Platynopus indicus, Chatterjee, 1934

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 : 47-48

indicus ( Platynopus ( Platynopus )) Chatterjee 1934: 24–26, with figure of dorsal habitus.

Original data: “ Described from eight examples. Type in British Museum, Natural History, London. Locality: COORG: Fraserpet, IX-30 (1 ex.), on spiked sandal (N.C.C.); plot 1, IX, XI-30 (2 ex.); plot 2, VII, IX-30 (2 ex.); plot 3, VIII-30 (1 ex.); plot 4, VIII, IX-30 (2 ex.).” [see “ Notes ” concerning the status of the type material]

Current status: Platynopus indicus Chatterjee, 1934 .

Notes: Although Chatterjee (1934: 25) noted that the type of this species was deposited at the “British Museum, Natural History, London”, we failed to find the specimen in the collection. It is possible that it has been misplaced and will be found ulteriorly (especially as we have, at least, noticed an alydid from the same survey in the collection).

Our colleague, Dr Salini Santhamma ( NBAIR) has informed us that a series of seven specimens, all individually determined and labelled by N. C. Chatterjee as “ Platynopus beesoni n. sp. ” was present in FRI, Dehradun. From images and information that she and Drs Sudheer Singh and Arun Pratap Singh ( FRI) provided, we could assess the following :

1) This series is composed of five males (two of which have been dissected by Shama Perveen) and two females.

2) The series is recorded under the name Platynopus beesoni (Acc. No 14708) yet, in the collection, the specimens are pinned above a printed label “ Platynopus indicus Chatterjee ”, where “ indicus ” is crossed out and replaced by a handwritten “beesoni” in blue ink (similar to that on the labels of the specimens dissected by Shama Perveen?).

3) The records also indicate two male types [!], with dates 20.ix.1930 and 18.vii.1931 and five “cotypes” (two females and three males), with dates 19.ix.1930, 9.vii.1931, 7.xi.1930, 11.viii.1930 and 11.ix.1931. The year 1931 is not mentioned in the original description of Platynopus indicus but, the “1” is a later handwritten addition on the labels, where “30” is printed.

4) We have been sent full labels data for five specimens. All have the same data label “Fraserpet, Coorg. F.R.I. Sandal Insect Survey ”, with each a different date to the left, except for the label of one of the male “cotype” dissected, which reads: “ Fraserpet North Coorg N.C. Chatterjee ” and is on a different paper/card. Only three of the specimens have a label with the plot number. Two specimens bear a red/orange label with the word “ Type ”, the others have a yellow label with the word “Cotype” .

5) On a general image of the specimens in the collection, the dates are visible on the labels for the two males for which we have no images: 11.viii.1930 and 18.vii.1931.

6) We were able to compare the data and easily match all seven specimens in FRI with those listed in the original description :

a. Fraserpet, 11.ix.30 = male (dissected by Shama Perveen; on the image, the data label is different to all others, it also mentions the collector, “N.C. Chatterjee.”, noted in the original description as: “(N.C.C.)” and another label reads: “S. Sandal”, whereas the original description states: “on spiked sandal ”.).

b. Plot 1, 19.ix.30 = female “ type ” (the plot number is on the image).

c. Plot 1, 7.xi.30 = male (the plot number is not on the image, but was inferred as only one specimen was collected in November 1930).

d. Plot 2, 18.vii.31 = male (recorded as “ type ” [!], no image, dissected by Shama Perveen).

e. Plot 2, 20.ix.30 = male “ type ” (the plot number is on the image).

f. Plot 3, 9.viii.31 = female (the plot number is on the image).

g. Plot 4, 11.viii.30 = male (no image).

h. Plot 4, ix.30 = the missing specimen = the (holo) type expected to be in NHMUK?

7) A dorsal image of a male “cotype” (“c” in the above list) matches Chatterjee’s figure and description and, since Chatterjee never described another species of Platynopus , it is possible that he had originally intended to call the species P. beesoni , after Cyril Beeson (1889–1975, then Forest Entomologist at FRI Dehradun) but later published it as P. indicus .

8) Considering the above, we accept these seven specimens as part of the type series of Platynopus indicus as we cannot help but notice that one specimen is missing. This makes it difficult to ascertain the type status of the specimens marked as types in FRI. Indeed, Chatterjee (1934: 25) separated the type (holotype) from the rest of the type series only by stating “ Type in British Museum , Natural History, London [NHMUK]”. Then, should we assume the missing specimen is the type that we failed to find in NHMUK or that the type (holotype) is one of the specimens marked as such in FRI, that it never was sent to NHMUK and that another specimen is missing? Conservatively, the original description shows that one specimen was designated as holotype by its being in NHMUK, thus all other specimens of the type series should be considered paratypes, unless it was confirmed that Chatterjee himself marked the specimens in FRI as type (holotype / allotype) and cotypes (paratypes). The same attitude towards historical evidence was adopted by Aukema & Kerzhner (2005), as regards type specimens of some Palaearctic Pentatomorpha described by E. Wagner .