Adelopsis ascutellaris, (Murray, 1856: 460)

Peck, Stewart B., Gnaspini, Pedro & Newton, Alfred F., 2020, Updated catalog and generic keys of the Leiodidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Neotropical region (“ Latin America ”: Mexico, the West Indies, and Central and South America), Zootaxa 4741 (1), pp. 1-114 : 42-43

A. ascutellaris ( Murray, 1856: 460)

(Catops); Portevin, 1921: 536 comb. (to Ptomaphagus ); Jeannel, 1936: 65 comb. (not stated as taxonomic change); Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 (“ holotype ” seen) [see note 3]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Gnaspini & Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group), 2019: 10 (types seen; lectotype designation; assignment to subgroup).

Lectotype male in BMNH [No information about types in original description [ Portevin, 1921: 535 refers to “cotypes”]; Syntypes (1 male, 1 female) in BMNH [in Gnaspini, 1996: 541—see Notes 1 – 4; label reads “Mon. Cati // Caracas” ( Gnaspini & Peck, 2019)]].

Type locality: Caracas, [Distrito Capital, Venezuela].

Distribution: Venezuela: Distrito Capital: known only from type locality. Note: Hatch, 1928: 168 also gives Colombia, in error(?).

Note 1: Murray, 1856: 461 explained that he received the species from Deyrolle “under the manuscript name of aequinoctialis ”, but decided to use a different name. Therefore, this is not a case of synonym, as it seems to be in Hatch, 1928: 168 and Jeannel, 1936: 65 (“ aequinoctialis Deyrolle (in litt.)”).

Note 2: Jeannel, 1936: 65 does not give reference to type depository, but mentions he examined five specimens from MNHN, from the same locality, referring to them as “probable cotypes” (one of them with label “ aequinoctialis Deyr.”—see Notes 1 and 3) (two of them, males, available for study for Gnaspini, 1996)—see Note 4]. Therefore, this might actually have been a syntype examined by Murray.

Note 3: Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 stated that Jeannel did not know the type of this species and based his description on five specimens, probably cotypes, from MNHN; and he (Szymczakowski) could analyze a male specimen labeled “ Catops ascutellaris Murray (Type) ”, but did not mention depository. He also stated that that type is identical to the specimens in MNHN, so he corroborated Jeannel (1936) interpretation (but see note 4).

Note 4: Some MNHN specimens (identified by Portevin [1902]) belong to different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540). One male refers to A. portevini ( Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 11, 18). See also Note under Parapaulipalpina filicornis .

Note 5: The records in Jeannel, 1922 seem to be a misidentification of ‘ Adelopsis filicornis Jeannel’ [1936] ( Jeannel, 1936: 66) [species presently in the genus Parapaulipalpina ]. See also Note under Parapaulipalpina filicornis .

Note 6: The record in Salgado, 2005d: 968 ( Venezuela: Bolívar State) from MHNG, based on females, was compared to types and considered a misidentification in Gnaspini & Peck, 2019: 11.