An annotated and illustrated Type Catalogue of the predacious Shieldbugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) in the Collection of the Natural History Museum, London Author Roell, Talita Author Lemaître, Valérie A. 0000-0003-4802-2711 v.lemaitre@nhm.ac.uk Author Webb, Michael D. 0000-0002-1312-6142 m.webb@nhm.ac.uk Author Campos, Luiz A. 0000-0001-5414-8746 luiz.campos@ufrgs.br text Zootaxa 2023 2023-02-03 5232 1 1 105 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5232.1.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.5232.1.1 1175-5326 7609794 E7B67882-2148-49C5-9F09-D5CAA95A21D1 coeruleus ( Hoploxys ) Dallas 1851: 103 . [ Fig. 34 ] Original data : “ ♀ ”. “a. Congo . Presented by Sir John Richardson, M. D.” [ syntype (s)] SYNTYPE ♀ : blue-margined syntype disc; red-margined type disc; “ Congo / 43 56”; “1. HOPLOXYS CAERULEUS,”; “a”; “NHMUK 010592440”. Antennae and legs (except the left middle leg and a part of the left anterior leg) missing. The specimen is also missing its right wing, while its abdomen is partially disconnected from its thorax ( Fig. 34 ) . FIGURES 33–40. Type and non-type specimens deposited in NHMUK. 33, Oplomus chrysomelas ; 34, Hoploxys coeruleus ; 35, Canthecona cognata ; 36–39, Arma colorata ; 40, Canthecona concinna . Scale bars: 4 mm. Current status : Hoploxys coeruleus Dallas, 1851 . Notes : As Dallas (1851: 103) noted “Antennae with the two basal joints black ( rest wanting [emphasis ours])”, it is likely that he had only one specimen . Walker (1867a: 141) listed only one specimen and we have found only one female specimen in the collection. Still, we cannot be sure Dallas just described the species from one specimen , we therefore consider it a syntype . This specimen was not examined by Thomas (1994: 181) who only mentioned having examined specimens from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (as Zaire ), Gabon and Cameroon and not the type. David & Dickinson (2016: 15) remarked: “Names that in their original form used ligatures are incorrect original spellings (Art. 27) but when the ligature is resolved and two letters replace it the names become correct original spellings (Art. 32.2.2.).” and later, p. 20, “Article 58.1 (I.C.Z.N., 1999) states that species-group names that contain -ae- and -oe-, but are otherwise identical, are deemed to be homonyms when included in the same genus (Art. 58); indeed, classical Latin dictionaries list coerul- as a variant of caerul- ( Gaffiot, 1934 ).” Dallas (1851: 79) had originally named the species “ HOPLOXYS COERULEUS ”; this was an incorrect original spelling. The correct original spelling should be “coeruleus”, as in our entry and current status. Walker’s (1867a: 141) heading (and thus label) reads “ HOPLOXYS CAERULEUS”; this is an incorrect subsequent spelling.