We consider it important to reproduce here the original descriptions of the genera involved, especially because these descriptions were not written in English. Furthermore, we believe this will make it easier for readers to understand the issues at hand, as they will not need to consult other works to obtain all the information.

Lacordaire (1830) described Eburia, attributing the genus to Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, as follows (translated):

Eburia (Lepel. and Serv.), Stenocorus (Fab.). – The large species, with an almost cylindrical body, live under the bark and even inside decayed trees: E. 4-maculata (Fab.), distinguenda, morosa (Dej., new species). The others, with a more flattened body, elytra less hard than the previous ones, and femora armed at their apices with strong spines, live on leaves and cling to them, with their antennae folded over their backs. When one tries to touch them, they quickly escape and let themselves fall to the ground: E. sexmaculata (Fab.), Lacordairei, similis (Dej., new species). All produce a sharp sound with their prothorax.

Although Lacordaire (1830) attributed the genus to Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, according to Bousquet (2007), “It is quite obvious that Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville provided the generic names, but there is no evidence from the content that they provided the descriptions used by Lacordaire or proposed the inclusion of any of the specific names mentioned under the genera by Lacordaire. Therefore, the generic names first validated in Lacordaire (1830) should be attributed to Lacordaire.” Except for Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus, 1767, wrongly attributed to Fabricius by Lacordaire, all species listed by Lacordaire (op. cit.) are nomina nuda. Therefore, C. quadrimaculatus is the type species of the genus by monotypy.

According to Bousquet (2007), “It is quite obvious that Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville provided the generic names, but there is no evidence from the content that they provided the descriptions used by Lacordaire or proposed the inclusion of any of the specific names mentioned under the genera by Lacordaire.” Partially supporting Bousquet’s (2007) comment—since Audinet-Serville considered the genus to have been described by himself alone, and not by Lacordaire—Audinet-Serville (1834) redescribed Eburia (translated):

The four palpi are equal; their terminal segment is rather short, shaped like an inverted cone, and almost rounded at the apex. The pronotum [prothorax] is cylindrical, with a single lateral tubercle, its surface uneven and often bearing two closely set dorsal spines. The antennae are setose, composed of eleven segments, and longer than the body in both sexes, with the last segment elongated in males. The legs are long, with femora not club-shaped. The elytra are glabrous and truncate at their apices; the angles of the truncation are prominent, the outer one often extended into a strong spine. They usually display several raised, ivory-colored spots. The scutellum is rounded posteriorly. The body is glabrous, at least in part.

Audinet-Serville divided Eburia into two groups (translated): 1. “The first four femora [meso- and metafemora] are equipped on both the inner and outer parts of the club that receives the base of the tibia with two spines of unequal size,” including E. quadrimaculata, E. sexmaculata (Fabricius) (in fact, Cerambyx sex maculatus Olivier, 1790, currently Eburodacrys sexmaculata), E. lineola (Fabricius, 1781) (currently Erosida lineola), and E. stigma (Olivier, 1800); 2. “All the femora are unarmed,” with only E. morosa Dejean (which is actually a nomen nudum in Dejean’s catalogs; the species was formally described by Audinet-Serville in 1834 and is currently known as Pantomallus morosus) (Fig. 28). Audinet-Serville’s (1834) description of the genus and the first group of species does not make it clear whether he misidentified Eburia quadrimaculata.

Hope (1834) (not 1835 as indicated by Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025)—see Sherborn 1925) proposed Dissacanthus and included “quadrimaculatus, Fab., aliaeque decem [and ten others]. – America Meridionalis.” Interestingly, he included Dissacanthus among the genera without spinose antennae (“Antennae plus minusve pubescentes, haud spinosae [Antennae more or less pubescent, not spined]”). This description suggests that he misidentified the true Cerambyx quadrimaculatus, which has some spiny flagellomeres. Hope (1841) indicated (not 1843 as indicated by Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025)): “Hope’s genera and types in 1833 … Dissacanthus, Sten. 4-maculatus, Fab.” and “Serville’s genera and types in 1834 … Eburia, Sten. 4-maculatus, Fab. [= Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus].” With this note, Hope (1841) synonymized Eburia under Dissacanthus, which is here regarded as a mistake, since Eburia was first described by Lacordaire in 1830 and therefore has priority over Dissacanthus. We believe that this was not a very clear way of designating a type species, especially since he was designating a type species for EburiaAudinet-Serville (1834) and not for EburiaLacordaire (1830), but also because, from the way the information was presented, one could understand that Audinet-Serville had already made the designation or that there was monotypy. However, this designation has no nomenclatural value, since Eburia in Lacordaire (1830) was described with a single available species: Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus, 1767 (wrongly attributed to Fabricius), contradicting the information on Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and on Monné (2024), who state that Hope (1841) designated the type species of Eburia. Thomson (1864) considered Dissacanthus [misspelled as Dissacantha] as different from Eburia: “Type: D. Quadrimaculata Fabr. Syst. El. II, p. 308, n° 16. (Nec Eburia (Cérambyx) 4-maculata Linné.) Guyadeloupe.” However, the description by Fabricius (1775) did not allow excluding Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Linnaeus, because it is extremely short and vague, allowing the inclusion of many species. Furthermore, he listed Linnaeus (1767), Sloane (1725), and Drury (1770) as references (see remarks in Coeleburia tetrastalacta (White, 1853)). The two latter provided illustrations that, apparently, match very well the syntype housed in the LSUK. We believe that Eburia quadrimaculata Linnaeus, sensu Thomson (1861; 1864), was a misidentification. Gemminger (1872) considered Dissacanthus a junior synonym of Eburia.

Thomson (1861) described Coeleburia as follows (translated):

Head produced, short, elevated at the base of the antennae. Antennae 11-segmented, elongated, setose underneath, in the male far exceeding the apex of the body; the 1st segment longitudinally sulcate; segments 3 and 4–10 each scarcely longer; segments 3 and 4 simple and entire; the last segment usually the longest, longer than the two preceding segments, very slender, with an appendage or divided, the appendage simulating a twelfth segment. In the female, the antennae are shorter, only slightly exceeding the body; the last segment is scarcely longer than the preceding one, entire, and not slender. Eyes lunulate [crescent-shaped] on the inner side. Mandibles bifid. Palpi fairly elongated, dilated at the apex, maxillary palpi longer than labial ones. Prothorax globular, laterally spined, scarcely elongated, with tubercles on the upper surface. Scutellum somewhat rounded. Elytra elongated, slightly convex, subparallel, apex bi-truncate, and four-spined. Prosternum [prosternal process] narrowed and slightly produced at the apex. Mesosternum [mesoventral process] broad and crescent-shaped at the apex, more or less with a single tubercle in the middle. Legs fairly long, especially the hind legs, cylindrical; the front legs scarcely thickened; procoxae globular; anterior procoxal cavities rounded; intermediate and hind femora cylindrical, each armed apically on the inner side with two spines, the inner spine larger; first segment of the tarsi somewhat elongated. Genus Eburia: distinguished by (1) the 1st antennal segment being longitudinally sulcate and the last segment longer; (2) the mesosternum [mesoventral process] being more or less tuberculate; and (3) the hind femora in males always exceeding the end of the body.

Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and Monné (2024) reported that the type species of Coeleburia was designated only 3 years later by Thomson (1864). However, this is a mistake, since only C. semipubescens Thomson, 1861, was originally included, making it the type species by original monotypy. The other purported species included by Thomson (1861) have no nomenclatural value (translated): “My collection still contains some probably undescribed species that must belong to this genus. I will mention, among others, C. stigmatica Chevrl., unpublished, from Mexico, and another species from Guatemala, in which the spines of the middle and hind femora are almost obsolete.” Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and Monné (2024) considered Coeleburia stigmatica Chevrolat in Thomson (1861: 238) as equal to Eburia stigmatica Chevrolat, 1835 (currently, Susuacanga stigmatica). Although Thomson (1864) mentioned “C. stigmatica Chevrolat,” it is unlikely that the citation in Thomson (1861) actually corresponds to Eburia stigmatica Chevrolat, 1835, because he stated that it was an undescribed (“inedited”) species. Even if it may have been an error by Thomson (1861), there is no evidence to support it. Therefore, it is mandatory to accept that only C. semipubescens was originally included in the genus. Lacordaire (1868) synonymized Coeleburia with Eburia and was followed by Gemminger (1872).

Thomson (1864) described Drymo as follows (translated):

Male. Short head; forehead two-horned, concave in the middle and longitudinally sulcate; eyes coarsely granulated; male antennae more than twice the length of the body, first segment thick, rough, third slightly longer than the following, segments 3 to 10 gradually increasing in length, the last one much the longest, more than twice the length of the previous one; prothorax globular, convex, unarmed at the sides; scutellum somewhat rounded; elytra somewhat elongated, convex, gradually narrowed a little from the base, apex double-truncated and strongly four-spined; prosternum and mesosternum with laminar projections; front legs short, middle and hind legs elongated and not clubbed; hind femora extending beyond the apex of the body; apex of meso- and metafemora each with two spines, the spines elongated and nearly equal (eight spines in total); protarsi short and widened; meso- and metatarsi somewhat elongated, first segment twice as long as the following, almost equal to the last. Female unknown.

Only Coeleburia pulverea Chevrolat, 1862 (= Cerambyx didymus Olivier, 1800), was included. Gemminger (1872) considered Drymo as a junior synonym of Eburia.

Thomson (1864) described Eleutho as follows (translated):

Male. Appearance similar to Drymo, but: head more pointed at the front; antennae even longer, the first segment sulcate at the base, the last segment certainly three times longer than the preceding one; palpi elongated; prothorax somewhat elongated, slightly projecting laterally at the front, sharply spined just behind the middle; legs slender, front legs more elongated; apices of meso- and metafemora with very small internal spines and very elongated external spines; the rest as in Drymo. Female, unknown.

Only Eburia consobrina Jacquelin du Val, 1857 (Fig. 8), was included. Gemminger (1872) synonymized Eleutho with Eburia. Vitali (2007) revalidated Eleutho as a subgenus of Eburia, whereas Botero and Monné (2018) treated them as separate genera.

After these preliminary considerations, it is essential to establish the actual type species of Eburia: Cerambyx 4-maculatus. Linnaeus (1767) described it as follows (translated):

4-maculatus. 27. C. [Cerambyx] with the thorax reddish and spiny above; elytra bidentate, with two pairs of smooth spots. Gron. Zooph. 542. Sloan. Jam. 2. t. 237. f. 21. It inhabits America. Antennae of moderate length. Thorax cylindrical, rough, with two prominent spines at the top. Elytra bidentate, the outer tooth larger, and paired in the middle, the front ones longer, all the spots ending in a black mark.

We understand that this brief description does not allow the species to be reliably identified and does not distinguish it from many others currently included in Eburiini. Gronovius (1764) did not provide an illustration of his species “542” but listed Sloane (1725) as a reference. According to Santos-Silva et al. (2016), the institution housing the Gronovius collection is unknown, and it is not possible to determine whether it still exists. The figure by Sloane (1725) does not allow definitive identification of the species, but it allows the exclusion of two names currently and mistakenly considered as junior synonyms of Eburia quadrimaculata, as well as the male syntype of Eburia pedestris (see below). According to Sloane (1725):

XIX. Scarabeus Capricornus dietus gracilis fuscus minor, elytris, maculis quatuor, pallide luteis, variegatis [Capricorn beetle, slender, dark, small, with elytra bearing four pale yellow, variegated spots]. Tab. 237. Fig. 21 [Fig. 9]. This is about half an inch long and a quarter broad; the antennae brown and jointed, longer than the body and bow’d back. The sheaths have small protuberancies, the legs are six, shaped as the former. All over it is of a light brown, grey, or ash color, with two spots and some waved lines of a dark brown color. It is not infrequent.

The small length and the description by Sloane (1725) suggest it is not Cerambyx quadrimaculatus. This is because all known specimens of E. quadrimaculata are larger, the outer apical angle of the elytra has a distinct spiniform projection, and the elytra have no “waved lines of a dark brown color.” In the same way, the description by Gronovius (1764) also suggests it is not Cerambyx quadrimaculatus, especially in the description of the second pair of elytral eburneous maculae (translated):

Length eight lines. Antennae slightly shorter than the body, with eight segments, the first two of which are club-shaped. Thorax somewhat cylindrical, slightly thicker in the middle, armed at the top with two raised spines; otherwise, rough, grayish-brown in color. Elytra straight, sloped, dull, with a bidentate apex, the lateral tooth being the largest. At the base of the elytra, a pair of spots or lines is visible, which are narrow, raised, convex, shiny, and yellowish; a similar pair of spots is present at the center of the elytra, which are twice as long as the former. Each pair of spots ends with a black mark. The rest of the body is pale reddish and not shiny.

Therefore, although the specimens used by Sloane (1725) and Gronovius (1764) to describe and illustrate the species are syntypes of Cerambyx quadrimaculatus, they do not correspond to the same species as the specimens seen in person by Linnaeus (1767). This becomes evident upon examining the photographs of the syntype housed in the LSUK (Figs 1–4). This specimen is the only reliable source for determining what Cerambyx quadrimaculatus actually is according to Linnaeus, particularly because it bears a label handwritten by Linnaeus himself.

Although it is not a syntype, the specimen illustrated by Drury (1770) (Fig. 6) is from Jamaica and was identified by Drury as Cerambyx maculatus (see below). Unfortunately, the illustration and the description do not allow us to be sure about the identification. The specimen (Fig. 5) illustrated by Forster (1785) is without a doubt a female of C. quadrimaculatus. The illustrations by Olivier [1795–1808] (Fig. 7) do not allow us to recognize the species.

According to Linnaeus (1767) on C. ramphygeus (translated):

Cerambyx with the thorax unarmed, subcylindrical, bituberculate; body bluish; elytra with two yellow spots and a bidentate apex. Brunnich. Found in America. Size similar to C. festivus. Head, thorax, and elytra bluish. Thorax with two small, equal, black, elevated tubercles. Antennae medium-sized; legs ferruginous. Eyes black. Elytra with two yellow, oblong spots, almost as if formed from two merged spots—one near the base (smaller), the other in the middle. The apex of the elytra is truncate and bidentate, the inner tooth being smaller.

Brunnich [Brünnich] is Morten Thrane Brünnich. It appears that this author never described any species named “ramphygeus” in any of his published works. This can explain why Linnaeus (1767) did not provide the name of the work and page, although he mentioned “Brunnich” several times in his work. In fact, Cerambyx ramphygeus was described by M.T. Brünnich in a letter to Carl Linnaeus (https://linnean.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_84563a61-ba3b-4568-b74c-6703f7d07e10/). Unfortunately, we did not obtain authorization to publish Brünnich’s letter. According to Andrea Deneau (Digital Assets Manager of the Linnean Society of London; pers. comm.): “For the photographs of the correspondence, those letters are still in copyright here in the UK (until 2039), and we can’t give permission to publish them, as the permission lies with the descendants of Brunnich. However, depending on where you would be publishing, the copyright laws may vary, and probably the letters under another jurisdiction would be out of copyright (usually 70 years after the author’s death).” Although the law on this matter in most countries does not establish such a long term, we chose to respect the law of the United Kingdom, where we obtained access to the letter. According to Maria Alejandra Alvarez Covelli (NHRS) (pers. comm.), the holotype was not found: “I am sorry to tell you that I searched in our database and in the collection, and I was not able to find the specimen you requested (Cerambyx ramphygeus).” Most likely, the holotype is in the NHRS collection, but neither Linnaeus nor Brünnich added an identification label. Schönherr (1817) synonymized Cerambyx ramphygeus Linnaeus, 1767, with C. quadrimaculatus. However, based on the figure in the letter to Carl Linnaeus, the synonymy by Schönherr (1817) was a mistake, as the elongated elytral eburneous maculae differ from those of C. quadrimaculatus. See remarks in Coeleburia tetrastalacta (White, 1853).

Gahan (1895) described Eburia binodosa from Puerto Rico, Guadeloupe, and Saint Thomas. In the original description, he suggested that his species may be equal to two species described by Linnaeus (1767): “(?) Cerambyx quadrimaculatus, Linn., Syst. Nat. xii., p. 626;” (?) C. ramphygeus, Linn., l.c., p. 633;” “This species seems to answer better than any I have yet seen to Linné’s description of Cerambyx quadrimaculatus. Fabricius’s description of Stenocorus quadrimaculatus does not appear to have been based upon any actual specimens and is evidently a mere repetition of that given by Linné.” Aurivillius (1912) synonymized E. binodosa with C. quadrimaculatus (as Eburia quadrimaculata).

Gilmour (1963) described Eburia virginensis (Fig. 25) from Saint John and Saint Croix. Martins (1999) reported on E. virginensis and E. thoracica White, 1853 (translated)—the two names considered by him to be synonyms, following Gilmour (1968): “White (1853) described E. thoracica based on a specimen from “Brazil.” Gilmour (1963) described E. virginensis based on material from two islands in the Antilles: St. Croix and St. John. In 1968, the same author also recorded it from another island, St. Thomas, and mentioned specimens from various localities in Curaçao, in the Dutch Antilles: Jongbloed, Mahaai, Willemstad, Picadera Baai, Carmabi, Julianadorp, Hato, and Curaçao. Some of these specimens were collected at light. Martins (1997) reported it from Suriname: Marowijne District, Langaman Kondre.” Chalumeau and Touroult (2005) synonymized E. virginensis with E. quadrimaculata and reported (translated): “Martins (1997) placed E. virginensis in synonymy with Eburia thoracica (White, 1853), whose type locality, “Brazil,” is doubtful. This author includes material from the Virgin Islands (Saint Thomas, St. John, and Saint Croix), Curação [sic], and northern South America: Suriname (Marowijne District). As for the populations from Curação [sic] and Suriname, we doubt they should be assigned to quadrimaculata.” These authors were wrong: it was Gilmour (1968) who synonymized E. virginensis with E. thoracica. Furthermore, E. thoracica is not conspecific with E. quadrimaculata (= Cerambyx quadrimaculatus).

Martins (1997) described Solangella as follows (translated):

Dorsal region of the head without a tubercle. Gula without transverse sulci. Antennal tubercles acuminate, slightly projected. Antennae of males with variable length; in females, slightly longer than the body. Scape subcylindrical; dorsal base with a shallow sulcus or without a sulcus; length subequal to or greater than half that of antennomere III. Prothorax wider than long; sides with a spine behind or nearly at mid-length; anterolateral tubercle very reduced. Pronotum with two anterolateral tubercles; basal and central gibbosities only slightly indicated. Anterior coxal cavities angular laterally. Elytral apices truncate, without external spine. Apices of meso- and metafemora without spines; the inner apical lobe acuminate. Mesoventrite [mesoventral process] without a tubercle. Discussion. Genus established to group the South American species of Eburia with unarmed elytral and femoral apices.

Martins (1999) redefined the shape of the procoxal cavities in Solangella as not angular or narrowly angular laterally and commented (translated): “However, S. meridana was originally described by Bates (1872) in Pantomallus, which suggests that the cavities are angular on both sides. The lack of spines on the apex of the elytra and femora places meridana more appropriately in Solangella.” These statements make no sense when the species currently included in Solangella are examined.

The features listed by Martins (1999) to define Eburia sensu auctorum cannot be taken into consideration (see below). This is because he considered only South American species and included in Solangella the species from that region that did not fit his concept of Eburia. Moreover, the features he pointed out to define Eburia do not allow for a clear separation between this genus and Solangella, since the anterior procoxal cavities are the same in both genera, and one of the species included in Solangella, S. meridana (Bates, 1872), has at least one feature of Pantomallus: the procoxal cavities open laterally (strongly angulated). According to Lacordaire (1868) on Pantomallus (translated): “In all the collections where they are found, the species of this genus are placed among the Eburia, as they completely share the same appearance. However, it is impossible to leave these insects within the Éburiides without making the definition of the group meaningless, since they have strongly angular anterior coxae...”

Therefore, in the absence of reliable features to distinguish Solangella from Coeleburia, the former is regarded as a junior synonym of the latter. The type species of Solangella, S. lachrymosa (Martins & Monné, 1975) (Figs 16–18), and Solangella micromacula Martins, 1997 (Figs 19–21) belong to Coeleburia (Eburia sensu auctorum). Solangella meridana (Bates, 1872) sensu Martins (1999) (Figs 22–24) belongs to Pantomallus:

1. Coeleburia lachrymosa (Martins & Monné, 1975), comb. nov.;

2. Coeleburia micromacula (Martins, 1997), comb. nov.;

3. Pantomallus meridanus Bates, 1872, resurrection of the original combination.

According to Martins (1997) on Solangella micromacula (Figs 19–21): “Material-tipo: Holótipo [male symbol], Equador, Guayas: Guayaquil, A. Montilla col. (MZSP). Parátipos: [female symbol], mesmos dados do holótipo (MZSP); [male symbol], Loja, Abbé Gaujon col. (MNHN).” In the MZSP, the holotype and female paratype labels were switched: the holotype had a paratype label, and the female paratype had a holotype label. Both specimens have additional identification labels stating that they are female paratypes, but one of them is a male. However, since those two specimens are from Guayaquil, there is no doubt that the male is the holotype because the other male paratype was from Loja. Most likely, that last paratype was mistakenly given the holotype identification label (not the red label that says holotype, but the label with the identification of the species). We have corrected the labels, switching the holotype and paratype accordingly.

The holotype of Pantomallus meridanus was not located in the MNHN (Antoine Mantilleri, personal communication) or in the BMNH (Michael Geiser, personal communication). According to Martins (1997), regarding the holotype of P. meridanus (translated): “Examined [the specimen] from a slide of the holotype [male symbol] made by J.S. Moure at the BMNH.” However, the slide was not found in the collection of slides made by Jesus Santiago Moure at the DZUP (personal communication from the curator of the collection).

Since Eburia binodosa is not the same as Cerambyx quadrimaculatus (different scape shape; different elytral eburneous maculae, among other features), the species must be excluded from the synonymy of this species. By comparing the original descriptions and photographs of the syntypes of E. thoracica and E. binodosa, it is possible to see that they belong to the same species. Therefore, E. binodosa is synonymized with E. thoracica. According to White (1853), in the description of E. thoracica, the femora of the four hind legs have short spines. However, photographs of the holotype (see also the photograph in Bezark (2025), taken by the late John Chemsak) show that the original description was not accurate. This is because the inner apex of the meso- and metafemora appears to have a long spine. As correctly proposed by Gilmour (1968), Eburia virginensis (Fig. 25) is kept in the synonymy of E. thoracica.

Eburia thoracica was described from “Brazil,” and according to Monné (2024), the type locality is doubtful. According to Gilmour (1968): “BRAZIL” (Erroneous. Type of thoracica White – Brit. Mus. N.H.)];” “The label on the type of E. thoracica White reads, ‘F. Walker, Brazil (Ent. Club 44-12.)’” and “It is obvious, therefore, that the locality ‘Brazil’ is erroneous and should be stricken from the records, the actual locality being certain of the Lesser Antillean Islands, as known so far and detailed above.” According to Martins (1999) (translated): “Walker was never in Brazil or South America. It is worth noting that between 1837 and 1863, Walker was hired by the BMNH to describe the entomological collection, receiving one pound per genus described and one shilling per species described. This arrangement resulted in the description of around 20,000 species from different orders during his lifetime! (Papavero 1973). The collection of the ‘Entomological Club’ was donated to the BMNH in 1844. Since the existence of E. thoracica in Suriname was mentioned (Martins 1997b: 81), the type locality ‘Brazil’ may be correct, contrary to what Gilmour claimed.” Currently, it is known from the United States Virgin Islands (Saint Thomas, Saint Croix, and Saint John), Curaçao, Suriname, and Brazil (there is no irrefutable proof that the holotype was not collected in Brazil).

White (1853) described E. pedestris based on syntypes from Honduras and Jamaica. According to Gahan (1895): “The specimen from Jamaica (Gosse coll.), which White described as the male of pedestris, really belongs to consobrina, Duv., which may be distinguished by the structure of its antennae.” Since then, the male syntype of E. pedestris has been considered a “synonym” of E. consobrina (synonymy by Gahan (1895)—see Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) and Monné (2024)), while the female syntype is regarded as a distinct species (E. pedestris). Gahan (1895) noted that only part of the type series belonged to E. consobrina, and, following his reasoning, there is only one male and one female syntype. It is more than evident that this was not a synonym, especially because a synonymy involves a nominal taxon, not a specimen. Without designating a lectotype for E. pedestris, it is not possible to determine which syntype(s) correspond to this name. White (1853) suggested that E. pedestris might be the same as Eburia quadrimaculata Linnaeus. If the specimen from Jamaica is designated as the lectotype, then the name might eventually be synonymized with E. consobrina or E. quadrimaculata. However, if the specimen from Honduras is designated as the lectotype, it will be necessary to determine whether the name is a junior synonym of an older species or a valid species. However, it is absolutely impossible for the male syntype to be the same as Eburia consobrina, although, apparently, it belongs to the same genus.

As Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) list erroneous references for this species—some of which in fact pertain to Eburia quadrimaculata—we need to make a few comments.

According to Monné (2024), in the references to E. tetrastalacta: “Cerambyx maculatus Drury, 1773: 84, pl. 37, fig. 3. / Type locality - Holotype: Jamaica. (Depository unknown). / Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Panzer in Drury, 1778: 141, pl. 37, fig. 3. / Type locality - Jamaica. (Depository unknown).” Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) also listed Cerambyx maculatus and Cerambyx quadrimaculatus Panzer as described species. However:

1. Cerambyx maculatus in Drury (1773) is merely a spelling error. Therefore, it can never be considered a formal description (ICZN 1999: Art. 33.3). There is no doubt that Drury (1773) was referring to Linnaeus’ species, as he referred to Linnaeus under the species (“XXXVII … 3. Maculatus, Linn. P. 626. N. 27. Ceram.”);

2. Although the name “Cerambyx maculatus” appears in Drury (1773), page 84, the description and plate 37 with the illustration (fig. 3) are from Drury (1770);

3. Panzer (1787) did not describe a species named Cerambyx quadrimaculatus. He just provided references to the species and, without an explanation, corrected the spelling error of Drury (1773): “Tab. XXXVII. Fig. 3. Cerambyx quadrimaculatus. Linn. Syst. Nat. n. 27. p. 626. Goeze. Beytr. I. Th. n. 27. p. 433. Stenocorus quadrimaculatus. Fabric. Syst. Ent. n. 11 p. 180. eiusd. Spec. Ins. T. I. n. 12. p. 727. eiusd. Mant. Ins. T. I. n. 12. p. 143. Sloan. Jam. 2. tab. 237. fig. 21. Gronov. Zooph. T. II. n. 542.” Furthermore, Panzer’s work is not “in Drury.” Additionally, pages 105–152 and plates 29–40 were published in 1787, not 1788 (Bousquet 2016).

These incorrect records in Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025) were based on Aurivillius (1893) (translated): “Eburia tetrastalacta White is almost certainly the same species that was illustrated and precisely described by Drury (Ill. Ex. Ent. I, p. 84, plate 37, fig. 3) as Cerambyx maculatus (index p. 2). It seems to me very doubtful that this species, as Drury himself and others have believed, is identical with Linnaeus’s quadrimaculatus, since one cannot say that the pronotum of maculatus [sensu] Drury is ‘scaber’ [i.e., rough]. Bates states (in Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1870, p. 266, note) that the pronotum of Eburia 4-maculata L. is completely without spines. However, this claim must be based on an error, because Linnaeus assigns his C. 4-maculatus to the third division of the genus Cerambyx, which is precisely characterized by having the pronotum armed laterally. In contrast, Cerambyx rhamphygeus [sic] L. has an unarmed pronotum and thus cannot be, as Gemminger and Harold suggested, the same species as 4-maculatus. — The Cerambyx 4-maculatus described and illustrated by Forster in Fuessly’s Archiv 6, p. 13, plate 32, fig. 3, has a different body shape and spiny antennae and therefore, if the antennae are genuine, cannot even belong to the Eburia group.” It is important to provide some notes about these statements:

1. Aurivillius (1912) did not state that Cerambyx quadrimaculatus sensu Drury (1770, 1773) is equal to C. tetrastalacta; he only suspected it;

2. We agree that C. quadrimaculatus sensu Drury (1770, 1773) is probably not conspecific with the species described by Linnaeus (1767). However, it seems evident to us that it is not possible to make any assertions about the sculpture of the pronotum based on the illustration in Drury (1770). Drury’s (1770) description of the prothorax was minimal and lacking in detail: “The Thorax, being the color of the head, is very cylindrical, having a sharp spine one on each side and two short black ones on the top.” Therefore, it is not possible to be certain whether C. quadrimaculatus sensu Drury (1770, 1773) is or is not the same as the species described by Linnaeus (1767);

3. The synonymy of Cerambyx ramphygeus is by Gemminger (1872) and not by Gemminger and Harold (1872);

4. “Cerambyx rhamphygeus [sic] L. has an unarmed pronotum [prothorax] and thus cannot be … the same species as 4-maculatus” (Aurivillius 1893: 183). It is important to differentiate prothorax from pronotum; both C. ramphygeus and C. quadrimaculatus have the pronotum [halsschild] with two elevated tubercles, but only C. quadrimaculatus has the lateral tubercles of the prothorax distinct.

Male (Figs 29–33). Integument mostly orangish brown, more reddish brown depending on light intensity; head capsule dark brown on frontal region of median groove, vertex, and behind lower eye lobes, slightly lighter depending on light intensity; postclypeus dark brown centrally; anteclypeus dark brown close to postclypeus; scape orangish brown dorsally, brown on remaining surface, except dark-brown apex; pedicel dark brown except reddish brown apex; antennomeres III–XI orangish except dark-brown apical region, dark area gradually larger and lighter toward XI; mandibles black. Pronotum with three large orange maculae on posterior half, one on each tumid lateral area, another on central tubercle; area close to anterior and posterior margins dark brown. Sides of prothorax brown close to anterior and posterior margins, dark brown close to procoxal cavity. Prosternum brown close to anterior margin, dark brown close to procoxal cavities. Metanepisterna narrowly dark brown close to metaventrite. Metaventrite brown close to metacoxal cavities. Scutellum mostly brownish. Elytra with three tumid, eburneous maculae, one short, elongate, located basally on middle of dorsal surface, and two small just after middle, innermost larger, located on innermost dorsal carina, outermost smaller, located further back on outermost dorsal carina; with wide, longitudinal band dorsally, from base to after middle, brown basally, gradually reddish-brown toward its apex; epipleural margin yellowish brown, yellower depending on light intensity. Basal third of pro- and mesofemora and basal quarter of metafemora orangish on basal third, reddish brown on remaining surface, more light brown depending on light intensity, except dark brown apex. Tibiae orangish brown on basal half, mostly brown on apical half. Tarsi mostly reddish brown. Apex of abdominal ventrites 1–4 dull yellowish brown.

Head. Frons abundantly, coarsely punctate; with somewhat abundant, bristly yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, except glabrous median groove. Area between antennal tubercle with sculpturing and pubescence as on frons. Area between antennal tubercles and upper eye lobes tumid centrally, abundantly, coarsely punctate; with sparse yellowish-white pubescence, except abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument posteriorly. Remaining surface of vertex somewhat rugose-punctate, except smooth anterocentral region; with sparse yellowish-white pubescence, except glabrous smooth area. Area behind upper eye lobes abundantly rugose-punctate; with abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument superiorly and inferiorly close to eye, glabrous on remaining surface. Area behind lower eye lobes smooth close to eye, rugose-punctate close to upper eye lobes, somewhat transversely striate on remaining surface; with very sparse yellowish-white pubescence close to eye, except abundant yellowish-white pubescence inferiorly, glabrous on remaining surface. Genae with somewhat abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument close to eye, glabrous on apical region. Antennal tubercles with pubescence and sculpturing as on frons, except smooth, glabrous apex. Wide central area of postclypeus abundantly, coarsely rugose-punctate, with somewhat abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument close to frons and both short and long setae directed forward close to anteclypeus. Sides of postclypeus smooth, glabrous. Labrum abundantly, coarsely punctate on posterior 2/3, smooth on basal third; with somewhat abundant, long, erect yellowish-brown setae on distal 2/3, glabrous on basal third, except short fringe of yellowish-brown setae anterocentrally. Gulamentum smooth, glabrous on posterior half; anterior half coarsely rugose-punctate, with moderately abundant, both short and long, bristly and erect yellowish-white setae not obscuring integument on wide central area, and abundant yellowish-white pubescence close to eyes. Outer surface of mandibles abundantly rugose-punctate on basal 2/3, smooth on basal third; with abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument on distal 2/3, glabrous on basal third; with tuft of long, erect yellowish-brown setae near smooth area. Distance between upper eye lobes 0.31 times distance between outer margins of eyes; in frontal view, distance between lower eye lobes 0.48 times distance between outer margins of eyes. Antennae 1.45 times elytral length, reaching elytral apex at middle of antennomere XI. Scape abundantly, coarsely punctate, except smooth dorsal apex; with abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, except glabrous smooth area; with long, erect yellowish setae interspersed throughout. Pedicel and antennomeres III–XI with abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, pubescence shorter and denser toward XI; with long, erect yellowish-white setae interspersed throughout on III–IV, setae more abundant ventrally; V–X with long, erect yellowish-white setae interspersed ventrally, setae gradually sparser toward X, and long, erect yellowish-white setae on apex of dorsal surface. Antennal formula (ratio) based on length of antennomere III: scape = 0.70; pedicel = 0.15; IV = 0.80; V = 0.80; VI = 0.75; VII = 0.72; VIII = 0.62; IX = 0.52; X = 0.42; XI = 0.45.

Thorax. Anterior constriction distinct; sides with short, conical tubercle centrally. Pronotum with conical tubercle on each side about middle, elongated tubercle centrally on posterior half, and large, subcircular tumid area on each side of posterior half; abundantly, coarsely punctate, somewhat rugose on some areas, except smooth tubercles; with somewhat abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, absent on tubercles and close to anterior margin, and long, erect setae of same color interspersed. Sides of prothorax subsmooth anteriorly, this area gradually widened toward prosternum and abundantly, coarsely punctate on remaining surface, punctures smoother close to posterior margin; with sparse yellowish-white pubescence and long, erect setae of same color interspersed. Prosternum abundantly, coarsely rugose-punctate on posterior half, subsmooth on anterior quarter, transversely striate between these two areas, with somewhat abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument on posterior half, with sparse, long, erect setae of same color interspersed, subglabrous on anterior quarter, and long, erect yellowish-white setae between these two areas. Prosternal process abundantly, coarsely rugose-punctate, punctures smoother on posterior third; with somewhat abundant, bristly yellowish-white setae laterally, glabrous centrally; narrowest area 0.42 times procoxal width. Mesoventrite with sparse yellowish-white pubescence, denser on apex of lateral surfaces. Mesanepisterna and mesepimera with abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument. Mesoventral process abundantly, coarsely punctate, except subsmooth sides of apex; sides concave, apex strongly concave centrally; with somewhat abundant, bristly yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument; narrowest area 0.80 times mesocoxal width; apical width 1.25 mesocoxal width. Metanepisterna with moderately abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument. Metaventrite with moderately abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument laterally, and long, erect setae of same color centrally. Scutellum with sparse yellowish-white pubescence. Elytra. With two slightly distinct longitudinal carinae dorsally, innermost more conspicuous. Abundantly, moderately coarsely punctate on anterior half, punctures gradually sparser, finer toward apex on posterior half, except smooth eburneous maculae; apex obliquely truncate with small spiniform projection on outer and sutural angles; with moderately abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, absent on eburneous maculae, and long, erect setae of same color interspersed. Legs. Femora abundantly, moderately coarsely punctate; with moderately sparse yellowish-white pubescence and long, erect setae of same color interspersed. Tibiae with abundant, bristly yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, pubescence denser on protibiae, especially ventrally, and ventrally on meso- and metatibiae, ventral pubescence slightly yellower; with long, erect setae of same color interspersed. Dorsal surface of tarsomeres with moderately abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, pubescence yellower depending on light intensity. Metatarsomere I about as long as II–III together.

Abdomen. Ventrites with moderately abundant yellowish-white pubescence not obscuring integument, absent on apex of ventrites 1–4, and long, erect setae of same color interspersed. Ventrite 5 depressed posterocentrally; apex truncate.

Dimensions in mm. Total length, 15.60; prothoracic length, 2.35; anterior prothoracic width, 2.35; posterior prothoracic width, 2.70; maximum prothoracic width, 3.15; humeral width, 3.60; elytral length, 10.05.

ECUADOR, Guayas: La Puntilla, one female, April 1964, no collector indicated (CSCA, formerly Jim Cope collection).

This species was described from Guatemala. According to Monné (2024), Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025), and Noguera (2002), the species was described based on a single female specimen, the holotype. However, Perroud (1855) gave a size range for the length of the species: “Long.: 19 à 20 mill. – Lat. ad humerus: 5 mill.” Therefore, the species was described based on at least two syntypes. We provide photographs of one of these syntypes deposited at the MNHN (Figs 34–37).

According to Noguera (2002) (translated): “The above description [of Coeleburia rufobrunnea] is based on individuals from Ecuador and Peru, which are considered to belong to this species. Some individuals show a darker brown integument. In 1997, Martins described Solangella micromacula based on specimens from Ecuador, and based on that description and the included photograph, we believe it is the same species. However, it is necessary to compare the types of both to verify whether this hypothesis is correct.” By comparing the types of Solangella micromacula Martins, 1997 with the original description and photograph of a syntype of E. rufobrunnea (Figs 34–36), we believe they are valid species.

Coeleburia rufobrunnea differs from Coeleburia micromacula as follows: pronotum with three lighter maculae on the posterior half, distinctly contrasting with the remaining surface (absent in C. micromacula); pronotal and elytral pubescence sparser (denser in C. micromacula).

Since the procoxal cavities are not distinctly open laterally (a feature of Pantomallus Lacordaire, 1868), this species should remain classified within Coeleburia (see Botero and Monné 2018, as Eburia).

Currently, it is known from Guatemala, Ecuador (Guayas), and Peru (Piura) (Monné 2024; Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2025).

Erichson (1834) described Stenocorus pilosus as follows (translated):

“56. Stenocorus pilosus Erichs. Tab. XXXIX. Fig. 6. Stenocorus faintly brown, ash-gray pubescent, setose; thorax with two spines, four tubercles; elytra with a paired basal line and another simple median yellow line, shaded with black. – 10 lines. Light brown, covered with fine silky gray pubescence, long-haired all over, especially on the underside and the legs. The head has a longitudinal line. The antennae are the same color and length as the body. The pronotum is as long as it is wide, finely punctured, with a pair of small humps on the back in front of the middle, and a small hump on each front corner. On the side, there is a sharp spine in the middle. Two indistinct blackish stripes run along the back. The elytra are individually punctured, sharply toothed before the tip; at the base, there are two small raised yellow lines close together, and in the middle, a single one that is bordered inwardly by a black shadow. The middle femora are slightly elongated, armed at the tip with a sharp spine. Native country: Peru. Found in Lima.”

However, the figure number on the plate (Fig. 38) is not “6,” as indicated in the original description, but rather “7.” Erichson (1834) also described Lamia praetoria and reported: “Lamia praetoria Erichs. Tab. XXXIX. Fig. 7.” However, the correct figure number is “6.” This mistake was first corrected by White (1853), who reported the figure number for Stenocorus pilosus as “7.” Nonetheless, the mistake persists in Monné (2024) and Tavakilian and Chevillotte (2025), both of whom still list the figure as “6.”

As demonstrated above, C. ramphygeus is not a synonym of C. quadrimaculatus; consequently, we revalidate C. ramphygeus. Unfortunately, neither Linnaeus’s (1767) description nor the description and illustration in Brünnich’s letter provide sufficient information to determine the species’ identity with certainty, nor its correct placement within Eburiini. However, we retain it in Coeleburia until its actual generic position within Eburiini can be properly established.

See remarks in Coeleburia tetrastalacta (White, 1853).

The features indicated by Thomson (1864) separating Drymo from Eleutho are very variable in Eburiini: shape of the head, antennal length, shape of the base of the scape, length of antennomere XI, among others. Therefore, they need to be considered as specific features and not as generic features. However, this does not prevent the two genera from being treated here as distinct taxa, owing to the presence of other important features that were not mentioned by Thomson (1864) as differential. According to Botero and Monné (2018): “The monophyly of Eburia (Eleutho) was recovered, with high support values, and supported by six homoplastic synapomorphies, some of them being exclusive among the Eburiini: the surface of the scape granulate (15:1, shared only with Trachyderes succinctus), the apical margin of antennomere III with projection at outer side (22:1), and the antennomeres IV–IX with a projection on the outer side (25:1).” Coeleburia pulverea Chevrolat, 1862 (currently, Eburia didymus (Olivier, 1800)), the type species of Drymo, also has the scape granulate but does not have the flagellomeres with apical projection. Furthermore, males of Drymo have the sides of the prothorax without a lateral tubercle, while they are present in males of Eleutho. Although this last feature is variable in Coeleburia (Eburia sensu auctorum), the antennomeres are distinctly carinate from IV in both sexes (not carinate in Eburia sensu auctorum). Therefore, we revalidate Drymo to include only one species: Drymo didymus (Olivier, 1800), comb. nov.:

Linell (1899) described Eburia bauri (Figs 49–53) based on two males and three females from Chatham Island (= Isla de San Cristóbal) in Ecuador (Galapagos). According to him, the elytra in males have the “apices acuminate and spinose at middle, without sutural spines,” and the femora are “not spinose.” However, he described the elytra in females as having the “apices truncate, with long spines, the sutural spine half as long as the exterior one,” and the “middle and posterior femora with a long apical spine on the inner side.” These sexual dimorphisms were not known in other species of Eburia sensu auctorum (Coeleburia) or in Pantomallus Lacordaire, 1868.

Van Dyke (1953) synonymized Eburia bauri with Eburia proletaria (currently, Pantomallus proletarius) and reported, “Elytra … emarginate and bispinose at apex, the sutural spines the shorter,” and “The California Academy of Sciences has four specimens collected by F. X. Williams, including a typical male from Chatham Island, collected in February 1906, which was carefully compared with specimens in the British Museum of Natural History. This served as the basis of the description above.” The description of the elytral apex of the males examined by Van Dyke (1953) does not agree with that by Blair (1933), who examined two males of Eburia proletaria collected in the Galapagos Islands and reported no morphological differences between them; therefore, we assume that both specimens have a similar elytral apex. However, as Blair (1933) described the elytral apex in females as in the males from the same island collected by F. X. Williams, it is possible that the lectotype and paralectotype males were aberrant specimens. However, without examining all those specimens, it is not possible to affirm whether all belong to a single variable species or whether two species occur on Chatham Island. Gilmour (1966) removed Eburia bauri from the synonymy of Eburia proletaria (= Pantomallus proletarius) and synonymized it with Eburia pilosa: “The opportunity of examining and comparing the four specimens from the Galapagos Islands, collected by F. X. Williams, in the California Academy of Sciences collections, has enabled me to synonymize [sic] Eburia bauri Linell with E. pilosa Erichson, not with E. proletaria Erichson, as has been previously stated by various authors.”

Despite our doubts about the identity of the Galapagos specimens identified as Eburia pilosa, especially from Chatham Island (currently San Cristóbal), which includes the three female paralectotypes, we can state that the synonymy proposed by Gilmour (1966) was a mistake. This is because the holotype of Eburia bauri has procoxal cavities strongly angulated laterally, which leaves no doubt that it belongs to Pantomallus. The specimens of Stenocorus pilosus (= Eburia pilosa) from Peru have the procoxal cavities closed laterally (males and females), which places the species in Coeleburia (Eburia sensu auctorum). Furthermore, the lectotype of Eburia bauri does not have abundant erect setae on the legs and ventral surface of the body, whereas they are very abundant in both sexes of the true Coeleburia pilosa. Additionally, although Gilmour (1966) did not describe the shape of the dorsal surface of the scape in the male lectotype of Stenocorus pilosus (he limited himself to describing the general shape of the scape: “scape moderately clavate”), it is possible to see in the photograph presented by him that it is distinctly sulcate. In the lectotype of Eburia bauri, it is not clavate and not sulcate dorsally.

On the other hand, as with Van Dyke (1953), we were unable to find any reliable difference that would allow the separation of Eburia bauri from Pantomallus proletarius. The elytral apex in P. proletarius is quite variable in the specimens we studied (eight specimens, males and females) and may bear a spine on the external apical angle and/or on the sutural angle or be completely unarmed or nearly so (Fig. 47). Another minor difference found is the length of the more inner ivory-colored band on the base of the elytra, which is always distinctly shorter in the specimens examined by us than in the lectotype of E. bauri. However, we believe that this feature is also variable in P. proletarius, especially since the length in the lectotype female of E. proletarius (see photographs in Bezark 2025 and in Gilmour 1966) is intermediate between that of the lectotype of E. bauri and the specimens we examined. Therefore, we synonymize Eburia bauri with Pantomallus proletarius.

Boheman (1859) described Eburia sexnotata based on syntypes from “California, Insula Puna” (Figs 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61). According to Aurivillius (1893) (translated): “Eburia sexnotata Boh. does not come from California, but from Puna Island, which is located off the coast of Ecuador in the Gulf of Guayaquil.” Tippmann (1951) stated (translated): “Aurivillius did not correctly interpret Boheman’s indication of the locality, assuming that the species was found both in California and on Puna Island, which, however, cannot be the case, as this species of Eburia has not been recorded from California.” However, this information is completely incorrect, since, as seen above, Aurivillius (1893) never stated that the species occurred in both locations. Martins (1997) reported on E. sexnotata (translated): “I examined a pair from that locality (MZSP) [Gulf of Guayaquil] that matches the original description perfectly, and I believe my identification is correct.” However, the specimens from the MZSP collection are not Beraba sexnotata (see below).

Martins (1997) described Beraba moema (Figs 62–63) based on males and females from Ecuador. Two male and one female paratypes are from Guayaquil in the province of Guayas, a city located approximately 50 km north of Puná Island. A comparison of paratypes of this species, deposited in the MZSP, with the syntypes of Eburia sexnotata revealed no differences. Therefore, we synonymize Beraba moema under Eburia sexnotata, which is transferred to Beraba Martins, 1997.

Currently, considering the synonymy, Beraba sexnotata is known only from Ecuador (Monné 2024; Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2025).

According to Martins (1999) (translated): “Beraba was established by Martins (1997b) to include species that were originally described in Eburia, solely because they lacked a sulcus on antennomere III. However, several features distinguish Beraba from Eburia. The species of Beraba, although lacking a sulcus on antennomere III, exhibit a generally shiny appearance, smaller dimensions, absence of a sulcus on the sides of the coronal suture, antennomere III longer than IV, absence of a latero-anterior tubercle on the sides of the prothorax, and the apex of the meso- and metafemora bearing only a single inner spine, among other features.” However, at least some of these features are extremely variable in the species currently included in Eburia sensu auctorum. For now, we have chosen to consider Beraba as distinct from Coeleburia until a comprehensive revision of the species that are being included in this genus is carried out.

ECUADOR, El Oro: 1 km N Machala, 50 m, male paratype, female paratype, 19.II.1981, H. Howden leg. (MZSP). Manabí: 1.5 km E Pto. Cayo, 20 m, female paratype, 28.II.1981, H. Howden leg. (MZSP).

As indicated above, the specimens identified by Martins (1997) as E. sexnotata do not belong to this species because they do not agree with the photographs of the syntypes (Figs 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63). In his key, E. quadrinotata (Latreille, 1811) (Figs 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70) and E. sexnotata are separated as follows (translated): “Integument dark reddish; often with longitudinal black band between the basal and central eburneous elytral maculae; large size, length 30–31 mm. Colombia to Chile,” leading to E. quadrinotata; and “Integument orangish, particularly on the pronotum; lacking a black band between the eburneous elytral maculae; smaller size, length 20–22 mm. Ecuador,” leading to E. sexnotata. According to the key by Martins (1999) (translated):

Still according to Martins (1999) (translated): “Like E. pilosa and E. sexnotata, E. quadrinotata exhibits a distinct longitudinal sulcus on the base of the scape, contrasting punctures on the basal half of the elytra, and a mesoventral process without a tubercle. It differs by having shorter pronotal setae, a markedly more reddish general coloration, and a reduced number of eburneous maculae on the elytra—generally two on each elytron, sometimes accompanied by small additional maculae.” However, as shown above, E. pilosa belongs to Pantomallus. This author also affirmed regarding E. quadrinotata (translated): “Variability. A small macula may appear on the outer side of the basal macula and a small macula on the inner side of the central one.” Based on specimens examined either directly or through photographs, we believe that E. sexnotata sensu Martins (1997, 1999) represents merely a variation of E. quadrinotata. Therefore, the following references must be transferred from E. sexnotata to E. quadrinotata: Eburia (E.) sexnotata Martins, 1997: 82; and Eburia sexnotata Martins, 1999: 252.