Valid Names Results

Monophlebus atripennis Burmeister, 1835 (Monophlebidae: Monophlebus)

Nomenclatural History

• Monophlebus atripennis Burmeister 1835: 80. Type data: INDONESIA: Java.. Neotype, male, by present designation accepted valid name Notes: Depository of Bermeister's type material unknown. Gavrilov-Zimin, 2021, designated the holotype specimen of Monophebus neglectus as the neotype of Monophebus atripennis, establishing the formal synonymy between the two names. The neotype label data are: adult female, K 1301-a, Indonesia, Java, “Buitenzorg” [Bogor], 1907, host plant and collector’s name unknown. The neotype is deposited in the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences.
• Monophloebus atripennis; Targioni Tozzetti 1868: 724. misspelling of genus name
• Monophlebus atripennis; Cockerell 1902q: 232. subsequent use Notes: Incorrect citation of "Klug" as author.
• Monophlebus neglectus Gavrilov-Zimin 2018: 159-161. Type data: INDONESIA: Java, "Buitenzorg" (Bogor), 1907. Holotype, female, by original designation Type depository: St. Petersburg: Zoological Museum, Academy of Science, Russia; junior synonym (discovered by Gavril2021, 52). Notes: Host plant and collector's name unknown. Paratypes: One female and one nymph with the same collecting data Illustr.

Common Names

Ecological Associates

Geographic Distribution

Keys

Remarks

• Systematics: The type specimens of Monophlebus atripennis were lost. However, Cockerell (1902q: 232) designated and discussed M. atripennis as a type species of genus Monophlebus, in spite of the absence of any characters for identification. In order to resolve this problem, Gavrilov-Zimin (2018: 153) suggested that the only properly described species of Monophlebus, M. neglectus Gavrilov-Zimin, 2018, collected in Java be used, as the new type species of the genus. However, the replacement of the type species could only be accomplished with the the plenary power of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 81.1). Before the application to the ICZN, the type specimen for each involved species (the older type species and a newly proposed type species) have to be fixed. Since the type of Monophlebus atripennis is lost, an alternative solution was suggested by one of the ICZN commissioners (D.A. Dmitriev, Illinois Natural History Survey, USA, pers. com.). A neotype could be designated for Monophlebus atripennis, and if this type specimen is, at the same time, the holotype of Monophlebus neglectus, this would establish the objective synonymy between two species names. Following this recommendation, Gavrilov-Zimin designated the holotype specimen of Monophebus neglectus also to be the neotype of Monophebus atripennis, establishing the formal synonymy between the two names.
• Structure: Body broadly oval, up to 10 mm long. Antennae 6-8 segmented, covered with flagellate setae of different thickness. Legs normally developed; trochanter with three sensillae on each face; claw elongated, without denticle. It has multilocular pores with a trilocular center and eight outer loculi evenly scattered on both body sides. (Gavrilov-Zimin, 2018)
• General Remarks: Detailed description and illustration in Gavrilov-Zimin, 2018.

Illustrations

Citations