RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBFAMILY AGRYPNINAE 77 
Elater pulverulentus Panzer. Panzer does not make it clear whether his descrip- 
tion of Elater pulverulentus is based on specimens in his own or some other collection 
or on Herbst’s figure of Elater punctatus. Panzer is known to have possessed a 
collection of insects (see obituary, 1829, Flora, Jena 12 : 400) which was probably 
sold by auction after his death. Unfortunately the fate of the Coleoptera collection 
is unknown. In the absence of any authentic material, Herbst’s figure of Elater 
punctatus is here designated as the lectotype. 
LECTOTYPE (present designation): Herbst, 1779: pl. 7, fig. 1 depicting Elater 
punctatus Herbst, 1779 : 316. 
Why Panzer did not use Herbst’s name is unknown. Arnett (1953 : 6) suggests 
that the fact that Panzer refers only to Herbst’s figure indicates that he believed that 
the figure and the description do not agree. Since Panzer does not refer to the 
description elsewhere and also refers only (1779 : 200 and 227) to Herbst’s figures 
in the case of Hispa atra and Buprestis berolinensis I do not believe this to be the 
case. It seems more probable that Panzer merely wished to provide his readers 
with a reference to a good figure illustrating his description, and considered Herbst’s 
description to be unimportant. One possible reason why Panzer substituted the 
name pulverulentus (powdery, dusty) for punctatus (spotted) is that he considered the 
former to be a more accurate description of the species than the latter. Another 
possibility is that he did so to avoid possible confusion. 
Some time before the publication of the ‘Taschenbuch’ in 1795, Panzer 
(1793 : 118) used the name Elater punctatus in his translation of Voet (1781 or 
possibly earlier, see references p. 297). Panzer’s annotations indicate that he 
considered Elater punctatus of Voet to be synonymous with Elater bipustulatus 
Linnaeus but he may have believed that the name used in Voet’s attractive 
illustrated work would have a wider circulation and be more readily accepted than 
that published in Herbst’s paper, which appeared in the journal of a learned society. 
Whatever the reason for his action, six years later (1801 : 1) he placed pulverulentus 
Panzer, carbonarius Schrank and punctatus Herbst in synonymy with Elater 
atomarius Fabricius. The available evidence suggests that this synonymy is fully 
justified. Why Panzer gave preference to the Fabrician name is unknown. It 
may have been because he wished to express his high esteem for Fabricius (Panzer, 
1795, Vorbericht). Herbst (1806 : 14) accepted the use of atomarius Fabricius in 
place of his own punctatus without comment. 
Elater atomarius Fabricius. Fabricius credits this species to Linnaeus [1767] 
Syst. Nat. 2. 655.28 and Fn. Sv. [1761 : 208] 738. However as Panzer (1801 : 1) 
points out, Linnaeus did not describe a species with this name. Both references 
refer to murinus Linnaeus. Fabricius lists E. pulverulentus Panzer as a synonym 
and his comment ‘Habitat in Germania. Dom Panzer’ suggests that he may have 
based his description of atomarius on Panzer’s pulverulentus specimens. Though 
it can never be proved conclusively that pulverulentus Panzer and atomarius 
Fabricius are objective synonyms, there seems no doubt that both authors were 
referring to the same species and that Panzer’s synonymy can be accepted without 
reservation. 
