WoRMS source details
Eulepis challengeriae McIntosh, 1885 accepted as Proeulepethus challengeriae (McIntosh, 1885) (status source)
Eulepis fimbriata Treadwell, 1901 accepted as Grubeulepis fimbriata (Treadwell, 1901) (source of synonymy)
Eulepis hamifera Grube, 1875 accepted as Eulepethus hamifer (Grube, 1875) (status source)
Eulepis weberi Horst, 1922 accepted as Mexieulepis weberi (Horst, 1922) (source of synonymy)
Grubeulepis Pettibone, 1969 (original description)
Grubeulepis augeneri Pettibone, 1969 (original description)
Grubeulepis ecuadorensis Pettibone, 1969 (original description)
Grubeulepis sulcatisetis (Jones, 1962) (new combination reference)
Grubeulepis tebblei Pettibone, 1969 (original description)
Mexieulepis Rioja, 1962 (redescription)
Mexieulepis elongatus Rioja, 1962 accepted as Mexieulepis weberi (Horst, 1922) (source of synonymy)
Mexieulepis weberi (Horst, 1922) (new combination reference)
Pareulepidae Hartman, 1939 accepted as Eulepethidae Chamberlin, 1919 (status source)
Pareulepis Darboux, 1900 (taxonomy source)
Pareulepis fimbriata (Treadwell, 1901) accepted as Grubeulepis fimbriata (Treadwell, 1901) (status source)
Pareulepis geayi (Fauvel, 1918) accepted as Grubeulepis geayi (Fauvel, 1918) (source of synonymy)
Pareulepis hamifera (Grube, 1875) accepted as Eulepethus hamifer (Grube, 1875) (status source)
Pareulepis sulcatisetis Jones, 1962 accepted as Grubeulepis sulcatisetis (Jones, 1962) (source of synonymy)
Body short, segments about 37. Elytra 12 pairs, on segments 2, 4, 5, 7, alternate segments to 21, 24; elytra with ... [details]
Pettibone doesn't appear to state an etymology for Grubeulepis, perhaps regarding it as self-obvious (although ... [details]
feminine gender genus. Pettibone states this. [details]
Mexieulepis appears to have been treated (incorrectly) as masculine by its creator, Enrique Rioja, as the type ... [details]
If used as valid 'elongatus' should be M. elongata for gender agreement. Mexieulepis must be feminine. [details]
This is the gender correct spelling. Rioja used the spelling 'elongatus', but that is an incorrect original ... [details]
Indeterminable because of the lack of the posterior end and the poor condition of the specimen (fide Pettibone, 1969) [details]