Catalogue of the type material of Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) deposited in the Research Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract A detailed catalogue of the type material of the Scarabaeoidea housed in the Research Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Tokyo, Japan is listed. The catalogue includes the data of the type material of four families and 111 species.


Introduction
In this report we present a catalogue of the type material of Scarabaeoidea housed in the Research Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Tokyo, Japan (RIEB). The beginning of the RIEB collection dates back to 1950, when the first natural objects were deposited at the Research Institute of Thremmatology of the Tokyo University of Agriculture (RIT) established that year. RIT was transformed into an incorporated foundation in 1974 and renamed Research Institute of Evolutionary Biology (Yamamoto 2000). The Lepidoptera collection in the RIEB was listed in detail by Aoki et al. (2005Aoki et al. ( , 2008 and Yamaguchi et al. (2006Yamaguchi et al. ( , 2008Yamaguchi et al. ( , 2009Yamaguchi et al. ( , 2011Yamaguchi et al. ( , 2017, but the Coleoptera collection has never been catalogued. This creates a problem because well-organized museum collections and published type specimen catalogues are very important to facilitate taxonomic and systematic investigations of animals. The majority of the types of Scarabaeidae deposited in the RIEB originate from the collection of Mr Yoshikazu Miyake (1926Miyake ( -2003, a well-known Japanese amateur specialist on Scarabaeidae, who was also the author of those taxa. A part of types of Miyake's species is also housed in the National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo (NMNS) and the Nagaoka Municipal Science Museum, Niigata (NMSM). Unfortunately, some of his types are missing.

Materials and methods
The scientific names of higher taxa in this catalogue follow Scholtz and Grebennikov (2016). The structure of each entry is as follows: -original combination of the taxon name; -original combination and spelling of the taxon name, followed by the author, year of description, and pagination; -type material, number of specimens (including sex, if known), and exact label data. A double slash '//' indicates separate labels and single slash '/' indicates lines within each label. The words in Japanese or Chinese were transcribed into Roman alphabet. Paratypes with discrepancies between collection data on the label and data quoted in the original description are indicated by ' [[ ]]'; -remarks on types condition (given only for holotypes and neotypes); -current taxonomic status; -remarks, if any.  Ochi, 1984, see Ziani and Bezděk (2016). Current status. Junior subjective synonym of Adoretus compressus (Weber, 1801), see Kobayashi (2018).

Anomala thailandiana Miyake, Yamaguchi & Akiyama
Remark. The habitus photograph in the original description does not agree with the holotype. This is also the case with some other species described by Miyake. Apparently, he did not intend to provide the photographs of the holotypes. Also, as noted below, we were unable to trace some specimens illustrated in the original descriptions. Figure 1H Malaia macassara Miyake, 2000: 109−110.

Spilopopillia rugosa Miyake
Spilopopillia rugosa Miyake, 1989a: 180−181. Note. The following paratypes are deposited in RIEB (ex coll. Y. Miyake): Paratypes  Type condition. The aedeagus of the holotype is pinned separately and the right metaleg is missing.

Current status. Valid species.
Remark. The collecting data of the specimen labelled as the holotype do not match the original description. There are two male paratypes ('Tanah Rata / MALAYA / 1. III. 1977 / Y. Miyake // Paratype: Spinanomala / moritai / Y. MIYAKE, 1996') that match the holotype data.
Remark. In addition to the paratypes mentioned above, the following specimens labeled as paratypes are not designated in the original description:

Genus Dichelomorpha
Dichelomorpha sublineata Miyake Figure 3C Dichelomorpha sublineata Miyake, 1994 Remark. Miyake (1994) did not provide a photograph of the holotype. Apparently he provided a photograph of a paratype, but we could not trace that specimen.

Genus Holomelia
Holomelia gigantea Miyake Figure 3D Holomelia gigantea Miyake, 1996 Remark. Miyake (1996) did not provide a photograph of the holotype. Apparently he provided a photograph of a paratype, but we could not trace that specimen.
Remark. The collecting date in the original description is 1.V.1957, which disagrees with the label data. Figure 3F Holotrichia yamayai Miyake & Yamaguchi, 1998  Type condition. The aedeagus of the holotype is pinned separately. Current status. Valid species.

Holotrichia yamayai Miyake & Yamaguchi
Remark. The label data the holotype do not match the original description. There is one male paratype ('六亀= liugui． 石山= shi shan / alt. 2000 m / 9. VI. 1976 // Paratype: / Hoplia / nakanei / Y. MIYAKE, 1986') that agrees with the data of the holotype. Probably the type labels were mixed up and this specimen should be considered the holotype.
In addition to the paratypes listed above, the following specimens labeled as paratypes are not designated in the original description: 1 ex. '    Kobayashi, 1978, see Ahrens and Bezděk (2016).
Remark. The date on the collecting data label of the holotype is 21.VII.1982, but the collecting date quoted in the original description is 22.VII.1982. Probably, Miyake made a typographical error when writing the description.

Maladera kusuii Miyake
Remark. In addition to the paratypes mentioned above, the following specimens labeled as paratypes are not designated in the original description: 1 ex. 'Mt. Arishan  Figure 4F Pseudohoplia shibatai makiharai Miyake, 1986b: 202. Note. The holotype is deposited in RIEB (ex coll. Y. Miyake):

Genus Dasyvalgus
Dasyvalgus annamensis Miyake Figure 5C Dasyvalgus annamensis Miyake, 1993a: 21−22. Remark. The locality on the collecting data label of the holotype is 'Iluon Ma Thuot', but the locality given in the original description is 'Ban Me Thuot'. However, the habitus of the holotype and the figure in the original description match. Probably, Miyake made a typographical error when writing the description. Figure 5D Dasyvalgus castaneodorsalis Miyake, 1993a: 24−25. Note. The holotype and following paratypes are deposited in RIEB (ex coll. Y. Miyake):

Dasyvalgus castaneodorsalis Miyake
Holotype ( Remark. The locality on the collecting data label of the holotype is 'Iluon Ma Thuot', but the locality given in the original description is 'Ban Me Thuot'. However, the habitus of the holotype and the figure in the original description match. Probably, Miyake caused a typographical error when writing the description. Figure 5F Dasyvalgus flavicauda Miyake, Yamaguchi, Aoki et Akiyama, 2002

Current status. Valid species.
Remark. In addition to the paratypes mentioned above, the following specimen labeled as paratypes is not designated in the original description: 1 ex. 'Tondano / N. Sulawesi / 11-IV-1989 / Y. Miyake leg. // Paratype: / Dasyvalgus / minahasanus / Y. MIYAKE, 1989'. Figure 5H Dasyvalgus multicus Miyake, 1993a Figure 6A Dasyvalgus nudis Miyake, 1994: 153. Remark. The date on the collecting data label of the holotype is 9-11,VI,1993, but the collecting date quoted in the original description is 8-10,VI,1993. However, the habitus of the holotype and the figure in the original description match. Probably, Miyake caused a typographical error when writing the description. Figure 6B Dasyvalgus rubrothoracicus Miyake, 1993a Remark. This paratype has no collecting data label.
Remark. There is no data label attached to the holotype, but the habitus of the holotype matches the figure in the original description. If confidence is placed in the pinned holotype label and the habitus, the above holotype specimen is the true holotype. Figure 6D Neovalgus formosanus Miyake, 1985: 3. Note. The holotype and following paratypes are deposited in RIEB (ex coll. Y. Miyake):

Neovalgus formosanus Miyake
Holotype (♂). '六亀= liugui． 石山= shi shan / 9. VI. 1976 / 2000m // Holotype: / Neovalgus / formosanus / Y, MIYAKE, 1985'. (Fig. 6D Remark. The date on the collecting label of the holotype is 9.VI.1976, but the collecting date quoted in the original description is 16.V.1978. However, the habitus of the holotype matches the figure in the original description. Probably, Miyake caused a typographical error when writing the description. In addition to the paratypes mentioned above, the following specimens labeled as paratypes are not designated in the original description: 3 exs. ' . 6E) Type condition. The aedeagus of the holotype is pinned separately. The right protarsus is missing. Current status. Valid species.