The nomenclature of the Australasian dung beetle genera Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840 and Tesserodon Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840 and Tesserodon Hope, 1837 are scarabaeine genera endemic to Australia. Whereas the two species of Mentophilus are restricted to the western coast of the country, the 13 species of Tesserodon are much more widespread. The taxonomy and biogeography of these and other Australasian groups have been scrutinized over the past 50 years, but nomenclatural issues still persist. Here, we address them and conclude that: (1) the name Mentophilus hollandiae Castelnau, 1840, in use since 1974, is actually unavailable and the valid name for the species is Mentophilus carinatus (Reiche, 1841); (2) under Article 23.9.1 of the Code, precedence between the objective synonyms Aulacium Dejean, 1833, nomen oblitum, and Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840, nomen protectum (type species: Aulacium carinatum Reiche, 1841), is reverted, and the validity of Mentophilus is so preserved; (3) the grammatical gender of Tesserodon is masculine, not neuter as treated since the mid-20th century, and adjectival specific names in the nominative case must change their endings accordingly; (4) the name Anisodon Hope, 1837 (nec Lartet, 1851, in Mammalia, nec Rosen, 1905, in Serpentes) is unavailable for failing to comply with Articles 11.5 and 11.6, and so does not threaten the validity of its synonym Tesserodon; (5) the correct original spelling is Tessarodon, a justified emendation established by the original author in an erratum, Tesserodon being formally an incorrect original spelling, thus invalid. To preserve stability, a Case is to be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the conservation of the incorrect spelling; in the meantime, prevailing usage is to be respected. A checklist is presented for all the species of Mentophilus and Tesserodon including information on synonymy, name-bearing types, type localities, and distribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".