First description of the male of Hiranetisatra Stal and new country records, with taxonomic notes on other species of Hiranetis Spinola (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Reduviidae, Harpactorinae) Author Gil-Santana, Helcio R. text ZooKeys 2016 605 91 111 http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.605.8797 journal article http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.605.8797 1313-2970-605-91 F099E4DFB2454CF0A9A542EAEA4C78BB Taxon classification Animalia Hemiptera Reduviidae Hiranetis membranacea Spinola, 1840 Hiranetis membranacea Spinola, 1840: 113-114 [description]; Lethierry and Severin 1896 : 178 [catalog]; Wygodzinsky 1949 : 40 [catalog]; Maldonado 1990 : 218 [catalog]; Gil-Santana et al. 2013 : 348 [citation]. Myocoris membranaceus ; Herrich-Schaeffer 1848 : 43 [redescription], Tab. CCLXI [Figure 811]. Myocoris barbipes Burmeister, 1838: 107 [description]; Stal 1866 : 295 [citation]; Stal 1872 : 82 [as a junior synonym of Hiranetis membranacea ]; Walker 1873b : 129 [catalog, as a valid species]; Lethierry & Severin 1896: 178 [catalog, as a junior synonym of Hiranetis membranacea ]; Maldonado 1990 : 218 [catalog, as a junior synonym of Hiranetis membranacea ]. Hiranetis barbipes ; Stal 1859 : 371 [citation in text, with footnote: "= membranaceus Spin.; H. Sh."]; Wygodzinsky 1949 : 40 [catalog, as a junior synonym of Hiranetis membranacea ]. Material examined. Myocoris barbipes , female, "typus" , labels: 2772 / barbipes , two unrecognizable markings, &, ♀. / Bras. r. Olf. [green label] / Typus [red label] (ZMHB). The description of Hiranetis mentioned some structural features, and also that their tibiae are all hairy ( Spinola 1840 ). This was followed by the description of Hiranetis membranacea , based on one or more females and males from Brazil, without ascribing any specific locality to the specimens described. The antennae, body and legs of this species were recorded as black; the hemelytra as entirely membranous, blackish, often slightly darker at their base to their end, but all transparent: a large yellow spot, on three-quarters of their length on outer edge, and a smaller, hyaline, also on the external borders. Single measurements were attributed to the species ("m. long 9. lign. Larg. 2. Lign."; approximately 20.3 and 4.5 mm, respectively). After making this short description, Spinola (1840) commented that Hiranetis membranacea did not seem to be rare in South America and often showed variation: 1 - in the coloration of the thorax and abdomen, which were black, brown or even testaceous; 2 - in the legs, which could have yellowish annulus or be entirely yellowish; 3 - in the coloration of the hemelytra, which could be lighter-colored or hyaline, even in the basal portion, in some specimens; 4 - in the size, which could be half of or a third smaller. However, he concluded by stating that the intermediary specimens that he had at hand left no doubt in his own mind regarding the unity of the species. Unfortunately, it was not possible to locate any type specimen of Hiranetis membranacea . The material described by Massimiliano Spinola (1780-1857) is in his collection, which is deposited in the " Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali", Turin, Italy ( Schuh and Slater 1995 ). More than a decade ago, when looking for a type of other species described by M. Spinola (see Forero and Gil-Santana 2003 ), I contacted its [former] curator, Dr Mauro Daccordi, who kindly donated the catalogue of Spinola's hemipterological collection ( Casale 1981 ), clarifying that all extant specimens were listed there. There is no reference to any specimens of Hiranetis membranacea in it. It is worth mentioning that after M. Spinola's death (1857), his hemipterological collection remained in Tassarolo Castle until its acquisition by Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali of Turin in 1979 ( Casolari and Moreno 1980 , Casale 1981 ). Taking into account "the precarious conditions the Collection was exposed for over a century" ( Casale 1981 ), the types of Hiranetis membranacea can be considered lost. Nonetheless, at the end of 2015, I contacted the current curator of the Museum, Dr Marinella Garzena, who also kindly confirmed that no specimens of this species are present there. Therefore, it must be assumed that no type specimens of Hiranetis membranacea Spinola exist anymore. Myocoris barbipes was considered to be the largest species among several other species that were included in Myocoris Burmeister, 1835, at that time ( Burmeister 1838 ). This species was recorded as coming from "Rio Janeiro" ( Burmeister 1838 ). Its female "typus" is deposited in ZMHB (Figs 25-27). Regarding its type locality, "Rio Janeiro" ( Burmeister 1838 ) may correspond to the current municipality of Rio de Janeiro or, because of the historical scenario at the beginning of the nineteenth century, more likely it should be extended to the state of Rio de Janeiro or even to some of the contiguous states in southeastern Brazil as they are currently delimited. In fact, the handwritten de scription on the green label attached to the type seems to read "Bras. r. Olf." (Fig. 27). It is known that in 1816, Ignaz Franz Werner Maria von Olfers arrived in Rio de Janeiro with the Legation of Prussia to study Brazilian nature. He collected extensively in trips from the state of Rio de Janeiro to the contiguous states of Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo, and back to Rio de Janeiro, in the years 1818 to 1820. His collection, including insects, was then sent to museums in Vienna and Berlin ( Papavero 1971 ). Figures 25-27. Myocoris barbipes Burmeister, female, Typus", deposited in ZMHB. 25 dorsal view 26 ventral view 27 labels. Herrich-Schaeffer (1848) provided a figure (habitus) and a short diagnosis of Hiranetis membranacea (as Myocoris membranaceus ). The diagnosis referred only to color features: [general coloration] red; antenna, head, femora apices, tibiae and tarsi black; hemelytra pale yellowish with a median band and apex dark. He then commented on the variation in coloration and size, as had previously been recorded by Spinola (1840) for this species. In a footnote, Stal (1859) mentioned Hiranetis barbipes ("= membranaceus Spin.; H. Sh."). On the other hand, in Stal (1872) , Myocoris barbipes was set as a junior synonym of Hiranetis membranacea . There was no mention of the reasons for attributing synonymy to these two species. However, with exception of Walker (1873), this was adopted in all the subsequent catalogues ( Lethierry and Severin 1896 , Wygodzinsky 1949 , Maldonado 1990 ). Stal (1872) recorded features of structure and vestiture in his diagnosis of the species of Hiranetis . However, it is unlikely that these will be helpful in ascertaining better characteristics of Hiranetis membranacea , so as to remove doubts regarding the validity of the synonymy that he proposed, and/or to provide better knowledge about the diagnostic features of all taxa discussed here. Firstly because he reported that he had examined a single specimen of Hiranetis membranacea from "Brasilia" [i.e., country of Brazil], which he stated was deposited in the Museum of Stockholm ["Mus. Holm."]. Taking into consideration all the historical data on types of Hiranetis membranacea , there is no evidence that this specimen could be a type. In this case, it becomes clear that he did not examine the type of Myocoris barbipes that is still extant and is deposited in Berlin (ZMHB; Figs 25-27), even though he placed Myocoris barbipes as a junior synonym of Hiranetis membranacea . Similarly, regarding Hiranetis braconiformis , he also cited "Mus. Holm.", thus denoting that he probably used other specimen(s) but not the type (also deposited in ZMHB; Figs 18-20) to define the features of the latter species. Secondly, among those features, some are common to other species of Hiranetis and coincide with the diagnosis of the genus, or may even be common to species of other genera. Some other features are known to vary among specimens and the possibility of inter-individual variation was probably not taken into consideration at that time. Thirdly, as discussed below, the recorded variations in Hiranetis membranacea ( Spinola 1840 ) and H. [cf.] braconiformis (Champion 1848), the similarities in coloration between them and the absence of records of other or better features of each of them when they were originally described ( Spinola 1840 , Burmeister 1835 , 1838 ) make any identification imprecise. This compromises the diagnosis of Hiranetis membranacea and Hiranetis braconiformis furnished by Stal (1872) , because it seems that he did not examine any type specimens of these species. Distribution. Brazil ( Spinola 1840 , Burmeister 1838 , Herrich-Schaeffer 1848 , Maldonado 1990 ).