Gilva varipes, (Gilva)

Roell, Talita, Lemaître, Valérie A., Webb, Michael D. & Campos, Luiz A., 2023, An annotated and illustrated Type Catalogue of the predacious Shieldbugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) in the Collection of the Natural History Museum, London, Zootaxa 5232 (1), pp. 1-105 : 90-91

varipes (Gilva) Walker 1867a: 239. [ Figs 222–225 ]

Original data: “ a, b. Amazon Region . From Mr. Bates’ collection.” [holotype and var. β.]

HOLOTYPE ♀: red-margined holotype disc; “Braz 62 57”; “ Cazira Gilva varipes Walker’s catal.”; “NHMUK 010592169”. Specimen well preserved ( Fig. 222 ).

NON-TYPE ♁ (“ Holotype ” of the first description): “Braz/ 62 57”; “ Cazira Gilva varipes Walker’s catal.”; “NHMUK 010592167”. Specimen well preserved ( Fig. 223 ).

NON-TYPE ♁ (var. β of the first description): “Santarem/ 53 72”; “ Cazira Gilva varipes Walker’s catal.”; “NHMUK 010592143”. Fourth and fifth right and left antennomeres missing, also right middle and left posterior legs missing ( Fig. 224 ).

NON-TYPE ♁ (var. β of the second description): green-margined type label; “Braz/ 62 57”; “1. GILVA VARIPES .”; “NHMUK 010592168”. Fourth and fifth left antennomeres missing ( Fig. 225 ).

Current status: Coryzorhaphis carneola Erichson, 1848 ( Gilva varipes was synonymised to Coryzorhaphis spinolae Signoret, 1862 by Stål 1870: 38 [see also Distant 1900a: 63; Schouteden 1907: 61]; C. spinolae Signoret was synonymised to C. carneola [as C. carneolus ] by Thomas 1992: 36).

Notes: Austen (1907: 326) and others of Walker’s detractors have maintained that Walker was describing specimens and not species. On this occasion, it is averred. Indeed, Walker proposed two descriptions for this species; it seems he did not understand what features were the most important ones to fix its concept (black spots on the hemelytra were counted as important in the first description and dropped in the second; the pale edged apex of the scutellum is counted as important in the second description but was also a feature in the specimens that we have determined as those of the first description). As the saying goes: “Every cloud has a silver lining”. Walker did indeed describe specimens and this proved pivotal to identify varieties of other species in this catalogue as well as to identify which, of four specimens, was the holotype of this species. Walker (1867a: 142) described the species from one specimen from the Amazon Region and one variety (“Var. β—Head wirth shorter stripes. Thorax with a black dot on each side in front. Scutellum testaceous. Fore wings with a black spot on the base of the costa.”) from Santarem. Later, in the same volume (1867a: 239), he redescribed the genus and species, explaining: “the description of this genus in page 141 is defective, and the following may be substituted.” As Walker published this correction in the same volume, it invalidates the first description and the second description only is valid. There, two specimens from the Amazon Region (a, b) are mentioned, with one of them being a variety (“Var. β—Spots on the thoraX and on the scutellum almost obsolete. Scutellum with a black point on each angle at the base, bordered with white at the tip.”). We have identified that:

1) Walker had made the mistake in the Latin of the first description to mention “thorax” twice, first meaning “pronotum” and second, in its wider sense, including the scutellum.

2) In the English description, he did use the word “scutellum” but counted the spots on the pronotal angles as part of it. So, he stated two and four.

3) The second description is truer to the reality: “Thorax [pronotum] with two black spots near the hind border; hind angles black. Scutellum with two black spots near the fore border and with a short black streak on each side towards tip.”

4) There is a discrepancy in the lengths given in both descriptions; all specimens are the same size. Walker may have measured the whole specimen from head to apex of hemelytra in the first description but only the body in the second.

5) The specimen whose barcode number ends in “168” matches var. β of the second description: its spots are almost invisible, it does have black points at the top angles of the scutellum and its scutellum is bordered with white at the tip (this latter feature appears in male specimen “143” and male specimen “167” but not in female specimen “169”; it may be a male characteristic).

6) The variety from Santarem (“143”) can easily be determined not only thanks to its labels but also because it has a black spot on the costal margin whereas var. α (“ Holotype ”) of the first description has it in the discal cell. This is a feature of specimen “167” only. Specimen “169” does not present it. We have thus determined the latter as the holotype of Gilva varipes and considered the three other specimens as non-types.

7) The “ type ” that Thomas (1992: 36) examined was, in fact, the variety of the second description (Specimen “168”), which had been erroneously marked as a type with the green-margined type disc and the long label taken from the heading for the species in Walker’s catalogue: “1. GILVA VARIPES .”

Figures

FIGURES 217–224. Type specimens deposited in NHMUK. 217–220, Platynopus turneri; 221, Supputius typicus; 222–224, Gilva varipes. Scale bars: 4 mm.

FIGURES 225–232. Type specimens deposited in NHMUK. 225, Gilva varipes; 226, Arma ventralis; 227, Oplomus ventralis; 228, Jalloides versicolor; 229, Oplomus violaceus; 230–231, Oechalia virescens; 232, Oechalia virgula. Scale bars: 4 mm.