Adelopsis ascutellaris, (Murray, 1856: 460)

A. ascutellaris ( Murray, 1856: 460) View in CoL

( Catops); Portevin, 1921: 536 comb. (to Ptomaphagus View in CoL ); Jeannel, 1936: 65 comb. (not stated as taxonomic change); Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 (“ holotype ” seen) [see note 3]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Gnaspini & Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group), 2019: 10 (types seen; lectotype designation; assignment to subgroup).

Lectotype male in BMNH [No information about types in original description [ Portevin, 1921: 535 refers to “cotypes”]; Syntypes ( 1 male, 1 female) in BMNH [in Gnaspini, 1996: 541—see Notes 1 – 4; label reads “Mon. Cati // Caracas” ( Gnaspini & Peck, 2019)]].

Type locality: Caracas, [ Distrito Capital, Venezuela].

Distribution: Venezuela: Distrito Capital: known only from type locality. Note: Hatch, 1928: 168 also gives Colombia, in error(?).

Note 1: Murray, 1856: 461 explained that he received the species from Deyrolle “under the manuscript name of aequinoctialis ”, but decided to use a different name. Therefore, this is not a case of synonym, as it seems to be in Hatch, 1928: 168 and Jeannel, 1936: 65 (“ aequinoctialis Deyrolle (in litt.)”).

Note 2: Jeannel, 1936: 65 does not give reference to type depository, but mentions he examined five specimens from MNHN, from the same locality, referring to them as “probable cotypes” (one of them with label “ aequinoctialis Deyr.”—see Notes 1 and 3) (two of them, males, available for study for Gnaspini, 1996)—see Note 4]. Therefore, this might actually have been a syntype examined by Murray.

Note 3: Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 stated that Jeannel did not know the type of this species and based his description on five specimens, probably cotypes, from MNHN; and he (Szymczakowski) could analyze a male specimen labeled “ Catops ascutellaris Murray ( Type) ”, but did not mention depository. He also stated that that type is identical to the specimens in MNHN, so he corroborated Jeannel (1936) interpretation (but see note 4).

Note 4: Some MNHN specimens (identified by Portevin [1902]) belong to different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540). One male refers to A. portevini ( Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 11, 18). See also Note under Parapaulipalpina filicornis .

Note 5: The records in Jeannel, 1922 seem to be a misidentification of ‘ Adelopsis filicornis Jeannel’ [1936] ( Jeannel, 1936: 66) [species presently in the genus Parapaulipalpina ]. See also Note under Parapaulipalpina filicornis .

Note 6: The record in Salgado, 2005d: 968 ( Venezuela: Bolívar State) from MHNG, based on females, was compared to types and considered a misidentification in Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 11.