Sciaphobus (Sciaphobus) curvimanus Apfelbeck, 1922

Borovec, Roman & Skuhrovec, Jiří, 2015, A review of Sciaphobus (Neosciaphobus) and descriptions of new species of Sciaphobus s. str. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 55 (2), pp. 745-785 : 781-782

Sciaphobus (Sciaphobus) curvimanus Apfelbeck, 1922

Sciaphobus (Sciaphobus) curvimanus Apfelbeck,1922: 68 (original description); WINKLER (1932): 1470 (catalogue); DALLA TORRE et al. (1937): 161 (catalogue); BOROVEC (2013): 385 (catalogue).

Sciaphobus Mülleri Penecke, 1928: 127 (original description), syn. nov.

Sciaphobus (Sciaphobus) Mülleri : WINKLER (1932): 1470 (catalogue); DALLA TORRE et al. (1937): 161 (catalogue).

Sciaphobus (Sciaphobus) muelleri: BOROVEC (2013) : 385 (catalogue).

Type localities. Sciaphobus curvimanus : ‘Montenegro’; S. Mülleri: ‘bei St. Giovanni di Medua in Albanien [= Albania, Shëngjin] ’.

Type material examined. Sciaphobus curvimanus : not examined.

Sciaphobus Mülleri : HOLOTYPUS: ♀, ‘ Albanien, S. Giovanni d. M. [handwritten] / Sciaphobus Mülleri m. Penecke det. [partly handwritten, partly printed] / Samml. K. A. Penecke, Geschenk 1940.20 [printed] / Staatl. Museum für Tierkunde Dresden [printed] / HOLOTYPUS Sciaphobus muelleri Penecke, 1928 , R. Borovec vid. 2001 [red, printed]’ ( SMTD).

Additional material examined. ALBANIA: LEZHË COUNTY: Miloti, 3 spec. ( NMPC).

Remarks. PENECKE (1928) described this species based on a single female specimen from ‘bei St. Giovanni di Medua in Albanien’. The holotype is conspecific to specimens from Albania we recently studied and which we assumed to be S. curvimanus Apfelbeck, 1922 , because of all femora with distinct tooth, wide conspicuous striae, blackish legs and antennae and also identical aedeagus as depicted by APFELBECK (1922). We have not studied the type of S. curvimanus but the original description provides enough evidence thus we propose S. muelleri a new junior subjective synonym of S. curvimanus . We assume that Apfelbeckʼs publication was probably not known to Penecke and that is why he described the taxon.