Parapaulipalpina filicornis, (Jeannel, 1936: 66)

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 : 53

P. filicornis ( Jeannel, 1936: 66)

(Adelopsis), 1922: 21, 25, 42 (as Ptomaphagus ascutellaris [today in Adelopsis ], misidentification—see Note 1); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 comb. (holotype seen [Note: Aedeagus missing—see Note under Gnaspini & Peck, 2019, next]); Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 47 (holotype 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]).

Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN [in original description; Gnaspini, 1996: 541 examined an additional female labeled “type”, but see Note 2].

Type locality: “ Colombia ” [Note: Type label reads “Nov. Gren [Nova Grenada]// Magd…”, not possible to read properly, but probably referring to Madgalena Department ( Gnaspini & Peck, 2019)].

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

Note 1: Jeannel 1936 cited Adelopsis filicornis as “new species” and added “ ascutellaris Jeannel, 1922 , Arch. Zool. exp., t. 61, p. 21 et 42, fig. 26 (not Murray)” as if his 1922 “ ascutellaris ” was an homonym, but Jeannel 1922: 21, 35, 42, fig. 26 always referred to the latter species as “ Ptomaphagus ascutellaris Murray ” [1856], never as a “new species”. Therefore, we here understand this was a case of misidentification and not homonym, and “ filicornis ” was not intended to be a “new name”, as wrongly interpreted by Peck et al., 1998a: 63.

Note 2: Among the “ types ” (1 male, 1 female) in MNHN, the female “cotype” actually belongs to the genus Paulipalpina (Gnaspini, 1996: 540) . Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 48, 56 illustrate the specimen and keep it as an unidentified species [see Note under the genus Paulipalpina ].