Allantus sabariensis Mocsáry, 1880,

Taeger, Andreas, 2013, The type specimens of Tenthredo Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) deposited in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Zootaxa 3626 (2), pp. 201-244: 228

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3626.2.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:48930777-6ACC-4AFD-996D-117F9E8D4CEF

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/015F3A43-6E15-3F66-FF21-5ABDFB85573B

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Allantus sabariensis Mocsáry, 1880
status

 

Allantus sabariensis Mocsáry, 1880 

A valid species, Tenthredo (Elinora) sabariensis (Mocsáry, 1880)  .

TYPES. Allantus Sabariensis  [sic!] Mocsáry, 1880: 269–270. Syntype (s) Ƥ 3, “Ad Sabariam, urbem vetustam Pannoniae superioris (Hungariae occidentalis)”. Lectotype Ƥ, hereby designated ( Fig. 33View FIGURE 33). Type locality: “Szombath.” [= Hungaria: Szombathely].

= Allantus sabariensis  forma moravica Gregor in Gregor & Baľa, 1941: 198–199.

DISCUSSION. Apart from the lectotype ( Fig. 33View FIGURE 33), a fragment of a second specimen of the type series (a male?) was found with a similar label “Szombath. jun. 19. ”. This specimen is labelled as a paralectotype. Gregor in Gregor & Baľa (1941) described the forma moravica [type material not checked] based on characters which are typical for sabariensis  (“Scutello et postscutello nigro, segmentis 3–5 etiam in ventrali parte flavorubris”). Furthermore, a specimen labelled by Ermolenko as “ Elinora sabariensis (Mocs.)  forma nigroscutellata nova desc. V. Ermolenko 1976 ” was found in the HNHM collection. This name is not available because descriptions of “forms” after 1961 do not fulfill the requirements of the ICZN. Furthermore, no published description is known (Taeger et al. 2010). The specimen perfectly matches the lectotype of sabariensis  . Specimens in the HNHM collection with a yellow scutellum labelled by Ermolenko as sabariensis  seem to belong to a different species. Enslin (1912 a) noted erroneously in his widely used key that this species has a yellow scutellum. This may have led Gregor and Ermolenko to assume that sabariensis  has a yellow scutellum. Enslin seems simply to have made a lapse in his 1912 description, because he described sabariensis  correctly in 1910.