Updated 02.03.2021 #1 Archandra caspia was recorded (as Parndra) for Turkmenia (Kopet-Dag) and for Transcaspean Iran (Gorgan) - (Araujo-Arigony, 1977) on the base of Lameere (1902): "habite a Transcaucasie, le nord de la Perse et la Turcomanie." The records were regarded by A.Semenov (1902) as wrong. Archandra Lameere, 1912 was regarded as a genus by A.Santo-Silva (2001). #2 According to Svacha (1987), Callipogon and Ergates belong to different tribes. #3 Ergates faber was recorded for Central Russia (two districts of Mordovia: Ichalki and Bolshie Berezniaki) by Z.A. Timraleev (2007). According to personal communication by M.Rejzek (15.10.2004): “Ergates faber was really described in 1761 and published in Fauna Svecia [in fact 1760](not in Systema Naturae, ed. 12, as written by many authors such as Aurivillius in Catalogus coleopterorum, Plavilstshikov (1936) or Villiers (1978). If you have a look at Systema Naturae ed. 12: 622, you will see that Linnaeus himself refers to “Fn. Svec.”. Bily & Mehl (Fauna Scandinavica) already wrote 1761.” Ergates faber m. hartigi Demelt, 1963 and E.f. ssp. alkani Demelt, 1968 were regarded by Villiers (1978) as aberrations of females. #4 Prinobius is a separate genus, according to Villiers (1978). According to Vives (2000), Macrotoma Serv.,1832-June is a junitor homonym of Macrotoma Laporte,1832-April (Diptera) and a new name was proposed: Prinobiini Vives, 2000. Macrotoma Serv.,1832 was maintained by D.Heffern et al., 2006, so Prinobiini is superfluous. According to Sama (1994): Prinobius myardi Muls., 1842 = Prionus scutellaris Germ., 1817 nec Olivier, 1795 (Pyrodes). According to Vives (2000), Macrotoma germari Dejean, 1835 is a valid name, but according to G.Sama (2002) – nomen nudum. Prinobius scutellaris proksi Slama, 1982 was described from Crete. According to the investigation of several hundreds of specimens by Sláma & Slámová (1996) with special attention to the “very different form of genitals” 5 subspecies must be delimited inside Prinobius myardi: first “from “Italy and Balkan”, “the second subspecies from France and Spain”, “the third subspecies from south-east Turkey, Syria and Israel”, “the fourth subspecies from Algeria and the fifth subspecies from Crete”. All five are now accepted with corresponding names. Sláma & Slámová (1996) used for the first subspecies the name “Macrotoma s. scutellaris (Germar)”, which is a junior homonym. Prinobius myardi slamorum Danilevsky, 2012f was proposed as a replacement name. Such a system did not include poorly investigated populations from Bulgaria, European Turkey, Crimea, Georgia, most part of Anatolia (from Agean seaboard to Artvin) and Iran. All of them are preliminary joined to Balkanian subspecies P. m. slamorum Danilevsky, 2012f. G.Sama (2002) does not accept any subspecies in Prinobius myardi, but recently Prinobus myardi myardi was recorded for Italy (Sama & Rapuzzi, 2011) and Sardinia (Sama, 2011). Prinobius myardi was recorded [as Macrotoma scutellaris] for Georgia (Bolnisi – about 40km southwards Tbilisi) by Khavtasi (1973). #5 There are a lot of confusion with the original description of Callypogon (Eoxenus) relictus Semenov, 1899 in publications of different authors. A. Lameere (1913) and N.N. Plavilstshikov (1936) mentioned the date of the publication as 1898, but according to I.M. Kerzhner (1984), the numbers 3-4 of the volume 32 were published in 1899. The wrong date was repeated by J.L. Gressitt (1951), A.I.Tsherepanov (1979), A.L. Lobanov et al. (1981), Red Data Book of Russia (Nikitsky, 1983), Red Data Book of USSR (Lopatin, 1984), Kusama and Takakuwa, 1984 and others. The right date of the original description (1899) was mentioned by S.-M. Lee (1982). Besides, a lot of foreign authors (Gressitt, 1951; Kusama and Takakuwa, 1984; Lee, 1982; Ohbayashi et al., 1992 and others) wrongly believed without any reasons that the species was originally described in the genus Eoxenus. N.B. Nikitsky (1983) seems to be the first, who publisherd the occurrence of the species in Amur region (eastwards Raichikhinsk) and in Jewish autonomous region of Russia. #6 Aegosoma sinicum was recorded for Far East Russia by Lobanov et al. (1981) and then by G.O. Krivolutzkaya and A.L. Lobanov (Tsherepanov, 1996) without any comments. According to personal message (2006) by G.Lafer, male and female of A. sinicum were collected in south Primorie in Siniy Ridge (southwards Spassk): male – Chernigovka distr., Merkushevka, 19. VII 2006, S.N.Ivanov leg., female – Spassk distr., Kalinovka, 20. VII 2006, S.N.Ivanov leg. There is one old specimen in the collection of Vladivostok Biology-Soil Institute collected in Sakhalin Is. (former it was in the collection of Saghalien Centr. Exp. Sta.) 4 males and 1 female of Aegosoma sinicum were collected in Siniy Ridge (Nakhimovka eastwards Spassk-Dalniy, 12.7.2010) by V.Vasilenko. A. ivanovi Danilevsky, 2011e was described from two localities in Siniy Ridge (South Ussuri) on the base of 26 males and 14 females. The new species differs from A.sinicum by the absence of orange pronotal spots, narrow tarsi, another antennal and elytral sculpture. Several females of A. ivanovi (now in collection of V.Vasilenko) were collected near Anuchino (28.07.2011 S.Didenko leg.). A photo of 5 males and 3 females of A. ivanovi from Bastak (about 15 km NW Birobidzhan) was sent to me by S.N. Ivanov. According to Hayashi (1979): Russian parts of the areas of Distenia gracilis and Megopis sinica must be occupied by nominative subspecies. M. sinica widely distributed in Korea (Lee, 1982). Asemum punctulatum is represented in Mongolia (that is rather doubtful) and in Central Asia (that must be a mistake). #7 The area of Mesoprionus angustatus described by Plavilstshikov (1936) is not exact. I.Kostin (1973) recorded the species from several new localities in Kazakhstan: Karatau Ridge, Chu district, southwards Balkhash Lake (I’ve also got specimens from near Bakanas). But the species penetrates far in the North Kazakhstan: “Turgai-River Valley, Akchiganak, 26.6.1987, S.Ovtchinnikov leg.” – 1 male in my collection. The species was discovered in Vakhsh River Valley in Tadzhikistan: “Tigrovaia Balka, 20.5.1987, A.Kompantzev leg.” – 2 females in my collection; “25km S Kurgan-Tuibe, Tabakchi Ridge, 6.2002, V.Shablia leg.”- 1 male in A.Petrov collection (Moscow). According to D.Milko (personal message, 2009) the base for the record of Mesoprionus angustatus (as Prionus) for Kirgizia (Ovtchinnikov, 1996) was a male from sandy landscape in the area of Kayrakkum water reserve (western part of Fergana Valley), so the record must be accepted as reliable (“Fergana”was mentioned in the original description). It was recorded for Iran by A.Villiers (1967b). #8 In the remark to the original description of Prionus serricollis the author asked to read the name as serraticollis. According to Miroshnikov (1998) Rhesus was described by J.Thomson 1860 (nec N.Lesson, 1840) and then replaced to Rhaesus Motschulsky, 1875 (without special remark of replacement). Rhaesus Motschulsky, 1875 was introduced for Rh. persicus , which is a synonym of serricollis. #9 The generic differences between Megopis and Aegosoma is generally accepted (Villiers, 1978; Sama, 1988). So subgenus Spinimegopis belongs to Aegosoma. #10 The tribal name Tragosomatini was changed for the oldest Meroscelisini by Monne et Giesbert (1993) - Meroscelisitae J.Thomson, 1860, then it was used by Vives (2000). #11 Bily et Mehl (1989) recorded Tragosoma depsarium for Caucasus and Amur Valley after Horion (1974: 5-6) and Samoilov (1936). The quality of the map in Horion’s publication does not allow to interprate his data as definite enough. T. depsarium was recorded for Chuvashia and Tatarstan (Isaev et al., 2004). #12 According to the original publication: Prionus paradoxus Fald.,1833 [not Fald.,1832, as in Lobanov et al. (1981)]. One male from Amur region of Russia is preserved in my collection ("Blagoveshchensk, 12.8.1912"). Dead male was found by O.N. Kabakov (personal communication) inside wood in Ussuri river valley near Khabarovsk (Lobanov et al., 1981). The record for South Primorje by G.O. Krivolutzkaya and A.L. Lobanov (Tsherepanov, 1996) was just a wrong interpretation of Kabakov’s information. The record of the species for Korea (Krivolutzkaya & Lobanov in: Tsherepanov, 1996: 70) was published without any comments (repeated by Löbl & Smetana, 2010). The record of Pachyta quadrimaculata for Korea by G.O. Krivolutzkaya and A.L. Lobanov (Tsherepanov, 1996) was just a mistake. #13 Prionus insularis was described from Japan (Honshu). According to Z.Komiya and A.Drumont (2004), the nominative subspecies absent in the continent. P. insularis tetanicus is distributed in Ussuri Region of Russia, Korea and NE China, as well as in Tsushima Is. Prionus tetanicus Pasc., 1867 was described from “Chosan (Japanese Sea)”. It was wrongly interpreted (Lameere, 1912; Gressitt, 1951) as Chusan Isls. of Zhejiang, South China. But in fact (Komiya and Drumont, 2004) it was old (19th century) English name for Korea. According to N. Ohbayashi et al. (2005), there are no morphological differences between continent and islands populations of P. insularis, so: P. insularis = P. tetanicus. P. yakushimanus Ohbayashi, 1964 (Yakushima Is. and Tanegashima Is.) was regarded as a synonym of P.insularis by Kusama and Takakuwa (1984), but also as its subspecies (Ohbayashi et al., 1992; Komiya,Drumont, 2004). In Yakushima Is. the hybrid specimens with P. sejunctus were registrated, such hybrids are not known with the nominative P.insularis. In South and Central China P. delavayi Fairmaire, 1887 is distributed. Prionus insularis was recorded for Gornaia Shoria (Altai) by Novikov and Petuninkin (1987). The record was based on two females without labels from children’s collection, so needs confirmation. #14 Mesoprionus (as Prionus) asiaticus was recorded for China Mongolia by Gressitt (1951) on the base of the description of Prionus henkei Schaufuss, 1879 (= asiaticus). According to Jakovlev (1887) P.