Ceraeochrysa everes Banks 1920
| Main Authors: | Tauber, Catherine A., Flint, Oliver S. |
|---|---|
| Format: | info publication-taxonomictreatment Journal |
| Terbitan: |
, 2010
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://zenodo.org/record/6206852 |
Daftar Isi:
- Ceraeochrysa everes (Banks, 1920) Relevant synonymy below (See Freitas et al. 2009: 546 for a full list of synonyms). Chrysopa everes Banks, 1920: 338 [MCZ, Lectotype]. Ceraeochrysa everes (Banks). First combination in Ceraeochrysa by Adams & Penny (1985: 452). Chrysopa furcata Navás, 1922: 53. Preoccupied name. Chrysopa furculata Navás, 1923: 39. Replacement name for C. furcata Navás. [MNHN, Holotype]. Junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa gundlachi (Navás, 1924: 329) by Adams (1982: 72); junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa everes by Adams & Penny (1985: 452). Background: Freitas et al. (2009: 546) correctly listed Chrysopa furcata Navás and Chrysopa furculata Navás as synonyms of Ceraeochrysa everes (Banks). Also, they correctly mentioned that the original description stated that Navás had held the type in his personal collection and that it was found later in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN). However, some of their subsequent comments may cause uncertainty regarding the status of the Chrysopa furculata type in the MNHN. Type: Freitas et al. (2009: 548) stated that the type of C. furculata “... had a collection label of 1925, three years after the original description of C. furcata and one year after the first use of C. furculata.” This statement could cast doubt on the validity of the C. furculata type in the MNHN. However, as Legrand et al. (2008: 137) reported: (i) The first label on the Navás type in the MNHN carries a 1910 collection date, which is well before the publication date (1922) of C. furcata. (ii) The third and fourth labels on the specimen, a pink “ Typus ” label and a green printed label, are labels that Navás characteristically applied to the numerous types that he donated to the MNHN from his personal collection (see explanation and illustrations by Legrand et al. 2008: 109). Thus, the labels and history of the specimen coincide with published reports for Navás’ C. furculata type. Conclusion: Doubts implied by Freitas et al. (2009) concerning the validity of the C. furculata type in the MNHN are answered, and the identity of the specimen as the holotype is re-confirmed.
- Published as part of Tauber, Catherine A. & Flint, Oliver S., 2010, Resolution of some taxonomic and nomenclatural issues in a recent revision of Ceraeochrysa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), pp. 55-67 in Zootaxa 2565 on page 57, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.294309