2urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:45048D35-BB1D-5CE8-9668-537E44BD4C7Eurn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:91BD42D4-90F1-4B45-9350-EEF175B1727AZooKeysZK1313-29891313-2970Pensoft Publishers10.3897/zookeys.471.65584506CatalogueChrysididaeCatalogues and ChecklistsWorldAnnotated type catalogue of the Chrysididae (Insecta, Hymenoptera) deposited in the collection of Maximilian Spinola (1780–1857), TurinRosaPaolohttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-52971XuZai-fuxuzaifu@scau.edu.cn†2UnaffiliatedBernareggioItalySouth China Agricultural UniversityGuangzhouChina
201514012015471196FF692F5E-FFC5-FFDD-FFE1-FFC7FFFF7D1B9068F500-995E-4D18-93A4-A79ECB9A4ABB5786820310201426112014Paolo Rosa, Zai-fu XuThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.http://zoobank.org/9068F500-995E-4D18-93A4-A79ECB9A4ABB
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: Chrysisbicolor Lepeletier, 1806; C.comparata Lepeletier, 1806; C.dives Dahlbom, 1854; C.pumila Klug, 1845; C.succincta Linnaeus, 1767; Hedychrumbidentulum Lepeletier, 1806. The lectotypes of twenty-four species are designated: Chrysisaequinoctialis Dahlbom, 1854; C.analis Spinola, 1808; C.assimilis Dahlbom, 1854; C.bihamata Spinola, 1838; C.chilensis Spinola, 1851; C.dichroa Dahlbom, 1854; C.distinguenda Dahlbom, 1854; C.episcopalis Spinola, 1838; C.grohmanni Dahlbom, 1854; C.incrassata Spinola, 1838; C.pallidicornis Spinola, 1838; C.pulchella Spinola, 1808; C.ramburi Dahlbom, 1854; C.refulgens Spinola, 1806; C.splendens Dahlbom, 1854; C.succinctula Dahlbom, 1854; C.versicolor Spinola, 1808; Elampusgayi Spinola, 1851; Hedychrumcaerulescens Lepeletier, 1806; He.chloroideum Dahlbom, 1854; He.difficile Spinola, 1851; He.virens Dahlbom, 1854; Holopygajanthina Dahlbom, 1854; Ho.luzulina Dahlbom, 1854. Previous lectotype designations of five species are set aside: Chrysisbicolor Lepeletier, 1806 (designated by Morgan 1984); C.calimorpha Mocsáry, 1882 (designated by Móczár 1965); C.elegans Lepeletier, 1806 (designated by Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991)); Hedychrumchloroideum Dahlbom, 1854 (designated by Kimsey 1986); He.rutilans Dahlbom, 1854 (designated by Morgan 1984). Three new synonymies are proposed: Hedychrumintermedium Dahlbom, 1845, syn. n. of Holopygafervida (Fabricius, 1781); Chrysissicula Dahlbom, 1854, syn. n. of C.elegans Lepeletier, 1806; Chrysissuccinctula Dahlbom, 1854, syn. n. of C.germari Wesmael, 1839. Chrysisdistinguenda Spinola, 1838, and C.coronata Spinola, 1808, are considered nomina dubia.Hedychrumalterum Lepeletier, 1806, and He.aulicum Spinola, 1843, are considered nomina oblita.Hedychrumrutilans Dahlbom, 1854, and He.niemelai Linsenmaier, 1959, are retained as nomina protecta. The first available name for Chrysissuccinctulasensu Linsenmaier is C.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.
Chrysididaeneotypelectotypenew synonymynomen dubiumnomen oblitumnomen protectumSpinola collectionThis study was partly supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (No. 2013CB127600) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30770265).Citation
Rosa P, Xu Z-f (2015) Annotated type catalogue of the Chrysididae (Insecta, Hymenoptera) deposited in the collection of Maximilian Spinola (1780–1857), Turin. ZooKeys 471: 1–96. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.471.6558
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 and Casolari 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 references on Chrysididae related to this collection are: Spinola (1805, 1806–1808, 1838, 1840, 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 hymenopteran family Chrysididae (e.g. Bradley 1957; Vidano and Arzone 1978; Casolari and Casolari 1980; Passerin d’Entréves 1980, 1983; Casale 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))].
Spinola’s Hymenoptera collection, box 52 (photo courtesy of MRSN).
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36925
The collection of Chrysididae by Spinola is very important, and it was fully studied and published by Spinola (1805, 1806–1808, 1838, 1840, 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.
In the present paper, we identified ninety-six types, belonging to sixty-seven species (six neotypes, thirty-two holotypes, twenty-four lectotypes, twenty-seven paralectotypes, and thirteen syntypes) deposited in the Spinola collection. Three neotypes are designated in NMLS (Chrysisbicolor Lepeletier, 1806, C.succincta Linnaeus, 1767 and Hedychrumbidentulum Lepeletier, 1806), and one neotype is designated in HNHM (Chrysiscalimorpha Mocsáry, 1882) to ensure stability in the nomenclature of the Palaearctic Chrysididae.
Material and methods
Terminology and classification of genera and species groups follow Kimsey and Bohart (1991), classification of the European species follows Linsenmaier (1959, 1968, 1987, 1997a, 1997b, 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:
HNHM Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary.
IRSN Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles, Bruxelles, Belgium.
ISEA–PAS Invertebrate collections of the Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow, Poland.
LMU Linnémuseet, Uppsala, Sweden.
LSL Linnean Society of London, England.
LZM Lund Zoological Museum, University of Lund, Sweden.
Dahlbom (1854) described C.aequinoctialis based on at least a series of specimens. In the Spinola collection, only a male of this species is currently housed. Bohart pinned a lectotype label under this specimen, but the lectotype designation has not been published. Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 425) placed C.aequinoctialis in synonymy with C.intricata Brullé, 1846 and reported "Syntype male, female; Brazil (Turin)". However, the female syntype is not preserved in the collection. Since the female is possibly lost and the above male of C.aequinoctialis corresponds to Dahlbom’s species description, we here designate the male specimen as lectotype of C.aequinoctialis. We deem Spinola’s collection as the right place for this lectotype designation, since the collection is cited in the original description and the choice of the male is to be preferred since the genitalia dissection can help in a future study of C.aequinoctialis.
C.aequinoctialis is currently considered as synonym of C.intricata Brullé, 1846 (Kimsey and Bohart 1991). Yet the interocellar distance measured between lateral ocelli (IOD), the length of the malar space and the transversal frontal carina (TFC) are distinctly different between the lectotype of C.aequinoctialis and those specimens described by Bohart and Kimsey (1982: 135). It belongs to the smaragdula group and a worldwide revision this group is needed.
Current status.
Chrysisintricata Brullé, 1846 (synonymised by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 425).
Dahlbom (1854) described three variations (a, b, c) of C.alternans. Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 381) designated a lectotype of C.alternans at ZMUC. Dahlbom’s three variations of C.alternans are nowadays considered distinct species, referring to two different species groups. In Spinola’s box 51, there are three specimens placed under the label C.alternans (Casolari and Casolari Moreno 1980: 79). Two of them belong to var. a, whereas the third refers to var. b and belongs to a different species with a similar colouration. A further specimen of "C.alternans" was found in box 52, under the name Poecilochroaalternans and should be considered as another paralectotype referring to var. b. The examination of the lectotype in ZMUC revealed that it belongs to var. a (Madl and Rosa 2012: 16). It belongs to the alternans group.
Spinola (1808) described C.analis based on a series of specimens: "Habitat passim in Liguria, haud infrequens". Today there are six specimens in the Spinola collection that refer to C.analis, even though Casolari and Casolari (1980: 79) listed only five. One specimen bears a rounded label that was likely acquired after the description of the species. Two other specimens bear handwritten labels. However, the handwriting is not by Spinola and thus the specimens cannot be considered as type material; they were very likely collected by Ghiliani in Spain and later sent to Spinola, as reported on the white label at the base of the series. One specimen is a male of C.splendidula Rossi. The remaining two specimens were collected at Genoa, as reported on the main underlying white label. Since there are different species found in the type series, we designate as lectotype of C.analis Spinola an undamaged male that matches Spinola’s description of this species and the current interpretation of the species by most currently active authors. It belongs to the comparata-scutellaris group.
"Habitat in Sicilia et Aegypto. Tria specimina lustravi: unum a D. Grohmann in Sicilia lectum, Mus. Vienn. teste D. Kollar; alterum e Stansnio a D. Loew communicatum, tertium ex Aegypto D. Walt, Mus. D. Spinola".
Material.
Lectotype (here designated) ♀. Chrysisassimilis Spin. D. Waltl. Égypte.
Dahlbom (1854) described C.assimilis based on three syntypes. The Egyptian syntype is still in Spinola’s collection. The second syntype is apparently lost. The third syntype from Sicily is housed in NHMW. C.assimilis was considered as a valid species by different authors: Abeille (1879: 41), Gogorza (1887: 51), De Stefani (1888: 138), du Buysson (in André), 1893: 233). However, after publication of Mocsáry’s seminal monograph on cuckoo wasps (1889: 183), C.assimilis was considered by most authors as a synonym of C.pumila Klug, 1845.
Mocsáry (1889) placed all the known species relating to the genus Chrysidea Bischoff in synonym with Chrysispumila (C.assimilis Dahlbom, C.virgo Abeille, C.tarsata Tournier, and C.persica Radoszkowski), and most authors followed this interpretation (Dalla Torre 1892: 37; Bischoff 1913: 35; Trautmann 1927: 102; Berland and Bernard 1938: 70; Linsenmaier 1951: 62; Balthasar 1953: 170).
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.pumilasensu 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 Bohart 1991).
We examined both available syntypes of C.assimilis Dahlbom. They belong to two different species: the Egyptian specimen housed in MRSN is a female of C.persica (sensuLinsenmaier 1959 = C.pumilasensuLinsenmaier 1987); the Sicilian specimen housed in the NHMW is a male of C.pumiladisclusa (sensuLinsenmaier 1959 = C.pumilionisdisclusasensuLinsenmaier 1987).
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.pumilasensuLinsenmaier (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 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: Chrysisassimilis Spin. D. Waltl Égypte. This designation retains the synonymy of C.assimilis Dahlbom, 1854 and C.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.disclusapumilionis Linsenmaier, 1987 (Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Morocco, Spain, Switzerland); C.rebecca Morice, 1909 (Palestine, Syria).
Current status.
Chrysideapumila (Klug, 1845) (synonymised by Mocsary 1887: 13; and transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 314).
There are two syntypes of Chrysisbihamata in the Spinola collection. The first syntype was heavily damaged by a dermestid attack and it is almost unrecognizable. Therefore, we designate the second specimen, currently being in good condition, as lectotype. It is only partially covered by an old mould layer. C.bihamata is the first species described in the C.bihamata group.
Chrysisbihamata Spinola, lectotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C metasoma, dorso-lateral view D second to third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36930AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae469BAA72-346F-51A3-B753-36DAE189CE3FChrysiscarinataDahlbom, 1854Chrysiscarinata: Dahlbom 1854: 167 nec Block, 1799.Type locality.
"Habitat in Africa, ad Cap. bon. sp. a D. Draege detecta; Mus. Spinolae".
Material.
Holotype (sex unknown): Chrysiscarinata / (Nemophora) Draege / D. Draege Cap. B. Esp.
In the original description, Dahlbom (1854: 168) listed also the name Nemophoracarinata Draege, the same name found on the label pinned with the specimen in the Spinola collection. The type is seriously damaged, only its mesosoma exists. It belongs to the C.oxygona group.
Current status.
ChrysiscapensisMocsáry (1887: 14), replacement name for Chrysiscarinata Dahlbom, 1854 (nec Block, 1799).
C.chilensis was described based on a syntype series that included males and females. Other syntypes are housed in LZM (Dahlbom’s collection) and MNHN (du Buysson 1898: 166).
Gay (1851: 404) erroneously assumed that C.chilensis Spinola was described in 1845 in Atlas Zoologico, Entomologia, Himenópteros, tav. 4, fig. 6. The same author therefore also considered C.chilensis a senior subjective synonym of C.grandis Brullé, 1846. Currently, C.chilensis Spinola, 1851 is considered a junior subjective synonym of C.grandis Brullé, 1846. Since we could not find the reference "Atlas Zoologico" cited by Gay, we consider C.chilensis Spinola, 1851 as the junior synonym of C.grandis Brullé, 1846. We designate the male specimen, still being in good condition, as the lectotype. It belongs to the C.grandis group.
Current status.
Chrysisgrandis Brullé, 1846 (synonymised by Mocsáry 1889: 404).
Chrysischilensis Spinola, lectotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C metasoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorso-lateral view.
Syntypes 2♂♂. Chrysiscomparata, Lepell. / D. De St. Fargeau, Paris.
Neotype (here designated) ♀. Sicile et Toscane / Lectotype ♀ Chrysisdistinguenda Dhlb. P. Rosa des. 2012 / NeotypusChrysiscomparata Lepeletier des. P. Rosa 2013.
In the Spinola collection, there are two identical specimens of C.comparata according to their general habitus, preparation and state of conservation. The type is likely housed in the Spinola collection, given that both Dahlbom (1854: 284) and Abeille (1879: 69) examined it there. Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 399) listed syntype males and they assumed to be housed in MNHN. However, they refer to some specimens cited by du Buysson (1898: 166) not included to the type series. In any case, the type of C.comparata is not housed in MNHN (du Buysson 1899) and was not found during our research.
It is evident that Lepeletier’s description and drawing (Tav.1, fig.12) of C.comparata does not match the current interpretation of the species. It rather perfectly matches the description of the male of Chrysispyrophana Dahlbom, 1854. No other European species, in comparison, has such small body length, colour of head, mesosoma and the anterior part of T-I green-blue combined with the anal margin with four blunt and weakly developed teeth. The interpretation of C.comparata (= male of C.pyrophana) was clear to Dahlbom (1854), Mocsáry (1889: 431) and Dalla Torre (1892: 52). Dahlbom (1854: 284) described the female under the name of Chrysispyrophana Dahlbom, 1854, because of the remarkable sexual dimorphism.
Dahlbom (1854: 282) described Chrysiscomparata in the modern sense under the name Chrysisdistinguenda Dahlbom (nec Spinola, 1838). Mocsáry (1879: 10) recognized the homonymy with Spinola’s C.distinguenda and replaced the name C.distinguenda Dahlbom with the name Chrysischevrieri Mocsáry (nec Abeille, 1877). This name remained in use for a long time in European collections.
The first wrong interpretation of this taxon dates back to Abeille (1879). His incorrect interpretation was already recognized by Mocsáry (1887: 14; 1889: 479), who included Chrysiscomparatasensu Abeille in the synonymic list of Chrysischevrieri Mocsáry, 1879. Please note that Abeille (1879) additionally independently described the male of C.pyrophana Dahlbom, 1854 under the name C.insoluta.
Mocsáry (1889: 431) correctly recognized the synonymy C.insoluta Abeille = C.comparata Lepeletier. Later, Bischoff (1913: 49) interpreted the name comparata Lepeletier as referring to females of C.distinguenda Dahlbom and C.chevrieri Mocsáry as well as the male of pyrophana (= insoluta Abeille).
The current (mis-) interpretation of the species Chrysiscomparata 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), the Spinola collection houses the type of C.distinguenda Dahlbom. This name was considered as a synonym of C.comparatasensu auctorum. To preserve the stability of nomenclature, we designate the neotype of C.comparata Lepeletier (Plate 8) based on a syntype ♀ of C.distinguenda Dahlbom (labels: Sicile et Toscane / Lectotype ♀ Chrysisdistinguenda Dhlb. P. Rosa des. 2012 / NeotypusChrysiscomparata Lepeletier des. P. Rosa 2013), in accordance with Art. 75.6 of the Code: Conservation of prevailing usage by a neotype. The Article states that when an author discovers that the existing name-bearing type of a nominal species-group taxon is not in taxonomic accord with the prevailing usage of names and stability or universality is threatened thereby, he should maintain prevailing usage [Art. 82] and request the Commission to set aside under its plenary power [Art. 81] the existing name-bearing type and designate a neotype. It belongs to the comparata-scutellaris group.
Chrysiscomparata Lepeletier, lectotype. A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C metasoma, dorso-lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorso-lateral view.
Chrysisdistinguenda Dahlbom, lectotype; Chrysiscomparata Lepeletier, neotype A Habitus, dorsal view B second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36933AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae967D69D8-38F0-5133-93C8-D2B13D34E36CChrysiscupreaBrullé, 1846Chrysiscuprea: Brullé 1846: 40 nec Rossi, 1790.Type locality.
"Hab.[itat] le Cap de Bonne-Espérance. Collect. de M. Serville".
Material.
Holotype ♀. Chrysiscuprea Brullé / Coll. Serv.[ille], Cap B.[one] Esp.[érance].
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 (1959, 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.
Chrysuradichroa (Dahlbom, 1854) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 488).
Chrysisdichroa Dahlbom, lectotype. A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C head, lateral view D head and mesosoma, dorsal view E metasoma, dorsal view F metasoma, ventral view.
Spinola (1840: 202) gave the diagnosis of a male belonging to Chrysisfasciata 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 Chrysisintricans 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: "Chrysisfasciata 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 "Chrysisdistinctissima Dlbm – Chr.fasciata m.[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) it belongs to the C.intricans group.
Current status.
Chrysisdistinctissima Dahlbom, 1854.
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae03AF1DAC-F0FA-57C7-8F78-C979008A7CF5ChrysisdistinguendaDahlbom, 1854Plate 8Chrysisdistinguenda: Dahlbom 1854: 282 nec Spinola, 1838.Material.
Lectotype (here designated) ♀. Chrysisdistinguenda, Spin.; Sicile et Toscane.
Dahlbom (1854: 282) described C.distinguenda 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: "Chrysisdistinguenda 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 (1879, 1889) realized that C.distinguenda Dahlbom a synonym of comparatasensu 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: 221) 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 as neotype of C.comparata Lepeletier (Plate 8) (labels: Sicile et Toscane / Lectotype ♀ Chrysisdistinguenda Dhlb. P. Rosa des. 2012 / NeotypusChrysiscomparata Lepeletier des. P. Rosa 2013). For further notes see remarks under C.comparata Lepeletier. The type of C.distinguenda Spinola, 1838 is currently lost (see the chapter II Types not housed in the Spinola collection).
Current status.
Chrysiscomparata Lepeletier, 1806 (synonymised by Trautmann 1927: 154).
The type of C.dives is badly damaged, lacking its head and metasoma. Even if only the mesosoma had remained, it is clear that the current interpretation of the species does not match the type. The mesosoma clearly refers to a species that is well known under the name C.varidens Abeille, 1878. Dahlbom (1854: 300) considered 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, 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.calimorphasensu 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 Mocsáry, selected by Móczár as lectotype and bearing the following labels: Rákospalota [= Budapest] 23.V.1879 leg. Biró (Plate 11). It belongs to the C.pulchella group.
Current status.
Chrysiscalimorpha Mocsáry, 1882 (Mocsáry 1882: 71), replacement name for ChrysisdivesDahlbom 1854.
Chrysiscalimorpha Mocsáry, neotype. A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C metasoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Two specimens are found under the label Chrysiselegans 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. 74.2. It belongs to the C.elegans group.
In Casolari and Casolari Moreno (1980: 79) under the name Chrysisalternans, the specimen is surely the type of C.elegantula. Dahlbom (1854: 236) reported exactly the same names: "Chrysisalternans var. c ♂ - Chrysiselegantula Mus. Spinola". The type is a female and not a male. It belongs to the comparata-scutellaris group.
Chrysiselegantula Spinola, holotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C metasoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
The type locality in the description does not match the locality written on the label. At Spinola's time Novara was under the dominion of Genoa, and this is the reason for the different localities. There are no known records of C.emarginatula around Genoa. It belongs to the C.elegans group.
Chrysisemarginatula Spinola, holotype. A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorso-lateral view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36938AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae58765E48-4BF3-5225-8805-FBE306433363ChrysisepiscopalisSpinola, 1838Chrysisepiscopalis: Spinola 1838: 449 nec Bloch, 1799.Type locality.
Egypt.
Material.
Lectotype (here designated) ♀. Chrysisepiscopalis, Spin.; D. Waltl, Égypte.
We designate a lectotype of C.episcopalis Spinola using one of two syntypes, the one less severely damaged. The second available syntype is badly damaged, with its metasoma glued on the mesosoma. The name C.episcopalis Spinola was used as a valid name until recently, when Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 469) observed that it was a junior homonym of C.episcopalis Block, 1799. They suggested to use the name C.syriaca Guérin, 1842. However, C.episcopalis Block is no longer congeneric with Chrysis and no author has used the name episcopalis Block after the year 1899. Therefore, according to Article 23.9.5 of the Code, the name C.episcopalis Spinola is a valid and available name in the genus Chrysis. It belongs to the C.viridissima group.
Current status.
Chrysissyriaca Guérin, 1842 (synonymised by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 469).
Dahlbom realized that this specimen does not have an "exotic" habitus (Bengala was the old name of a district between NW India and Bangladesh) and cited the type locality as "forte Bengalia" [accidentally Bengalia for Bengala]. The species is distributed in North Africa and Near East (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.
Chrysisexsulans Dahlbom, holotype. A Habitus, dorso-lateral view B head, frontal view C first and second metasomal tergites, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36939AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae97F6355D-C404-5AF5-9A26-FA8170C29DE6ChrysisfasciataSpinola, 1840Chrysisfasciata: Spinola 1840: 202 nec Olivier, 1790.Type locality.
Cayenne (French Guyana).
Material.
Holotype ♂ (?): Chrysisdistinctissima Dlbm. - Chr.fasciata, m.[ihi] D. Buquet, Cayenna // Holotype ♂. Chrysisintricans Spinola, R. M. Bohart det. // Lectotype ♂. Chrysisdistinctissima Dahlbom, R.M. Bohart det.
Chrysisgayi Spinola, holotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C metasoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Dahlbom (1854) described C.grohmanni based on two specimens: one from the Spinola collection, the other from the Paykull collection (= C.gloriosa Dahlbom, 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.
Chrysisgrohmanni Dahlbom, lectotype. A Habitus, dorso-lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
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.
Pseudospinoliaincrassata (Spinola, 1838) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 547).
Chrysisincrassata Spinola, lectotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 430) designated a lectotype using a specimen housed in ZMUC. The interpretation of the species given by Linsenmaier (1999: 177) is not correct, since it belongs to the C.splendidula-senegalensis group and not to the comparata-scutellaris group.
Chrysislaeta Dahlbom, paralectotype. A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
"Habitat in Africa meridionali, ad promontorium bonae spei a Dom. Draege detecta. Specimina tantum 2 vidi, unum a Dom. Spinola et alterum a Dom. Drewsen communicata".
Material.
Paralectotype 1 ♀. Chrysismalachitica, Dr..; inédite; D. Drage, Cap. B. Esp.
Chrysismalachitica Dahlbom, paralectotype. A Head and mesosoma, lateral view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Chrysismegerlei Dahlbom, holotype. A Habitus, dorso-lateral view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
"Habitat in Africa; 3 specimina vidimus; unum in Guinea lectum, a D. Westermann nobis olim donatum; alterum e promontorio bonae spei a D. Spinola ut variet. Chrysidis malachiticae communicatura; tertium e Port Natal a D. J. Wahlberg reportatum, Mus. R. Acad. Scient. Stockholm".
Material.
Paralectotype 1 ♀. Chrysismodica, Dlbm. D. Dreage, Pr. B. Esp.
Dahlbom (1854) described C.modica based on three specimens collected in Guinea (ZMUC), Cape of Good Hope (Spinola’s collection) and Port Natal (NHRS). Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 437) selected the latter as lectotype. It belongs to the C.smaragdula group.
Current status.
Chrysismediocris Dahlbom, 1845 (synonymised by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 437).
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae8C7E39A9-E178-53E5-8FF1-29532661E64AChrysismucronataDahlbom, 1854Plate 21Chrysismucronata: Dahlbom 1854: 344 nec Brullé, 1846.Type locality.
"Habitat in Africa meridionali, ad promontorium bonae spei a Dom. Draege detecta; unicum specimen nobis communicavit Dom. Spinola".
Material.
Holotype ♀. Chrysismucronata Dlbm – (Pyria) Encycl. Sud Africa.
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.
Current status.
Chrysislaborans Costa, 1865 (synonymised by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 429).
Chrysismucronata Dahlbom, holotype A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, lateral view.
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 [Chrysispallidicornis m. [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). On Plate 22, the type label is erroneously given as holotype instead of lectotype. It belongs to the C.pallidicornis group.
Chrysispallidicornis Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Chrysispalliditarsis Spinola, holotype A Head and mesosoma, dorsal view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, dorsal view D head and mesosoma, lateral view.
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.
Chrysispulchella Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B habitus, dorsal view C head and mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36949AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididaeF577A1F9-A27A-581E-8DDA-EA7C82C7DF2CChrysispunctatissimaSpinola, 1840Plate 25Chrysispunctatissima: Spinola 1840: 200 nec Villers, 1789.Type locality.
Cayenne, French Guyana.
Material.
Syntypes 1♂ and 2♀♀. Chrysisfasciata Fab. – Chr.punctatissima m.[ihi], olim D. Buquet, Cayenna / Chrysiscarina ♂ R. M. Bohart det.
Dahlbom (1854: 197) treated this species as a synonym of Chrysisfasciata Fabricius; for likely this reason, we find written on Spinola’s label: "Chrysisfasciata Fab - Chr.punctatissima mihi".
Current status.
Neochrysiscarina (Brullé, 1846) (synonymised by Mocsáry 1889: 339; N.carina is the first available name; transferred by Kimsey 1985: 276).
Chrysispunctatissima Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Kimsey (1988: 272) designated the lectotype of C.purpurata at ZMUC, based on one specimen labelled C.purpurata but belonging to another species: Chrysisiris 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 Euchroeuspurpuratus auctorum was replaced by the name Brugmoiaquadrata (Shuckard, 1837). The Commission on the ICZN approved the documentations provided by Pavesi and Strumia (1997) as valid and suppressed the lectotype designated by Kimsey and conserved the generic name Euchroeus Latreille and the specific name purpurata Fabricius. Pavesi and Strumia (ICZN 1998) designated the neotype of C.purpurata in the Spinola collection.
Current status.
Euchroeuspurpuratus (Fabricius, 1787) (transferred by Latreille 1809).
"Habitat in Europa meridionali rarius; marem unicum in Hispania a D. Rambur detectum et feminam unicam in Lombardia a D. Christophori lectam communicavit D. Spinola".
Material.
Lectotype (here designated) ♂. ChrysisRamburi, Spin. n. sp.?. D. Rambur, Espagne, Sierra Nevada.
Paralectotype ♀. ChrysisRamburi, Spin. n. sp.?. D. Rambur, Espagne, Sierra Nevada.
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.
Spinola (1806) described C.refulgens based on a number of specimens (haud infrequens) collected in Liguria (Genoa). In his collection, there are two specimens collected at Genoa, but only the single one female specimen of these belongs to this species; the male specimen belongs to C.graelsii Guérin, 1846, which therefore has to be excluded from the syntype series. To avoid future misinterpretation of the specimens in the Spinola collection, we designate the above female matching the description provided by Spinola as the lectotype of C.refulgens Spinola. It is missing the right antenna and the left flagellum. Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 495) cited another type at MNHN. It belongs to the C.radians group.
Current status.
Chrysurarefulgens (Spinola, 1806) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 495).
Chrysisrefulgens Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Spinola (1838: 448) described Pyriareichei (currently Chrysislincea Fabricius, 1775) based on one specimen collected by Reiche at Cape of Good Hope, in South Africa. Dahlbom (1854: 218) described a new species based on another specimen received from Spinola under the name C.reichei and collected at Coromandel in the province of Minas Gerais in Brazil. This species is clearly different from Pyriareichei Spinola. Dahlbom (1854) redescribed the species because the specimen received earlier did not match the original description. However, he actually described a new species, confused the type locality Coromandel, Brazil, with Coromandal, which is in South Africa, Mpumalanga State. The holotype of Pyriareichei Spinola is currently considered lost. It belongs to the ignita group.
Current status.
Chrysisbrasiliensis Brullé, 1846 (synonymised by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 391).
Chrysisreichei Dahlbom, holotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36954AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae5D5861F7-CA33-5F88-B64A-8DBA95B7B92DChrysisrutilansDahlbom, 1854ChrysisrutilansDahlbom: 1854: 260 nec Olivier, 1790.Type locality.
"Habitat in Lusitania, Italia, Gallia, Turcia ad Constantinopol. Feminam, in Tirolia a CI. Prof. Apex, detectam, in Museo Berolinensi anno 1847 vidi.".
In the Spinola collection there are two specimens listed by Dahlbom (1854) under his diagnosis of C.rutilans. Dahlbom (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: "Chrysisrutilans Olivier, teste Latreille olim in litteris ad Spinola" and "ChrysisFriwaldskyi Spinola" both specimens housed in "Mus. Spinolae". The same species had been described one year before by Förster (1953) as C.chrysoprasina. It belongs to the C.comparata-scutellaris group.
Current status.
Chrysischrysoprasina Förster, 1853 (synonymised by Mocsáry 1887: 16).
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae854FA022-4A3A-5277-BCCD-1BCCB461EF9AChrysissiculaDahlbom, 1854Chrysissicula: Dahlbom 1854: 158 (given as var. ab and var. f).Type locality.
Sicily.
Material.
Holotype (?) ♀. Chrysiselegans, Lepell. et Dlbm. var. a, ♀ - β. id. var. ab. Dlbm. - Chr.sicula, mihi olim D. Grohmann. Sicilia.
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 Chrysissicula as a new synonym of Chrysiselegans Lepeletier, 1806. It belongs to the C.elegans group.
Chrysissingularis Spinola, holotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36955AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae375D59EC-A418-5F4E-8C11-775102243E7BChrysissmaragdulaLepeletier & Serville, 1825Plate 31Chrysissmaragdula: Lepeletier and Serville 1825: 494 nec Fabricius, 1775.Type locality.
Chrysisspinigera Spinola, holotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
Dahlbom (1854) described C.splendens based on at least two specimens found in the Spinola collection and listed as var. a and var. b. Only one specimen seems to be preserved. This specimen is seriously damaged, missing its metasoma (except for the first tergite), its compound eyes, the flagellomeres of the right antenna, and the right foreleg. Therefore, it is impossibile to assign this specimen to one of the two variations described by Dahlbom. However, the remaining part of the head and the mesosoma are species-diagnostic of this beautiful African species. Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 465) designated the male as lectotype in the Spinola collection, but 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 Bohart (1991) already listed it in this collection. It belongs to the C.splendens group.
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 Chrysisassimilis 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 Chrysissuccinctula with the main features of Chrysisgermari.
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.succinctulasensu Linsenmaier and might create confusion. We therefore propose Chrysissuccinctula Dahlbom, 1854 as a new synonym of Chrysisgermari 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:
Chrysisobtusiventris 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.
Chrysistarsata Dahlbom, 1854. Two syntypes collected in Berlin, examined and housed at MNHU. The species is synonym of C.succincta Linnaeus, 1767 sensu auctorum.
Chrysisminutula 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.
Chrysisaeneipes Tournier, 1879. The species was described based on two syntypes (both males) collected at Peney (Geneva) on the 19th July 1876 and 25th of June 1878. The two syntypes have been examined and are still preserved in MHNG. They belong to C.germari Wesmael. C.aeneipes was already synonymized by Mocsáry (1889: 314). Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 468) placed it in synonym of C.succincta.
Chrysisfrivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882. C.frivaldszkyi was always considered as a valid species after Linsenmaier (1959). Kimsey and Bohart (1991:468) placed it in synonym of C.succincta, but it was later revaluated by Strumia (1995: 5) and subsequent authors (e.g. Linsenmaier 1997, Rosa 2005). The lectotype of C.frivaldszkyi was examined and it matches Linsenmaier’s (1959) interpretation. In the literature, this taxon is written in different ways: C.friwaldszkyi (Berland and Bernard 1938), C.frivaldskyi (Linsenmaier 1959, 1968; Strumia 1995), C.frivaldszkii (Kimsey and Bohart 1991). The original spelling is C.frivaldszkyi.
Chrysisbicolorvar.abeillei Frey-Gessner, 1887. Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 468) placed C.abeillei as a synonym of C.succincta. We could not find the type, but according to the description, the species is more closely related to C.bicolor and C.illigeri.
Chrysissuccinctavar.sparsepunctata du Buysson (in André), 1892. This specimen is closely related to C.frivaldszkyi, as correctly interpreted by Linsenmaier (1959). The type was examined and it is housed in ISEA-PAS.
Chrysissuccinctavar.alicantina Mercet, 1904. C.alicantina is a valid Iberian endemic species, correctly identified by Linsenmaier (1968, 1997), morphologically and chromatically different from C.succincta and similar to C.chrysoscutella Linsenmaier and C.germari Wesmael.
Chrysissuccinctavar.ignifacies Mercet, 1904. This is a valid Iberian endemic species, closely related to C.germari Wesmael, but easily recognizible for the colour, the double punctuation on the metasoma, the length of the malar spaces and other morphological characteristics. C.ignifacialis Linsenmaier, 1959 is an unnecessary replacement name for C.ignifacies Mercet.
Chrysissuccinctavar.hirsuta Trautmann, 1926 (nec Gerstaecker, 1869). The type of C.succinctavar.hirsuta is lost; however, based on the description and the collecting place it belongs to Chrysislucida Linsenmaier, 1951.
Chrysissuccinctavar.asiatica Trautmann, 1926 (nec Radoszkowski, 1889). The type is lost. Balthasar (1953: 286) replaced the name asiatica Trautmann with the new name ferghanensis. Based on the original description and the key given by Balthasar, the species resembles C.frivaldszkyi and C.kesleri Radoszkowski, described from the same area.
Chrysissuccinctavar.germanica Trautmann, 1926. The type is lost but the description excludes any possible synonym with C.succincta. C.succinctavar.germanica has evident teeth and a unique body colouration. In Northern Europe and Scandinavia, the only a similar species present is C.westerlundi.
Chrysissuccinctavar.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.
Chrysissuccinctavar.virideocincta Trautmann, 1927 (based on the type of C.succinctaab.virideocincta Hellén, 1919, unavailable). It is a synonym of C.bicolor Lepeletier, 1806. The syntypes have been examined and Paukkunen et al. (2014) designated the lectotype.
Chrysissuccinctavar.noskiewiczi Trautmann, 1927. The type is lost. The short description is related to a colour variation of C.frivaldszkyi.
Chrysissuccinctavar.transsylvanica Kiss-Endre, 1927. The type is housed in MNHM and was already placed in synonymy of Chrysisalbanica by Móczár (1965).
Chrysissuccinctavar.pannonica Hoffmann, 1935. The examination of the type material in NHMW confirmed that it is a synonym of C.frivaldszkyi (Rosa 2009).
Chrysissuccinctavar.decorata Hoffmann, 1937. Type not found. The description is clear and the species is phenotypically close to C.bicolor or C.illigeri bearing four visible teeth on the last visible tergite.
Chrysissuccinctavar.komareki 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.
Chrysissuccinctaf.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.
Chrysistristicula 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.
Chrysistruncatella Dahlbom, holotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
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: "Chrysisvaricornis, Spin. / M. Waltl. Egypte". It matches the current interpretation of the species. It belongs to the C.radians group.
Current status.
Chrysuravaricornis (Spinola, 1838) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 497).
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.
Current status.
Spintharinaversicolor (Spinola, 1808) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 558).
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.
Elampusgayi Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, and anal margin of the last tergite, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D habitus, lateral view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36962AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididaeB8CF166C-AC80-5376-B08A-F147C94A00CBEuchroeuscandensDahlbom, 1854Plate 38Euchroeuscandens: Dahlbom 1854: 371 nec Germar, 1817.Type locality.
"Habitat in Africa ad promontorium bonae spei; Mus. Dom. Spinola".
Material.
Holotype ♀. Euchroeuscandens, Kl. / D. Klug, Cap. B. Esp.
In Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 297), under the name Brugmoia [= Euchroeus] torrida (Mocsáry, 1889). The generic name Euchroeus Latreille was conserved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, Opinion 1906). The name candens was considered as a junior secondary homonym of C.candens Germar, 1817 (currently Chrysuracandens) by Mocsáry (1889). Since the two respective species have been considered as belonging to different genera after 1889, the name E.candens must be considered as a valid name (Madl and Rosa 2012: 84).
Euchroeuscandens Dahlbom, holotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, lateral view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36963AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae25D14926-9F73-56CA-B06B-D2707F2B464FEuchroeuscoerulansDahlbom, 1854Euchroeuscoerulans: Dahlbom 1854: 372 nec Fabricius, 1804.Type locality.
"Habitat in Africa ad promontorium bonae spei, Mus. Dom. Spinola".
Material.
Holotype (sex unknown): Euchroeuscoerulans, Kl. // D. Klug, Cap. B. Esp.
The type is in bad condition. It lacks the head, forelegs, right mesoleg, and the tarsi of the right metaleg. The ventral surface of the metasoma is missing due to a dermestid attack.
Hedychrumbrasilianum Dahlbom, holotype A Mesosoma and metasoma, lateral view B mesosoma, dorsal view C mesosoma, lateral view D third metasomal tergite, dorsal view.
Lepeletier (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 Pseudomalusviolaceus (Scopoli, 1763); the second syntype is housed at MNHN. Du Buysson (1898: 563) listed one specimen in Lepeletier’s collection H.coerulescens = Ellampuscaeruleus (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 Omalusaeneus (Fabricius).
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.
Current status.
Pseudomalusviolaceus (Scopoli, 1763) (synonymised by Dalla Torre 1892: 19; transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 270).
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididaeC650E116-4E43-50B5-9323-1A3A658EEDE2HedychrumchloroideumDahlbom, 1854Hedychrumchloroideum: Dahlbom 1854: 66 (given as var. b).Type locality.
"Habitat in Europa media et meridionali mensibus Majo - Julio passim; Turcia: D. Drewsen; Graecia: D. Loew; Austria: D. D. De Christophori, Kollàr et Megerle von Mühlfeld; Silesia: D. Zeller".
Material.
Lectotype (here designated) ♂. Hedychrumchloroideum // (Chrysis) Ziegl. // D. De Cristofori, Autriche.
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.fervidassp.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.
Current status.
Holopygafervida (Fabricius, 1781) (synonymised by Trautmann 1922: 321).
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 "Hedychrumcœlestinum 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).
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).
Current status.
Exallopygadifficile (Spinola, 1851) (transferred by French 1985: 622).
Hedychrumdifficile Spinola, lectotype A Habitus, lateral view B head, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/36965AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididaeE38FEE61-E76A-5C89-AA59-15220184A703Hedychrumminutumvar.dupontiDahlbom, 1854Hedychrumminutumvar.duponti: Dahlbom 1854: 83. (given as Hedychrumminutum var. c).Type locality.
"Exemplar varietatis c e Mexico a D. Dupont reportatum in Museo Excell. Spinolae (HedychrumDuponti Spin." nominatum) examinavi".
Material.
Holotype (sex unknown): HedychrumDuponti Spin. / Hed.Minutum var. Dhlbm / D. Dupont. Mexico.
Dahlbom (1854) described He.rutilans based on a syntype series subdivided into three varieties (var. a, var. b, var. c). The syntypes listed by Dahlbom are housed in the following museums: He.rutilans var. a: NHMW (teste Kollar), MNHU (teste Klug), ZMUC (teste Drewsen); He.rutilans var. b: MNHU (teste Klug); He.rutilans var. c: MRSN (Spinola coll., "Hedychrumregium Pellet. secund. Spin. in litt." e "Hedychrumintermedium Mus. Spinolae"). These syntypes are still housed in the listed museums. Morgan (1984: 10) designated the lectotype on a specimen collected by Zeller and housed in the Dahlbom Collection at LZM. This specimen is labelled: "Hed.rutilans Megerl. Dahl. var. a". According to the Art. 74.2 of the Code this specimen is not a syntype, therefore it loses its status of lectotype.
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 (1959, 1968, 1997a, 1997b, 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","Holopygaintermedia" or "Hedychrumintermedium" is housed at MNHN. In the "General collection" in MNHN there are two specimens labelled "Hedychrumrutilans" 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.ignicollissensu Linsenmaier (= Holopygaaureomaculata 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: Holopyganitidula. 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.fervidavar.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). This important author received the type of He.intermedium and He.rutilans by Kemner (Lund): "Through the kindness of Dr. N. A. Kemner, we have examined the type ofHedychrumrutilansDahlbom, 1854. It is a female bearing two labels (1)" Z. Mer."or"L. Mer."and (2)" Hed.rutilans. Megerl. Secund. M.B. Dhbm. var. a."The specimen agrees with Dahlbom’s description of his var. a. (i.e. the typical form of the species) and also with the modern interpretation of his name (e.g. Trautmann, 1928). Dr. Kemner also sent what is almost certainly the type ofHedychrumintermediumDahlbom, 1845. This species was described in 1845 from France but in 1854 Dahlbom dropped the nameintermedium; his var. c. ofH.rutilansagrees with the earlier described intermedium. The probable type ofintermediumis a male bearing two labels: (1)" Hedychr.rutilansDhlbm. var. c."and (2) " Hab.? Fontainebleau Collect. Barbut."This specimen agrees with the original description ofintermedium. It is a male of one of the greenish forms ofH.rutilans. It may be described as follows: - Green; slight trace of copper on central lobe of mesonotum. Postscutellum and propodeum blue. Abdomen green, disc of second tergite and whole of third, copper-tinged. Legs blue. Venter of abdomen black. In my opinion, therefore, the species should be known asHedychrumintermediumDahlbom, 1845".
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: Hedychrumintermedium Dahlbom, 1845 = Holopygafervida (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).
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).
"Habitat in Africa, ad Promontorium Bonae Spei a D. Westermann detecta et ibidem a D. Draege revisa. Museis D. D. Westermann et Spinola".
Material.
Lectotype (here designated) ♀. Hedychrumjanthinum (Holopyga) Dahlb. - Dr D. Draege. Cap. B. Esp. // LectotypeHolopygajanthina ♀ Dahlbom det. L. D. French.
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.
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. Holopygadohrni Dahlbom, 1854, with 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.
Holopygaluzulina Dahlbom, lectotype A Habitus, dorsal view B Mesosoma, dorsal view C head, dorsal view D head, frontal view E head and mesosoma lateral view F second and third metasomal tergites, dorsal view.
"In Insulis Archipelagi: D. Loew; Italia: D. Spinola; Austria: D. Kollàr; Prussia: D. D. Dohrn et Lüben; Svecia: Scania (ad Esperöd d. 12. Augusti 1838), – Ostro-Gothia (in monte Omberg d. 22. Juli 1835 in copula cum var. c!) et Gottlandia (in pratis Gothem d. 18. Juli 1841) mihi obvia".
Material.
Syntype 1 ♀. Hedychrumovatum (Chrysis) Pallas – (Holopyga) Dahlb. var. B – Hedych.regium olim Lombardia.
The type is badly damaged, without the dorsal and frontal part of the head; only the occipital part as far as the mandible complex, the clypeus and antennae are left.
Current status.
Cephaloparnopsdenticulatus (Spinola, 1838) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 578).
Spinola (1838) described P.stilboides based on one female. The are two specimens of this species in the Spinola collection; one female, perfectly conserved, which we consider the holotype, and a second specimen, badly damaged, which we exclude from the type series. The names written on the label (and in Casolari & Casolari Moreno) refer to Dahlbom’s monograph (1854: 347), in which P.stilboides is considered a synonym of C.nobilis. The second specimen, according to Spinola’s label and Dahlbom’s work, was named C.producta.
Current status.
Chrysisstilboides (Spinola, 1838) (tranferred by du Buysson (in André) 1896: 649).
Spinolialamprosoma (Förster, 1853) (synonymised by Mocsáry 1887: 16).
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 Pyriacanaliculata is in MNHN; the type of Euchroeusfestivus Spinola is destroyed by dermestid attack, only the pin without specimen remains.
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. The type should be searched for at MNHN.
Dahlbom (1854: 122) described C.aurifrons based on two specimens from the MNHU (found under the name C.aurifrons Klug) and the Spinola collection (found under the name C.integravar.chrysocephala). The type locality is "Italia, Mus. Spinolae" and "Asia minori teste D. Loew". We could not find a syntype neither in the Spinola collection and nor at MNHU. Bohart (in Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 491) designated the lectotype based on one specimen from Italy housed in LZM. In Dahlbom’s collection (LZM), there is one specimen labelled as C.aurifrons by Dahlbom, but it is not a syntype and it does not bear any lectotype label by Bohart.
Current status.
Chrysisignifrons Brullé, 1833 (synonymized by Mocsáry 1889: 263).
C.coronata was erroneously placed in synonymy with C.viridula Linnaeus, 1761 (Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 477). In fact, the description of C.coronata is clear and is incompatible with the coloration and morphology of C.viridula: "Magnitudo praecedentis. Antennae nigrae. Caput viride, maculâ caerulaeâ vericali. Thorax viridis. Abdomen, segmentis duobus anterioribus aureis, 3° toto viridi, margine apostico triemarginato. Corpus subtùs caeruleum. Pedes concolores, tarsis pallidis. Alae fuscae". Spinola compares coronata with splendidula: "Noli confundere cum Chrys. Splendidula Rossi, quae differt thorace quadrifasciato, fasciis alternatim viridibus et caeruleis, segmento tertio quadrispinoso, caeruleo, spinulis productis acutis, staturâ tandem in plerisque speciminibus dimidio minore." Based on this description, C.coronata could be C.rutilans Olivier or C.continentalis Linsenmaier. Since the holotype is lost, we suggest coronata should be considered as a nomen dubium. According to Mocsáry (1889: 445), C.coronata is the male of C.integra Fabricius. Till now, C.integra has never been found in Italy and the species description of C.coronata is incompatible with C.integra. C.coronata is described as shorter in its dimensions by Spinola (Long. 3. Lin. Lat. 1. ½ Lin.), shorter than those of integra, which should exceed 5 lin., using the same measurement system used by Spinola.
Spinola (1843) did not cite the type depository of the specimen collected by Ghiliani. Abeille (1879: 65) wrote that C.crassimargo is the female of C.emarginatula, but he did not examine the type in the Spinola collection, as he stated in other cases.
Current status.
Chrysisemarginatula Spinola, 1808 (synonymized by Mocsáry 1889: 231).
The type is not present in the Spinola collection. Dahlbom (1854: 282) examined the type in the Spinola collection, when it was still there, and wrote that it is entirely blue-green: "quae species est toto corpore cyaneo-viridis". In Egypt, only few species are known with four anal teeth and blue-green colouration. One of them is C.blanchardi Lucas, 1849, described from Algeria, distributed from the Iberian Peninsula via North Africa to Palestine. It could match Spinola’s description. Linsenmaier overlooked this name until his last work (1999: 211), in which he placed C.distinguenda in the C.ignita group. However, C.distinguenda could be a small blue species as found in various species groups (e.g., C.cerastes, C.ignita, C.scutellaris-viridissima, C.pallidicornis). Therefore, we consider Chrysisdistinguenda as nomen dubium.
Current status.
Chrysisdistinguenda Spinola, 1838, nomen dubium.
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae4ED4510F-8FE1-5B88-8559-95F79D776CE5ChrysisfasciataSpinola, 1806Chrysisfasciata: Spinola 1806: 14 nec Olivier, 1790.Remarks.
C.fasciataSpinola 1806 is a primary homonym of C.fasciata Olivier, 1790. The first available name for this species is Pseudospinoliauniformis (Dahlbom, 1854). The type depository is unkown.
Abeille (1879: 85) examined one specimen in the Spinola collection that he considered as a type: "j’ai vu à Turin, dans les cartons de Spinola un type envoyé par Lepelletier luimême et identique avec mes exemplaires". Unfortunately, we did not find any specimen of C.hybrida in the Spinola collection.
Current status.
Chrysurahybrida (Lepeletier, 1806) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 490).
Dahlbom (1854: 128) described C.simplex based on two specimens, one coming from MNHU, and still housed there, and a second one from the Spinola collection (C.integravar.maior). This specimen is no longer present in the Spinola collection.
Current status.
Chrysurasimplex (Dahlbom, 1854) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 496).
Abeille (1877: 6) wrote that the type of C.splendidula is housed in the Spinola collection. This was likely erroneous information, since the syntypes are expected to be housed in MNHU, together with other Rossi’s types. And we also found no evidence for the type in the Spinola collection.
Current status.
Chrysissplendidula Rossi, 1790.
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae055A5F08-F18A-505A-9E1A-8525A7799069Euchroeusquadratusvar.festivusDahlbom, 1854Euchroeusfestivus: Dahlbom 1854: 374 (given as Euchroeusquadratus var. b).Type locality.
"Aegypto, Dom. Waltl, Mus. Dom. Spinola".
Type
(destroyed!): Euchroeusquadratus, Kl.; D. Waltl, Aegyptus.
The type is destroyed. Only the pin and the label are left. Euchroeusquadratusvar.festivus refers to E.purpuratusvar.consularis du Buysson (in André), 1896 (not mentioned in Kimsey and Bohart 1991), which is the only taxon related to E.purpuratus distributed in North Africa (Linsenmaier 1999: 99). E.festivus has priority over E.consularis, but it was not used after 1899, contrary to consularis, which is the name currently in use.
Current status.
Euchroeuspurpuratusssp.consularis du Buysson (in André), 1896.
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.
Semegal (Serville coll.). According to Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 393), the holotype should be housed in the Spinola collection, but the type is housed in MNHN, as reported by du Buysson (1897: 570) "Type de l’auteur, ♀" in Brullé’s collection.
Current status.
Chrysiscanaliculata (Brullé 1846) (transferred by Mocsáry 1889: 587).
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.
Current status.
Chrysisignita (Linnaeus, 1758) (transferred by Linnaeus 1761: 414).
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.
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.
Chrysuracuprea (Rossi, 1790) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 487).
Neotype (here designated) ♀. France Var St. Laurent d. Verdon [Saint-Laurent-du-Verdon, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence department, France] 23.6.74 Coll. Linsenmaier / [leg.] Perraudin / Chrysis L. bicolor ♀ Lep. det. Linsenmaier 1998 / ex Doubletten LM collection / NML_ENT GBIF_Chr00020564 / NeotypusChrysisbicolor Lepeletier, 1806 P. Rosa des. 2013.
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 Chrysishumeralis, 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.succinctavar.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 in Morgan’s keys). 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 (1809, 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).
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 Chrysisbicolor Lepeletier, 1806 using a specimen housed in the Linsenmaier collection at NMLS. It is a female and it bears the following labels: Chrysisbicolor: France Var St. Laurent d. Verdon [Saint-Laurent-du-Verdon, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence department, France] 23.6.74 Coll. Linsenmaier / [leg.] Perraudin / Chrysis L. bicolor ♀ Lep. det. Linsenmaier 1998 / ex Doubletten LM collection / NML_ENT GBIF_Chr00020564 / NeotypusChrysisbicolor Lepeletier, 1806 P. Rosa des. 2013 (Plate 46).
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.
Chrysisbicolor Lepeletier, neotype A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, dosal view D metasoma, dorsal view E metasoma, dorso-lateral view F metasoma, ventral view.
Along with C.nobilis (= C.stilboides), there is a second specimen corresponding to the description of C.incerta Dahlbom, 1854 in the Spinolia collection. Even though it does not bear labels with locality data (the original description states: "Cajennae, Dom. Buquet; Mus. Dom. Spinola"), this specimen could be the type of C.incerta. Kimsey and Bohart (1991) listed syntype males presumably housed in MRSN and placed C.incerta as synonym of C.stilboides (Spinola, 1838).
Current status.
Chrysisstilboides (Spinola, 1838) (synonymized by Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 466).
The type is not housed in the Lepeletier collection at MNHN (du Buysson 1898) and Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 461) listed it as being part of the Spinola collection. There is only one specimen, without a label, housed in MRSN under the name C.semicincta. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is the true type of this species. Previously, at least two specimens examined by Dahlbom (1854: 242) were housed in the Spinola collection, as written on the main label: "Chrysissemicincta, Lepell. / Poecilochroa Klug / D.[Donavit] Cantener Provence / D.[Donavit] Ghiliani, Espagne". The type locality of C.semicincta is unknown: "Je ne sais de quel pays elle est". The locality of the specimen left in the collection is unknown, too, since no locality label is pinned with the specimen. We know that part of the Lepeletier collection, and therefore some types, had been primarily bought by Cantener (Passerin d’Entréves 1980) and later bought by Spinola (letter 00576). It is possible that Spinola bought the specimen from Cantener and wrote "Provence", the locality given by the insect dealer. We observed that the specimen had been prepared with open wings, as the one drawn on the colour plate by Lepeletier (1806). Lepeletier (1806) described C.semicincta from a male, but Lepeletier was often unable to identify the gender of cuckoo wasps correctly, so this could be a useless piece of information as in the case of He.nitidum.
Neotype (here designated) ♂. 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.
Remarks.
The description of C.succincta given by Linnaeus (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.succinctasensuLinsenmaier 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.succinctasensu stricto subgroup and the C.succinctaleachii 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 specimen 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) as recommended by the Code (Recommendation 75B0. Redescription of Chrysissuccincta Linnaeus, 1767).
Male.
Length: 6.8 mm.
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 (= succinctulasensu 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 capsula (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 non-overlapping, 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.
Chrysissemistriata 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.
A–G, IChrysissuccincta Linnaeus, neotype H, JChrysistristicula Linsenmaier A Habitus, dorsal view B head, frontal view C head and mesosoma, lateral view D metasoma, dorsal view E metasoma, dorso-lateral view F metasoma, ventral view G, H genitalia I, J gonostyle.
Three specimens are found under the main label "Chrysisamethystra Fab., Chr.Westermanni" in the Spinola collection. At least two of these specimens were examined by Dahlbom (1854: 229) and placed in synonymy of Chrysisamethystina Fabricius. In Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 567), C.amethystina is placed in synonymy of Stilbumcyanurum (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 Chrysissingularis 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.
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae754B39C2-F51C-5B96-A4F4-E685DB395AAAElampusspinaDahlbom, 1854Elampusspina: Dahlbom 1854: 41 nec Lepeletier, 1806.Label
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). The synonym was already recognized by various authors: Mocsáry (1889: 73), Dalla Torre (1892: 10), etc.
Current status.
Elampusbidens (Förster, 1853) (synonymised by Mocsáry 1889: 73).
Based on Spinola’s label, one specimen of this species in the Spinola collection was collected in Belgium and donated by Wesmael to Spinola. It is badly damaged by dermestids and it lacks the metasoma and legs. Howerer, it is possible to identify it as Omalusaeneus (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 Holopygaignicollis Dahlbom and comes from Latreille’s or Serville's collection.
Current status.
Omalusaeneus (Fabricius, 1787) (synonymised by Dahlbom 1854: 36).
He.alterum was traditionally considered as a synonym of He.nobile (Scopoli). No specimen labelled as He.alterum was found in Lepeletier’s collection at MNHN (du Buysson 1898, 1899). Therefore, there is the possibility that the specimens in the Spinola collection are syntypes; the male in this collection belongs to the species Hedychrumgerstaeckeri Chevrier, 1869, whereas the female belongs to Hedychrumrutilans Dahlbom, 1854. du Buysson (1895: 18) 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 "Hedychrumalterum 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.
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); Schneider (2002: 178); Burger (2003: 7); Peeters et al. (2004: 193); Drozdovskaya (2006: 101); Schljachtenok (2006: 287); Yildirim and Strumia (2006: 965); Kurzenko and Lelej (2007: 1003); Ljubomirov (2007: 530); Tyrner (2007: 47); Kroiss et al. (2008; 2009); Livory et al. (2008: 28); Szczepko and Wiśniowski (2009: 174); Orlovskyte et al. (2010: 146); Schmid-Egger (2011: 35). Since the name He.rutilans is in prevailing usage and both conditions requested by the code for preserving a prevailing species name are met, we consider the name He.rutilans as nomen protectum and the senior synonym He.alterum as nomen oblitum.
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.
Lepeletier (1806) described He.bidentulum based on a male collected in the environs of Paris. There are five specimens under the name He.bidentulum at the MNHN: two of them belong to the species Pseudomalusauratus (Linnaeus, 1758) and three specimens are Pseudomaluspusillus (Fabricius, 1804) (Buysson 1897: 563). No specimen is labelled as "type"; other specimens found in the historical collections of Bosc and Lucas and identified as bidentulus or bidentatus belong to the species Pseudomalusauratus (Linnaeus); in the general collection (including du Buysson’s collection) and Sichel’s collection there are some specimens of He.bidentulum, collected in different localities. Casolari and Casolari Moreno (1980: 77) placed erroneously bidentulum in the genus Cleptes. The original label is: "H. [Hedychrum] bidentulum Lepel. 121". Two of the five specimens identified as bidentulum were received by Latreille or Serville and bear a round and numbered label. The one bearing the number 1651 is truly a H.bidentulum and could be the type of H.bidentulum.
Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 245) placed He.bidentulum in synonymy with Omalusaeneus (Fabricius, 1787). No European author ever accepted this synonym. Strumia (1995: 4) included He.bidentulum in the genus Pseudomalus, but the correct placement is in the genus Philoctetes (Niehuis 2001: 121; Rosa 2003: 305; 2005: 126).
Since the holotype of He.bidentulum is currently lost, since this species is widely distributed in Europe and common at some localities, we designate a neotype to fix the interpretation of this species sensuLinsenmaier (1959). The specimen is a male housed in the Linsenmaier collection at NML and bears the following labels: Hedychrumbidentulum: Machecoul [Loire-Atlantique department, France] (Loire-Inférieur) Dr. Marmottan 7.1901 / Omalus Pz. biaccinctus Lep. Linsenmaier det. / NML_ENT GBIF_Chr00001055 / NeotypusHedychrumbidentulum Lepeletier, 1806 P. Rosa des. 2013.
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).
Current status.
Philoctetesbidentulus (Lepeletier, 1806) (tranferred by Niehuis 2001: 121).
Hedychrumbidentulum Lepeletier, neotype. A mesosoma, dorsal view B habitus, lateral view C head, frontal view D second and third metasomal tergites, dorso-lateral view.
In the Spinola collection, there are two specimens of Hedychridiumcupreum (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.
Hedychridiumcupreum (Dahlbom, 1845) (transferred by du Buysson (in André) 1896: 746).
Lepeletier (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).
Current status.
Holopygalucidum (Lepeletier, 1896) (transferred by Gogorza 1887: 38).
Lepeletier (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).
Current status.
Ho.fervida (Fabricius, 1781) (synonymized by Mocsáry 1889: 131).
The type of Elampusspina (Lepeletier) could be housed at MNHN or in the Spinola collection. A specimen of this species at MNHN is labelled: E. Panzeri F. <handwritten by Lepeletier> / Hedychrumspina Lep. type? <handwritten by du Buysson> / Museum Paris Meudon (S. et. O.) Coll. Le Peletier 160-45 <partially printed, locality handwritten by du Buysson>. This specimen was not considered as a type by du Buysson (1898: 563; 1899: 160), because when arrived at MNHN it was labelled only as E.panzeri by Lepeletier, without locality or identification label. It perfectly matches the original description by Lepeletier and the colour drawing furnished by the author. We would nowadays identify this specimen as Elampusconstrictus (Förster, 1853) (sensuMóczár 1964a). The specimen in the Spinola collection could alternatively represent the type, but even in this case, there is no certainty. It perfectly matches Lepeletier’s description and it belongs to the species Elampusconstrictus (Förster, 1853) also.
Lepeletier’s description is clear: "Tête et corcelet d’un vert bleuâtre; yeux et antennes noirs. Corcelet très-prolongé sous l’écusson. Abdomen doré, troisième segment échancré. Pieds d’un vert bleuâtre; tarses pâle. Ailes à peine enfumée. Mâle. De Meudon". The description is completed by a colour drawing (pl. 6: 2) which shows a specimen with light green head and mesosoma, golden metasoma and small dimensions, being smaller than He.nitidum [= Ho.fervida] and He.lucidum [= Ho.lucida], and approximately as long as He.roseum [= Hedychridiumroseum]. Description, colouration, and dimensions are different from the species considered E.spinasensuLinsenmaier (1959) and Móczár (1964b). This species is one of the largest Elampus species (up to 9 mm) in Europe, with head and mesosoma dark blue to violet and with a flame red metasoma, sometimens dark red to red-violet on the lateral sides. Even the type locality of E.spina seems to be out from the current distributional limits of E.spinasensu auctorum.
The misinterpretation of the species that the name E.spina refers to started with Dahlbom (1845: 41): Spinola sent a specimen to Dahlbom identified as Elampusspina (or E.panzerivar.spina), which he had received from Latreille, and that clearly differs from the specimen now placed in the Spinola collection under the name spina Lep. coll. Latreille.
Dahlbom (1854: 42) did not describe E.spina Lepeletier, but instead he described a new species received by Spinola and named E.spina Spinola: "Habitat in Gallia, a D. Latreille detectus, e cujus Collectione Illustr. Spinola accepit individuum quod describendi caussa mihi benevole misit". Dahlbom's description matches the description of E.bidens (Förster, 1853): "Submagnus 2 1/4 lin. decimal. long. violascenti et purpurascenti-aeneus abdomine cyaneo-viridi, segmento 3:tio ante emarginatnram utrinque bisinuato postscutello mucronato".
Abeille (1878: 1, 2) replaced the name E.spina Dahlbom with superbus ("nomen à changer"). Both E.spina Dahlbom and E.superbus Abeille are synonyms of E.bidens.
Based on the type material examined in MNHN, HNHM, and LZM, the original description and drawing, E.spina (Lepeletier) (sensuLinsenmaier 1959 and Móczár 1964a) is E.frivaldszkyi (Förster, 1853) (= E.productus Dahlbom, 1854); E.constrictus (Förster, 1853) is the junior synonym of E.spina (Lepeletier, 1806). We suggest the neotype designation of El.spina and a revision of the European species, based on recent findings.
Moreover, we note that E.panzeri (Fabricius, 1804) is the valid name for E.scutellaris (Panzer, 1798). A future revision of the European species belonging to the genus Elampus is already planned to put in order the complex taxonomical problems of this genus.
Since 1845 the name spina has been considered as a noun and not as an adjective; in fact it was used as an invariable name in the genus Elampus, Ellampus, Omalus, and Notozus in more than fifty publications. Kimsey and Bohart (1991) introduced the name Elampusspinus in accordance with the genus gender, but in conflict with the historical interpretation of the name and the articles 23.5 (applications to spellings) and 33.3.1 of the ICZN (when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be the correct original spelling).
Only three authors followed the interpretation given to the name by Kimsey and Bohart (Elampusspinus (Tyrner 2007), Omalus (Elampus) spinus (Arens 2014, Linsenmaier 1999)) while in other publications the name Elampusspina remained in use (Liubomirov 2007, Mingo 1994, Rosa 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2009, Strumia 1995, 2005, Strumia and Yildirim 2007, 2012, Strumia, Gayubo, Gonzalez 2010, Tussac and Zumeta 2004, Vinokurov 2008).
Current status.
Elampusspina (Lepeletier, 1806) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 171).
The specimens housed in the collection and cited by Dahlbom (1854: 55) and Abeille (1879) as types are not syntypes. Dahlbom (1854) received these specimens from Spinola under the name fulgidicollis, but the species was already described by Klug under the name Holopygamicans. Abeille (1878: 2) erroneusly replaced the name Holopygamicans with cicatrix "Nom à changer, M. Lucas ayant dècrit auparavant sous le nom de Micans l’ H. Ovata". Later, Abeille (1879: 28) "Jai dù changer le nome de cette espèce, M. Lucas ayant décrit, avant Dahlbom, sous le nom d’Hedychrummicans, l’Holopygagloriosa (ovata), confondue avec l’Hedychrumlucidulum. "J’ai vu, dans le cartons du Museée de Turin, les types de cette charmante espèce que j’ai reçue d’Espagne (Gogorza)". We did not find the types of micans Klug at MNHU, where we found only the types of micansvar.viridis Trautmann, 1926 and micansvar.aeneus Trautmann, 1926. The case reported by Abeille (1879) is not a case of secondary homonym, since He.micans belongs to the genus Hedychrum and not Holopyga. Anyway, no author considered the two species congeneric after 1879. Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 254) used cicatrix as the first available name Ho.micans (necChrysismicans Olivier, 1790). However, Olivier did not describe any Elampusmicans, and the two names were never considered conspecific, therefore micans Klug is the valid name, as already written by Mingo (1994: 208).
Current status.
Philoctetesmicans (Klug, 1835) (transferred by Kimsey and Bohart 1991: 254).
Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 561) examined the specimen in the Spinola collection and considered it as the holotype. But the true holotype (by monotypy) is housed in the Dahlbom collection in LZM. In the Spinola collection, under the name chrysonota, there are three specimens: the male of S.destituta Dahlbom, 1854, an undescribed species of the same genus, and the female of S.chrysonota, with the tip of the metasoma outside the anal margin. The differences listed by Dahlbom describing chrysonota and destituta are sexual dimorphic characteristics and the two species should be considered as male and female of the same species (Madl and Rosa 2012).
Current status.
Spintharosomachrysonota (Dahlbom, 1854) (transferred by Zimmermann 1959: 32).
As in the previous case, the specimen considered as type by Kimsey and Bohart (1991: 561) cannot be considered as a type, and the true holotype (monotypy) is housed in the Dahlbom collection in LZM. Dahlbom (1854) cited only one specimen in the description of chrysonota ("qui unicum specimen communicavit") and destituta ("qui specimen communicavit"); the specimens left in the Spinola collection cannot be considered as syntypes, even though they definitely belong to the same series of specimens received by Spinola from Draege.
Current status.
Spintharosomachrysonota (Dahlbom, 1854) (synonymized by Madl and Rosa 2012: 120).
AnimaliaHymenopteraChrysididae83AD08AA-E1AF-54E0-8092-4D06827C7B60StilbumconnectensDahlbom, 1854Stilbumsplendidumvar.connectens: Dahlbom 1854: 358 (given as var. b).Label
[♀]: Stilbumconnectens, m. / calens vel splendidum var. / Coll. Latr., Bengala / splendidum var. b. Dlbm.
S.connectens was listed by Dahlbom as a variation, Stilbumsplendidum var. b. It is not an available name and it is only a variation of Stilbumcyanurum (Forster).
Current status.
Stilbumcyanurum (Forster, 1771).
Conclusions
The study of the type material is fundamental in systematic entomology. For different reasons, the chrysidid types housed in some imporant collections (e.g. Spinola (MRSN), Radoszkowki (ISEA-PAS), Linsenmaier (NMLS)) were not available in "The Chrysidid Wasps of the World" (Kimsey and Bohart 1991). Moreover, many important European revisional and monographic works published in the 20th Century (Trautmann 1927; Berland and Bernard 1938; Balthasar 1953, 1954; Semenov-Tian-Shanskij and Nikol’skaya 1954; Linsenmaier 1959, 1968, 1997b; Moczar 1967; Semenov-Tian-Shanskij 1967; Kunz 1994; Mingo 1994) as well as few more recent ones (e.g. Tyrner 2007; van der Smissen 2010) have been published without comparative studies of the type material. Exceptions were some publications on the British fauna (Morgan 1984), on the Cleptinae (Móczár 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 2000a, 2000b, 2001), a few small revisional articles (e.g. Niehuis 2000), and a regional checklist (Paukkunen et al. 2014). Most of the authors could study only the types found in their museums (e.g. Trautmann 1927 – MNHU; Berland and Bernard 1938 – MNHM; Moczar 1967 – HNHM), others (e.g. Linsenmaier) the types housed in few museums (HNHM, MNHM, NHRS, NHML). Only some authors (e.g. Móczár 1964b, 1965; Day and Fitton 1977; Day 1979; Kimsey 1988; Niehuis 2000; Rosa 2009) gave detailed diagnoses and descriptions of some chrysidid types described in the 18th and 19th centuries.
After receiving the invitation to write the volume on the Chrysididae for the series Fauna d’Italia (Baccetti and Cravedi 2009), we started a project of reviewing the types related to the European fauna. In fact, we found that many original descriptions, mostly given in Latin or French, did not match the current interpretation of the species. After a first analysis carried out on the type material housed in the most important collections (HNHM, ISEA-PAS, LZM, MHNG, MNHN, MNHU, NHMW, NHRS, NMLS, ZIN, ZMUC), we discovered that more than the 15 % of types really do not match the current interpretation of the species for the Italian fauna, and a more extensive research on the Palaearctic Chrysididae was started.
In this paper, ninety-six types belonging to sixty-seven species were found in the Spinola collection, including the types of three species (Chrysiscarinata Dahlbom, 1854; C.exsulans Dahlbom, 1854 and C.succinctula Dahlbom, 1845), whose depositories were previously unknown; the types of eight species (Chrysisanalis Spinola, 1808; C.bihamata Spinola, 1838; C.elegantula Spinola, 1838; C.fasciata Spinola, 1840; C.magnifica Dahlbom, 1854; C.varicornis Spinola, 1838; C.versicolor Spinola, 1808; Parnopesfischeri Spinola, 1838) previously placed with doubt in Spinola collection; and the syntypes of eight species (Chrysiscomparata Lepeletier, 1806; C.dichroa Dahlbom, 1854; C.rutilans Dahlbom, 1854; Hedychrumcaerulescens Lepeletier, 1806; He.rutilans Dahlbom, 1854; He.virens Dahlbom, 1854; Holopygaovata Dahlbom, 1854; Pyriastilboides Spinola, 1838) previously recorded only in MNHU, MNHN, or LZM. Some nomenclatural and taxonomic changes of these types are as follows: six neotypes 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).
Aknowledgements
The first author wishes to thank Mauro Daccordi (Verona, Italy), the former curator at the Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, who kindly gave him the photographs of the three boxes in the Spinola collection; Luca Picciau (Turin, Italy), the person in charge of the entomological department of the museum (MRSN), who entrusted him with the study of Spinola’s cuckoo wasp collection. We are grateful to Guido Pagliano (Turin, Italy) for his help during the study of the material, Werner Arens (Bad Hersfeld, Germany) and Villu Soon (Tartu, Estonia) for reading the manuscript and providing helpful suggestions. We are grateful to the following curators for their cooperation and assistance in the study of the type material: Dr. Marco Bernasconi (NMLS, Switzerland); Dr. Roy Danielsson (LZM, Sweden); Dr. Frank Koch (MNHU, Germany); Dr. Bernard Merz (MHNG, Switzerland); Dr. Roberto Poggi (MSNG, Italy); Dr. Zoltán Vas (HNHM, Hungary); Dr. Hege Vårdal (NHRS, Sweden); Dr. Lars Bjørn Vilhelmsen (ZMU, Denmark); Dr. Bogdan Wiśniowski, Dr. Daniel Kubisz and Dr. Dawid Moroń (ISEA-PAS, Poland); and Dr. Herbert Zettel and Dr. Dominique Zimmermann (NHMW, Austria). We are also grateful to David Baldock (Milford, Surrey, England), Nathalie Yonow, and John Bateman (Reading, England) for proofreading the English text, and to two anonymous reviewers and subject editor Dr. Michael Engel for their valuable comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Dr. Oliver Niehuis for his considerable comments and annotations with helped to improve the manuscript.
This study was partly supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (No. 2013CB127600) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30770265).
ReferencesAbeille de PerrinE (1878) Published by the author, Marseille, 6 pp.Abeille de PerrinE (1879) Synopsis critique et synonymique des Chrysides de France.26: 1–108.ArensW (2001) Revision der Arten der Chrysisdichroa-Gruppe auf der Peloponnes mit Beschreibung dreier neuer Arten (Hymenoptera; Chrysididae).33(2): 1157–1193.BaccettiBCravediP (2009) Verbali delle adunanze del 28 Febbraio 2009.57: 9–33.BakerDB (1999) The Faunae Ligusticae Fragmenta of Massimiliano Spinola (1805).49(1): 141–146.BalthasarV (1946) Prodromus Chrysididarum Rei Publicae Cechoslovakiae.24(324): 223–260.BalthasarV (1953) Monographie des Chrysidides de Palestine et des pays limitrophes. (Suppl. 2) 27: 1–317.BalthasarV (1954) Zlatěnky – Chrysidoidea. – volume 3. Ceskoslovenská Akademie Ved., Praha, 271 pp.BerlandLBernardF (1838) Hyménoptères vespiformes. III. (Cleptidae, Chrysidae, Trigonalidae). – volume 34. Office Central de Faunistique, Fédération Française des Société des Sciences Naturelles. Le Chevalier, Paris, 145 pp.BischoffH (1913) Wytsman, Bruxelles fasc. 151, 86 pp.BohartRM (1962) A review of the hexadentate species of Chrysis of America North of Mexico (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).1(4): 361–375.BohartRMKimseyLS (1982) A synopsis of the Chrysididae in America North of Mexico.33: 1–266.BradleyJC (1957) The types of Hymenoptera described by Amédée Lepeletier, Comte de Saint-Fargeau.59: 36–50.BrulléGA (1833) FG Levrault, Paris, 400 pp. [Dating after Sherborn and Woodward 1901 and Evenhuis 1997]BrulléGA (1846) – Tome Quatrième. Libraire Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris, 680 pp. [Chrysididae: 1–55, pl. 37]BuyssonR du (1891–1896) Les Chrysides. In: AndréE (Ed.) – Tome Sixième. Dubosclard, Paris, 13–758. [64 unnumbered pages + 32 pls. (1891) 1–88, (1892) 89–208, (1893) 209–272, (1894) 273–400, (1895) 401–624, (1896) 625–756 + 1–22, (1891–1896) 64 unnumbered pages + 32 pls. Dating after Derksen & Scheiding 1963]BuyssonR du (1898) Étude des Chrysidides du Muséum de Paris.66(4): 518–580.BuyssonR du (1899) Catalogue des Insectes Hyménoptères de la famille des Chrysidides du Muséum de Paris.5(4): 159–169.CasaleA (1982) Cataloghi II. Museo regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, 120 pp.CasolariCCasolariMR (1980) – Cataloghi I. Museo regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, Torino, 165 pp.ChevrierF (1869) Description de deux Chrysides du bassin du Léman.3: 44–48.ChristJL (1791) Hermannischer Buchhandlung, Frankfurt am Main, 535 pp.DahlbomAG (1845) Berlingianis, Lund, 20 pp.DahlbomAG (1854) . Vol. II, F. Nicolai, Berlin, 412 pp.Dalla TorreCG (1892) Engelmann, Lipsiae, 118 pp.DayMC (1979) The species of Hymenoptera described by Linnaeus in the genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla.12: 45–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1979.tb00049.xDayMCFittonMG (1977) Discovery in the Linnean Collection of the type material of insects described by Forster, with notes on the Hymenoptera.9: 31–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1977.tb00257.xDe GeerC (1771) . Pierre Hesselberg, Stockholm, Tomo II, Pars II.De StefaniT (1888) Note sulle Crisididi di Sicilia.7: 88–95, 114–125, 139–145, 156–161, 177–182, 215–224, 273–291.EversmannE (1857) Fauna Hymenopterologica Volgo-Uralensis.30: 544–567.FabriciusJC (1775) Officina Libraria Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae, Flensburg & Leipzig, 832 pp.FabriciusJC (1781) . Tomo I. C.E. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kiloni, 522 pp.FabriciusJC (1787) , Tomus I. CG Proft, Hafniae, 348 pp. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.36471FabriciusJC (1798) . Tom. II. . Hafniae, 572 pp.FabriciusJC (1804) . C. Reichard, Brunsvigae, 439 pp.ForsterJR (1771) Centuria Davies IT & White B, London, 100 pp.FörsterA (1853) Eine Centurie neuer Hymenopteren. Beschreibungen neuer Arten aus der Familie der Chrysididen.10: 266–362.FrenchLD (1985) Exallopyga, a new genus of Neotropical Elampinae.58: 620–625.GayC (1851) Claudio Gay, Paris, 572 pp.GeneraniMScaramozzinoPL (2000) Australian Hymenoptera in the Spinola collection: a list of species. In: AustinADDowtonM (Eds) . Fourth International Hymenoptera Conference (Canberra, Australia), January 1999, 231–243.GestroR (1915) Ricordo de Massimiliano Spinola. (Serie 3a) 7(47): 33–53.GiachinoPM (1982) . Cataloghi. III. Museo regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, Torino, 616 pp.GogorzaJ (1887) Crisidídos de los alrededores de Madrid.16: 17–88.Guérin-MénevilleFE (1842) Description de quelques Chrysidides nouvelles.5(5): 144–150.HornWSchenklingS (1928–1929) . Serie: Die Welt-Literatur über die gesamte Entomologie bis inklusive 1863. 4 vols. W. Horn, Berlin-Dahlem.ICZN (1998) Opinion 1906. Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): conserved; Chrysispurpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently Euchroeuspurpuratus): specific name conserved; and Chrysisgloriosa Fabricius, 1793: specific name suppressed.55(3): 194–196.ICZN (1999) . Fourth Edition. ITZN, London, 306 pp.InvreaF (1923) Note su alcune Holopyga (Hym. – Chrysididae).55: 13–15.JurineL (1807) Tomus I JJ Paschoud, Geneve, 320 pp.KimseyLS (1985) Distinction of the "Neochrysis" Genera and description of new species (Chrysididae, Hymenoptera).92(2–3): 269–286. doi: 10.1155/1985/64939KimseyLS (1986) Designation of chrysidid lectotypes.62: 105–110.KimseyLS (1988) The identity of three Fabrician Chrysidid species (Hymenoptera).94(3–4): 271–274. doi: 10.1155/1987/43787KimseyLSBohartRM (1991) University Press, New York, 652 pp.KlugF (1845) . Decas Quinta. Officina Academica, Berolini, 41 unnumbered pages, 41–50.KunzPX (1994) Die Goldwespen (Chrysididae) Baden-Württembergs. Taxonomie, Bestimmung, Verbreitung, Kartierung und Ökologie.77: 1–188.LatreillePA (1809) Amand Koenig, Parisiis et Argentorati, 399 pp.LeclercqJ (1988) Atlas provisoire des Insectes de Belgique (et des régions limitrophes). HymenopteraChrysididae.15: 1–39.LepeletierALM (1806) Mémoire sur quelques espèces nouvelles d’insectes de la section des Hyménoptères appelés les Portetuyaux, et sur les caractères de cette famille et des genres qui la composent.7: 115–129.LepeletierALMServilleAJ (1825) Hyménoptères. In: Lepeletier de St FargeauALMAudinet-ServilleJGOlivierAG (Eds) Encyclopédie Méthodique., vol. 10, 7–13, 493–495.LinnaeusC (1758) , Tomus I. Laurenti Salvii, Holmiae, 824 pp.LinnaeusC (1761) Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, 578 pp.LinnaeusC (1767) Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 12th ed. v. 1 (pt 2), 533–1327.LinsenmaierW (1951) Die europäischen Chrysididen (Hymenoptera). Versuch einer natürlichen Ordnung mit Diagnosen.24(1): 1–110.LinsenmaierW (1959) Revision der Familie Chrysididae (Hymenoptera) mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der europäischen Spezies.32: 1–232.LinsenmaierW (1968) Revision der Familie Chrysididae (Hymenoptera). Zweiter Nachtrag.41(1–4): 1–144.LinsenmaierW (1969) The chrysid wasps of Palestine (Hym., Chrysididae). A faunistic catalogue with descriptions of new species and forms.4: 343–376.LinsenmaierW (1987) Revision der Familie Chrysididae (Hymenoptera). 4. Teil.60: 133–158.LinsenmaierW (1997a) Altes und Neues von den Chrysididen (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).18(19): 245–300.LinsenmaierW (1997b) Die Goldwespen der Schweiz.9: 1–140.LinsenmaierW (1999) Die Goldwespen Nordafrikas (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).Suppl. 10: 1–281.LucasH (1849) Deuxième partie Insectes, Imprimerie nationale, 527 pp.MadlMRosaP (2012) A Catalogue of the Chrysididae (Hymenoptera: Chrysidoidea) of the Ethiopian Region excluding Malagasy Subregion.44(1): 5–169.ManderyKNiehuisO (2000) Die Goldwespen der Sammlung T. Schneid im Naturkundemuseum Bamberg.74: 45–59.MercetRG (1902) Nota sobre algunos Crisididos de Siria.2: 221–223.MingoE (1994) Museo Nacional de Cencias Naturales Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid, vol. 6, 256 pp.MocsáryA (1879) Data characteristica ad faunam Hymenopterologicam regionis Budapestinensis. In: . Budapest, 1879.MocsáryA (1882) Hungarian Academy of Science, Budapest, vol. 3, 94 pp.MocsáryA (1887) Studia Synonymica.11(1): 12–20.MocsáryA (1889) Hungarian Academy of Science, Budapest, 643 pp.MocsáryA (1893) Additamentum secundum ad monographiam ChrysididarumOrbis Terrarum Universi.15(4): 213–237.MóczárL (1964a) Über die Notozus-Arten Ungarns (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).56: 439–447.MóczárL (1964b) Ergebnisse der Revision der Goldwespenfauna des Karpatenbeckens (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae).10: 433–450.MóczárL (1965) Weitere Ergebnisse der Revision der Goldwespenfauna des Karpatenbeckens (Hymenoptera, Genus: Chrysis).11: 168–180.MóczárL (1967) Fémdarázsalkatúak-Chrysidoidea. Fauna Hungariae.86(2): 1–118.MóczárL (1996) New data on the subfamily Cleptinae (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae).42(2): 133–144.MóczárL (1997a) Revision of Cleptes (Leiocleptes) species of the World (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae, Cleptinae).58: 89–100.MóczárL (1997b) Revision of the Cleptesnitidulus group of the World (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae, Cleptinae).18(3): 25–44.MóczárL (1998a) Revision of the Cleptes (Holocleptes) species of the World.43(4): 323–343.MóczárL (1998b) Revision of the Cleptinae of the World. Genus Cleptes subgenera and species groups. (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).19(31): 501–516.MóczárL (1998c) Supplement to the revision of Cleptes (Leiocleptes) of the world (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae, Cleptinae).59: 209–211.MóczárL (2000a) Revision of the Cleptesasianus and townesi groups of the World (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae, Cleptinae).46(4): 319–331.MóczárL (2000b) World revision of the Cleptessatoi group (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae, Cleptinae).92: 297–324.MóczárL (2001) World revision of the Cleptessemiauratus group (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae, Cleptinae).33(1): 905–931.MorganD (1984) Cuckoo-Wasps Hymenoptera, Chrysididae.6(5): 1–37.NiehuisO (2000) The European species of the Chrysisignita group: revision of the Chrysisangustula aggregate (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).47(2): 181–201.NiehuisO (2001) Chrysididae. In: DatheHHTaegerABlankSM (Eds) Verzeichnis der Hautflügel Deutschlands (Entomofauna Germanica, 4).7: 119–123.OlmiM (1983) I Dryinidae della collezione di Massimiliano Spinola: scoperta del materiale tipico di Anteonjurineanum Latreille, cambiamento di status sistematico per il genere Prenanteon Kieffer e descrizione di una nuova specie, Gonatopusspinolai (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae).1: 77–86.PaglianoG (2005) I Mutillidae della collezione Spinola (Hymenoptera).23(1): 267–322.PanzerGWF (1792–1844) , Nürnberg, 39–48 (1797), 49–60 (1798), 61–72 (1799), 73–79 (1800), 80–85 (1801), 97–99 (1805), 101–107 (1806–1809). [Datind after Sherborn, 1923]Passerin d’EntrévesP (1980) Guide alle Mostre Temporanee Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 17 pp.Passerin d’EntrévesP (1983) Faunae Ligusticae Fragmenta – Insectorum Liguriae species novae di Massimiliano Spinola: note bibliografiche.1: 215–226.PaukkunenJRosaPSoonVJohanssonNØdegaardF (2014) Faunistic review of the cuckoo wasps of Fennoscandia, Denmark and the Baltic countries (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae).3864(1): 1–67. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3864.1.1PavesiMStrumiaF (1997) Case 2988. Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 and Chrysispurpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently E.purpuratus) (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage; and Chrysisgloriosa Fabricius, 1793: proposed suppression of the specific name.54(1): 26–30.PerraudinW (1978) Essai de monographie des Chrysidides de Corse. (Hyménoptères).626: 53–67.RadoszkowskiO (1877) Chrysidiformes, Mutillidae et Sphegidae. In: FedtshenkoAP (Ed.) [Voyage au Turkestan d’Alexis Fedtschenko]. Sankt-Petersburg, 87 pp. [In Russian]RetziusAI (1783) . Sigfried Lebrecht, Lipsiae. [Ed. Regeer C]RichardsOW (1935) Notes on the nomenclature of the Aculeate Hymenoptera, with special reference to British genera and species.83: 143–176. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1935.tb00420.xRosaP (2003) Nuovi reperti di Crisidi per l’Italia, con note tassonomiche (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).10: 301–313.RosaP (2005) I Crisidi (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae) del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano.94(2): 1–128.RosaP (2006) -Pierre, Aosta, 368 pp.RosaP (2009) Catalogo dei Tipi dei Crisidi del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale "G. Doria" di Genova (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale "G.100: 209–272.RosaPSoonV (2012) Hymenoptera: Chrysididae.. http://www.faunaeur.org [accessed 1 Dec. 2012]RossiP (1790) Thomae Masi & sociorum, Liburni, 348 pp.ScopoliJA (1763) Typis Ioannis Thomae Trattner, Vindobonae, 420 pp.Semenov-Tian-ShanskijA (1967) [New species of gold wasps (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae)] 43: 118–184. [In Russian]Semenov-Tian-ShanskijANikol’skayaMN (1954) [Cuckoo-wasps (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae) of Tajikistan]. 15: 89–137. [In Russian]ShuckardWE (1837) Description of the genera and species of the British Chrysididae.4: 156–177.van der Smissen (2010) Schlüssel zur Determination der Goldwespen der engeren ignita- gruppe (Hymenoptera Acuealata: Chrysididae- Mit detaillierten Beschreibungen und 502 Original-Abbildungen. Teil I. Bilanz aus 20 Jahren entomologischer Aktivitäten (1987–2007) (Hymenoptera Aculeata).43: 1–426.SpinolaM (1805) Typis Petri Cajetani Api, Genuae, 21 pp. [reprinteded in 1980. 3: 11–28]SpinolaM (1806–1808) . Yves Gravier, Genuae, 1–160 (1806), 1–82 (1807), 83–262 (1808). [Dating after Passerin d’Entrèves 1983]SpinolaM (1838) Comte rendu des Hyménoptères recuillis par M. Fischer pendant son voyage en Égypte, et communiqués par M. le Docteur Waltl a Maximilien Spinola.7: 437–546.SpinolaM (1840) Hyménoptères recueillis a Cayenne en 1839 par M. Leprieur, pharmacien de la Marine Royale.9: 129–204.SpinolaM (1843) Notes sur quelques Hyménoptères peu connus, recueillis en Espagne, pendant l’année 1842, par M. Victor Ghiliani, voyageur-naturaliste.1(2): 111–129.SpinolaM (1851) Insectos. Orden 7. Himenopteros. Crisiditas. XI. In: GayC (Ed.) . Maulde, Renon, Paris, 404–413.StrumiaF (1995) HymenopteraChrysididae. In: MinelliARuffoSLa PostaS (Eds) Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana.99: 1–10.TournierH (1879) Description d’Hyménoptères nouveaux appartenant a la famille des Chrysides.22: 87–100.TrautmannW (1922) Untersuchungen an einigen Goldwespenformen.1922: 321–322.TrautmannW (1927) Uschman, Weimar, 194 pp.TyrnerP (2007) Chrysidoidea: Chrysididae (zlatěnkovití).11: 41–63.VidanoCArzoneA (1978) Sulla collezione Spinola conservata nel Castello di Tassarolo.Atti XI Congresso Nazionale Italiano di Entomologia, Portici-Sorrento, 10–15 Maggio 1976: 253–260.WesmaelC (1839) Notice sur les Chrysides de Belgique.4(1): 167–177.ZimmermannS (1959) Die Artengruppen der Chrysispallidicornis Spin. und der Chrysisxanthocera Klug (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae).6(1–3): 8–33. doi: 10.1002/mmnd.19590060103