Frigitilla simulatrix ( F. Smith, 1879 ) F. Smith, 1879

Cambra, Roberto A., Brothers, Denis J. & Quintero, Diomedes, 2016, Review of Frigitilla Williams in Bartholomay et al., 2015, with description of a new species from Panama (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae), Zootaxa 4189 (2), pp. 395-400 : 396-397

Frigitilla simulatrix ( F. Smith, 1879) , comb. nov.

( Figs 1–5 , 14 )

Mutilla simulatrix F. Smith, 1879: 213 . Syntypes, 2 ♀, Brazil, Amazonas, Ega (currently Tefé) (BMNH). Examined by RACT (1990) and DJB (1981).

Mutilla frigidula Cresson, 1902: 40 . Holotype, ♀, Brazil, Pará, Santarem (CMNH). Examined by DQA (1996). New synonymy.

Traumatomutilla simulatrix: Quintero & Cambra 1996: 357 .

Tobantilla frigidula: Williams et al. 2011: 55 .

Frigitilla frigidula: Bartholomay et al. 2015: 52 .

Material examined. Type material. Mutilla simulatrix : lectotype (designated here), ♀, “Type” [typeset circular white label with red border], “Ega // 70 / 16” [handwritten blue circular label], “ Mutilla / simulator [sic] / (Type) Sm ” [handwritten white rectangular label], “B.M. TYPE / HYM. / 15.987.” [typeset and handwritten white rectangular label], “[QR code] / NHMUK010209590” [typeset white rectangular label], “LECTOTYPE / Mutilla simulatrix / Smith, 1879 ♀ / Cambra, Brothers & / Quintero 2016” [typeset red rectangular label] (BMNH); paralectotype, ♀, “Ega // 58 / 6” [handwritten blue circular label], “COMPARED / WITH TYPE / Traumatomutilla / simulatrix / ♀ (Smith) / Mickel / 1931” [typeset and handwritten orange rectangular label], “COMPARED / WITH TYPE / Traumatomutilla / frigidula / ♀ (Cresson) / Mickel / 1931” [typeset and handwritten yellow rectangular label], “[QR code] / NHMUK010209589” [typeset white rectangular label], “PARALECTOTYPE / Mutilla simulatrix / Smith, 1879 ♀ / Cambra, Brothers & / Quintero 2016” [typeset yellow rectangular label] (BMNH). Mutilla frigidula : holotype, ♀, “Santarem”, “TYPE / Cress”, “M. / frigidula / ♀ Cress” [all handwritten labels]. Other material. PERU: Madre de Dios, Reserva Manu, Estación Pakitza , 1–2.vii.1993, R. Cambra, 1♀ ( MIUP) . BRAZIL: Acre: Senador Guiomard, 10°04'S, 67°36'W, Reserva Catuaba , 5.iii.2002, E. F. Morato, 1♀ ( MIUP) ; same data but: 17.ix.2002, 1♀ ( MIUP), 26.xi.2002, 1♂ ( MIUP) ; Rio Branco , 7.iii.1997, E. F. Morato, 1♀ ( MIUP) ; same data but: 6.xii.1995, 1♂ ( MIUP), 5.i.1996, 1♂ ( MIUP), 8.xi.1996, 1♀ ( MIUP) ; Rio Branco , Bosque Universidad Federal do Acre, 17.ii.1994, D. Quintero, 1♀ ( DJBC) ; Rio Branco, Parque Zoobotanico , 9°15'S, 67°00'W, 2–9.ix.1998 (Malaise), Silva, Selhorst, Reis, 1♂ ( MIUP) ; Amazonas, Lago Amanã , Nov. 1980, R. Best, 1♀ ( MIUP) .

Distribution. Peru ( Quintero & Cambra 1996, Rasmussen & Asenjo 2009), Brazil and Bolivia ( Williams et al. 2011, Bartholomay et al. 2015).

Comments. Smith (1879) gave a size range in his description of M. simulatrix , indicating that he had more than one specimen, but he did not specify a holotype. There are two conspecific and almost identical specimens in the collections of BMNH, both labelled on circular blue labels as from “Ega”; one ( Figs 1–4 ) bears a handwritten label (probably by Smith) indicating it as the “type” of “ Mutilla simulator ” [sic], but the other has no contemporaneous determination label. (The different spelling of the specific name is not unprecedented. For example, the holotype of Mutilla stimulatrix Smith, 1879: 192 , from South Africa, bears Smith’s type label as “ Mutilla stimulator ”, the “type” of M. salutatrix Smith, 1879: 227 from Mexico has Smith’s label as “ M. salutator ” and that of M. investigatrix Smith, 1879: 209 from Ega is labelled as “ M. investigator ” (DJB, pers. obs). The types of all of these species are female specimens, so it is possible that the names were changed to the feminine forms for (posthumous) publication, but not on the original labels.) The accession codes associated with the locality labels indicate that both specimens were collected/accessed long before their description and were thus both available to Smith; furthermore, their sizes agree with those given by Smith. It is thus evident that these are the syntypes, and we hereby designate the specimen bearing Smith’s “type” label, and in slightly better condition, as the lectotype. The other specimen is therefore a paralectotype; it bears two labels by Mickel indicating that it was compared with the “types” of both M. simulatrix and M. frigidula in 1931. Mickel had evidently not realized that the two specimens in BMNH were syntypes, but he had recognized the specific synonymy which we have now formally established. Appropriate lectotype and paralectotype labels have been added to these specimens. As reflected above, the holotype of M. frigidula does not bear any labels giving the country, province or collector; those details, listed by Williams et al. (2011), were derived from the introductory material in Cresson’s (1902) paper.

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 5. Frigitilla simulatrix (F. Smith), ♀. 1 – 4. Lectotype. 1. Dorsal view. 2. Lateral view. 3. Head, anterior view. 4. Labels. 5. Specimen from Rio Branco, pygidium, posterior view.

FIGURES 11 – 14. Frigitilla spp., females, not to scale, pubescence not shown. 11 – 13. F. panamensis sp. nov. 11. Mesosoma, dorsolateral view. 12. Typical erect setae on mesosomal dorsum. 13. Pygidium, posterior view. 14. F. simulatrix (F. Smith), pygidium, posterior view.