S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 57. (Budapest, 1996)

NOMENCLATURE AL AND TAXONOMICAL NOTES; DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW TAXA In several important early works on Carabidae many names are validated by inclusion in synonymy. However, only a part of these names has generally been accepted by the modern workers. For example, Carabus merlachii and C. soproniensis were listed by Dejean (1826) as synonyms of C. tuberculatus and of C. nigricornis, respectively. These names were hereby validated without a formal description, with a reference to the abovementioned valid species. (The type locality of Carabus merlachii is "Hongrie dans les monts Crapacks" [Carpathes]. The type locality of Carabus soproniensis is "environs de OEdenbourg en Hongrie" [Sopron].) Such names have been accepted and consistently used in the present work. Lindroth (1957) re-examined the carabid beetles described by Linnaeus and exposed some nomenclatorial problems, and later (Lindroth 1978) proposing solutions for four of them. The most complicated two cases are outlined below. The original material of Carabus ustulatus Linnaeus, 1758 comprises five species: one specimen of Bembidion (Eupetedromus) dentellum (Thunberg, 1787), two specimens of B. (Peryphus) ustulatum auct., one specimen of B. (Notaphus) varium (Olivier, 1795), one specimen of Chlaenius tristis (Schaller, 1783) and one of Amara apricaria (Paykull, 1790). The original description clearly indicates a Bembidion of either the subgenus Eupetedromus or Notaphus, and excludes Peryphus. Nevertheless, the name Carabus ustulatus was generally used for the species Bembidion ustulatum auct. as well, also for B. varium, but for B. dentellum in a few cases only. Lindroth proposed to reject the name Carabus ustulatus, and proposed to nominate the species Bembidion ustulatum auct. as B. tetracolum (Say, 1823). In his opinion it would be disastrous if Bembidion dentellum or B. varium would be displaced by the Linnaean name. Bembidion varium, however, will have to be renamed, in any case, because Carabus varius Olivier, 1795 is a junior primary homonym of C. varius O. F. Müller, 1776. (The first available synonym for this species is Notaphus nebulosus Stephens, 1828.) It seems preferable to consider Carabus ustulatus Linnaeus, 1758 and C. varius Olivier, 1795 as subjective synonyms (as they were treated by most of the early writers), and to use the senior name to replace the junior and preoccupied one. Bembidion tetracolum (B. ustulatum auct.) should also be renamed, because Bembidium tetracolum Say, 1823 is antedated by Carabus littoralis Olivier, 1795. It is possible to consider Bembidion (Peryphus) littorale (Carabus littoralis Olivier, 1795) and B. (Bracteon) litorale (Elaphrus litoralis Olivier, 1790) as secondary homonyms, but they are not treated here as such owing to their different original spelling. The original material of Carabus caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758 contains three specimens of three species: Poecilus cupreus auct., Actephilus affinis (Schrank, 1781) and Poecilus caerulescens auct. (this latter, however, is not an authentic Linnaean specimen). In the original material of Carabus cupreus Linnaeus, 1758 there are two species: one specimen of Amara aenea (De Geer, 1774) and one of Poecilus caerulescens auct. Lindroth designated the first specimen from the original material of Carabus caerulescens as the lectotype. He proposed to designate the lectotype of Carabus caerulescens as the neotype for C. cupreus (thereby the two names would be objective synonyms). Besides, he suggested to set aside the original material and all subsequent type-designations for the nominal species Carabus cupreus, and proposed to select C. cupreus as the