Eduardiella Holzschuh, 1993
in honour of Eduard JENDEK
Diagnosis. Body length 9.6‒13.8 mm. Colour blackish, reddish brown in parts of head, antennae and ventral surface; elytra reddish brown though darker near apices, with three transverse blackish bands at basal 2/5, middle and apical fifth, all reaching external margins; legs reddish brown, light yellowish brown in peduncles of femora, meso- and metatarsi, darker in femoral clubs. Head 1.1 times as wide as the maximum width of pronotum, very roughly punctured, matted. Antennae exceeding elytral apices at antennomere V in male and VIII in female. Pronotum slightly wider than its maximum width, with acute protrusion at centre of apical margin; disc matted, densely and very finely punctured, with a pair of high
tubercles smooth and shiny. Elytra 2.9 times as long as the humeral width, rounded at apices; disc densely and very finely punctured, with a few large, flattened punctures interspersed.
Distribution. China: Yunnan Province.
Notes. No additional specimens were examined in this study. The above diagnosis was made based on the original description by Holzschuh (1993).
愉埃天牛
分布：越南。
Etymology. The new name “amoena” is derived from its particularly delicate and elegance appearance of the new species.
Eduardiella dayaoshana Niisato et Liu, 2018
大瑶山埃天牛
分布：广西。
2024年的词尾更正和更正理由都是正确的。我的困惑在于，2018年的原始文献pdf，如上面的截图，自始至终写的都是dayaoshana，没有出现过错误的dayaoshanus。我猜测是印刷版本用的dayaoshanus，但是Niisato 很快意识到了错误，在发送pdf之前就更改了pdf。
关于法规的31.2，具体可以参考
有些心里变态（对此类小问题难以放手，倘若果真原始发表时us结尾的，我需要在第一条原始引证的时候保留us，跟2024的文章写的意义标注sic，但现在我的版本是a结尾的）的我就写信问他，是不是印刷版本是dayaoshanus，但是Pdf版本他更正了之后再发送的。他立刻否认了这个可能性，说他没有在出版社发给他的pdf上面再做任何修改。
插曲
严格来说，不管是印刷版和电子版同时发行的期刊，还是纯电子版的期刊，在正式发表之后，都是不允许修改的，内容和格式都不允许修改。但是，“稍加修改”的案例时有发生。这会儿我邮箱里就有修改的例子
插曲
我猜可能我表达得不清楚，他可能误以为我说的是2024年的这篇文章。我就把2018年的pdf发送回去，跟他说里面只有dayaoshana，没有us结尾的地方。
然后，他大吃一惊，发现是自己的幻觉导致了这个没有必要的修改（本来就没犯错，但是自己以为2018年的时候自己搞错了，在2024年进行了修正）。怎么说呢，虽然这个乌龙有些乌龙，但我表示自己真的很能理解这种偶然的难以解释理由的错误。比如，在我给他写邮件的时候，我明明想的是2024年，但是我打出来的却是2014年，我想的是简单的so，刚刚截图才发现竟然是复杂的should（有点想说是不是电脑输入法或者只能自动完成的单词，但我一点证据也没有，我也没有任何关于当时如何思考的记忆）（虽然也没妨碍他理解我要讲的意思）。
2018年的时候，正模标本的右边触角还是完好的。到了2024年，两根触角都残缺了。可见保存正模标本的单位或人不太谨慎。文章写的这号正模标本要放在中国农业大学，但是显然，标本并没有送过去。大概率，我猜测，标本应该还是在第一作者手里，或者挂名作者手里。诸如此类的原始文献书写的标本保存地跟实际的标本存放地不一致的情况，越来越普遍，将来应该会成为分类学问题之一。
Titan数据库也是看着pdf录入的，没有记录到有词尾的错误拼写
Key to species of the genus Eduardiella
1. Pronotum with obtuse protrusion at centre of apical
margin, finely reticulate on disc; elytra largely black or
blackish brown with two or three transverse pale yellow
bands, reddish brown area limited to basal part if present;
metatibiae brownish or blackish with pale yellow apical
part. ……………...................................................….….. 2
‒ Pronotum with acute protrusion at centre of apical
margin, densely and very finely punctured on disc; elytra
largely reddish brown with three transverse blackish
bands; metatibiae uniformly brownish. …….................
................................………..….. E. pretiosa Holzschuh
2. Elytra reddish brown in basal fourth, chestnut brown
in apical 3/8, and remaining middle section black, each
provided with two narrow pale yellow bands at basal 3/10
and posterior to middle; elytral surface shagreened and
densely punctured; elytral spices truncate and weakly
emarginate. .......................… E. dayaoshana Niisato & Liu
‒ Elytra blackish brown, with three pale yellow bands at
basal fifth, basal third and middle to apical third; elytral
surface shagreened and irregularly provided with medium
punctures; elytral apices subtruncate without emargination.
...........................................................… E. amoena Niisato & Lien
参考文献
