Diamphipnopsis virescentipennis (Blanchard, 1851) comb. n.

(Figs. 1–2)

Perla virescentipennis Blanchard, 1851 — Blanchard 1851: 99. (original description of the adult).

Perlinella virescentipennis (Blanchard, 1851) — Navás 1918: 81. (first use of the combination without designation, first record for Argentina, new record from Chile); Navás 1926: 331. (new record from Chile).

Porlinella virescentipennis (Blanchard, 1851) — Navás 1924: 13. (mistyping, new record from Chile).

Diamphipnoa virescentipennis (Blanchard, 1851) — Navás 1930b: 353. (first use of the combination without designation, new record from Chile); Šámal 1931: 268. (redescription of male, female and egg);— Šámal 1932: 59. (description of the larva); Claassen 1940: 19. (catalog).

Diamphipnopsis samali Illies, 1960 syn. n. — Illies 1960: 692. (description of male, female and larva, refer to the Diamphipnoa virescentipennis redescription of Šámal 1931, 1932); Werner 1965: 227. (new record from Chile); Illies 1966: 11. (catalog); Joost 1976: 204. (new record from Chile); Cekalovic 1976: 147. (checklist); Hallan 2006 (catalog); Vera & Camousseight 2006: 59. (checklist); Pessacq & Miserendino 2008: 32. (new record from Argentina); Pessacq 2009: 172. (checklist); Stark, Froehlich & Zuñiga 2009: 43. (description of the eggs); Froehlich 2010: 123. (catalog); DeWalt et al. 2016 (catalog).

Material examined. HOLOTYPE, gender unknown: CHILE, San Carlos (NMPC, box IV.17) (Labels: Museum Paris / Chili / Gay 15-43 (printed); 15 / 43 (handwritten round label); Type (red, printed); Perla / virescentipennis / Blanch (Blanchard handwritten)).

Remarks. Although the type bears no locality label as indicated as “San Carlos” in the original description which clearly refers to a single specimen, and is considered as the holotype. Unfortunately, this specimen lacks an abdomen (Figs. 1–2). Perla virescentipennis was first redescribed by Šámal (1931) under the name Diamphipnoa virescentipennis . In his revision, Šámal (1931) did not refer to the type but redescribed the species on the basis of specimens collected in 1928. However, the type must have been in his collection at that time, as the Klapálek Collection came to Jaromír Šámal after the death of František Klapálek (Murányi & Li 2015). Jaromír Šámal did refer to Klapálek's unpublished notes on the species (Šámal 1931). Illies (1960) determined that the species do not belong to Diamphipnoa Gerstaecker, 1873 but erected Diamphipnopsis Illies, 1960, a new genus for this and an additional species, and renamed the taxon as Diamphipnopsis samali Illies, 1960, in the belief that Blanchard's species is a true Diamphipnoa . With the discovery of the holotype, this species is confirmed as a Diamphipnopsis, and in all probability conspecific with Šámal's specimen, the latter holotype (noted as lectotype by Illies (1960)) and paratypes of D. samali . Thus, D. samali is considered as junior synonym of Diamphipnopsis virescentipennis (Blanchard, 1851) comb. n., and consequently, D. virescentipennis must be considered also as the type species of Diamphipnopsis .