Canthon rufocoeruleus

Canthon rufocoeruleus (Martínez, 1948) Fig. 16B Glaphyrocanthon rufocoeruleus Martínez, 1948a: 47 (original description). Type locality: Venezuela: Distrito Capital: Pico del Naiguatá. Name-bearing type: holotype (MACN), examined by MC. Glaphyrocanthon rufocoeruleus – Martínez 1949a: 282 (key). — Roze 1955: 43 (checklist, cited). Glaphyrocanthon (Coprocanthon) rufocoeruleus – Martínez 1950: 160, 171 (new subgenus, catalogue). — Pereira & Martínez 1956a: 127 (list, distribution, identification key). — Martínez et al. 1964a: 2‒3, 6, 10, 12 (comments, identification key). — Vulcano & Pereira 1964: 666 (catalogue); 1967: 560 (key, cited for Brazil). Canthon (Glaphyrocanthon) rufocoeruleus – Halffter & Martínez 1977: 78, 80 (list). Distribution Venezuela and Brazil. Subregions of Venezuela Peneplain of the Casiquiare River –Upper Orinoco, and Central Coast Mountain Range. Literature records Martínez 1948a: 47 (Venezuela: Distrito Capital: Pico Naiguatá and Amazonas: Yavita); 1949a: 282 (Venezuela); 1950: 160 (Venezuela). — Pereira & Martínez 1956a: 127 (Venezuela). — Martínez et al. 1964a: 10 (Venezuela). — Vulcano & Pereira 1964: 666 (Venezuela); 1967: 560 (Venezuela). Remarks Rivera-Cervantes & Halffter (1999) treated Glaphyocanthon rufocoeruleus as a junior synonym of Canthon subhyalinus subhyalinus Harold, 1867. Their argument was limited to the observation that, according to them, no “significant difference” existed between rufocoeruleus, originally described from Venezuela, and “typical” (their word) subhyalinus from Colombia. Indeed, Martínez (1948a) gave no comparison between the two in the original description, indicating that he was at that point most likely unaware of the identity of C. subhyalinus and could have easily described the species again under his new name rufocoeruleus. Later, however, Martínez included both as separate species in identification keys (Pereira & Martínez 1956a; Martínez et al. 1964a), and pointed out the relative length between the mesotarsi and the mesotibiae as a distinguishing character (tarsi longer than the tibiae in rufocoeruleus, as long as or shorter than the tibiae in subhyalinus). Such was the importance that he gave to this character that, initially, Martínez even classified them in different subgenera of Glaphyrocanthon (Pereira & Martínez 1956a), even though he later changed his mind and not only transferred them to the same subgenus, but even entertained the idea that they could be conspecific subspecies under Glaphyrocanthon quadriguttatus (Olivier, 1789) (Martínez et al. 1964b). While the conspecifity with quadriguttatus was ruled out by Rivera-Cervantes & Halffter (1999), the purported difference in the legs was not even mentioned, prompting one to wonder whether the authors may have overlooked it and this compromised their judgement over the synonymy. Yet, no one has so far challenged Rivera-Cervantes & Halffter’s (1999) decision to invalidate rufocoeruleus. Here, we reinstall Martínez’s original classification, listing rufocoeruleus as valid and treating C. subhyalinus as a separate species, based on the third author’s still unpublished morphological and geographical observations that, according to him, dismiss Rivera-Cervantes & Halffter’s synonymy. Both C. rufocoeruleus and C. subhyalinus subhyalinus occur in Venezuela.