (Geoffroy) seems to have been established by Bedel (1887: 290)].This nominal species is just a phenotype (saltator) of Rhynchaenus alni.Geoffroy made all his comments about this species under the next, since he thought there were only varieties of a single species.According to the description, both species had black head, rostrum and underside of body, being different only in the absence or presence of black spots on the elytra.With these remarks in mind, I hereby designate as lectotype of Curculio saltator Geoffroy the fourth specimen discussed above; I give no status to the other specimens, which do not fit the description.The synonymy is as follows: Rhynchaenus alni (Linnaeus, 1758) = Curculio ulmi: Goeze, 1777(non Degeer, 1775) = Curculio saltator Geoffroy, 1785 = Curculio quercus: Gmelin, 1790(non Linnaeus, 1758, nec Scopoli, 1763).There are five specimens in a row from left to right.The second lacks head and legs, while the fifth has no legs at all.All these specimens belong to Rhynchaenus alni (Linnaeus, 1758) phenotype alni (= ab. quadrimaculatus Gerhardt, 1906): reddish, underside, legs and scutellum black, tarsi and antennae yellowish, elytra with two basal and two larger discal black spots (one on each elytron).Therefore, Geoffroy had correctly identified the Linnaean species.The synonymy stays as follows: Rhynchaenus alni (Linnaeus, 1758) = Curculio alni Linnaeus, 1758 = Curculio alni: Goeze, 1777;Geoffroy, 1785;Gmelin, 1790.21  Gmelin, 1790: 1749(non Linnaeus, 1758).
There are three specimens in the collection, each glued to the same card in a reversed 'V' configuration.These specimens represent two species: Cleopomiarus plantarum (Germar, 1824) (specimen on the left; previously identified as Gymnetron sp. by Colonnelli, 2004: 14) and Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham, 1802) (the other two specimens, identified as such by Colonelli, 2004).The specimen on the left matches the description, but the other two do not: they lack all their vestiture and their elytra and legs have a reddish brown to yellowish colour and the rostrum is as long as head plus pronotum or longer.Although Colonelli (2004) designated the specimen on the right (the male) as a lectotype of Curculio nigrostriatus Goeze, 1777, because it fails to match the description I cannot consider it a syntype and accordingly it loses its status as lectotype under Art 74.2.The only true syntype is the specimen on the left, which I hereby designate as lectotype of the three above mentioned nominal species.
Colonnelli (l.c.) declared the nominal species of Goeze, Geoffroy and Gmelin as nomina oblita and Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham, 1802) as nomen protectum under Art.23.9, but he failed to "give evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2are met", so his designations are invalid.In fact, the name Ceutorhynchus obstrictus was recently adopted for this species by Colonnelli (1993) and has won general acceptance only in the last few years, even if the 'cabbage seedpod weevil' is still (erroneously) named Ceutorhynchus assimilis by many applied entomologists.Given the high number of applied entomology papers on this taxon, it is possible that the name C. obstrictus could be declared now a nomen protectum against the only competing name still standing, Curculio napobrassicae Bjerkander, 1780, but this is not the subject of this paper.
The name Curculio nigrostriatus Goeze, 1777: 412 is permanently invalid since it is a primary homonym of the species described by the same author on page 380 (synonymized here with Deporaus betulae (L., 1758) under Rhinomacer no. 6).This is a First Reviser action.
There are three specimens belonging to genus Cionus, well characterized by the apically awl-shaped rostrum.The first and third specimens are poorly preserved, while the second is a better preserved male, although its vestiture is ruined.I hereby designate the latter as lectotype and the females as paralectotypes.They are Cionus hortulanus (Geoffroy, 1785) in the current sense of most authors.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.-Wooden cabinet containing the collection of Étienne Louis Geoffroy in the Paris Museum.

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3.-A box of Cerambycidae in Geoffroy's collection, to give an idea of the original appearance.

Fig. 4 .
Fig. 4.-The new box with Geoffroy's specimens (including types) in the General Collection.
(Talamelli, 2004)oth types of Curculio algirus Linnaeus, 1758 fitted the original description and were specimens of the genus Lixomorphus Faust, 1904.Thus the combination Lixomorphus algirus (Linnaeus) was created, leaving Lixus algirus auctt.necLinnaeuswithout a name.Among the synonyms of Lixus algirus auctt. is Curculio pulvereus Olivier, 1790, a name proposed by Olivier to replace Curculio pulverulentus Scopoli, 1763.Schoenherr (1836: 43) synonymized Curculio pulverulentus Scopoli, 1763 with Curculio angustatus Fabricius, 1775.It is necessary, for the sake of stability, to restore the oldest available name, as proposed byBedel (1886: 267)and as advanced under my coordination in Fauna Europaea(Talamelli, 2004), since the change to Lixus angustatus dates back only from 1988.Scopoli's name has priority; the types are lost, but I think there is no need of a neotype for this well known species.The nomenclature is as follows: Lixus pulverulentus (Scopoli, 1763) stat.res.
The identity of Curculio prasinus Olivier, 1790 is doubtful, since this species is currently found in the literature as both the basionym of Polydrusus prasinus(Olivier, 1790)and as a synonym of Phyllobius pomaceus Gyllenhal, 1834.