1 ♂, “Kysyldscha Hammam [= Kızılcahamam] / Paphlagonien, Asm. B. / Weirather, Innsbruck [printed] // ganglbaueri m. [handwritten] / det. J. Müller [printed]” (MSNT); 1 ♀, “Kysyldscha Hammam [= Kızılcahamam] / Paphlagonien, Asm. B. / Weirather, Innsbruck [printed]” (MSNT).

Asaphidion ganglbaueri J. Müller, 1921 was described based on six specimens collected on Bosdagh, Turkey; it is very similar to Asaphidion rossi Schaum, 1857 but with the antennae completely blackish. Asaphidion weiratheri Netolitzky, 1935 was described from Turkey, and the type locality is Kysilka-Amam, near Ankara; the species is compared with Asaphidion caraboides Schrank, 1781 and its subspecies without any mentions of A. ganglbaueri. Müller (1937), examining topotypical specimens of weiratheri provided by Weirather himself and, after comparison with ganglbaueri, stated that they belonged to the same taxon. The synonymy was accepted by Lorenz (1998) and by Casale and Vigna-Taglianti (1999). Marggi et al. (2003) omitted to take into consideration the synonymy stated by Müller (1937) and listed weiratheri as a valid species; this treatment was later followed by Lorenz (2005) and Marggi et al. (2017). We requested loan of the type series of both species from NHMW but they are missing (Harry Schillhammer, pers. comm.).

Considering that the topotypical specimens (Kysilka-Amam, Turkey) sent by Weirather and probably belonging to the type series were identified by Müller as A. ganglbaueri, that Netolitzky (1935) did not take into consideration or ignored the description of A. ganglbaueri when he described A. weiratheri, and that Müller (1937) himself stated the synonymy of both species after examination of both type series, we think that the synonymy stated by Müller (1937) should be retained until proven otherwise. Therefore we confirm that Asaphidion weiratheri Netolitzky, 1935 is a synonym of Asaphidion ganglbaueri J. Müller, 1921.

Mènètriès (1832) describes Bembidion (Peryphus) dimidiatum from the banks of “Potkoumà” near “Pétigorsk” on “quelques individus”. After the description, B. dimidiatum was retained as strictly related to B. oblongum Dejean, 1831 or B. ripicola Dufour, 1820 (currently all species belonging to the subgenus Euperyphus Jeannel, 1941). Netolitzky (1914a) synonymized B. dimidiatum with B. tricolor (Fabricius, 1801) (= B. varicolor (Fabricius, 1803); the synonymy derives from the fact that the author examined Caucasian specimens identified as B. dimidiatum actually belonging to B. (Bembidionetolitzkya) varicolor and was perhaps unaware that this last species also occurs in the Caucasus and shares the same particular pattern of color of the European varicolor. But later (1935) the author himself retained B. dimidiatum as closely related to oblongum, and in any case not similar to B. conforme Dejean, 1831 or B. tricolor (both belonging to subgenus Bembidionetolitzkya Strand, 1929). Netolitzky (1943a: 112/84, note 83) reported that B. dimidiatum belongs to the “Gruppe des B. ripicola – oblongum” and retained it as close to B. testaceum parallelipenne Chaudoir, 1850; moreover, Netolitzky (1943b: 17/113, note 18) mentioned that, if they were synonyms, B. dimidiatum should have priority over B. parallelipenne; he did not formally state in any way this synonymy. Later, Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995) and Lorenz (1998) listed B. dimidiatum as a synonym of B. parallelipenne but expressed doubts. Marggi et al. (2003: 271) completely changed direction, moving dimidiatum to “incertae sedis”, explaining the decision as follows: “Bembidion (Peryphus) parallelipenne ? syn. dimidiatum Ménétriés, 1832, resurrected as Bembidion (incertae sedis) dimidiatum Ménétriés, 1832. It is not a member of Actedium, as given in Lorenz, 1998” (Marggi et al. 2003: 21).

The same settlement is confirmed by Lorenz (2005) and Marggi et al. (2017). Unfortunately, the sentence of Marggi et al. (2003) above and in particular the reference to Actedium probably caused the moving of B. dimidiatum to “incertae sedis”, and are unclear; we verified that in Lorenz (1998) neither B. parallelipenne, nor B. dimidiatum are reported as belonging to the subgenus Actedium. From the literature we ascertained that B. dimidiatum certainly belongs to the subgenus Euperyphus (as currently intended, see above); there still remains uncertainty regarding its precise position, with three (B. parallelipenne parallelipenne, B. parallelipenne exisonum Lutshnik, 1938, B. parallelipenne pseudoripicola Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1963) taxa currently assigned to the same group. In our opinion it seems unlikely that all the three Caucasian forms could be valid, and it would be necessary to verify them; in any case we suppose that the subspecies more similar to B. dimidiatum, mainly due to the elytral coloration, could be B. pseudoripicola; in case of possible synonymies the problem of priority already reported by Netolitzky (1943b: 17/113, note 18) mentioned above should be considered. However B. dimidiatum must be included in the subgenus Euperyphus as currently intended.

Bembidion lucidum Faldermann, 1836 was retained, after a study of the type specimen by Netolitzky (1910) as being very close to B. dalmatinum Dejean, 1831. Later Netolitzky (1914b) synonymized lucidum with dalmatinum fraxator Ménétriés, 1832 (currently fraxator is considered a valid species). Marggi et al. (2003: 271) listed B. lucidum as a synonym of B. dimidiatum Ménétriés, 1832 which was moved to “incertae sedis”; while the moving of B. dimidiatum was mentioned (p. 21) nothing was stated about B. lucidum. This situation remains also in Marggi et al. (2017).

After having carefully analyzed the literature regarding these taxa (e.g., Ménétriés 1832; Faldermann 1836; Schaum 1861; Netolitzky 1910, 1914b; Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995; Belousov and Sokolov 1996), we confirm that B. lucidum Faldermann is a synonym of B. fraxator Ménétriés and not of B. dimidiatum Ménétriés, which, moreover, belongs to another subgenus (see above).

1 ♂, holotype of Bembidion (Peryphus) sanatum Bates, “Type [round, bordered in red] // Japan / G. Lewis / 1910 – 310 [printed] // B. / sanatum / Bates [handwritten]” (NHMUK); 1 ♂, “Museum Paris / Nippon Moyen / E. Gallois 1912 [printed] // Japon. Chu- / zenji 17.8.1909 / Edme Gallois [yellow, printed] // coll. Netolitzky [printed] // sanatum Bts / dt Netolitzky 1937 [handwritten] // Coll. Netolitzky [printed]” (NHMW); 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀, paratypes of B. dostali, (NHMW, CTVR), with the same labels as the holotype of B. dostali.

The type specimen of B. sanatum is rather well preserved, except for the broken antennae (the left one complete but divided in three portions, the right one missing three antennomeres in the middle) and legs (the right median leg and the hind right leg with detached tarsi). All the broken parts are glued on the label.

The specimen from NHMW, identified as sanatum by Netolitzky and also used by Kirschenhofer (1984) in the description of Bembidion (Peryphus) dostali (at present assigned to the subgenus Peryphanes Jeannel, 1941), as an example of the closest species, is in very bad condition: completely immature, missing almost all the appendages of the head and a part of the legs; the pronotum is evidently flattened, the elytra are open and the specimen is so immature that a dissection of the male genitalia (Kirschenhofer, 1984 mistakenly mentions this specimen as a ♀) is not recommended. The general habitus and the comparison with the type confirmed the determination of Netolitzky.

Four of the paratypes of B. dostali from NHMW are immature. The only mature male, originally glued to the label on the dorsal side, has been dissected by us and mounted again in order to leave the dorsal side visible; the specimen lacks the three left legs.

We also examined photographs of the holotype of Bembidion (Peryphus) dostali Kirschenhofer, 1984 kindly provided by Alexey Solodovnikov and Mikkel Høegh Post (NHMD), and of its labels: “Japan, Unzen / 32°46’N, 130°16’E / 19.VII.1934 / Eigin Suenson leg. [printed] // Holotypus [red, handwritten] // Bembidion [printed] / dostali n.sp. [handwritten] / det.: Kirschenhofer [printed] 82 [handwritten]”.

Niohozan [Giappone], “in June (…) near the snow” (Bates 1883).

♂ (Fig. 1). Total body length 5.60 mm. Coloration: head and pronotum dark brown; elytra brownish olive. Legs and palps orange. Antennae orange, slightly darkened from fifth antennomere. Head: maximum width, including eyes, 1.02 mm; interocular distance 0.63 mm; frons, clypeus, and neck smooth; evident frontal furrows ending posteriorly between the first and the second supraorbital seta. Eyes weakly protruding, temples oblique towards the neck. Antennae long 3.02 mm. Pronotum: length along the midline 1.06 mm; width of anterior margin 0.91 mm, maximum width 1.31 mm, width of base 0.98 mm; pronotal width/pronotal length ratio 1.23; convex, more evidently near the anterior angles; sides entirely rebordered, narrowing with evident sinuate shape before the base, with which they form a slightly acute corner; lateral gutter narrow, of homogeneous width; complete surface glossy; laterobasal carina very long and evident; median line sharp, transverse anterior semilunar impression more evident; basal transverse impression punctured between the deep basal foveae. Elytra: length 3.55 mm, maximum overall width, at middle of elytra, 2.25 mm; oval, shoulders slightly rounded; humeral margin reaching stria 5; full microsculpture, so fine and irregularly transverse that it looks like shagreening. Striae with punctures clearly visible almost to apex, even though less impressed at apex.

Male genitalia. Aedeagus (Fig. 5) of medium-large size (1.55 mm), ventral margin with a very faint gibbosity and apex only slightly bent ventrally; central brush completely protruding from basal opening; paracopulatrix lamina and main sclerite extending towards the apex, paracopulatrix lamina narrowing anteriorly; parameres of same length (terminology according to Neri and Vigna Taglianti 2010).

The examination of the holotype of B. sanatum, currently listed as Bembidion “incertae sedis” in Marggi et al. (2017), shows that the species must be assigned to the subgenus Peryphanes Jeannel, 1941, as correctly stated by Sundukov and Makarov (2016), unfortunately unavailable to us before the publication of the catalogue in 2017. The examination of the material of B. dostali (Fig. 6) instead revealed that the taxon, formerly considered closely related to B. sanatum, is conspecific. The differences between the pronota, mentioned and drawn by Kirschenhofer (1984: 91), are due to the comparison with a completely immature specimen of B. sanatum (examined by us, see above); furthermore the examined paratypes of B. dostali show a pronotum with characters that are slightly variable. The aedeagi are very similar to one another (Figs 5, 6). According to these observations we can state that Bembidion (Peryphanes) dostali Kirschenhofer, 1984 = Bembidion (Peryphanes) sanatum Bates, 1883 syn. nov. We added the following label to the examined specimens: Bembidion (Peryphanes) sanatum Bates – det. Neri and Toledano 2020.

Bembidion sanatum, a Japanese species, is distinguished from the related species of Japan and China by the following characters: from B. hykosanum (Habu & Ueno, 1955) (JA) and B. parepum Jedlicka, 1933 (SCH) by the completely microsculptured or shagreened elytra, from B. hayachinense (Nakane, 1979) (JA) by the first three antennomeres light and the pronotum not microsculptured, and from B. lulinense Habu, 1973 (TAI) by the structure of the endophallus (Fig. 7).

Figures 1–4. 

Habitus of 1 Bembidion (Peryphanes) sanatum Bates, 1883, holotype (NHMUK), 5.60 mm 2 B. (Plataphus) pseudolucillum Netolitzky, 1938 from Kibune, Kyoto (NHMW), 4.20 mm 3 B. (Peryphus) psuchrum Andrewes, 1935 Inde, Himachal Pradesh, Mahari, 3500 m (CTVR), 3.50 mm 4 labels of the holotype of Bembidion sapporense Jedlička (NMPC). Photographs: Luca Toledano.

Fassati (1957) describes Bembidion (Peryphus) fuscicrum thibeticum ssp. nov. and Bembidion (Peryphus) fuscicrum fumipenne nat. nov.; they are distinguished from the nominotypical form only by the coloration of the elytra. Lindroth (1963) synonymizes the following taxa with B. obscurellum Motschulsky, 1845: B. fuscicrum Motschulsky, 1855, B. fuscicrum turanicum Csiki, 1928, B. fumipenne and B. thibeticum, the last two taxa because they are only color varieties. Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995) listed B. turanicum as a subspecies of B. obscurellum and retained B. fumipenne and B. thibeticum as varieties only; moreover Belousov’s note (Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995: 85, note no. 158) reports that the subspecific situation of this polymorphic species is provisional. Recently, some authors (e.g., Lorenz 2005; Marggi et al. 2017) still list B. turanicum, B. fumipenne, and B. thibeticum as subspecies of B. obscurellum.

In light of our studies we maintain that the synonymies proposed by Lindroth (1963) were correct; moreover, our colleague Liang Hongbin (IZCAS, Beijing) confirms our opinion based on the study of hundreds of specimens from Mongolia that clearly show the variability of the species (Liang Hongbin, pers. comm.).

Regarding Bembidion (Peryphus) obscurellum insperatum Lutshnik, 1938, since its discriminating characters are not exclusive but shared by other subspecies, we evaluated the synonymy expressed in Marggi et al. (2017) and add to the distribution of the species the Russian Caucasus (ST), the region mentioned in the description, as already reported in Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995): Ciscaucasia, Western and Central Greater Caucasus. Current distribution: E: DE, NT, ST, SV; A: AF, CH, ES, IN, KA, KI, KZ, MG, TM, TR, WS, XIZ; NAR.

1 ♂, holotype of Bembidium psuchrum Andrewes, “♂ 1995 [no. dissection by Müller-Motzfeld] // Holo / type [round, bordered in red] // Type [round, bordered in red] // Bembidium / psuchrum Andr. / Type [handwritten] / H. E. Andrewes det. [printed] // Brit. Mus. / 1923-24 // Bunderdhunga V. / W. Almora Divis. / 8000–12000 feet / June’ 19 H.G.C. [printed] // 3120 [printed]” (NHMUK); 1 ♂, “Inde / Himachal Pradesh / Mahari // 3500m / 18.VIII.80 / G. Ledoux” (CTVR) (Fig. 3).

The holotype is in perfect condition and the slide with the aedeagus, on a label mounted on the same pin as the specimen, is clear and well preserved.

Kumaon, West Almora, Bunderdhunga, 8000–12000 ft. [India, Uttarakhand] (Andrewes 1922).

Total body length 3.90 mm. Coloration: head, pronotum and elytra black, metallic. Palps dark brown with last palpomere light. Legs with femora black metallic and apex slightly lighter, tibiae reddish and tarsi reddish with blackish metallic reflections. Antennae reddish black with metallic reflections. Head: maximum width, including eyes, 0.82 mm; interocular distance 0.55 mm; frons and clypeus smooth with a few transverse lines, neck microsculptured at base; evident, smooth, deep frontal furrows, ending behind at the second supraorbital seta. Eyes moderately convex, temples slightly convex and oblique towards neck. Antennae long 2.05 mm. Pronotum: length along mid line 0.84 mm; width of anterior margin 0.77 mm, maximum width 0.93 mm, width of base 0.61 mm; pronotal width/pronotal length ratio 1.11; very convex, barely transverse; sides entirely rebordered, narrowing with an evident sinuous curve towards the base with which they form a slightly acute corner; marginal gutter very narrow, of homogeneous width; whole surface glossy, laterobasal carina not very evident; median line evident, slightly widened at base; transverse anterior semilunar impression with a few punctures; basal transverse impression punctured between the subquadrate, not deep, basal foveae. Elytra: length 2.37 mm, maximum overall elytral width, slightly beyond the middle, 1.59 mm; oval, moderately convex, evident and rounded shoulders; humeral margin reaching stria 5; totally glossy, faint trace of microsculpture only at the extreme apex. Striae with evident punctation, mainly on disc, barely visible at apex; the very faint punctation is visible also at apex. Evident apical stria.

Medium sized (0.91 mm) aedeagus (Fig. 8), concave ventral margin with apex bent ventrally; central brush completely inside the median lobe, medium sized main sclerite, moderately wide and sinuate.

The study of the holotype of the species, currently listed as Bembidion “incertae sedis” (Marggi et al. 2017), suggests that the species could be assigned to the subgenus Peryphus Dejean, 1821.

Figures 5–9. 

Median lobe of the aedeagi of 5 Bembidion (Peryphanes) sanatum Bates, 1883, holotype (NHMUK), 1.55 mm 6 B. (P.) dostali Kirschenhofer, 1984, paratype (NHMW), 1.53 mm 7 B. (P.) lulinense Habu, 1973 (drawing from Habu 1973), 1.41 mm 8 Bembidion (Peryphus) psuchrum Andrewes, 1935, holotype (NHMUK), 0.91 mm 9 Bembidion (Plataphus) pseudolucillum Netolitzky, paratype (NHMW), 0.80 mm.

Holotype ♀ of Bembidion (Peryphus) torosiense Jedlička, 1961, “Anatolia – Toros / Berendi Eregli / 2000m, leg. Muche [printed] // Staatl. Museum für / Tierkunde Dresden [yellow, printed] // Holotypus [red, printed] // Ankauf Muche [yellow, printed] // Bembidion / Peryphus / torosiense sp.n. [pink, handwritten] / det. ING. JEDLICKA [pink, printed] // = Bembidion / subcostatum vau Net. / det. P. Bonavita, 2012 [printed]” (SMTD).

In Marggi et al. (2017) the species is listed with the Bembidion, species “incertae sedis”. The comparison of the holotype with specimens of B. subcostatum vau Netolitzky, 1913 from the same locality, Eregly, Turkey (PN, CTVR) confirmed the synonymy noticed by Bonavita but never published. We wish to thank our colleague Paolo Bonavita for reporting this synonymy and allowing us to publish it here.

1 ♀, “Japan / Settsu / Katsuoji / 16.VI.24 / J.E.A. Lewis [printed] // 199 [handwritten] // Type [red, printed] // pseudolucillum Net. / Type Netolitzky 37 // Peryphus // H.E. Andrewes coll. / B.M. 1945-97 [printed]” (NHMUK). 3 ♀♀, on the same pin, “Oku Nikko / Nabagawa / 8.9.1937 / Jano, Jap. [handwritten] // pseudolucillum / det. Netolitzky [handwritten] // H.E. Andrewes coll. / B.M. 1945-97 [printed]” (NHMUK). 1 ♀, “Japan / Settsu / Katsuoji / J.E.A. Lewis [handwritten] // [one deleted label] // Peryphus sp. / striis mediocr- / punctat [illegible] / dt Netolitzky [handwritten] // mit Type / Brit. Museum / identisch Net. [handwritten] // Coll. / Netolitzky [printed] // pseudolucillum Net / Cotypus Netolitzky 37 [handwritten] // CO / TYPUS [red, printed] // Coll. / Netolitzky [printed]” (NHMW). 1 ♂, “Oku Nikko / Nabagawa / 8.9.37 Jano [handwritten] // pseudolucillum / dt. Netolitzky [handwritten, contoured in red] // coll. / Netolitzky [printed]” (NHMW); from the handwritten label contoured in red we deduce that this last specimen was considered by Netolitzky as a paratype. 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, on the same pin, “Oku Nikko / Nabagawa / 8.9.37 Jano [handwritten] // coll. / Netolitzky [printed] // pseudolucillum / dt. Netolitzky [handwritten]” (NHMW); we mounted the ♂ on a separate pin, the labels have been photocopied in order to mount the specimens on separate pins, and the ♂, dissected, bears the slide with the aedeagus mounted in euparal on the same pin. 1 ♂, “Kibune, Kyoto / 12-IV-1950 / Leg. S. Uéno [handwritten] // Acqu.-Nr. / 1951-23 [printed] // Coll. / Meyer // pseudolucillum / Netolitzky 1938 [handwritten] / Det. S. Uéno [printed]” (NHMW) (Fig. 2). 2 ♀♀, “Kibune, Kyoto / 12-IV-1950 / Leg. S. Uéno [handwritten] // Acqu.-Nr. / 1951-23 [printed] // Coll. / Meyer // pseudolucillum [handwritten] / det. Paul Meyer [printed]” (NHMW). 1 ♂, “Japan G. Lewis // Japan. Lewis // Sharp Coll. 1905-313 // Bembidion cfr. pseudolucillum det. L. Toledano 2008 // CTVR Coll. Toledano Verona – Italy” (CTVR). 1 ♂, “Kujukawa / Aomori Pref. / Honehu Japan / 10.9.54 [handwritten] // Bembidion / pseudolucillum / Netolitzky 1938 / det. L. Toledano 2011 [printed] // CTVR / Coll. Toledano / Verona – Italy [printed]” (CTVR). 7 ♀♀, “Numata, Yumma Pref., Honshu Japan” (CTVR, PN). 1 ♀, “Amagi-Pass, Kawazu-cho, Shizuoka pref.” (CTVR). 1 ♀, “Sanjo-valley, Tabayama vill., Yamanashi-pref.” (CTVR). 1 ♀, “J. Honshu, Shiga-ken, Mikunidakeyama, E slope, 700 m” (CTVR). 2 ♀♀, 3 ♂♂, “Japan, Mt. Hiba, Saljo, Hiroshima pref.” (CTVR, PN).

Netolitzky (1938) describes Bembidion (Peryphus) pseudolucillum from Settsu (Japan), assigning it to the group of B. nitidulum Marsham, 1802, s. l. (= B. deletum Serville, 1821); again Netolitzky (1943a, 1943b) found it difficult to find a correct position for the species in his Bestimmungs-Tabellen: he mentions similarities both with species of two subgenera, Bembidionetolitzya Strand, 1929 and Peryphus Dejean, 1821, but preferred the latter. Jedlička (1965), in his monograph on the Bembidiini of Eastern Asia, includes the species in the keys for subgenus Plataphus Motschulsky, 1864 and that of the subgenus Peryphus. The species is listed in “incertae sedis” in the last catalogues (e.g., Marggi et al. 2003; Lorenz 2005; Marggi et al. 2017).

The examination of the holotype and of the aedeagus (Fig. 9) shows that the species belongs to subgenus Plataphus Motschulsky, 1864. The doubts regarding the systematic position of the species are due to its pronotal convexity, more evident than in other species of the subgenus. We added to all the non-type specimens the following label: Bembidion (Plataphus) pseudolucillum Net. – det. Neri and Toledano 2020. The species length varies from 3.6 to 4.7 mm, the aedeagus from 0.75 to 0.84 mm.

The subgenus Politophanes Müller-Morzfeld, 1998 was restored by Schmidt (2018), after Toledano (2008) downgraded Politophanes to species group of subgenus Ocydromus Clairville, 1806. The subgenus includes the species that show particular endophallic characters (main sclerite from slightly arcuate to clearly bent, S-shaped, even long and coiled in a ring in the central portion in some species). Bembidion chloreum, currently listed as member of subgenus Peryphus, shows endophallic characters that clearly include it in the subgenus Politophanes.

Bembidion sapporense Jedlička, 1951, currently assigned to the subgenus Asioperyphus Vysoký, 1986, was described from a single male specimen: we examined the holotype (NMPC) and, based on the aedeagal characters (long main sclerite, coiled in a ring at middle) we assign it to the subgenus Politophanes. The labels of the specimen (Fig. 4) show that our colleague Seiji Morita (Tokyo), a specialist in Japanese Carabidae, particularly in the Bembidiina, identified the specimen as Bembidion chloreum Bates in 1991. Later he confirmed this identification and authorized us to state it formally here (Morita, pers. comm.): we are very grateful for that. Therefore we state the following synonymy: Bembidion (Asioperyphus) sapporense Jedlička, 1951 = Bembidion (Politophanes) chloreum Bates, 1873 syn. nov.

Habu (1973a) described Bembidion (Peryphus) gotoense from Kyushu, Japan, and in a note reported the closeness of the species to B. (P.) amurense trajectum Netolitzky, 1939 (currently assigned to the subgenus Politophanes Müller-Motzfeld, 1998); B. gotoense must therefore also be transferred to Politophanes.

Habu (1973b) described Bembidion (Peryphus) shunichii from Formosa [Taiwan] from three females. Later Toledano (2009) assigned this species to the subgenus Ocydromus Clairville, 1806 s. l., “lenae Csiki, 1928 group” (currently referred to the subgenus Politophanes Müller-Motzfeld, 1998); the image provided of the aedeagus by Toledano (2009) confirms the attribution to the subgenus Politophanes proposed here.

Habu (1959) describes Bembidion (Peryphus) umeyai from Hokkaido, Japan, reporting that the species is closely related to Bembidion (Peryphus) amurense trajectum Netolitzky, 1939 (currently listed in the subgenus Politophanes). Later, the species was listed in Marggi et al. (2003) in two different positions, within the subgenus Ocydromus but with the incorrect spelling umeayi (sic!) and within Bembidion “incertae sedis” with the correct name “umeyai”. The same mistake, reported to us by our colleague Katsuyuki Terada (Hiroshima), also occurs in Marggi et al. (2017). In Habu’s (1959) original description and in Morita (2001) the illustration of the aedeagus of umeyai shows that the species belongs to the subgenus Politophanes.

Morita (2009a) described Bembidion yoshidai from SW Japan and in a note reported that the species is closely related to Bembidion trajectum Netolitzky, 1939 (currently listed as Politophanes); slightly later, Morita himself (2009b) followed Toledano (2008, 2009) and assigned the species to the subgenus Ocydromus Clairville, 1806 s. l. Based on the aedeagal characters reported by Müller-Morzfeld (1998) and Schmidt (2018), yoshidai must also be transferred to Politophanes.

Jedlička (1965) described Bembidion (Peryphus) sjoelanderi from China, neglecting to specify the exact locality or mention the number of type specimens. Later, following the further division of the subgenus Peryphus Dejean, 1821 into several separate subgenera, the species has always been listed as Bembidion species “incertae sedis” (e.g., Toledano 2000; Marggi et al. 2017). We received a photograph of the holotype, female, of sjoelanderi, from NHRS and the examination of some exoskeletal characters (pronotum with laterobasal carina rudimental or absent; pronotum with basal punctation absent or reduced; elytral striae 1, 2, and 5 deeply impressed up to the apex) suggests that the species should be assigned to the subgenus Terminophanes Müller-Motzfeld, 1998. After a further comparison of sjoelanderi with many specimens of Bembidion (Terminophanes) pseudoconsumatum Kirschenhofer, 1984, species showing a marked variability in the pronotal width/pronotal length ratio (1.125 to 1.308) we were convinced that the members of both taxa were conspecific, therefore we state the following synonymy: Bembidion (Terminophanes) pseudoconsumatum Kirschenhofer, 1984 = Bembidion (Terminophanes) sjoelanderi Jedlička, 1965 syn. nov.

In Marggi et al. (2017: 341) the taxa Sinechostictus laevigaster (De Monte, 1949) and S. nordafricanus (De Monte 1949), synonyms of S. dahlii, were listed in the same font size as the valid species, instead of the font of the synonyms. The mistake is also recognizable by their order of appearance in the catalogue, in which the species are listed in alphabetical order: S. laevigaster and S. nordafricanus are listed after S. dahlii, but they are followed by S. decoratus Duftschmid 1812. After laevigaster and nordafricanus is mistakenly reported the geographic distribution, which is not reported after the synonyms in the rest of the volume: probably this misleaded the typographers.

Both taxa should be considered synonyms of S. dahlii, as stated by Ortuño and Toribio (2005). Moreover, Algeria must be added to the distribution pattern of the species, as reported by De Monte (1949). Current distribution: E: FR, IT, SP; N: AG, LB, MO, TU.

In the revision of the Caucasian species of ruficorne – stomoides group, after downgrading S. lubricus Lutsnik, 1938 and S. cariniger Korge, 1971 to subspecies of S. multisulcatus Reitter, 1890, Fassati (1992) defined the distribution of the subspecies (S. multisulcatus multisulcatus from high altitudes in Central Caucasus; S. cariniger from NE Turkey and Georgia; S. lubricus from the Western Caucasus, Lesser Caucasus, and Georgia). He also described some diagnostic exoskeletal characters, but in the text frequently repeated the words “in general” and “often”, so that we suppose that, in his opinion, overlapping of characters are frequent in the subspecies. Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995) list the three subspecies from the Caucasus, but a note by Belousov (Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995: 90, note no. 188) says: “… since the infraspecific structure of multisulcatum Rtt. remains obscure”. Later S. lubricus was considered by all authors as a synonym of S. multisulcatus (Lorenz 1998, 2005; Marggi et al. 2003), while S. cariniger, formerly listed as synonym of S. multisulcatus in Lorenz (1998), was later considered a valid subspecies (Marggi et al. 2003; Marggi et al. 2017).

We examined several specimens from NE Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan (new record: N Azerbaijan, Kusary, Shakh-Nabad-Tshai, 3400 m), and southern Russia (Abchasia, Sochi, Krasnodarski Kraj and, confirming S. lubricus as a synonym, we think that S. cariniger should also be synonymized with the nominotypical form. Therefore we state the following synonymy, with the junior synonym listed first: Sinechostictus (Sinechostictus) multisulcatus cariniger Korge, 1971 = Sinechostictus (Sinechostictus) multisulcatus (Reitter, 1890) syn. nov. Current distribution: E: AB, GG, ST; A: TR.

In Neri et al. (2015) Sinechostictus tarsicus (Peyron, 1858) is synonymized with S. effluviorum (Peyron, 1858). In Paill et al. (2018: 273), based on a personal communication from Wolfgang Lorenz, the name tarsicus was restored (Schaum 1861), as first reviewer, and synonymized effluviorum with tarsicus. We think that this act is correct, and we confirm that Sinechostictus (Sinechostictus) effluviorum (Peyron, 1858) is a junior synonym of Sinechostictus (Sinechostictus) tarsicus (Peyron, 1858). The mistake was probably due to a misunderstanding of the Schaum’s (1861) considerations. Furthermore, we report the species for Lebanon (Nabeh Safa, 1000 m (PN) and Marjayoun, env. Litani river, 280 m (CR)). Current distribution: E: AL, AU, BH, BU, CR, GR, HU, IT, MC, SL, ST, SZ, TR, YU; A: CY, IN, IQ, IS, LE, SY, TR.