Lost Collections: Preserving Historical Biodiversity Memory—The Case of Peiroleri’s Manuscript Catalogue

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to highlight the importance of historical research on entomological collections in museums and to suggest some techniques to investigate them. Through documentary research and analysis, it is possible to obtain data on poorly known entomologists and collections; this may be extremely important for the study of past and present-day biodiversity. The finding and study of Peiroleri’s catalogue proves that, through meticulous historical research, it is possible to locate type specimens even if the original collection is supposedly or virtually lost.

1. Introduction

Natural history museums are crucial to scientific research because they are the places where natural sciences and biodiversity memory is preserved. Through collections and documents kept in these institutions, researchers are able to access former data that exhibit an alteration of biodiversity, due to anthropic pressure [1].

In the current age, biodiversity loss caused by human activities has reached alarming proportions. This is mainly due to habitat degradation, habitat destruction and global warming. Insects are among the groups most impacted by these factors [2]. Consequently, it is fundamental to understand how the presence, distribution and biomass of these invertebrates have changed over time, and that it is essential to have related records [1].

For insects, useful data can be extrapolated from historical entomological collections (this term is used here to characterize entomological collections dating back to before 1950). These collections, however, have often been subject to rearrangements and alterations and, based upon my personal experience as a museum entomologist, identifying particular specimens may be challenging (e.g., the type specimens or specimens collected by a certain individual are not labeled adequately). In some cases, several collections have been merged and their original labels often replaced by new ones, resulting in a loss of data; these aspects can make the work of specialists and historians challenging.

This study on Peiroleri’s collection highlights the importance of historical-documentary research in natural history museums, and how it may enable the discovery or reconstruction of collections lacking information.

Subsequent to requests of experts, the type material of three species, Platynus erythrocephalus Bassi, 1834, P. peirolerii Bassi, 1834, and P. depressus Dejean, 1831 (Coleoptera Carabidae), type specimens ascribable to Giuseppe Peiroleri [3] and Count Dejean collections [4], have been located in the historical collections of the Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino [Regional Turin Natural Science Museum, MRSN] and Museo Zoologico dell’Università di Torino [University of Turin Zoological Museum, MZUT], using data obtained by historical-documentary research and study concerning Peiroleri’s collection.

This proves that meticulous documentary and collection investigation can provide data and means to associate specimens with authors and collections.

2. Materials and Methods

This research is based upon two manuscript catalogues: Peiroleri’s catalogue and the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” [“Beetles catalogue 1877”]. These volumes were found by the author during his investigations on historical documents and manuscripts from MZUT. They have been deposited in MRSN since 1994, as a loan free to use, for preservation and study. The University of Turin’s (UT) historical zoological and entomological collections were deposited at the same time. The manuscripts were analyzed and their contents were compared with the specimens found in de Brême’s collection. Following this, de Brême’s collection, the General Historical MZUT collection, and Spinola’s coleopterological collection were analyzed to locate the Peiroleri-related specimens.

3. Results

3.1. Peiroleri’s Catalogue: Attribution and Analysis

This catalogue consists of a single unsigned handwritten volume, in French, with 772 pages (book size: 18.5 × 24.5 × 5.5 cm); on page one we can read “Coleoptera” in the header (Figure 1). To identify the author, the manuscript has been studied, highlighting its characteristics and peculiarities.

Figure 1. First page of Peiroleri’s catalogue.

The manuscript contains a list of 5383 Coleoptera specimens and species belonging to various families, numbered from 1 to 5383. The first part of the text follows an order consistent with the systematic classification used in the first half of the 19th century; the central and final parts seem to be just records of gradual additions.

Specimens are classified according to the following scheme (Figure 2; Table 1):

Figure 2. Detail of Peiroleri’s catalogue.

Table 1. Manuscript scheme. Numbers of specimens not specified.

Catalogue’s Numerical ID

Genus 1

Species 2

Notes

¹ Written in black ink. ² Written in red ink.

• Catalogue’s numerical ID
• Taxa (Genera in black ink, capitalized; specific epithets in red ink)
• Note

The note field is arguably the most interesting part of the manuscript because it contains field data (such as season and collection site) and, for those specimens not collected by the author, the name of the person who gave the specimen to him.

From these notes we can learn that the catalogue’s author was in touch with many renowned 19th century naturalists and entomologists, such as Ulrich (e.g., mentioned in No. 22 of the catalogue), Sturm (e.g., mentioned in No. 27 of the catalogue), Latreille (e.g., mentioned in No. 120 of the catalogue), Dejean (e.g., mentioned in No. 23 of the catalogue), Gené (e.g., mentioned in No. 2931 of the catalogue), Spinola (e.g., mentioned in No. 167 of the catalogue), Lassere (e.g., mentioned in No. 31 of the catalogue) and Bassi (e.g., mentioned in No. 175 of the catalogue).

The inside back cover contains a short list of addresses belonging to Schuermann, De Cristoforis, Durazzo, Orsini, Perty, Captain d’Augspurger, Prevost, Faldermann, Assandri, Chaudoir, Count D’Oskay, Reich and Lanz (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Inside back cover of Peiroleri’s catalogue.

The mentioning of Gené as the provider of some specimens allows us to date the manuscript back to before 1847 (the year Gené died), confirming the first hypothesis about the age of the catalogue. The specimens’ collection sites of the author’s catalogue are mostly in Piedmont or nearby regions, including Liguria, Provence, Lombardy and Switzerland. The manuscript’s last pages, which are blank and lack the penciled grid found on the other pages, reveal further information if held against the light: the filigree on the paper contains the name of the papermill that produced the blank volume, i.e., “Fabrica di Pinerolo F. L.” (“Factory of Pinerolo”, Pinerolo being a small city in Piedmont). The papermill logo is also visible, depicting a dove flying over what appears to be a wolf with a lamb on its shoulders (?). These details, together with the above mentioned collection sites, allow for a wide safety margin to pinpoint the likely homeland of the unknown entomologist: Piedmont.

Every note and every species recorded in the catalogue were analyzed, and some were found reporting “mihi” (“by me”) as author; one among these, Rynchites praeustus, mihi et Dej. an. n. sp. (catalogue No. 1107, p. 159; Figure 4), gave us the key to attribute a most likely authorship to the manuscript. Searching the species in question in “Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. Le Comte Dejean, Troisième Edition” (1837; Dejean), it has been possible to find it at page 260 as Rhynchites praestus, Peyroleri (Figure 5) (Peyroleri being one of the possible spellings of this entomologist from Piedmont). Thanks to this cross reference, we have been able to attribute the catalogue most likely to Giuseppe Peiroleri.

Figure 4. Rynchites praeustus, mihi et Dej. an. n. sp. in Peiroleri’s catalogue.

Figure 5. Rynchites praeustus Peyroleri in Dejean’s catalogue.

There is little information about this entomologist, but we can find an interesting bibliographic reference to him in “Descrizione e cronaca d’Usseglio fondata sopra documenti autentici” [“Description and chronicles of Usseglio base upon authentic documents”] (1862; Cibrario L. p. 15):

“Il Barone Peyroleri mastro auditore nella Camera dei Conti, [...] assai si dilettava d’insetti e ne aveva formato ampia raccolta [...]”

[“Baron Peyroleri master auditor at Board of Auditors, […] dabbled very much in insects and built a large collection of them”]

Peiroleri never published anything about entomology and his manuscript catalogue is the only autograph document, which attests to his activity as an amateur entomologist.

Other evidence of Peiroleri’s activities as an entomologist can be found in “Mémoire sur la station de quelques coléoptères dans les différentes régions du Piémont” [“Memoire on the stations of some beetles in different areas of Piedmont”] (1847, Ghiliani; in “Annales de la Société entomologique de France”, s. 2, t. V, p.83–142) [5], in ”Elenco delle specie di coleotteri trovate in Piemonte” [“List of beetle species found in Piedmont”] (1887, Ghiliani e Camerano) [6] and in “Catalogo dei Coleotteri del Piemonte” [“Catalogue of Piedmont beetles”] (1889, Baudi) [7] (Peiroleri-related information and data found in these three works are reported in Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C).

3.2. “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”: Attribution and Analysis

The attribution to Peiroleri was first strengthened, then definitely confirmed, by data found in the manuscript “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” (book size: 22 × 33.5 × 4 cm), also coming from UT and discovered at the same time as Peiroleri’s catalogue. Species listed in “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” are numbered from 1 to 4658; specimen number is specified only from record #921 onwards.

Between the manuscript’s first page and the cover, we find two handwritten pages by Vittore Ghiliani (Figure 6 and Figure 7; Appendix D and Appendix E; fully transcribed, translated and adapted from Italian by the author), who, at the time, was the curator of the entomological collections belonging to MZUT.

Figure 6. “Added notes” by Ghiliani in “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”.

Figure 7. Note by Ghiliani in “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”.

In one of these pages we can read:

“Dopo la morte del Bonelli la raccolta di Coleotteri del Museo Zoologico torinese, assai ricca per quei tempi, venne quasi intieramente distrutta dagli Antreni e dalla muffa. Essa cominciò a risorgere col materiale risultante dai viaggi del Gené fatti in Sardegna: e pochi anni dopo acquistò nuova importanza dall’aggiunta della raccolta di Coleotteri europei donata a questo R. Museo dagli eredi del Barone Peiroleri; se non che quest’ultima raccolta stata preparata col metodo antico, cioè colle gambe degli insetti orizzontalmente distese, venne per tal motivo, ad eccezione di pochi individui rari, quasi del tutto rilegata nei magazzeni di doppi e sostituita da individui meglio preparati, di cui infra.

Nell’anno 1850 il Marchese Ferdinando Arborio di Brême (defunto Duca di Sartirana) faceva dono a questo Museo della numerosissima e stupenda sua raccolta mondiale in coleotteri: ed è quella che in massima parte servì alla formazione della raccolta attuale, cui meritamente spetterebbe il nome di raccolta De Brême, ed alla quale si riferisce il presente catalogo. Notando che alla composizione di quella raccolta, fatta in Parigi, contribuirono l’intiera sezione degli Eteromeri non che le seguenti famiglie della famosa raccolta Dejean, cioè Malacodermi, Xilofagi (del catalogo Dejean), Clitre, Coccinelle ed alcuni Carabici estratti parimenti da quella collezione.”

[“Following Bonelli’s death, beetle collection of the Turin Zoological Museum, really rich for its times, was almost completely destroyed by carpet beetles and moulds. It began to rise again thanks to the specimens resulting from Gené’s voyages to Sardinia: and a few years later it gained more prominence thanks to the European beetles collection donated to this Royal Museum by baron Peiroleri’s heirs; although the specimens in this collection were mounted in the ancient way, that is to say with legs horizontally stretched, and was for this reason that, except for some rare specimens, they were almost entirely confined in the duplicates’ storage and replaced by better mounted specimens, about which below.

In the year 1850 Marquis Ferdinando Arborio di Brême (the late Duke of Sartirana) donated to this Museum his large and splendid world beetle collection: and it is that which for the most part formed the present collection, which deservedly should be named De Brême’s collection, and which this catalogue refers to. It must be highlighted that the composition of this collection, made in Paris, had the contribution of the entire Eteromera section and also the following Families of the renowned Dejean collection, that is to say Malacoderma, Xylophaga (according to Dejean’s catalogue), Clytra, ladybugs and some ground beetles also taken from that collection.” ]

Following Peiroleri’s death in 1844, as mentioned above, his heirs donated his entomological collection to MZUT, and thus those specimens ended up in the UT’s coleopterological collection. Another reference to Peiroleri’s collection can be found in “Torino” (1880, Bersezio et al.), part I, p. 385:

“[...] la collezione degli insetti (del Museo Zoologico di Torino) […] deve il suo maggior pregio a ciò che in parte è costituita dalle antiche collezioni del conte Déjan comprate dal marchese di Brème e donate generosamente al Museo; in parte è costituita ancora dalle collezioni del barone Peiroleri, entomologo segnalato piemontese che fece pur esso il dono delle sue collezioni al Museo.”

[“[...] [MZUT’s] insect collection […] owes its prestige partly to what is formed by count Dejean’s ancient collections bought by marquis de Brème and generously donated to the Museum; partly to what is formed by baron Peiroleri’s collections, a renowned Piedmont entomologist who donated his collections to the Museum too.”]

Lessona mentions Peiroleri and his collection in connection to the MZUT in his memorial about Ghiliani (in “Annali della Reale Accademia d’agricoltura di Torino”, Vol. 22, 1879, p. 75):

“[...] poi vennero gli splendidi doni del Peiroleri, che spese una lunga vita in studi e collezioni di entomologia che si volsero tutti in prò del museo [...]”.

[“[...] then came the wonderful gifts from Peiroleri, who spent a long life in entomological studies and collections which all turned in favour of the museum [...]”]

One can find additional references to Peiroleri’s collection in “Elenco delle collezioni entomologiche conservate nelle strutture pubbliche italiane” [“List of entomological collections in Italian public bodies”] (1996, Poggi and Conci, p.83) [8], which reports what is found in “Figure dell’entomologia piemontese (Riassunto)” [“Piedmontese entomology personalities (Summary)”] (1983, Passerin d’Entrèves, in “Atti XIII Congresso nazionale italiano di Entomologia” p. 31–34), namely the merging of the collection at issue with de Brême’s one [9].

In after-Bonelli MZUT’s coleopterological collection, presently preserved at MRSN under the name “de Brême collection”, as we can learn from Ghiliani’s writings and the other information available to us, the following have converged:

• Gené’s collection of Sardinian specimens;
• de Brême’s collection;
• specimens from Dejean’s collection (originally in de Brême’s collection);
• specimens from Peiroleri’s collection;

Re-examining Peiroleri’s catalogue in the light of this information, it is possibile to attribute some notes on it to Ghiliani, written in a different handwriting; in some cases these are corrections to species identifications or author, in other cases we can read the note “passato alla raccolta De Brême” [“relocated to De Brême’s collection”] (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Note “(relocated to de Brême’s collection)” by Ghiliani in “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”.

Following Ghiliani’s death, presumably it was Lorenzo Camerano whose responsibility it became to take care of the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”; after Michele Lessona’s note on it (dated 27 May 1878), one can indeed find Camerano’s signature (Figure 9; Appendix F, fully transcribed, translated and adapted from Italian by the author). Records from No. 883 to No. 920 have, most likely, been compiled by Camerano, while from record No. 921 onwards we can find a different handwriting, currently unidentified; after this record, the number of specimens becomes specified in the catalogue.

Figure 9. Lessona’s note bout Ghiliani’s death, followed by Camerano’s signature.

3.3. “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” and de Brême’s Collection

Following documentation analysis, a comparison was made between the records in this catalogue and the specimens actually included in “Collezione de Brême”; with the exception of some discrepancies probably caused by lost specimens or classification errors, what is found in the first 86 boxes of the collection matches what has been recorded in “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”. Then the specimens transferred by Ghiliani from Peiroleri’s collection to De Brême’s collection were checked according to his notes. In the first 86 boxes, it was possible to find some of the supposedly relocated species referenced, as well as relocated Peiroleri-related specimens and species not mentioned by Ghiliani. Specimens have been identified, with a variable safety margin, by cross-referencing data from Peiroleri’s catalogue, “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” and labels in De Brême’s collection; when species, collection sites, and/or origin matched, then it is likely that the specimens come from Peiroleri’s collection (the term “origin” is here used to indicate the individual or the collection from which the specimens come from). Results are given in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 2. Peiroleri’s specimens found in the first 86 boxes of de Brême’s collection, which have been relocated to this collection by Ghiliani according to his notes in Peiroleri’s catalogue. “Spec. No.” indicates the total number of that species’ specimens in de Brême’s collection and not only those potentially Peiroleri-related (further research will be needed to identify with a degree of certainty which one are from Peiroleri’s collection and which ones are not).

Genus.	Species	Author	Origin	Spec. No.	Collect. Site	No. Cat. 1877	De Brême’s Box	Peiroler’s ID No.
Acupalpus	rufulus 1	Dejean	n.d.	3	Piedmont; Gaul; Sardinia	2456	Pentameres Carabiques 124–126	84
Anthaxia	discicollis	Frivaldski, Gory	n.d.	1	Romelia	4243	Sternoxes Buprestidae 42–44	4213
Anthaxia	signaticollis	Dejean	n.d.	6	Southern Russia	4242	Sternoxes Buprestidae 42–44	4214
Anthaxia	cupressi	Stentz	n.d.	1	Dalmatia	4229	Sternoxes Buprestidae 42–44	5001
Athous	rhombeus	Olivier	n.d.	3	Sabaudia	4610	Pentameres Stenoxes (Bupr.) 76–78	3198
Buprestis	cupressi 2	Dejean	n.d.	2	Dalmatia	4144	Sternoxes Buprestidae 34–36	4262
Capnodis	porosa 3	Klug	n.d.	4	Mount Lebanon; Smyrne	4068	Sternoxes Buprestidae 26–28	4313
Chrysobothris	calcarata 4	Chevrolat	n.d.	5	Mexico	4197	Sternoxes Buprestidae 38–40	4235
Dicerca	berolinensis 5	Stentz	n.d.	2	Dalmatia	4082	Sternoxes Buprestidae 26–28	5000
Eucnemis	rugulosus	Dejean	Dono Villa	1	Lombardy	4421	Pentameres Sternoxes (Bupr.) 56–58	3437
Gyrinus (?)	non det. 6	n.d.	n.d.	1	Chile	n.d.	Pentameres Hydrocantares 10–11	3421
Hydroporus	fenestratus	Escher, Aubé	n.d.	1	Sicily	2811	Pentameres Hydrocanthares 7–8	3036
Nemathodes	elaterinus	Villa	Dono Marietti	3	Lombardy; Sardinia	4409	Pentameres Sternoxes (Bupr.) 56–58	4284
Notaphus	venustulus	Ziegler	Coll. Dejean	3	Austria	2526	Pentameres Carabiques 128–130	3678
Notaphus	obliquus 7	Sturm	Coll. Dejean	3	Germany	2520	Pentameres Carabiques 128–130	3681
Orectochilus	villosus 8	Fabricius	n.d.	3	Southern Gaul	2900	Pentameres Hydrocantares 10–11	3423
Peryphus	distinctus 9	Dejean	n.d.	2	Switzerland	2571	Carabiques 132–134	3705
Peryphus	distinctus	Dejean	n.d.	2	Hungary	2571	Carabiques 132–134	5223
Phylocerus	flavipennis 10	Latreille	n.d.	3	Sicily; Dalmatia	4435	Pentameres Sternoxes (Bupr.) 56–58	5046
Trechus	rotundatus	Dejean	n.d.	2	Piedmont	2491	Pentameres Carabiques 128–130	78
Trechus	longhii	De Cristofori	n.d.	1	Piedmont	2487	Pentameres Carabiques 128–130	3535

¹ In Peiroleri’s catalogue it shows as Trechus apterus Bonelli n. sp., but it bears a note by Ghiliani that reads “Acupalpus rufulus Dej. (see Breme’s collection)”. ² In “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” it shows the synonym Ancylocheira Ersch.; these specimens probably come from Peiroleri but were identified anew by Ghiliani when he relocated them to de Brême’s collection. ³ The collection site shown in Peiroleri’s catalogue is “Romelia”: this geographical indication is inaccurate and might, or might not, include the collection sites indicated in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” and on the label (Smyrne). ⁴ The “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” shows the synonyms “Fulgorata Lap.” and “zig-zag D.”, while in Peiroleri’s catalogue this species can be found as Actenodes zigzag Dej., where the synonym “calcarata Chevrolat” is also indicated. By cross-referencing the collection site (Mexico), synonyms sensu Peiroleri and sensu Ghiliani, we obtain as a result that it is quite possible that Chrysobotris calcarata from de Brême’s collection is Actenodes zigzag from Peiroleri’s collection. ⁵ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” “var. istriensis” is also indicated; in Peiroleri’s catalogue it is indicated as Dicerca istriensis Sturm, Stentz, berolinensis varietates”. ⁶ In Peiroleri’s catalogue it is shown as unidentified Dineutes, but its synonymy with genus Gyrinus is also reported. The “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” reports this species numerical ID from Peiroleri’s catalogue, and the collection site matches too. ⁷ In Peiroleri’s catalogue it is reported as coming from Sturm; it is possible that one of the specimens in De Brême’s collection comes from Peiroleri’s collection. ⁸ The “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” shows the synonym “pubescens Solier” and Peiroleri’s catalogue shows it as Orectochilus pubescens Solier. ⁹ This specimen is probably the one indicated by Peiroleri as undetermined Peryphus No. 3705; at this record in Peiroleri catalogue’s, we can find a note by Ghiliani which identifies it as Peryphus distincus Dej. Peiroleri’s collection site (Jura Mountains) is compatible with the collection site indicated in “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” and on the specimens’ label (Switzerland). ¹⁰ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” there is the note “1 specimen traded with Mr. Dohrn”.

Table 3. Peiroleri’s specimens found in the first 86 boxes of De Brême’s collection, which have not been relocated to this collection by Ghiliani, according to his notes in Peiroleri’s catalogue. “Spec. No.” indicates the total number of that species’ specimens in De Brême’s collection and not only those potentially Peiroleri-related (further research will be needed to identify with a degree of certainty which ones are from Peiroleri’s collection and which ones are not).

Genus	Species	Author	Origin	Spec. No.	Collection Site	No. Cat. Col. 1877
Carabus	creutzeri 1	Germar (as in Peiroleri collection)	Peiroleri collection	1	Tyrol	512
Carabus	purpurescens 2	Sturm	Peiroleri collection	1	Hungary	522
Carabus	violaceus 3	Duftschmidt	Peiroleri collection; Received from Mr. Stenz	1	Bohemia	529
Carabus	tamsii 4	Ménétriés	Peiroleri collection	2	Romelia	547
Carabus	non det. 5	n.d.	Peiroleri collection (Lantosca)	1	Piedmont Maritime Alps	713
Carabus	lapponicus 6	Faldermann In litteris	Peiroleri collection	2	Lapland	773
Carabus	arvensis 7	Dejean cat.I. cd. p.6	n.d.	1	Germany	609
Carabus	scheidleri 8	Dejean	n.d.	1	Croatia	673
Cicindela	laponica 9	Ziegler	Peiroleri collection	1	Lapland?	179
Molops	Spinicollis? 10	Dejean	Donation from Peiroleri	1	Piedmont Alps	2015
Omaseus	nemoralis 11	Illiger	Donation from Peiroleri	4	Piedmont	1814
Procrustes	cerisyi 12	Dejean	Peiroleri collection	2	Morea	471
Pterostichus	Rufipes? 13	Dejean	Peiroleri catalog N°. 3257	2	Jura (Switzerland)	1909
Scarites	terricola	Bonelli	Peiroleri collection	1		n.d.

¹ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” “var. Kircheri?” is also indicated; the attribution to Peiroleri is uncertain because the origin and the collection site in Peiroleri’s catalogue do not match with those in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”, even if in the latter it is stated that it comes from Peiroleri’s collection. ² In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” “var. crenatus” is also indicated; it is possible that it corresponds to Carabus purpurescens No. 14 and/or Carabus crenatus No. 4028 in Peiroleri’s catalogue. ³ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” “var. candidatus” and “var. carbonatus Ziegl. in litt.” are also indicated. The attribution to Peiroleri is uncertain because the variety, the origin and the collection site in Peiroleri’s catalogue do not match with those in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”, even if in the latter it is stated that it comes from Peiroleri’s collection. ⁴ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” the following can be read: “It differs very little from graecus and since morio is from Asia in the catalogues, it might be that this determination is erroneous.; Carabus morio Mannerh.” ⁵ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” “nov. sp.?” is also indicated. Not found in Peiroleri’s catalogue. ⁶ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” the following is also written: “This name is missing from catalogues. Species similar to violaceus.” ⁷ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” it also shows “var. Schriekeli as in Peiroleri’s collection”. The attribution to Peiroleri is uncertain because the collection site in Peiroleri’s catalogue does not match with those in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”, even if in the latter it is stated that it comes from Peioleri’s collection. ⁸ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” it also shows “var. Illigeri (as in Peiroleri’s collection)”. The attribution to Peiroleri is uncertain because such a variety is missing in Peiroleri’s catalogue. ⁹ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” the following is also written: “Inedit.; Not found in catalogues”. In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” the collection site is uncertain, while in Peiroleri’s catalogue it is not. ¹⁰ Not found in Peiroleri’s catalogue. ¹¹ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” it also shows “var. melanarius?”. ¹² In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” it also shows “var. foudrasi”. Not found in Peiroleri’s catalogue. ¹³ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” the numerical ID of Peiroleri’s catalogue’s is indicated too.

Table 4. Specimens supposedly authored by Peiroleri (according to the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” or labels in de Brême’s collection) found in the first 86 boxes of the de Brême’s collection, and that have not been relocated to this collection by Ghiliani according to his notes in Peiroleri’s catalogue. As seen before, Peiroleri never published any entomological descriptions or memoires. This attribution is to be considered “in litteris” or, as seen with species described by Bassi, homages to Peiroleri as the one who found the species. There are no data about their origin in de Brême’s collection labels or in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”: this may point to the fact that all these specimens come from Peiroleri’s collection, and that the mere indication of the author had been considered sufficient at the time. “Spec. No.” indicates the total number of that species’ specimens in de Brême’s collection and not only those potentially Peiroleri-related (further research will be needed to identify with a degree of certainty which ones are from Peiroleri’s collection and which ones are not).

Genus	Species	Author	Origin	Spec. No.	Collection Site	No. Cat. Col. 1877	De Brême’s Box	Peiroleri’s ID No.
Anchomenus	angusticollis 1	Peiroleri	n.d.	5	Piedmont	1633	Pentameres Carabiques 86–86 bis	136
Pterostichus	impressicollis 2	Peiroleri	n.d.	4	Piedmont	1900	Carabidae 98 bis-100	3264
Pterostichus	sexpunctatus 3	Peiroleri	n.d.	4	Monviso	n.d.	Carabidae 98 bis-100	5095
Pterostichus	impressus 4	Peiroleri	n.d.	4	Piedmont	1932	Carabidae 98 bis-100	3276
Pterostichus	bicolor 5	Peiroleri	n.d.	4	Piedmont	1937	Carabidae 98 bis-100	3279
Pterostichus	sculpturatus 6	Peiroleri	n.d.	4	Piedmont	1945	Carabidae 100 bis-102	3283

¹ One specimen displays a label with “Peiroleri” written on it; in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” is also reported as“(affinis)”. In Peiroleri’s catalogue the species’ authors are Fabricius and Dejean, so it is possible that the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”‘s editor mistakenly swapped origin with authors. ² In Peiroleri’s catalogue the reported author is “Solier, mihi” and the collection site is “High Alps”. ³ In the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” the following is also reported: “inedit; Flavofemoratus? var. Spinolae or var. minor”. P. flavofemoratus can also be found as P. flavofemoratus Bonelli in Peiroleri’s catalogue (No. 201) but with “Biella” and “Sempione” as collection sites. ⁴ In Peiroleri’s catalogue, “mihi, n. sp.” is reported as author and “Monviso” and “Valdieri” as collection sites. ⁵ In Peiroleri’s catalogue, “mihi” is reported as author and “Apenines and nearby mountains” as collection sites. ⁶ In Peiroleri’s catalogue “mihi, n. sp.” is reported as author and “High Alps” as collection site.

Table 5. Specimens from Peiroleri’s collection, which have supposedly been relocated in de Brême’s collection according to Ghiliani’s notes in Peiroleri’s catalogue but were not found in the first 86 boxes of de Brême’s collection.

Genus	Species	Peiroleri’s ID No.
Agrypnus	ornaticollis	2141
Ampedus	sinuatus	2165
Cardiophorus	albipes	2161
Cardiophorus	ornatus	2869
Cercus	bipustulatus	4285
Cercus	ochraceus	4286
Dyneutes	pyrinus	2954
Elater	rubricollis	2164
Elater	brasiliensis	2845
Elater	memnosius	2131
Eurythyrea	scutellaris	282
Hydroporus	lineatus	264
Ludius	depressus	4066
Ludius	guttatus	3761
Ludius	impressus	2144
Ludius	metallicus	4067
Necrophorus	4-maculatus	5216
Sphaenoptera	ornacanthae	3191
Steatoderus	italicus	2129
Stenogaster	atomarius	3435
Xylaecus	alni	3200

Regarding the specimens of Dejean’s collection found in the first 86 boxes of De Brême’s collection’s, they can be easily identified thanks to the labels at the bottom of the box or by a “Coll. Dejean” round label on the specimen’s pin (Figure 10). Clearly, some of Dejean’s specimens from the original core of de Brême’s collection have been merged with specimens belonging to the same species but with a different origin. It is likely that whoever merged Dejean’s specimens with the other collections in the first 86 boxes thought them to be too important to be mistaken or lost in the midst of specimens with a different origin (unlike what happened with Peiroleri’s specimens).

Figure 10. “Dejean collection” label on a specimen’s pin from de Brême’s collection.

According to “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”‘s data analysis and to information found on the specimens’ labels, the following can also be found in the first 86 boxes of de Brême’s collection:

• specimens collected by Lessona (see Ghiliani’s note, Figure 11; partially transcribed, translated and adapted from Italian in Appendix G)
  

  Figure 11. Ghiliani’s note about some specimens collected by Lessona.
• specimens from Truqui’s collection
• specimens collected by De Filippi during his voyage on the vessel Magenta (1865–1868)
• specimens collected by Ghiliani, many of them during his voyage to Spain and Sardinia
• specimens coming from the explorations carried out during the second voyage of the Astrolabe (1837–1840)
• specimens coming from Duca degli Abruzzi’s Ruwenzori expedition (1906)
• several specimens coming from trades with, or donations by, 19th century naturalists (at the moment, it is not possible to establish with certainty which specimens have been added by MZUT collection curators and which were originally in De Brême’s, Gené’s or Peiroleri’s collections.

It is clear that the collection currently known as “de Brême” is thus a composite collection formed by Gené, Peiroleri, De Brême and Dejean’s specimens as well as collections and several later additions made by UT collection curators. Some specimens, e.g., the ones from Duca degli Abruzzi’s expedition, date more than 50 years after de Brême’s death, proving again the many alterations in structure and composition made to the original collection’s core.

3.4. Peiroleri’s and Dejean’s Platynus spp. Specimens

Peiroleri’s and Dejean’s associated P. erythrocephalus, P. peirolerii and P. depressus specimens, after having been looked for in the records of Peiroleri’s catalogue and “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”, have been sought out in de Brême’s collection, in the “Collezione generale storica MZUT” [“General Historical MZUT collection” [(that is because the historical period is compatible with Peiroleri’s collections) and in the “Collezione coleotterologica Spinola” [“Spinola’s coleopterological collection”] (that is because, as we know from Peiroleri’s notes in his catalogue, the two of them were correspondents).

Each specimen of P. erythrocephalus, P. peirolerii and P. depressus that was found has been labeled with a progressive number from 1 to 28 (for easier identification; see Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20) and is reported with data from their labels.

Figure 12. Specimens No. 1 and 2: P. erytrocephalus from Spinola’s collection.

Figure 13. Specimens No. 3, 4 and 5: P. peirolerii from Spinola’s collection.

Figure 14. Specimens No. 6: P. depressus from Spinola’s collection.

Figure 15. Specimens No. 7, 8, 9 e 10: P. erythrocephalus from de Brême’s collection.

Figure 16. Specimens No. 11, 12, 13 and 14: P. peirolerii from de Brême’s collection.

Figure 17. Specimens No. 15, 16 and 17: P. depressus from de Brême’s collection.

Figure 18. P. erythrocephalus in Peiroleri’s catalogue.

Figure 19. P. depressus in Peiroleri’s catalogue.

Figure 20. P. peirolerii in Peiroleri’s catalogue.

3.4.1. Spinola’s Coleopterological Collection

Every P. erythrocephalus, P. peirolerii and P. depressus specimen found in this collection (box No. 304) can be attributed to Peiroleri because the original labels display the writing “D. Peiroleri” made by Spinola himself. With it, Spinola used to specify the origin of the specimen (in this case, Peiroleri).

Specimens found:

• Platynus erythrocephalus Bassi (D. Peiroleri. Piedmont): 2 specimens (No. 1, 2; Figure 12)
• Platynus peirolerii Bassi (D. Peiroleri. Alps): 3 specimens (No. 3, 4, 5; Figure 13)
• Platynus depressus Bonelli (D. Peiroleri. Mount Tenda): 1 specimen (No. 6; Figure 14)

In Spinola’s coleopterological collection, the P. depressus specimen (No. 6) credits Bonelli as author, while according to the bibliography, the species’s author is Dejean (known fact at the time). It is likely that Spinola mistakenly reported the genus’s author instead of the species’ author.

A complete list of Peiroleri-associated specimens in Spinola’s coleopterological collection can be found in Table 6.

Table 6. Peiroleri-related specimens found in Spinola’s coleopterological collection. As seen before, Peiroleri never published any entomological descriptions or memoires, so his mentionings as author are to be considered “in litteris” or, as seen with species described by Bassi, homages to Peiroleri as the one who found the species. Where more than one origin is specified, “Spec. No.” indicates the total number of that species’ specimens in Spinola’s coleopterological collection and not only those potentially Peiroleri-related (further research will be needed to identify with a degree of certainty which ones are from Peiroleri’s collection and which ones are not).

Genus	Species	Author	Collection Site	Origin	Spec. No.	Box
Agabus	guttatus	Paykull	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	331
Agrilus	6-guttatus	“Histoire naturelle et iconographie des Insectes Coléoptères” Gory 1841 (?)	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	393
Amara	montana	Peiroleri not Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	12
Anchomenus	angusticollis	Dejean	Alps	Peiroleri	3	304
Anthaxia	caudens	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	397
Anthypna	abdominalis	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	68
Asida	jurinei	Solier	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	111
Athous	parallelus	Dejean presso (?) La Ferté	Alps	Peiroleri	2	386
Athous	subfuscus	Gyllenhaal	Piedmont; Galicia	Peiroleri; De Sacher	5	386
Athous	lateralis	Dahlbom	Styrie; Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	386
Bembidium	alpinum	Dejean	Alps	De Cristoforis; Peiroleri	2	326
Blaps	sibirica	Stentz	Styrie; Piedmont	Stentz.; Peiroleri	2	126
Bolboceras	mobilicornis major	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	90
Bolboceras	mobilicornis	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	90
Bruchus	imbricornis	Panzer	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	489
Carabus	intermedius	Peiroleri or Dejean	Piedmont Alps	Peiroleri	1	243
Carabus	depressus	Bonelli	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	247
Carabus	peiroleri	De Cristoforis et Jan	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	247
Carabus	spencei	De Cristoforis	Alps	Peiroleri	2	247
Carabus	bonellii rufis	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	2	247
Carabus	bonellii	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	2	247
Carabus	alyssidotus	Illiger	Alps	Peiroleri	2	250
Chryptocephalus	sex-punctatus	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	636
Chryptocephalus	connexus	Illiger	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	638
Chrysomela	violacea	Fabricius	Alps	Peiroleri	3	574
Chrysomela	fastuosa	n.d.	Cozie Alps	Peiroleri	2	574
Chrysomela	lucida	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	575
Cistela	fulvipes	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	481
Corymbites	pectinicornis	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	43
Cratonychus	tenebrosus	Erichson	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	382
Cryptohypnus	4-pustulatus	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	384
Cryptohypnus	minutissimus	Germar	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	384
Cryptohypnus	bimaculatus	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	384
Cymindis	coadunata	Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	295
Dermestes	holosericeus	Bonelli	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	447
Dermestes	roseiventris	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	448
Diacanthus	aeneus	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	1	44
Disopus	nigriventris	Marietti	Borgo di Santa Rosa (Taleggio) (?) 3	Peiroleri	2	640
Elmis	sub-violaceus	Nees von Esenbeck	Northern Italy	Peiroleri	6	450
Feronia	picimana	Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	308
Feronia	maura	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	308
Feronia	Sex-punctata	Peiroleri not Dejean	Alps	Peiroleri	3	308
Feronia	spinolae	Peiroleri not Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	308
Feronia	impressicollis	Peiroleri	Cozie Alps	Peiroleri	1	309
Feronia	impressicollis	n.d.	Cozie Alps	Peiroleri	2	309
Feronia	impressa	Peiroleri	Alps	Peiroleri	3	309
Feronia	bicolor	Peiroleri	Alps	n.d.	2	309
Feronia	yvanii	Dejean	Alps	Peiroleri	3	310
Feronia	bilineipunctata	Bonelli	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	310
Feronia	aurata	Peiroleri	Alps	Peiroleri	3	310
Feronia	yvanii	Dejean	Cozie Alps	Peiroleri	2	310
Feronia	cuprea	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	1	310
Feronia	nitida	Peiroleri	Alps	Peiroleri	2	311
Feronia	melanaria	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	2	312
Gastrophysa	raphani	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	578
Gonioctena	affinis	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	578
Harpalus	montanus	Peiroleri in litteris	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	319
Hydaticus	grammicus	Sturm	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	24
Laccophilus	interruptus	Putzeys	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	334
Limonius	sub-aeneus	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	388
Lina	collaris	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	575
Nebria	picea	Bonelli et Dejean	Alps; Grande Chartreuse de Grenoble (Saint- Pierre-de- Chartreuse, Grenoble?)	Solier; Peiroleri	4	328
Nebria	gyllenhalli	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	2	328
Nebria	castanea	Bonelli	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	328
Nebria	angusticollis	Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	328
Nebria	nigricornis	Peiroleri	Alps	Peiroleri	1	329
Nitidula	bipustulata	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	442
Omosita	discoidea	Erichson	Northern Italy	Peiroleri	1	442
Ophonus	columbinus	Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	317
Ophonus	meridionalis	Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	317
Oreina	luctuosa	Olivier or Dejean	Alps	Peiroleri	1	577
Oreina	senecionis major	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	577
Otiorhynchus	pinastri	Schönherr	Germany	Sturm; Peiroleri	4	520
Otiorhynchus	auricomus	Schönherr	Germany	Sturm; Peiroleri	2	522
Otiorhynchus	clavipes	Peiroleri or Schönherr	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	518
Otiorhynchus	griseopunctatus	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	519
Otiorhynchus	n. sp.	Jekel in litteris	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	521
Otiorhynchus	lepidopterus	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	521
Otiorhynchus	aurifer	Peiroleri not Schönherr	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	521
Otiorhynchus	helvetius	n.d.	Cozie Alps	Peiroleri	2	521
Otiorhynchus	funicularis	Schönherr	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	521
Otiorhynchus	non det.	Jekel in litteris	Alps	Peiroleri	3	521
Otiorhynchus	aerifer	Schupp	Alps; Germany	Peiroleri; Jekel	3	522
Oxypoda	melanaria 1	Peiroleri not Dejean	Finland	Collezione Dejean; Mannrheim	1	346
Oxyporus	maxillosus	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	366
Pachyta	4-maculata	Fabricius	Alps; Kazan	Peiroleri; Eversmann	1	213
Pachyta	clathrata	Fabricius	Graie Alps	Peiroleri	1	213
Peltis	oblonga	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	51
Phaleria	limbata	Dhl.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	468
Platynus	complanatus	Bonelli	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	304
Platynus	complanatus	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	304
Platynus	erythrocephalus	Bassi	Alps	Peiroleri	2	304
Platynus	peirolerii	Bassi	Alps	Peiroleri	3	304
Platynus	depressus	Bonelli	Tenda Alps	Peiroleri	1	304
Rhagium	maculatum	Gyllenhaal	Alps	Peiroleri	3	238
Rhynchites	praeustus 2	Peiroleri in litteris	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	491
Staphylinus	fossor	Gravenhorst et Erichson	Alps	Peiroleri	3	357
Stenopterus	flavicornis	Dejean	Piedmont	Peiroleri	3	240
Stenura	7-punctata	Fabricius	Piedmont	Peiroleri	1	213
Thylacites	fritillum minor	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	4	500
Timarca	metallica minor	n.d.	Piedmont	Peiroleri	2	572
Toxotus	meridianus	n.d.	Alps	Peiroleri	1	238

¹ Peiroleri described species originally from Dejean’s collection, providing further proof of contact between the two. ² This is the species through which Peiroleri’s authorship could be attributed to the catalogue. There are no specimens of it in the first 86 boxes of De Brême’s collection and those in Spinola’s coleopterological collection might be the only ones preserved in the MRSN and MZUT collections. ³ In Spinola’s coleopterological collection, this collection site is shortened as “S.a Rosa”. According to “Catalogo dei coleopteri della Lombardia” (1844, Villa A., Villa G. B.), Disopus nigriventris Marietti is a species from Lombardy, so it is possible that the abbreviation stands for “Borgo Santa Rosa” in the present day municipality of Taleggio (BG); Marietti, who described the species, was from lombardy too. There are no other specimens from this collection site in Spinola’s Coleopterological Collection.

3.4.2. De Brême’s Collection

P. erythrocephalus, P. peirolerii and P. depressus specimens in de Brême’s collection can be found in the box “Carabiques 86–86 bis”.

Specimens found:

• Platynus erythrocephalus Bassi (Piedmont): 4 specimens (No. 7, 8, 9, 10; Figure 15)
• Platynus peirolerii Bassi (Piedmont): 4 specimens (No. 11, 12, 13, 14; Figure 16)
• Platynus depressus Lassere (Switzerland): 3 specimens (No. 15, 16, 17; Figure 17)

All three species can be found both in Peiroleri’s catalogue (Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20) and “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” (Figure 21).

Figure 21. P. erythrocephalus, P. depressus and P. peirolerii in the “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877”.

P. peirolerii and P. erythrocephalus specimens in de Brême’s collection do not seem mounted “in the ancient way, with legs horizontally stretched” as Peiroleri’s specimens should be (as pointed out by Ghiliani in his notes); this detail suggests that these specimens are not from Peiroleri’s collection. Furthermore, P. peirolerii and P. erythrocephalus’ records in Peiroleri’s catalogue do not show Ghiliani’s note about their relocation to De Brême’s collection. Likewise, P. depressus is not among the supposedly relocated species, but specimen No. 15 has its legs spread in such a way that it may be compatible with Peiroleri’s collection specimens. This male specimen had its genitalia extracted and mounted on a label, which shows the writing “Casale”; this specimen was dissected by Achille Casale in 1978 during his studies on the genus Platynus (Achille Casale, personal communication, 2022).

3.4.3. General Historical MZUT Collection

P. erythrocephalus, P. peirolerii, and P. depressus specimens in the General Historical MZUT collection can be found in box No. 73.

Specimens found:

• Platynus erythrocephalus Bassi (Piedmont): 5 specimens (No. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Figure 22)
• Platynus peirolerii Bassi: 4 specimens (No. 23, 24, 25, 26; Figure 23)
• Platynus depressus Lassere: 2 specimens (No. 27, 28; Figure 24)

Figure 22. Specimens No. 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22: P. erythrocephalus from the General Historical MZUT collection.

Figure 23. Specimens No. 23, 24, 25, and 26: P. peirolerii from the General Historical MZUT collection.

Figure 24. Specimens No. 27 and 28: P. depressus from the General Historical MZUT collection.

Some P. peirolerii, P. erythrocephalus, and P. depressus specimens found in the General Historical MZUT collection appear to be mounted in a way compatible with what is written by Ghiliani about Peiroleri’s specimens, particularly specimens No. 20 and 22 (P. erythrocephalus), specimen No. 23 (P. peirolerii), and specimen No. 28 (P. depressus). As written above, these species are recorded in Peiroleri’s catalogue, a detail that makes it possible for these specimens to originate from Peiroleri’s collection. It is therefore possible that the General Historical MZUT collection contains some duplicate, storage and/or less beautiful specimens that were merged from Peiroleri’s collection (those specimens that were not selected by Ghiliani to be merged with de Brême’s collection). This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that we can find many other specimens with legs in a horizontal position, belonging to various genera and species, in the same box as the Platynus one and in other Coleoptera boxes from the same collection. Moreover, the presence of specimens of the same species in both the General Historical MZUT collection and in De Brême’s collection strengthens the hypothesis that at least some specimens of the former may come from UT duplicate and storage specimens (and thus, might be originally from Peiroleri’s collection). Because of this, we might need to reconsider what is currently known as the General Historical MZUT collection. The presence of Peiroleri-compatible specimens and De Brême-duplicate species in this collection might suggest that its Coleoptera core was built starting from duplicate and storage specimens; though further investigations will be necessary to confirm or refute this, one can speculate that specimens from other Orders were then added to this core, or that Coleoptera duplicates were merged in the General Historical MZUT collection, resulting in its present-day structure and composition.

3.5. Type Specimen Identification

In order to completely clarify the situation of P. erythrocephalus, P. peirolerii and P. depressus potential type specimens, one needs to compare data found in the original species description with those found in Peiroleri’s catalogue. Bassi, in “Annales de la Société Entomologique de France” [3] (p. 469), describes P. erythrocephalus as P. erythrocephalus Peiroleri, adding: “J’ai reçu cette espèce de M. Peiroleri, de Turin, sous le nom que je lui ai conservé. Il la prend constamment au mont Viso, en Piémont, près des sources du Pô.” [“I received this species from Mr. Peiroleri from Turin, under whose name I preserved for him. I collect it frequently in Monviso, in Piedmont, near the Po’s source.”]. Peiroleri’s catalogue records this species as Platynus erytrocephalus mihi et Bassi n. sp.; in his notes we can read: “Je l’ai pris sur les alpes aux environs du Mont-Viso en été. Il y est assez rare” (“I collected it in the Alps near Monviso in summer. It is quite rare”) (Figure 21). There are thus no discrepancies between Bassi’s description and what is written by Peiroleri, he who first collected the species but did not describe it.

In “Annales de la Société Entomologique de France” [3] (p. 470), Bassi also describes P. peirolerii as P. peirolerii Gené and writes “Je tien cette espéce aussi de M. Peiroleri, auquel elle avait été dédiée par M. Gené. Il m’assure qu’elle affecte les mêmes localités que la précédente [P. erythrocephalus in Monviso], et qu’il a constamment observé les mêmes caractères dans plusieurs individus, dont la couleur ne dépend nullement del’àge.” [“I received this species too from Mr. Peiroleri, to whom it was dedicated by Mr. Gené. He confirms to me that it can be found in the same collection site as the former [P. erythrocephalus in Monviso] and that he always observed the same characters in many individuals, in which colours are not at all age-related.”]. Peiroleri records this species as Platynus peirolerii Gené et Bassi n. sp.; in his catalogue he wrote “J’ai trouvè cette belle espèce a coté des neiges sul les hautes alpes de Vaudier en juillet” [“I found this beautiful species at the edge of a snowfield in Valdieri high Alps in June”] (Figure 23). Bassi’s reported collection site and Peiroleri’s collection site do not match; it is likely that Bassi made a mistake in its description or that Peiroleri mistakenly communicated the wrong collection site to Bassi. P. erytrocephalus and P. peirolerii specimens in Spinola’s coleopterological collection (No. 1, 2 and No. 3, 4, 5), according to their origin and to the collection site reported on their labels (both Monviso and Valdieri are located in Piedmont), are specimens from Peiroleri’s collection and thus might be part of the type series for this taxon (some of which must have donated to Bassi and Genè).

Specimen No. 17 (P. depressus) in de Brême’s collection comes from Dejean’s collection, as pointed out on its label. In “Catalogo Coleotteri 1877” and on the specimen’s label, the species’ author is Lassere, even if this species, according to the bibliography, was described by Dejean. In Peiroleri’s catalogue, this species appears as P. depressus Lassere and Dejean and in Peiroleri’s notes we can read that “On la trouve quoique peu fréquemment sur les montagnes de la Suisse en été” [“It can be infrequently found in the Swiss mountains in summer”]. The author discrepancy can be explained by analyzing P. depressus Dejean’s description in “Species général des coléoptères de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean” [4] (p. 718): “Il se trouve en Suisse, et il m’a été donné per M. Lasserre, sous le nom que je lui ai conservé.” [“It can be found in Switzerland and it has been given to me by Mr. Lassere, under whose name I preserved it for him”]. Specimen No. 17, considering its collection site and its origin, is most likely a cotypus specimen or at least a specimen from Dejean’s type specimen series for this taxon.

4. Discussion

This paper highlights the importance of historical and documentary research and of the study of collections preserved in natural history museums, not only from a purely entomological perspective. The case of Peiroleri’s collection is an example of how reputedly (partially or completely) lost collections might have (partially or completely) survived inside other collections. The collection in question has been merged with de Brême’s collection, as pointed out by Ghiliani, but Peiroleri-related specimens can be identified thanks to documentary information and research.

In addition, the discovery of potentially Peiroleri-related specimens in the General Historical MZUT collection allows us to speculate about the fact that the coleopterological section of this collection might have been built starting from storage specimens and duplicate specimens, and that some of them might come from Peiroleri’s collection.

In regards to Peiroleri’s specimens found in Spinola’s coleopterological collection, they most likely come from trades between Peiroleri and Spinola while the former was still alive. These specimens, generally speaking, might work as “proxies” for those species that cannot be found in de Brême’s collection or, possibly, in the General Historical MZUT collection. This technique might be applied to other collections (not limited to entomological ones), searching and identifying same-species, same-collection site, and same-origin specimens outside of the original collections (e.g., in the original collector correspondents’ collections, like in the case of Peiroleri and Spinola).

Historical biodiversity memory is a fundamental asset for the study and comprehension of present-day biodiversity. If we lack knowledge about past taxa existence and distributions, we cannot determine how and which taxa are being, have been or might be impacted by human activities. It is therefore imperative that museums’ historical collections are thoroughly investigated, studied, preserved and, if possible, “rebuilt” in their purity.