Phanaeus meleagris subsp. minos Erichson 1847

Phanaeus meleagris minos Erichson, 1847 Fig. 67B Phanaeus minos Erichson, 1847a: 106 (original description). Type locality: Peru: “Peruvian mountains”. Name-bearing type: lectotype (MFNB), designated by Edmonds (1994), not examined. Phanaeus minos – Harold 1869d: 1018 (catalog, cited for Peru); 1870: 105 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — Nevinson 1892: 5 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — Gillet 1911b: 84 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — d’Olsoufieff 1924: 152 (synonym of P. meleagris). — Pessôa 1934: 312 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — Blackwelder 1944: 210 (synonym of P. meleagris). — Edmonds 1994: 31 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — Vítolo 2004: 284 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — Hamel-Leigue et al. 2009: 65 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). — Edmonds & Zídek 2012: 3, 6, 11 (cited as synonym of P. meleagris). Phanaeus (Notiophanaeus) meleagris minos – Arnaud 2002b: 85 (key, diagnosis). — Carvajal et al. 2011: 322–323 (cited for Ecuador). — Krajcik 2012: 204 (checklist). Material examined VENEZUELA ‒ Táchira • 2 specs; Tanquelnos vía Chorro del Indio; Aug. 1990; J. Blanco leg.; CEMT. Distribution Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru. Subregion of Venezuela Andes mountains. Literature record Arnaud 2002b: 85 (Venezuela: Táchira). Remarks The microtaxonomy of Phanaeus meleagris Blanchard, 1846 is disputed in the literature. Arnaud (2002b) considered the species to be divided into two subspecies, a northern one, P. meleagris minos Erichson, 1846, ranging from Venezuela to Peru and characterised primarily by its olive-brown dorsal colouration with some reddish sheen, and a southern one, P. meleagris meleagris, endemic to Bolivia and distinct in its red pronotum and black elytra. Edmonds & Zídek (2012), however, argued that this variation is not “consistent enough” (presumably in geographical terms and in discreteness), and so decided, after vacillating for a time, to treat the species as monotypic and the two names as synonyms. This followed the general view established by Harold (1870) and previously sponsored by d’Olsoufieff (1924) and Edmonds (1994) himself in their respective revisions of the genus. For the present work, we adopt the senior author’s, FZVM, preferred taxonomy, Arnaud’s (2002b), but the second author, MC, wishes to stress his uneasiness with the decision; he expresses his support for the Edmonds & Zídek monobasic classification drawing on the arguments introduced in Cupello et al. (2021b) against subspecific classifications built upon geographical races (instead of one based on geographical isolates, as he would prefer).