Taxonomic and nomenclatural changes in Cassidinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Author Sekerka, Lukáš text Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 2016 2016-07-15 56 1 275 344 journal article 56063 10.5281/zenodo.5305725 31cb15bf-28f5-4b27-86df-6a1b28cbce41 0374-1036 5305725 E24F1028-C6AC-4323-9ED5-C9B7FF3434ACD Cyrtonota deliciosa ( Baly, 1872 ) Mesomphalia deliciosa Baly, 1872: 62 (original description). Mesomphalia pauperula Baly, 1872: 62 (original description), syn. nov. Neomphalia tutelata Spaeth, 1932: 195 (original description), syn. nov. Type localities. Mesomphalia deliciosa : ‘Ecuador’; M.pauperula : ‘Ecuador’; Neomphalia tutelata : ‘ Peru :Moyabamba’ [= Moyobamba District and Province in the San Martín Region ]. Type material examined. Mesomphalia deliciosa : SYNTYPES : ♂, pinned, ‘ Type [w, p, s, c, rf] || Ecuador [hw] | (Buckley) | Baly Coll. | 1905—54. [w, p, cb] || Mesomphalia | deliciosa | Baly | Ecuador [g, hw by Baly, cb]’ ( BMNH ) ; ♀ , pinned, ‘ Ecuador [w, hw by Baly, cb] || Ecuador [hw] | (Buckley) | Baly Coll. | 1905—54. [w, p, cb]’ ( BMNH ) ; 2♂♂ 2♀♀ , pinned, ‘ Ecuador [w, hw by Baly, cb] || Ecuador [hw] | Baly Coll. | 1905—54. [w, p, cb]’ ( BMNH ) . Mesomphalia pauperula : HOLOTYPE : ♂ , pinned (missing right antenna), ‘Type [w, p, s, c, rf] || Ecuador [hw] | Baly Coll. | 1905—54. [w, p, cb] || Ecuador [w, hw by Baly, cb] || Mesomphalia | pauperula | Baly | Ecuador [g, hw by Baly, cb]’ ( BMNH ). Neomphalia tutelata : HOLOTYPE : ♀ , pinned (missing left antenna), ‘45196 [w, hw, s; number referring to the register of A. Fry collection] || Peru | Moyaba [hw] [w, p, s] || Type [w, p, s, c, rf] || Fry Coll. | 1905.100. [w, p, cb] || Neomphalia [hw] | tutelata [hw] | m. [hw] | Spaeth det. | Holotyp. [hw] [w, p + hw by Spaeth, cb]’ ( BMNH ). Remarks. BALY (1872) described Mesomphalia deliciosa based on a series of specimens as he mentioned length span but did not state their precise number. There are six specimens from his collection pinned in the series. As all agree with the primary description I consider them syntypes . Description of Mesomphalia pauperula immediately follows that of M. deliciosa and BALY (1872) stated that M. pauperula looks like a smaller specimen of the latter taxon but differing in more rounded sides of pronotum with peculiar sculpture on the disc, broader body and less acuminate apex of the elytra. Subsequently, SPAETH (1913 , 1914 ) placed M. deliciosa to Neomphalia Spaeth, 1913 (= Cyrtonota ) and M. pauperula to Pseudomesomphalia (= Stolas ). I have compared types of both taxa and the underlying reason why M. pauperula looks somewhat different is attributed to poor sclerotisation and molting defects. However, I am reasonably certain that both taxa are conspecific as they are generally similar (body shape, convexity of elytra and their punctation) and the different shape of pronotum is artificial, affected probably by some side effect (e.g. predation, problematic moulting, low humidity etc.) during the larval or pupal stage. Since both taxa were described in the same publication I followed the Principle of the first reviser ( ICZN 1999 : Article 24.2) and chose the name C. deliciosa as valid because it was more frequently used in literature while M. pauperula was until now an enigmatic taxon. SPAETH (1932) described Neomphalia tutelata from Peru and compared it to Neomphalia deliciosa . BOROWIEC (1999a) synonymized it with Cyrtonota honorata ( Baly, 1869 ) probably based on unpublished notes of Spaeth, however, the latter species is transferred here to Goniochenia (see remarks under G. honorata ). Characters of Cyrtonota tutelata mentioned in the original description are mostly as in C. deliciosa and as the main difference was pointed the colour of the explanate margin of elytra, which is mostly red with black spots in C. tutelata while C. deliciosa has red rounded spot situated around midlength. I have compared types of both taxa and except of the colouration they differ only in elytral sculpture as C. deliciosa has slightly more elevated elytral sculpture than C. tutelata . In my opinion it is only result of geographic variability and I synonymize C. tutelata with C. deliciosa . Distribution. Ecuador ( BALY 1872 , BOROWIEC 1996 ), Peru ( SPAETH 1932 ).