A revision of the types of Heteroptera species described by Géza Horváth based on specimens from collections of Ladislav Duda and Emil Holub Author Kment, Petr Author Rédei, Dávid text Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 2018 2018-08-01 58 1 275 295 journal article 10.2478/aemnp-2018-0025 81a36e5a-fa4f-49e3-a070-d73f7c1668f6 1804-6487 3699290 884E98BE-F098-47AC-99BF-A68AC8B197E3 Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893 ( Figs 59–62 ) Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893: 257–258 (original description). Eysarcoris crucifer : LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1893) : 268 (catalogue, new combination); KIRKALDY (1909b) :83 (catalogue); SCHOUTEDEN (1909) : 52 (list). Type locality. ‘Africa centralis (Holub)’ (in error). Type material examined. HOLOTYPE : Lost. NEOTYPE (here designated): ♀ ( NMPC ), ‘Holub [p, pink label] // COLL. NICKERL / MUS.PRAGENSE [p, with p frame submarginally] // Stollia / crucifera [hw // 8. [hw, green label] // ♀ [p] // NEOTYPUS / STOLLIA / CRUCIFERA / Horváth,1893 / des. KMENT & RÉDEI 2018’[p, red label] // COSMOPEPLA / CRUCIARIA / Stål, 1872 / det. P. KMENT 2016 [p]’ (pinned through scutellum, both antennae and all legs lacking). Additional material examined. MADAGASCAR : 1 ♀ , ‘ Coll. R. I. Sc. N.B. / Madagascar / Tamatave / Ex Museo / R. Oberthür’ [p, green label] ( ISNB ) [apparently mislabelled]. Figs 63–66. Parantestia cincticollis ( Schaum, 1853 ) , structure of pygophore of a male specimen (Republic of the Congo, 20 km W Brazzaville, body length 9.7 mm), compared to female lectotype of Caura modesta Horváth, 1893 , syn. nov. (63 – dorsal view, magnification 55×; 64 – ventral view, 55×; 65 – lateral view, 60×; 66 – caudal (most exposed) view, 60×). Scale bars: 0.5 mm. (ESEM micrographs: P. Kment). Current status. Junior subjective synonym of Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 (see below). Distribution of Cosmopepla cruciaria . Colombia ( STÅL 1872 , MCDONALD 1986 ), Ecuador ( MCDONALD 1986 , no exact record). The record from southern Brazil ( Rio Grande do Sul ) ( PIRÁN 1970: 126 ) needs verification. Remarks. The original description explicitly specified that the description of this species was based on a single female: ‘Antennae et pedes in exemplo descripto desunt.’ [= antennae and legs in described specimen missing]; that specimen must be treated as the holotype of this species ( ICZN 1999 : Art. 73.1.2). However, no such specimen could be located in HNHM. A single female ( Figs 59–62 ) lacking antennae and legs, thus matching well the original description, but lacking labels with Horváth’s handwriting was found in NMPC. The species is potentially the holotype of S. crucifera , or at least it is apparently part of the lot of specimens from which the holotype originated. As its status as holotype is doubtful, we designate it here as the neotype of Stollia crucifera with the expressed purpose of fixing the identity of this species in accordance with Article 75.3 of the ICZN (1999) . The neotype of Stollia crucifera can safely be identified as Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 (redescribed and illustrated in detail by MCDONALD 1988 ), therefore the following new subjective synonymy is hereby proposed: Cosmopepla cruciaria Stål, 1872 = Stollia crucifera Horváth, 1893 , syn. nov. As this species (together with all other Cosmopepla ) is of New World distribution, the type locality of S. crucifera is evidently erroneous.