Annotated review of Cryptocephalinae ( Clytrini ) , Synetinae and part of Galerucinae ( Coleoptera , Chrysomelidae ) described by Carl Peter Thunberg

The taxa of Cryptocephalinae (Clytrini), Synetinae and part of Galerucinae introduced by Carl Peter Thunberg are reviewed based on the examination of primary type specimens deposited in the Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University. The following taxonomic changes are proposed: Coptocephala unifasciata unifasciata (Scopoli, 1763) = Cryptocephalus melanocephalus Thunberg, 1787 syn. nov.; Melitonoma decemnotata (Thunberg, 1787) comb. nov. (from Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762); Miopristis flexuosa (Thunberg, 1821) = Miopristis namaquensis Medvedev, 1993 syn. nov.; Protoclytra (Lacordairella) taeniata (Thunberg, 1821) comb. nov. (from Camptolenes Chevrolat, 1836) = Camptolenes fastuosa (Lacordaire, 1848) syn. nov.; Smeia undata (Thunberg, 1821) comb. nov. (from Miopristis Lacordaire, 1848) = Smeia virginea (Lacordaire, 1848) syn. nov. = Melitonoma pictipennis Jacoby, 1898 syn. nov.; Teinocera catenata (Thunberg, 1821) comb. nov. (from Miopristis) = Teinocera subclathrata (Lacordaire, 1848) syn. nov.; Exosoma lusitanica (Linnaeus, 1767) = Crioceris haemorrhoa Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Megalognatha festiva (Fabricius, 1781) = Crioceris virens Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Monolepta bioculata (Fabricius, 1781) = Cryptocephalus bioculatus Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Monolepta melanogaster (Wiedemann, 1823) = Cryptocephalus capensis Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov.; Palaeophylia tricolor (Fabricius, 1781) = Crioceris tetrapuncta Thunberg, 1787 syn. nov. = Crioceris dimidiata Thunberg, 1827 syn. nov. Lectotypes are designated for Cryptocephalus bioculatus Thunberg, 1827 and Crioceris dimidiata Thunberg, 1827. Melitonoma decemnotata comb. nov. is redescribed. Labidostomis insidiosa Péringuey, 1888 is resurrected from synonymy with Teinocera catenata comb. nov. and provisionally placed as a valid species in the genus Miopristis Lacordaire, 1848. Crioceris betulina Thunberg, 1787 is proposed as nomen oblitum for Syneta betulae (Fabricius, 1792) (nomen protectum). Colour photographs of the type specimens of all taxa are provided.


Introduction
The famous Swedish botanist and naturalist Carl Peter Thunberg (1743-1828, one of the pupils of Linnaeus, travelled widely from 1771-1779, visiting other European countries, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Java and Japan. Although Thunberg is usually described as a botanist, he also published important contributions on mammals, birds and insects (Muller & Roomaaker 1992). He is the author of nearly 90 entomological publications and his insect collection of about 25 000 specimens was donated to the University of Uppsala where it is still maintained in very good condition. For the catalogue of his collection see Wallin & Wallin (2001). Thunberg's collection also includes the type specimens of Clytrini species described by Forsberg (1821) which were already revised by Bezděk (2016).
Altogether Thunberg described about 100 species of Chrysomelidae. Due to many taxonomic diffi culties, it is not possible to review all of these at once. Some groups require the cooperation of additional specialists and also the study of many primary type specimens of other authors. In the present paper I include one representative of Synetinae, all of Thunberg's Clytrini species and part of his Galerucinae.
In Clytrini, Thunberg proposed 15 new taxa altogether. Except for three species described at the beginning of his career (Thunberg 1787), most of the taxa were proposed in his Coleoptera Capensia (Thunberg 1821). Due to his poor state of health, Thunberg published only short descriptions in Coleoptera Capensia as explained in the introduction to Forsberg (1821) who was asked to provide extended redescriptions (for details see Bezděk 2016).
In two cases (Clythra unipunctata Thunberg, 1821 andC. bicincta Thunberg, 1821), it is not quite clear whether Thunberg (1821) wanted to propose new replacement names for already described taxa, because in the description there is a clear reference to an older publication and species. However, also in these cases the 'new name' is accompanied by a description and there is no evidence of intentional replacement. I can only speculate why Thunberg wanted to give new names for non-homonymous older names. The question is how to apply such cases to the current Code (ICZN 1999). In my opinion, the crucial facts are that 1) the intention to replace the names is missing, and 2) Thunberg treated these names as valid, not as synonyms. Because the names are accompanied by descriptions, I prefer to work with them as if validly described.
The genus assignments proposed for some of Thunberg's Clytrini species are provisional. This is particularly the case with species classifi ed in Miopristis Lacordaire, 1848, Protoclytra Weise, 1905 and Smeia Lacordaire, 1848. The defi nitions of these genera are superfi cial, with many species wrongly classifi ed, and comprehensive studies are absent. I cannot exclude future transfers to other genera.
In Synetinae, Thunberg (1787) described only one nominal taxon, forgotten for many years, which is proposed here as nomen oblitum. Thunberg (1787Thunberg ( , 1814Thunberg ( , 1827 described 13 Galerucinae species altogether (excluding Alticini). Ten species were proposed in Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762, two in Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762, one in Taumacera Thunberg, 1814. At present I am not able to resolve the species identity of six Galerucinae species as the comparison with the type material of other species, additional examination and/or dissection of the aedeagus are necessary. Alticini itself will be also published separately in the future.

Images
Photographs of specimens deposited in UUZM, BMNH and NHMB were taken with a Canon EOS 550D digital camera with a Canon MP-E 65 mm lens. Images of the same specimen at different focal planes were combined using Helicon Focus 5.3 software.

Material citations
Exact label data are cited for all type specimens: a double slash (//) divides the data on different labels, and a single slash (/) divides the data in different lines. Type localities are cited in the original spelling. Other comments and remarks are placed in square brackets: [p] = preceding data are printed, [h] = preceding data are handwritten, [w] = white label, [r] = red label.

Type specimens
The type specimens deposited in Thunberg's collection were located and provided with red type labels by Wallin & Wallin (2001). To the best of my knowledge, Thunberg's Chrysomelidae type specimens are deposited exclusively in UUZM. Therefore I treat all single type specimens in Thunberg's collection as holotypes in agreement with my previous study dealing with the taxa described by Carl Peter Forsberg from Thunberg's collection (Bezděk 2016). The lectotypes are designated only in cases when the type series consists of more than one species.
The type specimens from Thunberg's collection were not dissected (except the holotype of Crioceris haemorrhoa) particularly to avoid damage to historical specimens during the risky remounting.

Distribution
Republic of South Africa (RSA).

Comments
Thunberg (1821) accompanied the name Clythra unipunctata with a very short description and a reference to Cryptocephalus maxillosus Fabricius, 1781. I can only speculate whether Thunberg wanted to replace the older name or not. However, because there is no explicit intention of replacement, I treat Clythra unipunctata as a validly described species conspecifi c with Cryptocephalus maxillosus. In UUZM, no type specimens of Clythra unipunctata were traced.
In the same paper, Thunberg (1821) described Clythra octonotata. In UUZM three female syntypes are deposited (one almost destroyed). The syntypes belong to a colour aberration with black spots on elytra often occurring in females of Antipus rufus rufus. Lacordaire (1848) correctly listed Clythra octonotata under his variety B of Antipus rufus rufus. Here I confi rm Clythra octonotata as a synonym of Antipus rufus rufus.

Comments
Clythra elegans was synonymized with another South African species Atelechira aulica (Fabricius, 1781) by Lacordaire (1848). This synonymy was accepted by all subsequent authors. However, it was recently discovered that the holotype of Crioceris aulica deposited in Banks' collection in BMNH is a representative of Hadrocnemus Kraatz, 1895 (Malachiidae). Subsequently, Atelechira elegans was restored as correct name for Clytrini species (for details see Geiser & Bezděk in press). Lacordaire (1848) proposed the subgeneric name Atelechira Lacordaire, 1848 with two included species, Clythra (Atelechira) aulica and C. (A.) baculus Lacordaire, 1848. Medvedev (1993a designated Atelechira aulica as the type species of Atelechira. Because this designation was based on a misapplication of a previously established nominal species, the type of Atelechira is Atelechira elegans (Thunberg, 1821) (see ICZN,Art. 69.2.4).
both Clythra rugosa and Clythra bicincta. Gemminger & Harold (1874) also added Clythra mutabilis to the synonyms of Clytra bifasciata. The same arrangement was accepted also in subsequent catalogues by Jacoby & Clavareau (1906) and Clavareau (1913). I examined the type specimens of Chrysomela bifasciata and photographs of the syntypes of Clythra rugosa, and undoubtedly they are conspecifi c. Thunberg (1821) introduced the name Clythra bicincta with Clythra rugosa Fabricius, 1798 placed in synonymy. As discussed in the introduction, it is not quite clear whether or not Thunberg (1821) wanted to propose a new replacement name for Clythra rugosa. As explained above I treat Clythra bicincta as a validly described species. The type specimen(s) were not traced in UUZM. Because its original description by Thunberg (1821) and also redescription by Forsberg (1821) agree with Clytra bifasciata bifasciata, I confi rm Clythra bicincta as its synonym.
Clytra bifasciata ssp. pallipes Medvedev, 1993, also described from the Western Cape Province, differs from nominal subspecies only in the pale tibiae and tarsi (Medvedev 1993a) and its validity needs confi rmation.

Comments
The holotype of Cryptocephalus melanocephalus is a female of Coptocephala. Although the identifi cation of Coptocephala females is usually very complicated, the colouration of the head (black with orange labrum), elytra (two broad transverse metallic bands on each elytron) and legs (orange with dark basal halves of meso-and metafemora) is typical of the common European C. unifasciata unifasciata. As I see no differences between long series of C. unifasciata unifasciata and the holotype of Cryptocephalus melanocephalus, I propose a new synonymy: C. unifasciata unifasciata (Scopoli, 1763) = Cryptocephalus melanocephalus Thunberg, 1787 syn. nov.

Comments
The collection of UUZM houses two male syntypes of Clythra cruciata, one in good condition, the second with head and pronotum broken and artifi cially stuck back in the wrong position. Both examined syntypes agree well with the species defi nition of Gyriodera cruciata used in subsequent publications ( Lacordaire 1848;Jacoby & Clavareau 1906;Medvedev 1989b).
Currently, the genus Gyriodera Lacordaire, 1848 includes ten species, but the position of G. capensis (Lacordaire, 1848) is uncertain and it should probably be moved to the genus Smaragdina Chevrolat, 1836. The genus was keyed by Medvedev (1989b). Clythra cruciata is the type species of Gyriodera designated by Lacordaire (1848).

Genus Melitonoma Chevrolat, 1836
Melitonoma decemnotata (Thunberg, 1787) (Fig. 4H). Head black, apical halves of mandibles reddish, antennae yellow, antennomeres VII-VIII brownish basally, apices gradually darkened, IX-XI black. Pronotum orange with small blurry dark spot near middle of posterior margin. Scutellum black with orange tip. Elytra orange, each elytron with 5 small black round spots (1, 2, 2). Underside black. Legs black with pale femora and bases of fi rst two protarsomeres. HEAD (Fig. 4J). Mandibles moderately enlarged, left mandible somewhat larger, basal halves robust, apical halves forming long thin hook, dorsal side fl at, even and glabrous, sides covered with pale setae. Labrum transverse with rounded anterior angles and shallowly emarginated anterior margin, margins except middle of anterior margin covered with short pale setae, surface lustrous with transverse stripe of dense punctures bearing longer pale setae. Clypeus with wide shallow V-shaped anterior margin. Eyes small. Frons very wide, 3.7 times as wide as diameter of eye, surface uneven, irregularly covered with small punctures and long pale setae. Frons separated from vertex by shallow indistinct impression. Vertex lustrous, covered with sparse punctures and pale setae. Antennae short, 0.21 times as long as body, antennomere I club-shaped, II small, globular, III small, triangular, IV triangular with produced apical angle, antennae shortly serrated from antennomere V.
THORAX. Pronotum glabrous, lustrous, almost impunctate, 1.74 times as wide as long, widest at basal half, moderately convex. Anterior margin nearly straight, lateral margins rounded, posterior margin slightly rounded and moderately expanded in scutellar area. Anterior angles obtusangulate, posterior angles widely rounded. Lateral and posterior margins bordered, anterior margin bordered only near anterior angles. Posterior angles slightly elevated above elytral base. Scutellum subtriangular with rounded tip, glabrous, in basal quarter punctate, rest of surface impunctate, scutellar apex slightly elevated upon elytral level. ELYTRA. Subcylindrical, 0.65 times as long as body, 1.54 times as long as wide at humeral part, glabrous, semiopaque, densely covered with small confused punctures, disappearing at elytral apices. Basal margin with complete thin border forming narrow elevated keel. Epipleura impunctate, glabrous, wide basally, suddenly narrowed and disappearing at basal third.
MALE GENITALIA (Fig 5A-B). Aedeagus narrow, 5.5 times as long as wide. Ventral side bulbous in apical part, covered with fi ne wrinkles, subapically with small tooth. FEMALE (Figs 4A-C, I, 5C). Mandibles and anterior legs not enlarged. Tarsi as wide as in male but moderately shorter, length ratios of protarsomeres I-IV equal to 8-6-6-6. Spermatheca: cornu U-shaped, apical half gradually narrowed to sharp apex, basal half moderately wider, spermathecal duct ca 1.5 times as long as cornu, with ca 15 simple coils (Fig. 5C).

Differential diagnosis
Although the species of Melitonoma Chevrolat, 1836 are highly variable in colour, the combination of black femora and tarsi with yellow tibiae is very unusual. Similar coloured legs are known only in three species of Melitonoma: M. diligens Weise, 1909 (Congo); M. fl avotibialis Bryant, 1959 (Kenya); and M. litigiosa (Lacordaire, 1848) (widely distributed in Africa). Several years ago I examined one male syntype of M. diligens deposited in NHRS but the aedeagus was not studied. The aedeagi of M. fl avotibialis and M. litigiosa are similar to that of M. decemnotata comb. nov., including a small ventral tooth near apex (see drawings in Medvedev 1993a). This whole species group requires comprehensive revision and, as a fi rst step, M. decemnotata comb. nov. is described above

Comments
The type locality was not given in the original description. During my visit to the BMNH in 2017, I found three specimens from the Cape Region which perfectly fi t the holotype of Cryptocephalus decemnotatus. As Thunberg personally collected in the Cape and described many new species from this locality, I have no doubt that C. decemnotatus was also collected there.

Type locality
Not stated.

Distribution
Probably RSA (see comments).

Comments
Lacordaire (1848) listed Clythra colon among the species not known to him and reported it from "Promont. Bonae Spei" [= Cape of Good Hope] although neither Thunberg (1787) nor Forsberg (1821) provided any type locality. Habitually, Miopristis colon is very similar to many South African Clytrini which, in accordance with Lacordaire (1848), allows me to believe that the holotype was collected in the Cape together with many other specimens during Thunberg's expeditions.
The holotype of Chrysomela colon was not traced, or was overlooked, by Wallin & Wallin (2001) and thus it lacks the typical printed red label they added to all type specimens.
The species identity of Chrysomela colon is unclear. The holotype is a relatively small female (5.5 mm) with a reduced black elytral pattern. Jacoby & Clavareau (1906) and Clavareau (1913) classifi ed it in Miopristis with some doubt. Currently, the genus Miopristis comprises more than 20 species and I examined the primary type specimens of about 90% of the species. The colouration of Chrysomela colon does not exactly fi t with any of the described species. However, as in many Clytrini, the colouration of species of Miopristis is extremely variable and I cannot exclude that the holotype of Ch. colon is a pale specimen with reduced black pattern of some other already described species. In summary, I leave Chrysomela colon as a valid species in Miopristis, and its identity can be resolved in the future if more specimens, including males, are discovered.

Comments
Lacordaire (1848) listed Clythra fl exuosa as a species unknown to him and speculated that it could belong to the genus Macrolenes Chevrolat, 1836. Subsequent catalogues include this species in the genus Miopristis (Jacoby & Clavareau 1906;Clavareau 1913). Based on the examination of the holotype, I can confi rm its position in Miopristis. Moreover, I examined the photograph of a male paratype of M. namaquensis and two additional specimens of M. namaquensis deposited in NHMB, identifi ed by Dieter Erber. Undoubtedly, M. namaquensis is conspecifi c with M. fl exuosa, and thus the new synonymy is proposed.  (Thunberg, 1821) Fig. 8

Comments
Only the holotype is known, whose head and pronotum are broken and artifi cially stuck back together. The generic assignment was not clearly understood by the subsequent authors. While Lacordaire (1848) mentioned Clythra stigma among the species unknown to him, Gemminger & Harold (1874) classifi ed it in Miopristis. Jacoby & Clavareau (1906) and Clavareau (1913) followed the assignment to Miopristis with doubts.
The examination of the holotype showed very densely pubescent propleura. Based on the keys to identifi cation of clytrine genera with pubescent propleurae (Medvedev 1970(Medvedev , 1989a, Clythra stigma should be classifi ed in Protoclytra. Here I have to point out that there is evident confusion in the defi nition of the genera Miopristis and Protoclytra. Medvedev (1970Medvedev ( , 1989a did not include Miopristis in his keys to clytrine genera with pubescent propleurae, which could lead to the assumption that species of Miopristis have the propleura bare. However, the type species Miopristis lepida (Lacordaire, 1848) has the propleura pubescent, which I verifi ed from the type specimen deposited in the BMNH. Also Medvedev (1993bMedvedev ( , 1993c himself mentioned pubescent propleura in the descriptions of Miopristis namaquensis Medvedev, 1993 and Miopristis dimorphus Medvedev, 1993. As the generic relationships between Miopristis and Protoclytra still require further studies, I tentatively leave Clythra stigma in Miopristis.

Comments
Given that Clythra macropus Thunberg, 1821 was a homonym of Clytra macropus Illiger, 1800 (now in Tituboea), Lacordaire (1848) proposed the replacement name Clythra (Plecomera) thunbergii for Thunberg's species. Lacordaire (1848) proposed the subgenus Plecomera for two species from the Cape: Clythra thunbergii Lacordaire, 1848 and Clythra quadraticollis Lacordaire, 1848. Recently, Plecomera was treated at genus level by Medvedev (1989bMedvedev ( , 1992aMedvedev ( , 1993bMedvedev ( , 2008 and Medvedev & Regalin (1997) without any other comment. The type species Clythra quadraticollis was designated by Medvedev & Regalin (1997). Currently, Plecomera includes six species and one subspecies. However, the position of some species in Plecomera needs verifi cation and the whole genus is in need of comprehensive revision.  Medvedev (2008) synonymized Plecomera thunbergii and P. quadraticollis arguing that the two taxa represent two extreme color variations of a single species, and he also described transitional forms.

Comments
The genus Phoenicodera was originally proposed as a subgenus of Clythra by Lacordaire (1848), who included two species: Clythra scapularis Thunberg, 1821 and Clythra varicollis Lacordaire, 1848. Subsequent authors catalogued Phoenicodera as a subgenus of either Tituboea or Antipa. Medvedev (1993b) raised Phoenicodera to genus level, but without any comments.
Phoenicodera clearly needs modern revision. In particular, its relationships with the genera Tituboea and Antipus need clarifi cation. To my knowledge the type species of Phoenicodera was not designated. However, I will avoid doing that without performing a comprehensive revision of the genus. Currently, fi ve species are classifi ed in Phoenicodera: the two abovementioned, Phoenicodera robusta Medvedev, 1993 (from RSA), P. metallica Pic, 1939 and P. nigrovittata Pic, 1939 (both from Angola). Medvedev (1993b) keyed three South African species.
The comparison of the holotype of Clythra taeniata with the syntype of Clythra fastuosa deposited in ZMHB undoubtedly showed both taxa to be conspecifi c. Consequently, Clythra fastuosa is proposed as a new synonym of Protoclytra (Lacordairella) taeniata comb. nov. Medvedev & Erber (2003) discussed the elytral colour pattern variability of Camptolenes taeniata, however, their drawings do not fi t well with the elytral colouration of the holotype. I cannot exclude that Medvedev & Erber (2003) misidentifi ed the studied specimens.
Currently, Protoclytra subgenus Lacordairella includes eight species, six of them were listed by Medvedev (1970). Two additional species were also described by Medvedev (1993aMedvedev ( , 1993d. No keys to species of Lacordairella have ever been provided.

Comments
The identity of Clythra undata was unclear to the subsequent authors. Lacordaire (1848) listed C. undata among the species not known to him but, based on the description, he speculated its position within the genus Macrolenes. In the catalogues by Gemminger & Harold (1874), Jacoby & Clavareau (1906) and Clavareau (1913), it is classifi ed in the genus Miopristis.
The comparison of the primary type specimens of Clythra undata, C. virginea and Melitonoma pictipennis showed that all three taxa are conspecifi c, and they are therefore synonymized here. Medvedev (1979) synonymized Melitonoma pictipennis Jacoby, 1898 with Smeia virginea without any comments. Melitonoma pictipennis was described from two females now deposited in BMNH. Both specimens have the outer elytral black spots connected, forming a lateral black stripe. Except for this colour peculiarity, I do not see any other difference.
Lacordaire (1848) did not specify the number of available specimens when describing Smeia virginea, only mentioning material from Caffrerie deposited in "Museum Berlin". Based on the catalogue of this historic collection, the original series included three specimens (Jäger 2017, pers. comm.) and I was able to locate two of them: a male and a female. Because Lacordaire (1848) explicitly mentioned that the female was unknown to him, I treat only the male as a syntype, the female is listed here in the section 'Additional material examined'.
The genus Smeia Lacordaire, 1848 is among the genera with pubescent propleura and can be distinguished by the combination of the following characters: epipleura glabrous, male fore legs elongate with strongly thickened femora, anterior margin of elytra elevated along whole length, antennomere IV elongate, pronotum glabrous (see the generic keys by Medvedev 1970Medvedev , 1989a. Currently, only two species are classifi ed in Smeia: S. undata comb. nov. and S. braunsi Medvedev, 1993, both distributed in RSA. Smeia braunsi differs from S. undata comb. nov. in apex of aedeagus bulbous and carinate underside, and missing humeral and preapical elytral spots (Medvedev 1993a).
The holotype of Clythra catenata is a representative of the genus Teinocera Lacordaire, 1848. The identity of Clythra catenata has a long history of misinterpretation. Lacordaire (1848) classifi ed it in Miopristis Lacordaire, 1848, and this placement was followed by all subsequent authors ( Gemminger & Harold 1874;Jacoby & Clavareau 1906;Clavareau 1913;Papp 1951;Medvedev 1979Medvedev , 1989b. Males of Teinocera subclathrata are characterised by the last antennomere divided by an indistinct suture into a larger basal part and a thin apical part. The same character was observed in the holotype of Clythra catenata. Although one type specimen of Teinocera subclathrata originally deposited in ZMHB was not traced there (Jäger 2017, pers. comm.), its original description agrees well with the species defi nition in various collections. As a result, Clythra catenata is transferred to Teinocera, and T. subclathrata is proposed as new synonym.
The genus Teinocera Lacordaire, 1848 currently contains fi ve species. Three species were keyed by Medvedev (1992a) and two additional species were described by Erber & Medvedev (2002). Medvedev (1979) synonymized Labidostomis insidiosa Péringuey, 1888 with Miopristis catenata. I had the possibility to study photographs of two syntypes of Labidostomis insidiosa deposited in SAMC, and at fi rst glance the two taxa are not congeneric. Labidostomis insidiosa is restored as a valid species in Miopristis; however, its placement in Miopristis needs further study as the defi nition of Miopristis is not stabilized.

Comments
The holotype of Crioceris haemorrhoa was dissected and is without any doubt conspecifi c with the common west Mediterranean Exosoma lusitanicum. The type locality "Cap" is evidently incorrect. Very probably the holotype was collected in the Mediterranean area during Thunberg's travels and subsequently mislabelled.

Comments
Megalognatha festiva was recently redescribed by Grobbelaar (1993). The syntype of Crioceris virens was compared with the Fabrician type specimen of Cistela festiva deposited in the BMNH and without any doubt the two taxa are conspecifi c. Crioceris virens is proposed as a new synonym of Megalognatha festiva.
de Méneville, 1847. The last three specimens (Nos. 9467, 15175 and 15501) are Monolepta signata (Olivier, 1808), which were evidently mislabelled, as M. signata is an Asiatic species and its occurrence in southern Africa is improbable. These specimens were probably collected in Java and Thunberg mistakenly mixed them with southern African specimens.
As the type series is composed of three different species, syntype No. 9466 is selected and here designated as the lectotype, and the identity of Cryptocephalus bioculatus Thunberg, 1827 is fi xed to one specimen. Due to this act, Cryptocephalus bioculatus is proposed as a new synonym of Monolepta bioculata (Fabricius, 1781). Monolepta bioculata is the type species of the genus Monolepta, and was recently redescribed, including study of the type material, by Wagner (2007). (Wiedemann, 1823) Fig

Comments
Thunberg's collection in UUZM contains two syntypes of Crioceris tetrapuncta (Fig. 17G). Both specimens were compared with the holotype of Palaeophylia tricolor and the taxa are conspecifi c. Consequently, Crioceris tetrapuncta is synonymized with Palaeophylia tricolor.
The only known type specimen of Crioceris dimidiata (Fig. 17C) is a composite of two different species, but this does not infl uence the use of the name (see article 17.1 of the Code). The head and pronotum belong to Palaeophylia tricolor (Fabricius, 1781), while the rest of body originates from a beetle unknown to me (but not Chrysomelidae). As Thunberg's description of Crioceris dimidiata perfectly fi ts the composite specimen, I have no doubt that the specimen was already composite when Thunberg wrote the description. The head and pronotum are designated as the lectotype of Crioceris dimidiata, in order to fi x the name to a particular identity, and C. dimidiata is synonymized with Palaeophylia tricolor.
Currently, the genus Palaeophylia Jacoby, 1903 includes nine species (Nie et al. 2017) and Palaeophylia tricolor (Fabricius, 1781) is its type species. The genus was never revised and it seems to be evident that some of the species are not congeneric with Palaeophylia and will be transferred to another genus/other genera in the future. Genus Taumacera Thunberg, 1814 Taumacera deusta Thunberg, 1814 Fig. 18 Taumacera deusta Thunberg, 1814: 48 (original description).

Additional material
Oedicerus apicipennis: probably same type specimen as for Nacrea apicipennis (for details see Bezděk 2019).

Comments
Thunberg (1814) described Taumacera deusta from "Goda-Hopps Udden" (= Cap. Bon. Spei). Weise (1922) already regarded this type locality as erroneous and correctly synonymized Oedicerus apicipennis Baly, 1879 and Nacrea apicipennis Baly, 1886 (both described from "India") with Taumacera deusta. Based on the paper by Weise (1922), Maulik (1936) and Wilcox (1973) reported India in the distribution of Taumacera deusta. Reid (1999) mentioned that it probably does not occur in India. Based on its currently known distribution, it seems evident that Thunberg collected the holotype during his two visits to Java in the years 1775 and 1777, and later mislabelled it. Taumacera deusta is known also from Bali (Bezděk 2019).
Taumacera deusta is the type species of the species-rich genus Taumacera Thunberg, 1814 (currently ca 70 species, predominantly distributed in the Oriental region). An additional ca 20 African species currently classifi ed in Taumacera are not congeneric and will be transferred elsewhere in the future. The genus concept was recently revised by Bezděk (2019).

Discussion
Altogether Thunberg described about 100 species of Chrysomelidae, which are generally poorly known. Some species were not found in any subsequent papers and many others, although they can be found in some catalogues, more or less disappeared from the entomological literature. Only a small proportion of the Chrysomelidae type specimens have been recently studied, for example: genus Cassida Linnaeus, 1758 (Sekerka 2008); Chrysomela undata Thunberg, 1784 was stated as a nomen oblitum by Kippenberg (2010); Chrysomela decempustulata Thunberg, 1787 was transferred to Centroscelis Chevrolat, 1836 by Bezděk et al. (2012); Chrysomela superba Thunberg, 1787 to Ambrostoma Motschulsky, 1860 by Ge et al. (2012); or Chrysomela javanica Thunberg, 1787 to Tenebrionidae by Bezděk et al. (2015). A revision of Thunberg's South African Cryptocephalus species is in preparation (Schöller & Bezděk 2018).