I made a single edit above: @vitalfranz gave the year 2015 for the Scataglini-Lanteri-Confalonieri paper, but it should have been 2005. This is really important since several more relevant taxonomic/phylogenetic works on Naupactus and "Pantomorus" have been published after 2005, but not necessarily after 2015.
 
The statement above:
   ►"Pantomorus and Neopactus are paraphyletic taxa."
is an overly simplistic representation of a major problem, and the statement is not necessarily true after/since the cited 2005 paper.
 
This taxon change is going against professional consensus among weevil workers with whom I collaborate. It also is a reversal of an earlier taxon change (which was, in my opinion, correct). See here:
►https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=318474.
 
I believe this new taxon change is the wrong way around, again. I may add that there is worldwide standardisation on Naupactus instead of Pantomorus:
      • Southern Africa: Prinsloo & Uys (2015)
      • Australia: Pullen, Jennings & Oberprieler (2014).
      • Palaearctic: Alonso-Zarazaga, Barrios, Borovec et al. (2017).
      • Nearctic: apparently, as reflected by http://bugguide.net/node/view/109997 and https://bugguide.net/node/view/30841#synonyms.
 
 
More about this taxon change anon. I want to consult the ultimate Naupactini expert, Dr Analía Lanteri of La Plata.

As always, all citations and most literature are available upon request.
 
 
 
@loarie (your previous swap reversed here)
@tonyrebelo
@borisb

 
Yes, I think Pantomorus needs to disappear. But as far as I know, the synonymy has not [yet] been formally published, which is the reason why I want to write to Analía.

(Also note that https://bugguide.net/node/view/30841#synonyms is based on a personal communication from Charlie O'Brien, and not on a publication.)

Thanks for understanding, @vitalfranz.