Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893

Kment, Petr & Rédei, Dávid, 2018, A revision of the types of Heteroptera species described by Géza Horváth based on specimens from collections of Ladislav Duda and Emil Holub, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 58 (1), pp. 275-295 : 290-291

Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893

( Figs 59–62 )

Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893: 257–258 (original description). Eysarcoris crucifer: LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1893): 268 (catalogue, new combination); KIRKALDY (1909b):83 (catalogue); SCHOUTEDEN (1909):

52 (list).

Type locality. ‘Africa centralis (Holub)’ (in error).

Type material examined. HOLOTYPE: Lost.

NEOTYPE (here designated): ♀ ( NMPC), ‘Holub [p, pink label] // COLL. NICKERL / MUS.PRAGENSE [p, with p frame submarginally] // Stollia / crucifera [hw // 8. [hw, green label] // ♀ [p] // NEOTYPUS / STOLLIA / CRUCIFERA / Horváth,1893 / des. KMENT & RÉDEI 2018’[p, red label] // COSMOPEPLA / CRUCIARIA / Stål, 1872 / det. P. KMENT 2016 [p]’ (pinned through scutellum, both antennae and all legs lacking).

Additional material examined. MADAGASCAR: 1 ♀, ‘ Coll. R. I. Sc. N.B. / Madagascar / Tamatave / Ex Museo / R. Oberthür’ [p, green label] ( ISNB) [apparently mislabelled].

Current status. Junior subjective synonym of Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 (see below).

Distribution of Cosmopepla cruciaria . Colombia ( STÅL 1872, MCDONALD 1986), Ecuador ( MCDONALD 1986, no exact record). The record from southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul) ( PIRÁN 1970: 126) needs verification.

Remarks. The original description explicitly specified that the description of this species was based on a single female: ‘Antennae et pedes in exemplo descripto desunt.’ [= antennae and legs in described specimen missing]; that specimen must be treated as the holotype of this species ( ICZN 1999: Art. 73.1.2). However, no such specimen could be located in HNHM. A single female ( Figs 59–62 ) lacking antennae and legs, thus matching well the original description, but lacking labels with Horváth’s handwriting was found in NMPC. The species is potentially the holotype of S. crucifera , or at least it is apparently part of the lot of specimens from which the holotype originated. As its status as holotype is doubtful, we designate it here as the neotype of Stollia crucifera with the expressed purpose of fixing the identity of this species in accordance with Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999). The neotype of Stollia crucifera can safely be identified as Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 (redescribed and illustrated in detail by MCDONALD 1988), therefore the following new subjective synonymy is hereby proposed: Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 = Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893 , syn. nov. As this species (together with all other Cosmopepla ) is of New World distribution, the type locality of S. crucifera is evidently erroneous.

Figures

Figs 50–62. Habitus and labels of type specimens.50–52 – Caura modesta Horváth, 1893 [= Parantestia cincticollis (Schaum, 1853)],♀, lectotype; 53–55 – Diloxys holubi Horváth, 1893 [= Coponia holubi],, lectotype; 56–58 – Menida distanti Horváth, 1893 [= Menida transversa transversa (Signoret, 1861)],, syntype; 59–62 – Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893 [= Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872], ♀, neotype. Scale bars in mm. (Photo: D. Rédei).