24. MISC. PUBLICATION 341, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
May to August, May and June apparently being the period of great- 
est abundance. 
The possibility that both fessel/atus and pallidus are South Ameri- 
can species was first brought to notice in 1876 when Horn, who had 
sent specimens of pal/idus to Pascoe and specimens, probably of 
pallidus, to Jekel, states (Amer. Phil. Soc. Proc. 15: 94) that Pascoe 
thought the species might be “Sctona durius Germ.” and that Jekel 
considered it very close to “WV. [awpactus | durius Germ. from Brazil.” 
The specific name durivs is the center of a nomenclatorial tangle 
which involves pallidus and tessellatus. 'The chief facts are as fol- 
lows: 
1824. Sitona durius Germar, Insectorum Species Novae, v. 1, p, 417. Type lo- 
cality, Buenos Aires. Original description. 
1833. Naupactus durius (Germar), Schoenherr, Genera et Species Curculioni- 
dum, v. 1, pt. 2, p. 581. <A two-line excerpt from Germar’s original descrip- 
tion, referring back to Germar’s 1824 paper; it is not based on a study of 
specimens and is not signed by Boheman, being in effect no more than 
a notice of the transfer of Sitona durius Germar to the genus Naupactus. 
1840. Naupactus durius, Boheman, not Germar, in Schoenherr, Genera et Species 
Curculionidum, v. 6, pt. 1, p. 27. A somewhat longer description, signed 
by Boheman, and citing the Schoenherr 1883 reference in synonymy, but 
based at least in part, on a study of specimens. To the Buenos Aires type 
locality is added Brazil. 
1876. Sitona durius Germar, Argentina; Horn, teste Pascoe. (See above.) 
1876. “N. [aupactus] durius Germar’, Brazil; Horn, teste Jekel, (See above.) 
1879. Eurymetopus durius (Germar), Chevrolat, Bull. Soe. Ent, France, p. 
exxx. Chevrolat, though presumably possessing specimens which he 
thought represented durius Germar, did not describe them, but proposed 
the transfer of Naupactus durius Germar, 1824, to the genus Eurymetopus. 
1934. Voss, Sbornik Ent. Oddel. Nar. Mus. Praze 12: 64, footnote, states that 
there are apparently typical specimens of Germar’s 1824 durius in the 
Zoological Museum of Berlin, and that three species have been confused 
under this name. Voss assigns these species as follows: 
1. Pseudeudius Voss, 1984, (n. gen., ibid., p. 72) durius (Germar) 
(Tanymecinae)=(Sitona durius Germar, 1824)=(Polydrusus 
vitiginosus Germ.) =(? Entyus nebulosus Gyll., 1834). 
2. Aramigus tesselatus Say var. pallidus Horn. Voss mentions Pascoe’s 
belief that pallidus might be the same as Sitona durius Germ., but 
gives no further suggestions as to the status or generic placement 
of tessellatus and pallidus. If Voss’ interpretation of durius 
Germar is correct, both Boheman, 1840, and Pascoe, 1876, had 
misidentified the species. 
3. Hurymetopus chevrolati Voss, 1984 (new name, ibid., p. 64) =(Hury- 
metopus durius Chevrolat, 1879, not Sitona durius Germ., 1824). 
The name chevrolati Voss is a nomen nudum. 
1936. Dalla Torre, Emden, and Emden, Coleopterorum Catalogus, pt. 147, p. 19, 
list “Naupactus durius Boh., not Sitona durius Germ.,’ and date “durius 
Boh.” as of 18338. The 1833 treatment of durius, however, is purely literary 
(see 1833 reference above) and the citation “Nauwpactus durius Schoenherr 
1833, not Sitona durius Germar 1824” seems properly to belong in the 
synonymy of Pseudeudius durius (Germar) 1824. Boheman did not sign 
the durius description of 1833, which may therefore be credited to Schoen- 
herr. Boheman’s description of “durius Germ.,” in 1840, p. 27, was based 
largely on specimens, and evidently refers to a species of the Pantomorus- 
Naupactus complex, certainly not to the durius Germar of Voss, this species 
belonging to another subfamily of Curculionidae (Tanymecinae). Nau- 
pactus durius Boheman 1840, p. 27, not durius Germar, 1824, Schoenherr, 
1833, will need a new name unless Boheman’s specimens prove to belong to 
tessellatus (Say), 1824, or to some other named species. This matter can 
be settled definitely only by a restudy of Boheman’s specimens of “dwrius.” 
The National Museum collection contains one specimen from Argentina labeled 
“Pantomorus durius Germ.,” and one specimen from Brazil labeled “Nauwpactus 
durius Sch.” These seem to represent two very closely allied species, one or 
