Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 88. (Budapest 1996)

Argaman, Q.: Generic synopsis of Scoliidae (Hymenoptera, Scolioidea)

I am selecting Campsomeris aureicollis LEPELETIER, 1845 as the type of Tetrasciton BETREM, 1927. Liacos GUÉRIN, 1839, an anagram of Scolia, was published without original designation of type, but with an included species, dimidiata GUÉRIN, which is the type by monotypy. BINGHAM (1897) separately, designated Scolia analis, sense BlNGHAM, not FABRICIUS, as the type of Liacos. BlNGHAM mentions that this species is common and widely distributed "throughout India, Burma, and Tenasserim". BETREM (1928), stated that in fact BINGHAM intended Scolia erythrosoma BURMEISTER (and mistakenly called it analis). Erythrosoma is the species occurring in India. The genuine Scolia analis FABRICIUS is restricted to the Moluccas and the Philippines. BlNGHAM kept erythrosoma as a synonym of analis. After all, BETREM (I.e.) again selected Scolia dimidiata GUÉRIN as the type of Triliacos SAUSSURE & SICHEL, 1864. This designation is questionable, as dimidiata was not originally included in Triliacos by SAUSSURE & SICHEL. A condition which, if accepted, would render Triliacos a synonym of Liacos. Hence, I would be obligated to propose a new generic-group name for erythrosoma. Accordingly, in order of the stability and continuity of zoological nomenclature, I selected erythrosoma, one of the originally included species, as the type of Triliacos SAUSSURE & SICHEL. This selection causes no undesired changes in the existing nomenclature. Previously BRADLEY (1964b) regard dimidiata as a junior synonym of analis. ASHMEAD (1903) also chose dimidiata as the type of Liacos. He was unaware of the designation effectuated by BINGHAM. His new genus, Tetrascolia ASHMEAD, 1903, established for Campsomeris urvillii LEPELETIER, 1845 is regarded as isogenotypic with Liacos. Since SAUSSURE & SICHEL (1864) placed urvillii in synonym with analis. Although the holotype of the former species was not restudied till now (BRADLEY 1964a), this synonymy is accepted by recent workers. This due to the fact, that it was assumed that originally, both analis and urvillii were described from material collected in Bum. This was assumed because FABRICIUS described analis as originating from New South Wales; whereas LEPELETIER described urvillii from Bum. BRADLEY (1964b) contended, however, that analis was described also from Bum (Indonesia). Subsequently, nonetheless, BETREM (in BRADLEY 1972: 4-5) admitted that dimidiata is not a synonym of analis, and the latter was probably described from material collected in Ambon (Indonesia), this being the reason for the transfer of amboinae MICHA, 1927 into synonymy with dimidiata. Scolioides GUIGLIA & CAPRA, 1934, proposed as a subgenus, was correctly established, and type species was originally designated. Despite these facts, it was neglected by the former classifications. I have tried (NAGY 1967) to raise it to generic rank, but it was sunk again in the synonymy of Discolia. These two taxa are not related at all, as is demonstrated by the classification presented here. The genus Heterelis COSTA, 1887, was discussed but not accepted by BRADLEY (1951). I regarded at that time this genus as valid (NAGY & STAMP 1966, NAG Y 1967). Soon, also BETREM (1972) acclaimed my views. The most complicated question concerns the genus Lisoca COSTA, 1858. It was originally established with three included nominal species (and their varieties), without designation of type by COSTA. These were: unifasciata CYRILLO, bifasciata ROSSI, and quadripunctata FABRICIUS. BETREM (1928) selected Lisoca citreozonata COSTA, as the