Eurynodes cristatus ( Théry, 1934 )

Eurynodes cristatus ( Théry, 1934) View in CoL stat. rest.

( Figure 1 View FIGURE 1 )

Cylindromorphoides ( Eurynodes) cristata Théry, 1934: 5 ; Bellamy, 2003: 94 ( type species of Eurynodes View in CoL ). Cylindromorphoides ( Eurynodes) coelestis ssp. cristata : Théry, 1936: 471; Obenberger, 1937: 1277; Blackwelder, 1944b: 335. Eurynodes cristatus View in CoL (syn. of coelestis ): Bellamy, 2008: 2463; Migliore et al., 2020: 19.

Lectotype: Cylindromorphoides ( Eurynodes) cristatus View in CoL : lectotype by present designation ( 1 ♀, SMTD: Figs. 1A–E View FIGURE 1 ; original labeling: Fig. 1F View FIGURE 1 ); paralectotype ( 1 ♀?, MNHN, see Migliore et al., 2020): Petropolis; Dr. Ohaus [p] // 24; 1906 [p]// Cylindromorphoides View in CoL ; Eurynodes View in CoL ; cristata [h]; TYPE [p] Thery [h] // Exemplaire; dessiné [p] // HOLOTYPE [sic!] [p] // HOLOTYPE [sic!]; Eurynodes View in CoL ; cristata ( Théry, 1934) [p] // MNHN; EC9091.

Type locality: “Petropolis, Brésil “ [Pétropolis, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil].

Théry (1934) described the species cristatus within the concurrently described subgenus Eurynodes belonging to the genus Cylindromorphoides . Two years later Théry (1936) commented on the possibility that E. cristatus could be just a subspecies of E. coelestis or the male of it, but he did not synonymize E. cristatus with E. coelestis . Subsequent authors, e.g., Obenberger (1937) and Blackwelder (1944b), considered E. cristatus as a subspecies of E. coelestis . Without any explanation and nomenclatural qualifier, such as “syn. nov.”, E. cristatus was listed by Bellamy (2008) and Migliore et al. (2020) as a junior subjective synonym of E. coelestis .

Beside the known syntype stored in the collection of MNHN and stated to be the “ holotype ” by Migliore et al. (2020), a second syntype is present in the collection of SMTD ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ). This second syntype represents what Théry considered the primary name-bearing type of Eurynodes cristatus as mentioned in the original description where Théry indicates that one paratype is deposited in his collection ( Théry, 1934). The inference of holotype for the MNHN specimen by Migliore et al. (2020) cannot be considered a valid lectotype designation as it occurred after the year 2000 ( ICZN 1999: Article 74.6, 74.7). Therefore, I choose the syntype stored in SMTD as the lectotype by present designation. The second syntype deposited in MNHN automatically becomes a paralectotype ( ICZN 1999: Article 74.1.3).

Significant morphological differences between the syntypes of E. cristatus and the holotype of E. coelestis , such as the different form of the posthumeral carina and differences in the ovipositor indicate that they are distinct species. Therefore, I propose that E. cristatus is a valid species and it is herein removed from synonymy with E. coelestis .