Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928: 134 Martarega mcateei : Truxal 1949: 17 Martarega mcateei : Fittkau 1977: 16 Martarega mcateei : Mazzucconi 2008: 215 Martarega mcateei : Mazzucconi et al. 2008: 61 Martarega mcateei : Heckman 2011: 492 Martarega mcateei M. mcateei A synopsis of Martarega White, 1879 (Insecta: Heteroptera: Notonectidae) occurring in the Brazilian Amazonia, with descriptions of three new species Barbosa, Julianna Freires Ribeiro, José Ricardo Inacio Nessimian, Jorge Luiz Journal of Natural History 2012 2012-05-31 46 17 - 18 1025 1057 3Y9RZ Jaczewski, 1928 Jaczewski 1928 [494,888,906,930] Insecta Notonectidae Martarega Animalia Hemiptera 30 1053 Arthropoda species mcateei  ( Figures 11A–D, 14B)      Martarega mcateei Jaczewski, 1928: 134[ Brazil].     Martarega mcateei: Truxal 1949: 17[ Brazil].     Martarega mcateei: Fittkau 1977: 16(tab.2) [ Brazil].   Martarega mcateei: Mazzucconi 2008: 215[ Argentina].     Martarega mcateei: Mazzucconi et al. 2008: 61[ Argentina].     Martarega mcateei: Heckman 2011: 492[South America]. No specimens were collected in the regions sampled.  Martarega mcateeiis not a common species and it is confined to the central-southern South America (Figure 14B), with one record from Amazon Region ( Fittkau 1977). In addition, this species is relatively uncommon in collections, possibly because of its geographical range, which encompasses the infrequently visited regions. According to Truxal (1949), almost all the typesof  M. mcateeiwere destroyed, except for a single female housed at the collection of C.O. Bare (Museo de La Plata).  According to the original description by Jaczewski (1928), this species is similar to  M. uruguayensis, but it is longer, more robust and has a shorter ocular commissure. The hemelytral appearance of the macropterous forms of both species is very similar. However, females of the two species may be separated by their greatly differing hind femora. In  M. mcateeithey are not emarginated along their bases. Here evidence is provided that the female specimens of  M. mcateeistudied by Nieser (1970)were erroneously identified. The description by Nieser (1970)states clearly that the previously female specimens of  M. mcateeipresent hind femora emarginated at their bases, whereas Jaczewski (1928)described such female specimens as having hind femora not emarginated. Taken together, the aforementioned comments are consistent with only one conclusion: that Nieser’s description of “female specimens of  M. mcateei” in fact refers to female specimens of  M. uruguayensis.