Rhenefictus wandae (Wang & Li, 2021) comb. n.

Rhene wandae Wang & Li, 2021: 149, figs 16A–C, 17A–D (D ♂).

Rhenefictus tropicus Logunov, 2021: 1044, figs 120–126 (D ♂); holotype ♂ in MMUE, not examined; syn. n.

Comments. Rhene wandae Wang & Li, 2021 was described based on the holotype male and the paratype male from Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China. Rhenefictus tropicus Logunov, 2021 was described based on the holotype male from the Tuyen Quang Province in northern Vietnam. While comparing the illustrations of both species, it is evident that they depict the same species. The unique male palp with the long whip-like, coiled embolus lacking a terminal apophysis (cf. figs 120–126 in Logunov (2021) with figs 16A–C, 17A–D in Wang & Li (2021)) is a diagnostic characteristic of the newly erected genus Rhenefictus Logunov, 2021 . Despite both descriptions being published in 2021, the paper by Wang & Li appeared in October, whereas that of Logunov in November. Therefore, the name Rhene wandae has a priority over R. tropicus Logunov, 2021, and the latter is to be considered a junior synonym of the former. Yet, the validity of the newly erected, monotypic genus Rhenefictus remains unquestioned, and thus Rhene wandae is to be transferred to this genus: Rhenefictus wandae (Wang & Li, 2021) comb. n. Finally, despite the newly established synonymy and based on Article 67.1.2 of the ICZN, Rhenefictus tropicus Logunov, 2021 remains the type species of Rhenefictus, and is now regarded as a synonym of Rhene wandae Wang & Li, 2021 .

Distribution. China, northern Vietnam (Wang & Li, 2021; Logunov 2021: sub Rhenefictus tropicus; WSC, 2022) (Fig. 72).