Culex pulcritarsis Rondani, 1872

Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, Zootaxa 4989 (1), pp. 1-438 : 101

Culex pulcritarsis Rondani, 1872

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1872a: 31.

TYPE LOCALITY: “ Italia [ Italy]” .

TYPE MATERIAL: 1 ♂, lectotype (terminalia on a slide) ( MZUF: Box 57): Culex Lin. / pulcritarsis Rndn. / 3023 / 670413–1 / pulchritarsis [sic!] Rondani, 1967 TJZ / lectotypus [not designated]; 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, paralectotypes ( MZUF: Box 67): Culex Lin. / pulcritarsis Rndn. / 3023 / pulchritarsis [sic!] Rondani 1872; 1 ♀, paralectotype ( MZUF: Box 67): Culex Lin. / pulcritarsis Rndn. / 3023 / pulchritarsis [sic!] Rondani, 1967 TJZ; 6 ♀♀, paralectotypes ( MZUF: Box 67): Culex Lin. / pulcritarsis Rndn. / 3023.

SLIDE: Genitalia on slide n° 20 (Box Diptera Rondani 2): Lectotypus [not designated] / pulchritarsis [sic!] Rondani, ♂, 1967 TJZ, Univ. Calif. Los Angeles, Zoology-Ent., 670413–1 # 3023.

CURRENT STATUS: valid species, as Aedes pulchritarsis [sic!] ( Minář 1991: 95); valid species, as Aedes pulchritarsis [sic!] ( Boorman et al. 1995: 10); valid species, as Ochlerotatus pulcritarsis ( Severini et al. 2009: 292, Harbach 2018: 108).

REMARKS: Rondani (1872a: 31) included Culex pulcritarsis as a new species in a key but did not provide a detailed description, number or length of the specimens but provided specific characters for the male. The initials “TJZ” on the type labels refer to Thomas J. Zavortink. He examined the MZUF type material in 1967, adding the label “ lectotypus ” under one male, without publishing any lectotype designation (T.J. Zavortink, pers. comm., July 2014). We found 11 syntypes in the MZUF. In order to promote nomenclatural stability, we give credit to T.J. Zavortink and here designate as a lectotype for Culex pulcritarsis Rondani, 1872 the MZUF male labeled as such by him. The subsequent spelling “ pulchritarsis ” has been used ( Strobl 1893: 170, Giles 1900: 274, Kertész 1903: 145, Minář 1991: 85, Boorman et al. 1995: 10) but it is not in prevailing usage ( Severini et al. 2009: 292, O’Hara et al. 2011: 213). Therefore, the original spelling “ pulcritarsis ” is to be used and “ pulchritarsis ” is an incorrect subsequent spelling.