Paulipalpina dispar, (Portevin, 1903 a: 167)

Peck, Stewart B., Gnaspini, Pedro & Newton, Alfred F., 2020, Updated catalog and generic keys of the Leiodidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Neotropical region (“ Latin America ”: Mexico, the West Indies, and Central and South America), Zootaxa 4741 (1), pp. 1-114 : 54-55

P. dispar ( Portevin, 1903a: 167)

(Catops), 1914a: 193 comb. (to Pseudonemadus ); Jeannel, 1936: 66 comb. (to Adelopsis ; synonym of A. exiguus ; not stated as taxonomic change) [but see Note 2]; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 comb. and resurrected from synonymy (types seen [Note: Aedeagus missing—see Note under Gnaspini & Peck, 2019, below]); Salgado, 2010c: 210 (reaffirmed as synonym of P. exigua based on Jeannel, 1936 —but see Note 1); Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 51 (types seen [Note: Aedeagus and genital segment missing—we recently learned that there is a glass slide with the male genitalia of this type specimen studied by R. Jeannel and kept separate at the MNHN collection (Michel Perreau, 2019, personal comm.); see Note under MNHN, in ‘Construction and Organization of the Catalog’ and also in Gnaspini & Peck, 2019]; lectotype designation; reaffirmed resurrection from synonymy).

Lectotype male in MNHN [Syntypes (several specimens, sex not given, [probably] in Grouvelle collection, in original description]; 1 male and 1 female examined in Gnaspini, 1996: 541)].

Type locality: “ Colombia ”.

Distribution: “ Colombia ”: known only from “type locality”.

Note 1: Gnaspini, 1996 preferred to resurrect P. dispar and maintain P. exigua as a nominal species based on the facts that [1] Jeannel proposed the synonymy based only on the description of P. exigua , which type is apparently not available, [2] the difference in size is big—1,0 and 1,5 mm –, and [3] the species of this genus are mostly externally similar to each other, leading to misidentification without dissection of genitalia); Salgado, 2010c: 210 agreed with the synonymy of Jeannel, apparently without analyzing specimens either, based on his statement that both species are from Bogotá, which is not true—the type locality of P. exigua is Bogotá, but the type label of P. dispar simply reads “ Colombie ”; Jeannel, 1936: 66 listed “several specimens” from “region of Bogotá ”, but he was probably referring to additional specimens examined, and not to types because the type label of P. dispar reads “ Colombie ” and because he apparently did not have access to the type of P. exigua (our interpretation of his “Obs.” and of the fact that he did not mention the type depository, which he did when he examined types). Therefore, Gnaspini & Peck (2019: 51) decided to keep them as separate species until a proper study solves the question, a position also assumed here.

Note 2: See Notes 3 – 4 under P. exigua (Kirsch) .