Montrouzierellus laetus (Walker, 1867)

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 : 36

dotatus (Platynopus) Walker 1867a: 128 . [ Figs 52–55 ]

Original data: “ a. Celebes. Presented by W. W. Saunders, Esq.” [holotype]

HOLOTYPE ♀: red-margined holotype disc; “ Platynopus dotatus Walker’s catal.”; “Saunders 65. 13”; “Tond”; “NHMUK 010937663”. Left fifth antennomere missing ( Fig. 52 ).

NON-TYPE [formerly considered as type] ♁: green-margined type disc; “Celebes Manado / 60 76”; “20. PLATYNOPUS DOTATUS .”; “NHMUK 010592432”. Left antenna missing ( Fig. 53 ).

NON-TYPE ♀: “ Platynopus dotatus Walker’s catal.”; “52 68 / Batch”; “NHMUK 010937662”. Fifth right antennomere missing ( Fig. 54 ) .

NON-TYPE ♀: “ Platynopus dotatus Walker’s catal.”; “Saunders 65. 13”; “Kai”; “NHMUK 010937664”. Specimen well preserved ( Fig. 55 ) .

Current status: Montrouzierellus laetus (Walker, 1867)

(synonymised by Distant 1900a: 58, 63; see Kirkaldy 1909: 11; Thomas 1994: 187).

Notes: Walker (1867a: 128) had noted: “Closely allied to P. laetus ; the body and the spines of the thorax are a little shorter.” Still, it was later synonymised to laetus .

In the Montrouzierellus laetus box of specimens, we found marked, and so far accepted, the holotypes of Platynopus dotatus , P. laetus and P. semiscitus . We also found four specimens bearing the printed square Walker’s catalogue label (three with the name “ Platynopus dotatus ”, as detailed above, and one with the name “ Platynopus semiscitus ” (see details of its labels under that name). The strange fact that the latter specimens were in fact not listed in Walker’s catalogue urged us to re-examine all specimens in the box. It was found that the specimen labeled as the holotype of P. dotatus was not the type, as the register information (from its registration number “60 76” on its label) indicated that it was bought of Stevens, whereas the original description stated that the specimen from Celebes (Sulawesi) had been presented by Saunders; the correct registration number “65. 13” was found on the specimen labelled “Tond” (Tondano, Sulawesi). Why the wrong specimen was labelled as type is best explained by those early workers who observed Walker’s working practices and studied his types (see “Material and methods— Early type labels ”). We can only speculate that Walker shifted the extra specimens from other positions and placed three with the holotype of P. dotatus and one with that of P. semiscitus , above each determination label. During his curation, Distant found them and labelled them, giving the long label to the type, much as Butler had done with the Lepidoptera ( Smith 1893: 8) , and square labels to the others, without spotting that they were not mentioned in Walker’s catalogue under these names. Assumedly, the specimen marked as type was chosen because one of its labels conspicuously stated “Celebes [...]” whereas the label of the actual type did not clearly state the type locality that had been published. Incidentally, both specimens were collected in June 1859 by Charles M. Allen, Alfred R. Wallace’s assistant; they only reached the Museum through different channels ( Baker 1996: 176–178, 193).

Figures

FIGURES 49–56. Type and non-type specimens deposited in NHMUK. 49, Oplomus distinctus; 50–51, Coryzorhaphis dollingi; 52–55, Platynopus dotatus; 56, Blachia ducalis. Scale bars: 4 mm.