A. nigripennis Reitter, 1884: 109

(in footnote of key); Hatch, 1929b: 57; Wheeler, 1979a: 303 (as incertae sedis). No information about types in original description [or in Wheeler, 1979a].

Holotype (sex not given) in NHMW(?) [doubtful as in Peck et al., 1998a: 53].

Type locality: Mendoza, [assumed Argentina (by Blackwelder, 1944: 84, but Hatch, 1929b: 57 did not mention a country as he usually did and simply stated “ Mendoza ”), but maybe Panama, in Wheeler, 1979a, who comments the latter placement “would be more harmonious with other species distributions”].

Note 1: Doubtful generic placement and doubtful locality (Wheeler, 1979a: 303).

Note 2: The original description was made in a footnote as “*) Dieser Art steht ausserordentlich nahe: A. nigripennis n. sp., …”, just after the genus Amphicyllis, which came after the key for Anisotoma, which started in previous page. No “*” (as a reference to a foot note) appears on these pages. Hatch, 1929b: 57 lists in full “ Anisotoma nigripennis ” (“assuming” this genus and not the other), maybe based on a previous publication not known to us.