Annotated type catalogue of the Chrysididae (Insecta, Hymenoptera) deposited in the collection of Maximilian Spinola (1780–1857), Turin

Abstract A critical and annotated catalogue of the ninety-six type specimens of Chrysididae (Hymenoptera), belonging to sixty-seven species, housed in the insect collection of Maximilian Spinola is given. The neotypes of six species are designated: Chrysis bicolor Lepeletier, 1806; Chrysis comparata Lepeletier, 1806; Chrysis dives Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis pumila Klug, 1845; Chrysis succincta Linnaeus, 1767; Hedychrum bidentulum Lepeletier, 1806. The lectotypes of twenty-four species are designated: Chrysis aequinoctialis Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis analis Spinola, 1808; Chrysis assimilis Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis bihamata Spinola, 1838; Chrysis chilensis Spinola, 1851; Chrysis dichroa Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis distinguenda Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis episcopalis Spinola, 1838; Chrysis grohmanni Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis incrassata Spinola, 1838; Chrysis pallidicornis Spinola, 1838; Chrysis pulchella Spinola, 1808; Chrysis ramburi Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis refulgens Spinola, 1806; Chrysis splendens Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis succinctula Dahlbom, 1854; Chrysis versicolor Spinola, 1808; Elampus gayi Spinola, 1851; Hedychrum caerulescens Lepeletier, 1806; Hedychrum chloroideum Dahlbom, 1854; Hedychrum difficile Spinola, 1851; Hedychrum virens Dahlbom, 1854; Holopyga janthina Dahlbom, 1854; Holopyga luzulina Dahlbom, 1854. Previous lectotype designations of five species are set aside: Chrysis bicolor Lepeletier, 1806 (designated by Morgan 1984); Chrysis calimorpha Mocsáry, 1882 (designated by Móczár 1965); Chrysis elegans Lepeletier, 1806 (designated by Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991)); Hedychrum chloroideum Dahlbom, 1854 (designated by Kimsey 1986); Hedychrum rutilans Dahlbom, 1854 (designated by Morgan 1984). Three new synonymies are proposed: Hedychrum intermedium Dahlbom, 1845, syn. n. of Holopyga fervida (Fabricius, 1781); Chrysis sicula Dahlbom, 1854, syn. n. of Chrysis elegans Lepeletier, 1806; Chrysis succinctula Dahlbom, 1854, syn. n. of Chrysis germari Wesmael, 1839. Chrysis distinguenda Spinola, 1838, and Chrysis coronata Spinola, 1808, are considered nomina dubia. Hedychrum alterum Lepeletier, 1806, and Hedychrum aulicum Spinola, 1843, are considered nomina oblita. Hedychrum rutilans Dahlbom, 1854, and Hedychrum niemelai Linsenmaier, 1959, are retained as nomina protecta. The first available name for Chrysis succinctula sensu Linsenmaier is Chrysis tristicula Linsenmaier, 1959, (stat. n.) The current status and validity of some types in the Spinola collection are discussed. Photographs of fifty-three types are given.


Introduction
Maximilian Spinola was a very active entomologist and described hundreds of species in different families of Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Hemiptera (Gestro 1915). Spinola was also a famous collector, whose collection grew particularly with insects received from his properties in Spain and South America and in exchange with European entomologists. Additionally, he made expensive purchases of beetles and wasps from all over the world (Passerin d'Entréves 1980) and of partial or entire collections by other famous entomologists of his times, such as Lepelletier de Saint Fargeau (later simply written: Lepeletier) (e.g. Spinola letter 00576) and Serville (e.g. Spinola letter 01566). The history of this collection was fully reconstructed only in the 1980s thanks to the analysis of his impressive bulk of correspondence (Casolari andCasolari Moreno 1980, Passerin d'Entréves 1980). Maximilian Spinola was born in France, at Pézenas, Hérault, on July 10, 1780 and died in Italy, at Tassarolo, Piedmont, on November 12, 1857.
The hymenopteran collection of Maximilian Spinola is currently housed in the Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali (MRSN) in Turin. However, it belongs to the Museo di Zoologia Sistematica dell'Università di Torino. The collection was organized following an old standard method: every species includes one to several specimens whose collecting data were removed from the insects and written on a main label at the bottom of the specimen-series. Every main label had a different colour depending on the provenances of the species: white (Europe), yellow (Asia), blue (Africa), green (Americas), rose (Australia). Every main label bears the generic and specific name, author of the species, the collectors, and the localities. Main  refe rences on Chrysididae related to this collection are: Spinola (1805Spinola ( , 1806Spinola ( -1808Spinola ( , 1838Spinola ( , 1840Spinola ( , 1851, Lepeletier (1806), Lepeletier and Serville (1825), Brullé (1846), Dahlbom (1854), and Kimsey and Bohart (1991). Many books and papers have been written on types of this collection, except on those referring to the hymenop-teran family Chrysididae (e.g. Bradley 1957;Vidano and Arzone 1978;Casolari and Casolari 1980;Passerin d'Entréves 1980, 1983Casale 1982;Giachino 1982;Olmi 1983;Baker 1999;Generani and Scaramozzino 2000).
The collection of Chrysididae by Spinola includes 399 specimens housed in three boxes numbered 50, 51, and 52 (Figs 1-3). The collection consists of specimens collected by some of the most important entomologists of their time as well as insect traders: Dahlbom, Draege, Fischer, Gay, Ghiliani, Klug, Latreille, Lepeletier, Megerle, Rambur, Serville, Waltl, Wesmael, and Westermann (Passerin d'Entréves 1980, pers. comm.). The collection is still roughly in the same order as it was left by Spinola, but it is not in good condition. Some type specimens have been destroyed by dermestids, and only pins and labels are left in the respective boxes. The first dermestid attack dated back to the first years after the death of Spinola (in 1857) and before Abeille de Perrin (1879), who already commented on the bad status of the collection, was able to study Spinola's collection. Also mechanical, accidental crushes and a layer of mould damaged the type material. The original Hymenoptera collection consisted of 69 boxes, later moved into new boxes preserving original labels and order left by Spinola (Casolari and Casolari Moreno (1980))].
The collection of Chrysididae by Spinola is very important, and it was fully studied and published by Spinola (1805Spinola ( , 1806Spinola ( -1808Spinola ( , 1838Spinola ( , 1840Spinola ( , 1851 and Dahlbom (1854). Spinola described many new species and even some new genera of Chrysididae (i.e., Elampus and Stilbum) that are still considered valid. Dahlbom, the first reviser of the family Chrysididae, described many new species based on Spinola's chrysidid collection. However, only a few types from the Spinola collection are housed in Dahlbom's collection in Lund (LZM); most of them are in Turin. The study of the type material preserved in this collection was fundamental to clarify some doubtful and incorrect identifications of the species in the current sense.

Material and methods
Terminology and classification of genera and species groups follow Kimsey and Bohart (1991), classification of the European species follows Linsenmaier (1959Linsenmaier ( , 1968Linsenmaier ( , 1987Linsenmaier ( , 1997aLinsenmaier ( , 1997bLinsenmaier ( , 1999, Rosa (2006), and Rosa and Soon (2012). Abbreviations used in the text are as follows: F-I, F-II, F-III, etc. = flagellum I, flagellum II, flagellum III and so on; S-II = second metasomal sternum; S-III = third metasomal sternum. We report the codes of the catalogue Casolari and Casolari Moreno (1980), according to the same system already used for Spinola's catalogues (Pagliano 2005).
Since there are no published photographs of the types in Spinola's collection and because some type species in this collection had been misinterpreted in the past, the present catalogue is illustrated with images taken from some types in the collection to facilitate future identifications.
Photographs of the types were taken with Nikon D-80 connected to the stereomicroscope Togal SCZ and stacked with the software Combine ZP; the white calibration of the photocamera was applied to reduce the blue effect of the neon light of the Togal microscope.
The definitions of holotype, neotype, lectotype etc. are used according to the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), fourth edition, later called "the Code". Types and other specimens have been examined from the following institutions: Plate 2. Chrysis analis Spinola, lectotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, lateral view D metasoma, dorso-lateral view. Dahlbom, lectotype. A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, dorsal view D metasoma, dorsal view. sent to Spinola, as reported on the white label at the base of the series. One speci- Linsenmaier (1959: 171) recognized different species and subspecies of Chrysidea in Europe and the Mediterranean region and he listed characteristics to identify them. He treated Chrysidea Bischoff as a subgenus of Chrysis Linnaeus and considered C. pumila Klug and C. persica Radoszkowski as valid species, speculated about C. assimilis Dahlbom, 1854, possibly being a synonym of C. persica, and he described a new subspecies C. pumila: ssp. disclusa. A few years later, Linsenmaier (1987: 155) stated that C. pumila sensu auctorum does not occur at the species' typical locality and consequently suggested synonymizing C. persica and C. pumila. He described the species previously named C. pumila as Chrysis (Trichrysis) pumilionis n. sp. Linsenmaier (1987: 155) and also assigned it the subspecies disclusa Linsenmaier, 1959. This combination is erroneous for nomenclatural reasons, and the name C. disclusa obviously has date priority over C. pumilionis, as already stated by Niehuis (2001: 122). Currently, the species belonging to the C. pumila group are included in the genus Chrysidea Bischoff, 1910 (Kimsey and.
Since there is no stability in the species names of the genus Chrysidea, we propose to designate a neotype of C. pumila Klug, 1845 and a lectotype of C. assimilis Dahlbom, 1854. As neotype of C. pumila Klug, 1845, we designate a male housed in Linsenmaier's collection. The type locality of C. pumila is Ambukhol, once being in Egypt, nowadays in North Sudan. Since there are no available specimens from the type locality in any visited European museum, the specimen selected as neotype was collected in the closest locality to Ambukhol know to us. Specifically, it was collected in Egypt and bears the following locality label: Aegypten Fayoum H. Suster 9.1948 Coll. Linsenmaier. The designation of this specimen as neotype of C. pumila retains Linsenmaier's interpretation (1987 and following papers) of the species and that most European Hymenopterists adopted. We agree with Linsenmaier's interpretation of the species, since C. pumila sensu Linsenmaier (1959) seems to be restricted in its occurrence to central and southern Europe. Mocsáry (1909: 406) was the last author to examine Klug's type of C. pumila in MNHU. We searched for this type together the curator, Dr. Frank Koch, and his assistant, Viola Richter, at the MNHU, but in Plate 3. Chrysis assimilis Dahlbom, lectotype A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view. vain. All taxa deposited at MNHU are registered with an index card that includes information on the type status of each specimen. Klug's types are registered with a red "T" [Type], except in the case of pumila, which is marked with a "T" written with drawing pencil. The type possibly had been lost already during compilation of the index cards.
As lectotype of C. assimilis Dahlbom, 1854, we designate a specimen housed in the Spinola collection labelled: Chrysis assimilis Spin. D. Waltl Égypte. This designation retains the synonymy of C. assimilis Dahlbom, 1854 andC. pumila Klug, 1845. In fact, a lectotype designation based on the Sicilian type specimen housed at NHMW would have caused nomenclatorial stability in the genus Chrysidea since C. assimilis is the second available name described.
In Europe and in the Mediterranean region, there are currently four known species and one subspecies of Chrysidea : C. asensioi Mingo, 1985 (distribution: Spain, south France, north Italy, Greece); C. disclusa Linsenmaier, 1959 (Spain, south France, Italy, Sicily, north Africa); C. pumila Klug, 1845 (Transpalaearctic: from the Iberian peninsula and northern Africa to China; Afrotropical); C. disclusa pumilionis Linsenmaier, The current (mis-) interpretation of the species Chrysis comparata was anchored in the taxonomic literature by Trautmann (1927: 154). His C. comparata is a large and robust species, with the entire metasoma golden, without the typical green-blue. Berland and Bernard (1938: 113) followed this interpretation, and so did Linsenmaier (1959: 148).
According to the Principle of Priority, C. pyrophana Dahlbom, 1854 should be named C. comparata Lepeletier, 1806 and the species currently identified as C. comparata Lepeletier should be named C. miegii Guérin, 1842, the first available name for this species. However, this change would compromise the nomenclatural stability, since the name C. comparata was recognized as a valid name for one of the most common European species by nearly all the authors in the last fifty years.
As already observed by Abeille (1879) Remarks. Dahlbom (1854) described C. dichroa based on a syntypic series of specimens collected in Austria, Hungary (Buda, not Italy) and Turkey (Ephesus) lent by Klug, Kollár, Parreys, Spinola, Zeller, and Loew. The female syntype housed in the Spinola collection matches the current interpretation of the species and we designate it as a lectotype. The designation is necessary because during the last five decades, Linsenmaier (1959Linsenmaier ( , 1968 and Arens (2001) described numerous species of the C. dichroa group collected in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Therefore, there is the possibility that syntypes of C. dichroa from Turkey could now belong to a different species. It belongs to the C. dichroa group.
Current status. Chrysura dichroa (Dahlbom, 1854) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 488). Remarks. Spinola (1840: 202) gave the diagnosis of a male belonging to Chrysis fasciata Fabricius, 1804(nec Olivier, 1790, collected at Cayenna in French Guyana by Leprieur and received via Buquet. In the same diagnosis, Spinola (1840: 203) described Chrysis intricans Spinola, 1840 ("n. sp.?", giving a complete description), based on a second specimen: "Celle-ci ne fait pas partie des récoltes de M. Leprieur, et elle est étrangère au sujet de ce Mémoire; je me contenterai d'en constater l'existance, et de signaler les traits qui la distinguent de notre n°50". Therefore, there should be theoretically both a specimen of C. fasciata Fabricius sensu Spinola as well as a holotype of C. intricans Spinola in the Spinola collection. Dahlbom (1854: 211) described C. distinctissima based on one specimen examined in 1847 at LZM and on a second specimen loaned by Spinola under the name C. intricans. He considered as C. distinctissima also C. fasciata Spinola (nec Fabricius). In particular, Dahlbom listed in the type series: "Chrysis fasciata Spinol. Annal. Ent. 1840. 202: 50"; then the specimen from Lund; lastly the specimen known as C. intricans"Mus. Spinolae", without further remarks. Two pages after, Dahlbom (1854: 213) listed under the name C. coerulans Fabricius a second specimen from the Spinola collection named C. intricans collected at Cayenne and received by Buquet. This specimen should correspond to the holotype of C. fasciata Spinola (nec Fabricius). The Spinola collection does not house any sample labelled "C. intricans", but it houses two specimens label "Chrysis distinctissima Dlbm -Chr. fasciata m.

Chrysis distinctissima Dahlbom, 1854
[ihi]". The first is severly damaged, having no metasoma. The second is in good condition. The first was labelled by Bohart as holotype of C. intricans and lectotype of C. distinctissima; the second specimen was labelled by Bohart as C. excavata Brullé, 1846. The lectotype designation of C. distinctissima has not been published. In Dahlbom's collection in LZM, there are no labels referring to C. distinctissima Dahlbom and there is only one specimen lablled C. fasciata Fabricius. Unfortunately, we currently cannot confidently infer which specimen could be the type of one species and which one could be the type of the second species, since Spinola's descriptions are ambiguous. According to Kimsey and Boahrt (1991) Dahlbom (nec Spinola, 1838) based on a unspecified number of specimens housed in the Spinola collection. He knew that Spinola did not include these specimens in his description of C. distinguenda Spinola, 1838. In fact, Dahlbom explicitely wrote: "Chrysis distinguenda Mus. Spinolae (non Annales Entomol. 1838. 450: VII, quae species est toto corpore cyaneo-viridis)". Dahlbom (1854) gave a new accurate description of C. distinguenda Dahlbom, more than two pages with some drawings. Mocsáry (1879Mocsáry ( , 1889 realized that C. distinguenda Dahlbom a synonym of comparata sensu auctorum, and that C. distinguenda Spinola most likely represented a separate and unknown species, the type of which apparently has been lost. Mocsáry (1879) replaced the name C. distinguenda Dahlbom, 1854(nec Spinola, 1838 with C. chevrieri nec Abeille, 1879. Finally, Linsenmaier (1999 considered C. distinguenda Spinola as a separate species belonging to the C. ignita group, although he seemingly never studied type specimens in Spinola's collection. We consider five specimens in the Spinola collection as syntypes of C. distinguenda Dahlbom, 1854. In box 51, there are two main labels bearing the name C. distinguenda. Under the second label, there are three specimens: the last two are males of C. comta Förster, 1853 and are likely the specimens listed by Spinola as C. ignita var. a on the label. We select one female syntype of C. distinguenda Dahlbom  ered C. dives as the female (var. b) of C. pulchella Spinola, 1808, till then known only from a single male. But on the following page of his description of C. dives (1854: 301), Dahlbom described C. dives as a valid species, not as a variation of C. pulchella. The description does not match the current interpretation of the species. The females of C. pulchella and of C. calimorpha Mocsáry, 1882 sensu auctorum (replacement name for C. dives Dahlbom (nec Lucas, 1849)) have the same size and the shape as conspecific males; they differ from each other by their punctuation on the head and mesosoma, (Rosa 2005(Rosa , 2006. Mocsáry (1882: 71, 90) observed that the name C. dives Dahlbom, 1854 is a junior homonym of C. dives Lucas, 1849. Therefore, he replaced the name C. dives Dahlbom with C. calimorpha Mocsáry. In the same article, Mocsáry (1882: 71) listed two specimens of C. calimorpha collected in central Hungary. Later, Móczár (1965: 179) designated these two specimens as lecto-and paralectotype of C. calimorpha. These two Hungarian specimens do not belong to the type series, because C. calimorpha is the replacement name of C. dives. The only holotype by monotypy of this species is the Sicilian specimen housed in the Spinola collection. According to Art. 74.2 of the Code when it is demonstrated that a specimen is not a syntype, it automatically loses its status of lectotype. Móczár's lectotype is consequently set aside, since the selected specimen is not a syntype.
Given the holotype of C. dives Dahlbom is almost destroyed, the mesosoma clearly belongs to a different species relative to the current interpretation of C. calimorpha sensu auctorum, and because the history of the name calimorpha is complex, we will ask for the suppression of the type of C. dives to the Commission on the ICZN. We designate as neotype of C. dives the female of C. calimorpha  Remarks. Two specimens are found under the label Chrysis elegans in the Spinola collection. One bears a single label (β) and likely refers to C. sicula Dahlbom (see under the name sicula). The second specimen could be the holotype of C. elegans Lepeletier, 1806. The type of C. elegans is not housed in MNHN (du Buysson 1898). Because the second specimen above matches the sex (femelle) and the colour drawing (pl. 6: fig. 20) given by Lepeletier 1806 it could be the holotype that arrived in the Spinola collection together with other types (e.g. C. comparata). Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 407) designated the lectotype of C. elegans Lepeletier in MNHN. This designation has to be set aside because it is based on a male (and not female as given in the description), and it was collected in Greece (the typical locality was unknown: "Je ne sais de quel pays elle est."). Hence it cannot be a syntype (or a holotype, to be more accurate). The specimen selected by Bohart is not a syntype and it cannot be considered as a lectotype according to Art. 74 (Linsenmaier 1999: 218). The type is missing the ventral surface of the metasoma, due to a dermestid attack. It belongs to the C. ignita group.

Chrysis fasciata Spinola, 1840
Chrysis fasciata: bom, 1845). We found three specimens under the name C. grohmanni in the Spinola collection, but only one belongs to C. grohmanni in its current taxonomic interpretation. The other two specimens are a female of C. gracillima Förster, 1853 and a female of C. bicolor Lepeletier, 1806, bearing the labels "6288" and "C. bicolor Lepel. 127", respectively.
Since there are different species in the series, we designate a lectotype of C. grohmanni using the only female matching the original description of the species. The specimen is missing the last seven flagellomeres of the left antenna, and the right wings is glued to the metasoma. It belongs to the C. succincta group.

Chrysis incrassata Spinola, 1838
Plate 17 Remarks. Spinola (1838) did not write how many specimens the type series consisted of. In the Spinola collection, there are two specimens prepared in the same way under one locality written on the main label. These two specimens likely represent syntypes. One of the syntypes is badly damaged by a dermestid attack. We designate a lectotype of C. incrassata Spinola using the less damaged of the above two specimens. The lectotype lacks the last flagellomeres of the right antenna and the last tarsi of the right hind leg. The type locality is Corsica and not Egypt, even though C. incrassata was described by Spinola in the paper on Egyptian Hymenoptera.
Current status. Pseudospinolia incrassata (Spinola, 1838) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 547). Remarks. It is considered as a synonym of C. laborans Costa, 1865. The type of C. laborans should be housed in Napoli (Museum of the Ferdinando II University), but it is lost. The last author who examined this type was du Buysson (1905). It belongs to the C. wahlbergi group.

Chrysis intricans Spinola, 1840
Current status. Chrysis laborans Costa, 1865 (synonymised by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 429). Remarks. There are two specimens under this name in the Spinola collection: one male and one female. However, they do not exhibit the typical large label at the base of the specimen series. Only the female bears two labels: [204] and [Chrysis pallidicornis m.

Chrysis pallidicornis
[mihi] n. sp., Egitto] handwritten by Spinola. Linsenmaier (1959) examined both types. Since it is not mentioned in the original description how many specimens the author examined, Linsenmaier considered both as syntypes. We designate the specimen bearing Spinola's handwritten labels as lectotype to ensure a correct future identification in this species, which belong to a species-rich and taxonomically currently complicated species group (Zimmermann 1959). The selected specimen matches Linsenmaier's interpretation of the species (Linsenmaier 1959

Remarks.
The type series was based on multiple specimens. When Spinola wrote "rara" it meant that he examined few specimens; when he wrote "rarissima" it meant that he examined only one specimen. At present there are three specimens in the Spinola collection under the name C. pulchella: one male, without a metasoma, acquired via the Serville collection; one male of C. bicolor Lepeletier, received by a French entomologist and bearing a rounded numerical label (6298); and a male specimen that is referable to the original description of the species and designated here as lectotype. It is unfortunately badly damaged, missing part of its head, all sternites, the internal urites, and some of its legs. It belongs to the C. pulchella group.

Chrysis punctatissima Spinola, 1840
Plate 25 Remarks. Kimsey (1988: 272) designated the lectotype of C. purpurata at ZMUC, based on one specimen labelled C. purpurata but belonging to another species: Chrysis iris Christ, 1791. The consequence was that the generic name Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 became a junior synonym of Chrysis Linnaeus, 1761 (Pavesi and Strumia 1997) and the generic name Euchroeus was replaced by the first available name: Brugmoia Radoszkowski, 1877. The species formerly known as Euchroeus purpuratus auctorum Plate 25. Chrysis punctatissima Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view. was replaced by the name Brugmoia quadrata (Shuckard, 1837). The Commission on the ICZN approved the documentations provided by Pavesi and Strumia (1997)

Remarks.
The type series includes two specimens: one male from Spain and one female from Lombardy (Italy). Both syntypes are housed in the Spinola collection. They match the original description, but they belong to two different species. The male belongs to C. ramburi Dahlbom, whereas the female to C. chrysostigma Mocsáry, 1889. Dahlbom (1854 described them as male and female of the same species based on the colour of the last visible tergite. The differences given in the text between the two taxa were supposed to be sexual dimorphic characteristics. C. ramburi in Europe is present only on the Iberian Peninsula and occasionally in south France, whereas it is more frequent in North Africa, particularly in Morocco. C. chrysostigma, on the other hand, is widely distributed in southern Europe from France to the Czech Republic, and it is quite common in Italy. The two species were already considered separate taxa by various authors (e.g. Linsenmaier 1987: 151;Tyrner 2007: 48). Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 455) placed C. chrysostigma in synonymy of C. ramburi. Móczár (1965: 172) designated a lectotype of C. chrysostigma at HNHM. We therefore designate a lectotype of C. ramburi Dahlbom to fix the current interpretation of the species and to avoid future misidentifications based on the fact that Dahlbom described two different species under one and the same name. The selected lectotype is based on the male specimen with a thin layer of mould. It belongs to the C. comparata-scutellaris group.
Current status. Chrysis ramburi Dahlbom, 1854.  (1854) gave a description of C. rutilans Olivier, assuming that at least one of Spinola's specimens was a type or was compared by Latreille (Dahlbom 1854) with a type: "Chrysis rutilans Olivier, teste Latreille olim in litteris ad Spinola" and "Chrysis Friwaldskyi Spinola" both specimens housed in "Mus. Spinolae". The same species had been described one year before by Förster (1953) Dahlbom (1854) refered to three specimens housed in the Spinola collection named C. sicula. The male specimen is no longer present in the collection, and it was not listed by Spinola himself, who listed only two female specimens: C. elegans var. a and "β" var. ab. However, there is no perfect match between Dahlbom (1854) descriptions and Spinola's label, since the form "β" referred to a male (described with green mesosoma), whereas in the Spinola collection the label "β" refers to a female. We interpret Chrysis sicula as a new synonym of Chrysis elegans Lepeletier, 1806. It belongs to the C. elegans group.

Chrysis singularis Spinola, 1838
Plate 30 the only specimen left in the collection is without any label. We do not consider this a valid lectotype designation and set it aside. We here designate the above specimen as lectotype of C. splendens, because it is housed in the author's collection (Recommendation 74D of the Code) and   Remarks. The description of C. succinctula is based on at least three specimens: two Italian specimens collected at Genoa and Milan (listed under the unpublished names C. succinctula and Chrysis assimilis De Cristofori) housed in the Spinola collection and the third one from the MNHU (Klug), without locality. We were not able to find the specimen in MNHU. It was presumably destroyed or merged with samples of other species and now cannot be identified as syntype any more. In the Spinola collection, there are two syntypes and a third specimen collected in Corsica and belonging to the species C. pseudogribodoi Linsenmaier, most likely added in the column after the death of Spinola. In any case, it does not belong to the type series. The two syntypes do not match the current interpretation of the species given by Linsenmaier (1959: 115), since they belong to the species C. germari Wesmael, 1839. The description and the drawings given by Dahlbom agree with this new synonymy. Dahlbom described succinctula in his third "Phalanx" (Chrysides ano unidentate) and placed in this group only two species: C. succinctula and C. leachii Shuchard, 1837. Both C. germari and C. leachii have the last tergite with a visible tooth or emargination. Even Dahlbom's description of C. succinctula does not exclude synonymy with C. germari: "Pronotum 1. cyaneum 1. violascens, antice fascia aut fasciola viridi-aurea; dorsulum saturatius aureum; scutellum 1. concolor 1. viride l. cyaneum". Dahlbom (1854: 137) considered as C. germari the only dimorphic male of this species, which is without teeth on the anal margin. He placed the male of C. germari in his first "Phalanx". The description was based on one specimen received by Zetterstedt and still housed in his collection in Lund ("Habitat in Europa meridionali rar.; in Croatia a D. Germar detecta [the type]; in insula Melita maris mediterranei a D. Antonio Schembri inventa, teste D. Zetterstedt qui specimen Melitense mihi dono dedit"). Dahlbom's interpretation of this species as C. germari was confirmed by other authors (e.g. Eversmann 1857: 555). The only doubt relates to the third syntype; this specimen (not found in MNHU) with "scutellum cyaneum" could be related to any other species of the succincta group. However, the drawings to Dahlboms description (plate IX; figs. 101a, b, c) are clear and depict Chrysis succinctula with the main features of Chrysis germari.
We select from the above specimens the only specimen in good condition as a lectotype, since the second syntype is severly damaged and its metasoma is glued to the mesosoma. The lectotype is missing the last two flagellomeres of the right antenna.
The lectotype designation is given to prevent a future incorrect designation of the lectotype based on the third specimen not belonging to the syntype series; this specimen has a similar colour to C. succinctula sensu Linsenmaier and might create confusion. We therefore propose Chrysis succinctula Dahlbom, 1854 as a new synonym of Chrysis germari Wesmael, 1839. The species identified as C. succinctula by Linsenmaier has to receive a new name. After having studied all possible synonyms of C. succincta and related taxa, the first available name for this species is C. tristicula Linsenmaier, 1959. Based on this research, we can summarize the results as follows: -Chrysis obtusiventris Förster, 1853. Name included by Förster only in the key. The short description is enough to consider it as a valid name. Mocsáry (1889: 312) and Dalla Torre (1892: 99) placed it in doubt as a junior synonym of C. succincta. It was later included it in the synonymic list of C. succincta by Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 467). Since Förster (1853) did not give a complete description of this species, the type is lost, the locality is unknown, and no author used this name as a valid species, we suggest the suppression of this name. In a different paper, we will refer the case to the Commission on the ICZN. -Chrysis tarsata Dahlbom, 1854. Two syntypes collected in Berlin, examined and housed at MNHU. The species is synonym of C. succincta Linnaeus, 1767 sensu auctorum. -Chrysis minutula Schenck, 1871. Mocsáry (1889: 312) placed C. minutula in synonymy of C. succincta and recognized that the type was a male and not a female. Dalla Torre (1892: 99) and Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 467) followed Mocsáry interpretation. However, the description of this species is clear and refers to a small male of C. germari Wesmael. Schenck considered C. minutula close to C. leachii, which is characterized by a different thorax colour (mesonotum and scutellum contrasting with the posterior margin of the prothorax and the metanotum) compared with C. succincta. -Chrysis aeneipes Tournier, 1879. The species was described based on two syntypes (both males) collected at Peney (Geneva) on the 19 th July 1876 and 25 th of June 1878. The two syntypes have been examined and are still preserved in MHNG.
-Chrysis succincta var. germanica Trautmann, 1926. The type is lost but the description excludes any possible synonym with C. succincta. C. succincta var. germanica has evident teeth and a unique body colouration. In Northern Europe and Scandinavia, the only a similar species present is C. westerlundi. -Chrysis succincta var. pulcherrima Trautmann, 1926(nec Lepeletier, 1806. Type lost, Balthasar (1953: 286) replaced the name pulcherrima with perelegans. Based on the description, it is clearly referrable to the female of C. albanica Trautmann, 1927. -Chrysis succincta var. virideocincta Trautmann, 1927 Balthasar, 1953. This species was already placed in synonymy of frivaldszkyi by Linsenmaier (1959). Kimsey and Bohart (1991) placed it in synonymy of succincta together with frivaldszkyi.
-Chrysis succincta f. pumilio Balthasar, 1953. It not even clear from the short description whether or not pumilio belongs to the C. succincta or C. leachii group. It could be conspecific with C. cypruscula Linsenmaier, 1959. -Chrysis tristicula Linsenmaier, 1959, stat. n. is a very variable species, due to its large distribution in the Mediterrean region. The southern Spanish and Moroccan specimens show a darker colouration of the metasoma. It varies from violet to bluish on the margin of the second and third tergites. In some cases, also the margin of the first tergite can be darker to violet or bluish. This particular colouration of the metasoma is not present in the French, Italian and Swiss specimens, even if a darker to violet reflection can be found on the anal margin of the third tergite, after the pit row. However, some African specimens show the colour of the metasoma without violet or bluish reflections (Linsenmaier 1999). The only morphological distinctive characteristics given by Linsenmaier to identify this species is the punctuation of the body "a little" finer and on the metasoma "a little" denser (Pkt ein wenig feiner, auf Abd auch etwas dichter) than C. succincta. This characteristic is observed not only in the African specimens, but also in the Spanish ones. The Alpine specimens show a different punctuation, with sparse punctures decreasing in diameter on the second tergite, from the base to the apical margin, with shining intervals. However, the colour and the punctuation on the metasoma vary more or less gradually from the Alps to South Spain, but all the main morphological characteristics, from the length of the flagellomeres (with F-III longer than F-II) to the genital capsula, remain the same in all the examined specimens from the SW Mediterranean countries. Current status. Chrysis germari Wesmael, 1839. Remarks. Two specimens are found under the name C. varicornis in the Spinola collection. One does not belong to the type series bearing the label: "Espagne, M. Rambur". The second specimen is likely the type but does not carry a label. However, the main label states: "Chrysis varicornis, Spin. / M. Waltl. Egypte". It matches the current interpretation of the species. It belongs to the C. radians group.

Remarks.
Only two specimens are found unter the name C. versicolor in the Spinola collection. One is not a syntype, since it bears a rounded label (6295) and was acquired with other specimens of the Latreille collection. The second specimen is labelled "Type", and it was collected at Genoa, as written on the main label. Spinola's description is surely based on a syntype series ("haud infrequens"), therefore we here designate as lectotype the last syntype left in the collection, even though the specimen is badly damaged. It lacks the metasoma, the right flagellum and almost all of the left flagellum; only the right mesoleg is complete. However, many diagnostic characteristics are still visible and even the sex is identifiable.

Remarks.
French labelled the specimen as paralectotype, but the designation was not published. The species was described based on at least two males (sexo dudoso) collected at Santa Rosa and Ligua. The second syntype is housed in MNHN (du Buysson 1898: 519). Du Buysson completed the description of this species, even though the specimen was missing the head and part of metasoma. Later, du Buysson (1899: 160) removed this specimen from the catalogue of the types housed in the MNHN. Since the syntype in MNHN is badly damaged and it was not considered as a type by du Buysson (1899), we here designate the syntype of E. gayi as lectotype in the Spinola collection, according to the Recommendation 74D of the Code. The specimen is in good condition, even though it is missing the last three flagellomeres of the left antenna and five of the right antenna.  (1806) described H. caerulescens based on two specimens, one male and one female. One of these two syntypes was acquired by Spinola and belongs to the species Pseudomalus violaceus (Scopoli, 1763); the second syntype is housed at MNHN. Du Buysson (1898: 563) listed one specimen in Lepeletier's collection H. coerulescens = Ellampus caeruleus (De Geer), but it is not listed as a type. We examined the second syntype (currently in the general collection MNHN box 8). It belongs to the same species, P. violaceus (Scopoli), even though it is placed under the name of Omalus aeneus (Fabricius).

Remarks. Lepeletier
We designate as lectotype of He. caerulescens Lepeletier the syntype male. The reason is to fix the synonym with P. violaceus (Scopoli). The specimen is damaged, lacking its fore wings and left hind wing, and it is partially covered by mould.

Hedychrum chloroideum Dahlbom, 1854
Hedychrum chloroideum: Dahlbom 1854: 66 (given as var. b). Remarks. The specimens of He. chloroideum collected in Austria by Ziegler and listed as syntypes by Dahlbom (1854: 66) are still housed in the Spinola collection. The syntype series given by Dahlbom includes specimens collected in Turkey (coll. Drewsen, ZMUC), Greece (coll. Loew), Austria (coll. De Christophori, Kollár, Megerle, MRSN), and Silesia (coll. Zeller, LZM). The original description is based only on males, characterized by the green colour, sometimes light green to blue-green. The name chloroideum is derived from this particular colouration. The female is easily recognizable by the shape and the colouration of its body. It has an elongated metasoma and red-purple colour on head and on the dorsal part of the mesosom. The metasoma, the propodeum, and ventral surface are a contrasting blue colour. In Dahlbom's time, the female was known as He. fervidum (Fabricius). Males and females were considered as different species because of the remarkable sexual dimorphism and dichroism. Ho. chloroidea (Dahlbom, 1854) as well as Ho. curvata (Förster, 1853) (name with priority) had been considered as a valid species for a very long time. The hypothesis given by Trautmann (1922: 321) that Ho. curvata (= Ho. chloroidea) could be the male of Ho. fervida was not immediately accepted (e.g. Invrea, 1923: 13). Once the synonym was accepted, all the authors agreed on this fact, except Linsenmaier. Linsenmaier (1959, 1968, 1969 considered Ho. chloroidea as a separate subspecies of Ho. fervida distributed in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Cyprus. His interpretation, even though not in contrast with the original distribution of Ho. chloroideum as outlined by Dahlbom, can be a source of taxonomical instability. This is because the oriental form of Ho. fervida, exhibiting a coarser punctuation, is currently referred to as Ho. fervida ssp. buyssoni Mercet, 1902. To retain nomeclatural stability, we designate a lectotype of He. chloroideum Dahlbom that clearly does not refer to this subspecies. We select the specimen from the above three mentioned ones that is only partially damaged, lacking the right flagellum, tibia and tarsi of the left foreleg, femur, tibia and tarsi of the mid and left metaleg. Kimsey (1986: 108) designated a lectotype of He. chloroideum Dahlbom at MNHN, but the designation was based on a female collected in France ("env. de Paris") and found in the Lepeletier collection. The original description is based only on males and no syntype was collected in France or was housed in Lepeletier's collection. This specimen is not a syntype and therefore it cannot be considered as a lectotype, according to the Art. 74.2.

Hedychrum coelestinum Spinola, 1838
Hedychrum coelestinum: Spinola 1838: 454. Remarks. In the Spinola collection, two specimens from Egypt (D. Waltl) and South Africa (Cap B. [onne] Esp. [érance]" (D. Klug)) referring to this species are present. Only one specimen belongs to the original type series. However, it is currently impossible to state which one, since both specimens lack locality labels. At present, we cannot identify the specimen that had been collected in Egypt. Both specimens were examined by Dahlbom (1854: 60) and they are found under the name "Hedychrum coelestinum Kl.", a species never described by Klug. Dahlbom (1854) erroneusly assigned this species to Klug and not to Spinola, even though he knew Spinola's (1838) paper. Furthermore, Dahlbom (1854) named this species "caelestinum", which we consider an incorrect subsequent spelling (Madl and Rosa 2012: 96). The two specimens were labelled as lectotype and paralectotype by L.D. French, but the lectotype designation has not been published. The two females have different colours: one is greenish and the second is a deep blue. The blue one was labelled by French as paralectotype, but the colour matches Spinola's description ("La couleur du corps est d'un bleu plus intense") and we suppose that this one could be the type. In Dahlbom's collection in LZM, there is another specimen labelled as type by a former curator, not by Dahlbom himself, and that refers to the specimen listed as "caelestinum Kl." (Dahlbom 1854: 60 Remarks. Spinola (1851: 411) described He. difficile on various female specimens, and at least one specimen considered as a possible male ("Macho dudoso", "Uno solo de los individuis cojidos por M. Gay está en este caso."). In the Spinola collection there are two specimens collected in Chile by Gay matching the original description and bearing French's paralectotype labels. The lectotype designation has not been published, however. French (1985: 622) wrote that he examined the female holotype in MNHN; this information was later reported in Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 174). He. difficile is a common species in Chile and the specimen found at MNHN (box number 16 of the general collection) is a syntype as well. Du Buysson (1899: 161, sub Hedychridium) listed the specimen in MNHN without any type status.
We designate a lectotype of He. difficile. It is a female (not male, as reported on the label) in perfect condition; the second specimen, the paralectotype, is badly damaged, being without metasoma, legs and two wings. We prefer to designate the specimen in MRSN because it is based on a specimen housed in the collection of the describing author (Recommendation 74D of the Code).
The name He. rutilans is a matter of conflict between entomologists. The history of the names He. rutilans and He. intermedium is long and complicated. Linsenmaier (1959Linsenmaier ( , 1968Linsenmaier ( , 1997aLinsenmaier ( , 1997bLinsenmaier ( , 1999 used the name He. intermedium Dahlbom, 1845, instead of He. rutilans Dahlbom, 1854, as many other authors did in the past. In various European collections, specimens belonging to this species are still found under the name He. intermedium. Many entomologists, in fact, still follow Linsenmaier's interpretation. Linsemaier never accepted the synonymy proposed by Morgan (1984: 8) and that was accepted by Kimsey and Bohart (1991). Morgan (1984), in fact, discovered that the holotype of He. intermedium belongs to the genus Holopyga. Unfortunately, Morgan did not provide any further information on the species nor in which museum he examined this type. After an extensive tour in the European museums, we found out that the type of He. intermedium is housed in LZM. Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 232) wrote that they examined this holotype at MNHN, and later Linsenmaier (1997a) argued that Dufour's specimens are housed at MNHN. After studying all relevant type material at MNHN and after having conducted an extensive literature survey, we are confident in writing that not one specimen labelled "Hol. intermedia Gall. Dufour","Holopyga intermedia" or "Hedychrum intermedium" is housed at MNHN. In the "General collection" in MNHN there are two specimens labelled "Hedychrum rutilans" and "Coll. Dufour 1834". These two specimens had not been studied by Morgan, yet they were listed by du Buysson (1898: 521) and mentioned as possible "types" by Linsenmaier (1997a), since their labels match the original data cited by Dahlbom (1845). Based on the erroneous information given by Kimsey and Bohart (1991) on the type depository, Linsenmaier (1997a) did not accept Morgan's interpretation and stated that labeles must have been exchanged. Moreover, Linsenmaier argued that it was not possible that Dahlbom, who described the genus Holopyga in the same paper, would have confused it with Hedychrum.
At the beginning of our studies, we agreed with Linsenmaier and we also noticed that no other European Hedychrum has the described colour "♂ thorax antice viridis postice cyaneus"; only the male of Ho. ignicollis sensu Linsenmaier (= Holopyga aureomaculata Abeille) shows a similar colouration. We concluded that Morgan probably confused the type of He. intermedium with the type of another mysterious species described in the same work by Dahlbom on Dufour material collected in France: Holopyga nitidula. In this sense, the examination of the Dahlbom collection in LZM was fundamental. The specimen cited by Morgan is indeed the type of He. intermedium. This confirmation is not only based on the precise labels, already cited by Morgan, but also on the morphological and chromatic characteristics given by Dahlbom. This specimen is a male of Ho. fervida (Fabricius, 1781) with colouration similar to Ho. fervida var. taorminensis Trautmann: pronotum and mesonotum light bluish-greenish, in contrast with the rest of the mesosoma. But the most important characteristic is the punctuation on the mesosoma: 'pronotum et dorsulum nitida sparse punctata'. No Hedychrum species has this peculiar punctuation, but Ho. fervida has it.
It is not strange that Dahlbom in 1845 identified the male of Ho. fervida as Hedychrum. In fact, Dahlbom in 1854 described again the males of Ho. fervida as He. chloroideum, based on specimens entirely green or bluish-green, without any contrasts in the colouration of the mesosoma.
It seems that Linsenmaier was influenced by Richards (1935: 158 Nevertheless, Richards did not realize that none of the examined specimens was truly a type. In particular, He. intermedium did not match the original type, since it was collected at Fontainebleau by Barbut and not by Dufour. This should be the reason different authors, including Linsenmaier, considered He. intermedium had priority over the name He. rutilans. In conclusion, we formally propose here the new synonymy: Hedychrum intermedium Dahlbom, 1845 = Holopyga fervida (Fabricius, 1781). The valid name for one of the most common European species is therefore He. rutilans Dahlbom, 1854, as already stated by Morgan (1984).

Hedychrum virens Dahlbom, 1854
Plate 26C Remarks. Dahlbom (1854: 74) described He. virens based on two specimens, one male and one female: the male was collected in Portugal (Lusitania) and housed in MNHU; the female was collected in Southern Russia and housed in the Spinola collection. We found that the specimen in the Spinola collection is a male and not a female. We designate this specimen as lectotype of He. virens since it matches the current interpretation of the species. It is in perfect condition and it is prepared with open wings. It is possible that the Iberian population could be considered as a separate subspecies. The species shows a peculiar distribution, and in Western Europe is found only on the Iberian Peninsula. The rest of its known distribution extends from Greece over the Middle East to central Asia. There are some old records from Italy collected in the 19th century in various museums (MRSN, MHNG, MCZ). Current status. Hedychrum virens (Dahlbom, 1854). Remarks. Dahlbom (1854: 50) described Ho. janthina based on a series of specimens received by Westermann and Draege. These syntypes are now housed in MRSN and ZMUC. French pinned a lectotype label, but the designation has not been published. We designate a lectotype of Ho. janthina Dahlbom, using the same syntype that was selected by French, to fix the current interpretation of the species. The head of the lectotype is broken and glued on a white label; the right antenna is without the last six flagellomeres, the left one is without the last seven flagellomeres, the right foreleg is missing the tibia and tarsi; the right mesoleg and the forelegs are without the last tarsi.

Holopyga janthina Dahlbom, 1854
Current status. Holopyga janthina Dahlbom, 1854. Remarks. Dahlbom (1854: 49) described Ho. luzulina based on two specimens received from Milde and Spinola. French labelled the specimen in the Spinola collection as lectotype, but the designation has not been published. Since we could not find the second syntype in MNHU, we designate the lectotype of Ho. luzulina Dahlbom to fix the current interpretation of the species. After Dahlbom, many South American Holopyga have been described, and there is the possibility that the other syntype belongs to a different species, as found in other cases (e.g. Holopyga dohrni Dahlbom, 1854, with Plate 42. Holopyga janthina Dahlbom, lectotype A Head, frontal view B head, dorsal view C metasoma, dorsal view D mesosoma and metasoma, lateral view. different syntypes from U.S.A. and Cuba). The type is missing tibia and tarsi of the right foreleg and left mesoleg and also the femora, tibiae, and tarsi of the left metaleg; a thin mould layer covers the right side of the body. The second specimen placed under the name Ho. luzulina is a male of He. rutilans Dahlbom, 1854, most likely placed in this position in recent times. Current status. Holopyga luzulina Dahlbom, 1854.

Remarks.
The syntype is badly damaged; the head and metasoma are glued on a separated label pinned in box 52. Current status. Holopyga generosa (Förster, 1853)

Types not housed in the Spinola collection
The types of the following thirteen species were thought to be part of the Spinola collection (Dahlbom 1854;Abeille 1877;Kimsey and Bohart 1991), but could not be found there. The type of Pyria canaliculata is in MNHN; the type of Euchroeus festivus Spinola is destroyed by dermestid attack, only the pin without specimen remains.
Remarks. Holotype unknown. The type locality is South Africa, Cape of Good Hope (Serville coll.). According to Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 387), the holotype should be housed in the Spinola collection, but we could not find any evidence for this assumption.

Chrysis aurifrons Dahlbom, 1854
Type locality. South Africa, Cape of Good Hope (Serville coll.) According to Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 213), the holotype should be housed in the Spinola collection, but it is not there any more. The type should also be searched for at MNHN. Current status. Hedychrum cyaneum Brullé, 1846.

Sphex ignita Linnaeus, 1758
Sphex ignita: Linnaeus 1758: 571. Remarks. Someone placed a red rounded label, which means "type", near four specimens. None of the four specimens is a type; the true syntypes (lecto-and paralectotype) are housed in LSL. Very likely Spinola wrote "typus" on the label to identify the typical form of ignita and not a variation.

Notes on other specimens in the Spinola collection
The following specimens are housed in the Spinola collection and could be types of species described by Dahlbom, Klug, Lepeletier, Spinola, and Wesmael, yet it is difficult or impossible to confirm their type status.
Remarks. The specimen with numerical rounded label (6293) could be the holotype of C. aurichalca Lepeletier, which arrived in the Spinola collection with the chrysidids of Latreille. The type is not housed in MNHN (du Buysson 1899).
Current status. Chrysura cuprea (Rossi, 1790) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 487). Remarks. Morgan (1984: 9) designated the lectotype of C. bicolor in MNHN based on a male without a metasoma, writing: "sufficient characters being present on the thorax and head to fix its identity". According to du Buysson (1899) there are no types of C. bicolor Lepeletier, 1806 in the Lepeletier collection in MNHN. We were able to examine the presumed type series studied by Morgan. The specimen selected as lectotype was previously labelled as "Type" by a former curator, but it must be excluded from the type series, because Lepeletier placed the specimens under the name Chrysis humeralis, a species never described. The specimens identified by Lepeletier as C. humeralis can be found in the catalogue of du Buysson (1898: 564) in synonymy of C. succincta var. bicolor. This series of three specimens includes two different species. One specimen, bearing the name humeralis, is a male of C. gribodoi Abeille; a second specimen is a female of C. illigeri Wesmael and bears the label "no type status det. Morgan 1981"; the third specimen was selected by Morgan as the male lectotype of bicolor. According to a label pinned by Niehuis in 1998, the specimen selected by Morgan is a female and not a male. Either way, this specimen does not match the current interpretation of the species and belongs to C. illigeri Wesmael, 1839(= C. helleni Linsenmaier, 1959. There is no evidence to show that the selected specimen is a syntype. Lepeletier (1806) very likely described C. bicolor based on a single specimen ("Mâle. Je ne sais de quell pays elle est."), which must be considered as a holotype by monotypy. Du Buysson (1809Buysson ( , 1899 did not include it in the type series. Since the specimen designated by Morgan as lectotype had been identified by Lepeletier as C. humeralis, and not C. bicolor, and as this specimens does not correspond to the desciption of C. bicolor given by Lepeletier, we do not consider it as syntype and therefore as a lectotype (Art. 74.2 of the Code).

Chrysis bicolor
Since many authors do not separate C. bicolor from C. illigeri (e.g. Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 389;Kunz 1994: 104, etc.), we think that a neotype designation of C. bicolor Lepeletier is needed. Moreover, the taxonomic position of the species belonging to the C. succincta group is not clear. For example, Kimsey and Bohart (1991) placed C. illigeri in synonymy of C. bicolor and considered C. helleni Linsenmaier as a valid species. But Linsenmaier himself (1997a) placed C. helleni in synonymy with C. illigeri.
We designate a neotype of Chrysis bicolor Lepeletier, 1806 using a specimen housed in the Linsenmaier collection at NMLS. It is a female and it bears the following labels: The neotype matches the modern interpretation of the species according to Linsenmaier (1959: 113, figs. 350, 502, 503;1997b: 90, fig. 66). C. bicolor can be separated from the similar C. illigeri by the different shapes of the black spots on the second sternite, the lengths of the malar space, and the shapes of the metanotum in lateral view, as well as various other characters.  (1767) is very short, but concise and precise. Linnaeus described it with "abdomine aureo subtridentato". The specimen, or the specimens, examined by Linnaeus were females belonging to the species now identified as C. illigeri Wesmael or C. bicolor Lepeletier. The females of these species have four teeth on the anal margin, but the two median teeth are very close, at first sight with a low magnifying glass may appear merged into a single tooth, therefore displaying a "subtridentato" appearance.
Today, the name C. succincta Linnaeus is erroneously attributed to a species with the anal margin of the third tergite simple, rounded, sub-oval, and toothless. This misinterpretation has already been pointed out by Niehuis (in Mandery and Niehuis 2000: 51). C. illigeri and C. bicolor are distributed in all Europe and they are quite frequent or common in central and northern Europe, whereas C. succincta sensu Linsenmaier 1959 is a central European species, whose range appears to be restricted to Germany and Poland, although it is possible that its distribution went further north in Linnaeus' time. Unfortunately the type of C. succincta must be considered lost; it is not housed in LSL, NHRS, or LMU.
Jurine (1807: 295) was the first author to identify a specimen with a complete anal margin bearing the name C. succincta: "Je n'ai pu reconnaitre ni dents, ni échancrures au dernier segment du ventre". Later, Wesmael (1839: 176, 177) followed Jurine's interpretation. Wesmael described C. illigeri with: "ano utrinque emarginato, in medio bidentato" in contrast with his interpretation of C. succincta: "ano utrinque oblique subemarginato, in medio obtuso". After this paper, all the main authors considered succincta as a species with a toothless anal margin. Linsenmaier (1959) described the C. succincta species group based on the misidentified succincta, and later Kimsey and Bohart (1991) described the C. succincta sensu stricto subgroup and the C. succincta leachii subgroup. Moreover, most of the species belonging to the C. succincta species group have been described as variations, forms, or subspecies of C. succincta, or they have been considered, sooner or later, as synonyms of C. succincta. For this reason, nowadays, C. succincta is erroneously listed as occurring in all the European countries, in northern Africa and eastwards to central Asia. The easiest way to solve the problem would be to suppress the name C. succincta. Since it is improper to ask for the suppression of a name given by Linnaeus, we designate a neotype based on one specimen identified as C. succincta by Linsenmaier, the only author who gave a detailed description of the species in the modern sense. The selected speci-men is a male housed in the Linsenmaier collection (NML), and bearing the following labels: Bromberg [currently Bydgoszcz, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland] 24.V.20 leg. dr. Meyer Coll. Linsenmaier / Chrysis L. succincta L. Linsenmaier det. 59 / ex synoptic collection / NML_ENT GBIF_Chr00021185. The neotype matches Linsenmaier's description of this species (1959: 114, Figs 340, 490). The decision to designate this neotype in the Linsenmaier collection was done after consultation with other specialists (Arens, Paukkunen, Pavesi, Soon, Wiśniowski)  Colour. Head: face metallic greenish with bronze to reddish reflections on lateral sides of scapal basin, TFC, clypeus, scapus, pedicel and F-I; rest of flagellum blackish without metallic reflections; vertex greenish, area between ocelli darker with bluish to blackish intervals between the punctures; occiput greenish to bluish. Mesosoma: pronotum greenish, anterior margin with golden reflections, posterior margin bluish; mesonotum greenish to golden, not evidently in contrast with the colour of pronotum and scutellum, as in the male of C. bicolor Lepeletier; scutellum greenish, metanotum and propodeum greenish to bluish; mesopleuron greenis with golden reflections; femur and tibia greenish with golden reflections, more evident on tibia; tarsi testaceous. Metasoma: anteriorly greenish becoming gradually reddish posteriorly, anal margin with violet reflections; sternites and laterotergite reddish, with two large black spots on S-II.
Head. Scapal basin limited on the upper part by a sort of ring; it covers the entire face between the compound eyes, it is densely and finely punctuated except along the transversal median line, where the punctuation is characterized by longitudinal wrinkles. Frons with large and irregular punctures between the limit of the scapal basin and TFC; TFC not well delineated and vaguely M-shaped; punctures between TFC and mid-ocellus aligned with interspaces directed towards mid-ocellus; punctuation on ocellar area denser and with smaller punctures than on the rest of vertex. Genal carina well developed starting from the base of the mandible. Malar space 1 MOD long. Subantennal space 0.7 MOD. Mandible brown without subapical tooth, metallic greenish proximally. Relative lengths of P / F-I / F-II / F-III : 1 / 1.4 / 0.7 / 0.8. Short vestiture, hairs about 1 MOD long, longer under the genae.
Mesosoma. Pronotum with deep and large antero-median depression, ending 1 MOD before the posterior margin; punctuation double with irregular deep, dense and large punctures, without intervals, but with few small and superficial dots between the large punctures. Similar punctuation on the rest of the mesosoma, on mesonotum with deeper and larger punctures; on scutellum with large punctures on the anterior half. Propodeal tooth sharp and pointing outward; mesopleuron with scrobal and episternal sulcus evident. Long (about 1 MOD long) and erected hairs on mesosoma and legs.
Metasoma. T-II and T-III with double punctuation, on T-II the diameter of the larger punctures is slightly decreasing towards the posterior margin; preapical pits large and deep; apical margin of T-III simple, slightly arched, without visible teeth or concavities. Black spots on S-II large and elongated, almost in touch at their base and exceeding the middle of the sternite along the lateral margin. Hairs short (less than 1 MOD), longer at the base of T-I.
Genital capsula (Plate 48G, I). In dorsal view, gonocoxa with internal profile gently rounded, with short gonostyle; apex of the gonostyle simple with small subapical lobe bearing a long bristle.
Diagnosis. C. succincta mostly resemble C. frivaldszkyi Mocsáry and C. tristicula Linsenmaier (= succinctula sensu Linsenmaier) in respect of the shape of the anal margin, the general habitus and colour, especially of the females. It can be easily separated from the male of C. frivaldszkyi by the distinctively different shape of its genital cap-sula (Rosa 2005: figs 19a, b, c) and by the different body colour; the females of C. frivaldszkyi and C. tristicula are very difficult to separate from the female of C. succincta based on morphological characteristics. However, their distribution in Europe is nonoverlapping, with C. succincta being distributed in Germany, Poland, and the Baltic countries, whereas C. frivaldskzyi is distributed in the SE Europe, from Italy to Dalmatia, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Greece, Ukraine, and eastwards to Middle East. C. tristicula is distributed in SW Europe (Italy, Switzerland, France, Iberian Peninsula) and North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt?). Males of C. tristicula can be separated based on the shape of their genital capsula when seen in dosal view: it has a different stout gonostyle, with two aligned apical lobes (Plate 48H, J). Males of C. tristicula also show a different colouration, having head and thorax blue with few light blue to greenish reflections, and red flame anterior drawing on pronotum, mesonotum, anterior angles of metanotum and metasoma, as in C. illigeri Wesmael, 1839; the shape of the black spots on the second sternite can gradually vary within the European down to the African specimens, but are always more separated (about 2 MOD) than in succincta.
Chrysis semistriata Linsenmaier is very similar to C. tristicula, but it seems to be restricted to Sardinia and Corsica, and it was considered as an endemic Sardinian species (Rosa 2005). It shows small chromatic and morphological differences to C. tristicula. It belongs to the C. succincta group.

Chrysis westermanni Spinola, 1838
Chrysis westermanni: Remarks. Three specimens are found under the main label "Chrysis amethystra Fab., Chr. Westermanni" in the Spinola collection. At least two of these specimens were examined by Dahlbom (1854: 229) and placed in synonymy of Chrysis amethystina Fabricius. In Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 567), C. amethystina is placed in synonymy of Stilbum cyanurum (Forster, 1771). The name C. westermanni Spinola is not mentioned by Kimsey and Bohart (1991). In fact, the name C. westermanni Spinola has been forgotten by all subsequent authors working on cuckoo wasps. Its description is hidden within the description of Chrysis singularis Spinola, 1838, but even if short, it is valid: "J'ai dit aussi que plusieurs espèces du même genre avaient un bourrelet sur le troisième segment; sa présence est assez rare: on en voit des rudiments dans quelques espèces exotiques, telles que les Chr. sex-dentata, fasciata, et dans une troidième inédite de la Guinée, Chr. Westermanni, du nom du naturaliste qui l'a recueillie; elles font le passage à la suivante, où le bourrelet est très-apparent". Dahlbom (1854: 232) described C. westermanni based on one specimen collected by Westermann in Guinea, presumably the same specimen studied some years before by Spinola. In fact, it is possible that Spinola examined Westermann's specimen and sent it back to the owner; they were in contact and exchanged material. A few years later, Dahlbom received the chrysidid collection of Westermann (Dahlbom 1854: vi) and described C. westermanni presumably based on the same specimen studied by Spinola. Now this type is housed in ZMUC.
The name C. westermanni Dahlbom, 1854 is therefore a junior homonym of westermanni Spinola, 1838. However, the name C. westermanni Spinola was never used. Therefore, to ensure the stability of the system, we will ask to the Commission on the ICZN to suppress the name C. westermanni Spinola. Remarks. Dahlbom (1854) described E. spina based on a specimen collected by Latreille and housed in the Spinola collection. Abeille (1878: 1, 2) examined one specimen which he considered as the type and he replaced the name spina Dahlbom with superbus Abeille ("nomen à changer"). The holotype described by Dahlbom is now housed in his collection in LZM. The female specimen housed in the Spinola collection cannot be considered as a type. E. spina is a secondary junior homonym of E. spina (Lepeletier) and a junior synonym of E. bidens (Förster, 1853 (Fabricius, 1787). Leclerq (1988: 6) listed the holotype of E. affinis at IRSN in Wesmael's collection. Rosa (2009: 217) found another possible syntype in Gribodo/s collection in MSNG. The second specimen belongs to Holopyga ignicollis Dahlbom Buysson 1898Buysson , 1899. Therefore, there is the possibility that the specimens in the Spinola collection are syntypes; the male in this collection belongs to the species Hedychrum gerstaeckeri Chevrier, 1869, whereas the female belongs to Hedychrum rutilans Dahlbom, 1854. du Buysson (1895 in his "Catalogue méthodique des Chrysidides de France" listed He. alterum as a synonym of He. rutilans, without having considered the priority of the name He. alterum over He. rutilans. The short description of He. alterum does not allow identification of this species and part of the description is doubtful ("Tête et corcelet verts") because the colour of head and pronotum and mesonotum in H. nobile has no contrasts. Confidence in that Lepeletier described at least one specimen of He. rutilans comes from the colour drawing (Lepeletier 1806: pl. 6: fig. 8). In this drawing, it is clear that pronotum and mesonotum are green, contrasting with the rest of the mesosoma, which is blue. Therefore, based on the drawing and the diagnosis given by du Buysson (1899), we can assume the synonym He. rutilans Dahlbom, 1854= H. alterum Lepeletier, 1806 He. alterum was misinterpreted by Dahlbom (1854: 79), who placed it in synonymy with He. lucidulum (Fabricius, 1775) [currently He. nobile (Scopoli, 1763)] without having examined the type. He simply listed "Hedychrum alterum Dufour in litt.". Based on this work, all the other authors, from Dalla Torre (1892: 34) to Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 217) placed He. alterum in synonymy with He. nobile.

Elampus spina Dahlbom, 1854
Since the name He. rutilans is currently in prevailing usage, we propose the reversal of precedence in accordance with the Art. 23.9 of the Code. In fact, the prevailing usage must be maintained when the two conditions are both met: the senior synonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899 and the junior synonym has been used for this species as a valid name in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years. The name He. alterum Lepeletier was placed in synonymy with He. nobile by Mocsáry (1889: 172) and has never been used again as a valid species name. In contrast, more than then authors have used the name He. rutilans as a valid species name during the last 50 years in dozens of publications. Here are some of the most important papers from different countries: Morgan (1984: 16); Leclerq (1988: 8); Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 219); Kunz (1994: 93); Mingo (1994: 67); Strumia (1995: 3); Mandery and Niehuis (2000: 55); Niehuis (2001: 121); Rosa (2002: 106;2005: 23;2006: 150  Remarks. Spinola (1843) described H. aulicum based on some males received by De Cristofori from Dalmatia, Sicily, and Spain. Dahlbom (1854: 79) examined only one male and placed it in synonymy with He. lucidulum (= He. nobile). There are still three specimens of this species in the Spinola collection: one bears a round label and it was part of Latreille's or Serville's collection; we exlude it from the type series. The second specimen belongs to He. niemelai Linsenmaier and we exclude it from the type series as it is a female. The third specimen is a male and could be considered as a syntype. We cannot identify the species for sure, because it is badly prepared and a new preparation might damage the specimen. The specimen likely belongs to He. niemelai. We suggest considering the name He. aulicum as nomen oblitum and He. niemelai as nomen protectum, since it is in prevailing usage in the last fifty years and the name He. aulicum has not been used after 1899.
The neotype matches the interpretation of the species given by European authors and some drawings and photographs can be found, for example, in Kunz (1994: 49, figs 58, 62), Linsenmaier (1997b: 49, fig. 18), and Rosa (2006: tav III: figs 19, 21 Remarks. In the Spinola collection, there are two specimens of Hedychridium cupreum (Dahlbom, 1845) given by Dahlbom. Dahlbom described this species based on female specimens collected in Sweden. It is possible that the two specimens in the Spinola collection are syntypes sent to Spinola by Dahlbom. Abeille (1879: 39) wrote "J'ai vu à Turin [coll. Spinola], sous le nom primitif de Cupreum, deux types de cette charmante espèce venant de Danemark et envoyés par Dahlbom". The locality of Denmark given by Abeille represents likely an error since Scania is a Swedish region. These two specimen have been already considered as possible paralectotypes in Paukkunen et al. (2014). Current status. Hedychridium cupreum (Dahlbom, 1845) (1806) described He. lucidum based on one male and one female collected at Meudon and Soissons. There are no syntype specimens in the Lepeletier collection at MNHN (du Buysson 1899). The specimen labelled as "H. lucidum Lepel." and "6266" in the Spinola collection could be a syntype. It is a female specimen belonging to Ho. jurinei Chevrier, 1862, according to the current interpretation of the species given by Linsenmaier (1959).

Remarks. Lepeletier
Current status. Holopyga lucidum (Lepeletier, 1896) (1806) described He. nitidum based on a male, but the description is obviously based on a female. The original colour drawing (pl. 6: 6) clearly shows a specimen with ovipositor tube. Moreover, the colour given in the description likely referres to a female. In the Spinola collection there are two females, possibly syntypes. At MNHN, there are other specimens of this species coming from Lepeletier's collection, included some syntypes (du Buysson 1898: 563, as a synonym of Ho. fervida, currently in box 11 of the general collection).
Label [♀]: Spintharis chrysonota, Kl.; D. Draege, Cap. B. Esp. and twenty four lectotypes are designated; five previously designated lectotypes are set aside; two species are considered as nomina dubia, two species as nomina oblita, and another two as nomina protecta; three new synonymies are proposed. The photographs of fifty-three types are given for the first time.
This article is the first of a series concerning the study of the Chrysididae types, mainly focused on the Palaearctic fauna. Reviewing the type material is not only essential to find out what is the correct name to list in a catalogue, but also to ensure long-term stability in nomenclature that helps to shift research from boring taxonomic treatments to research on the distribution, biology, and evolution of these fascinating wasps. A major revision of the European Chrysididae is already planned and has begun with the database project of Fauna Europaea (Rosa and Soon 2012).