Parnopes viridis Brullé, 1846
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4929.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1290857D-36E6-47DE-81C7-70CBD7C0AE01 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4677006 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A96A8877-B468-FFFB-64CD-F489FF188A67 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Parnopes viridis Brullé, 1846 |
status |
|
( Figs 87 View FIGURE 87 A–87B)
Parnopes viridis Brullé, 1846: 13 . Holotype ♂; India Orientalis: Tamil Nadu: Pondicherry (MNHN). Smith 1874: 453 (Tamil Nadu: Pondicherry); Mocsáry 1889: 610 (descr., Tamil Nadu: Pondicherry); Dalla Torre 1892: 112 (cat., India); du Buysson 1896b: 478 (West Bengal: Calcutta [= Kolkata]), pl. III (fig. 13), pl. IV (fig. 11), pl. V (fig. 9); Bingham 1903: 495–496 (descr., Tamil Nadu: Pondicherry; West Bengal: Calcutta [= Kolkata]; Sikkim; Gujarat: Deesa), 496 (fig. 161); Bischoff 1913: 33 (cat., India).
Euchroeus cupreiventris Cameron, 1902b: 423 . Holotype ♀; India: Gujarat: Deesa (NHMUK) (examined). Bingham 1903: 495 (descr., Gujarat: Deesa).
Material examined. 1 ♀, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore, without further data ( NHMW) ; 1 ♀, Gujarat: Deesa 4.[18]99, Cameron Coll. 1909–182, Euchroeus cupreiventris Cam. Type Deesa, B.M. Type HYM. 13.164b, this is the type = ♀ Parnopes det. I.H.H. Yarrow. 1959, BMNH(E) #970941 ( NHMUK) .
Distribution. India (Gujarat; Sikkim; Tamil Nadu; West Bengal).
Species doubtfully recorded from India
Some species cited in the earlier literature have been found to be misidentified or their collecting locality is no longer part of India. As mentioned above, some specimens recorded in old literature and preserved in museum collections do not have precise locality, but they bear a generic locality label such as “Northwest Provinces”, “Western India ”, “Himalaya”, “Panchmarhi Hills”, “Kashmir”, or “ India ” only to mention a few. These specimens might be actually collected in other countries, for example in Pakistan (see the case of Parnopes indicus ), Myanmar or other South-East Asian countries. Furthermore, some records of Indian chrysidids were found to be misidentifications as chrysidid taxonomy is a difficult discipline and species definitions change with taxonomic revisions. The following species have records from India considered dubious and we provide brief explanation about their questionable status.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Parnopes viridis Brullé, 1846
Rosa, Paolo, Aswathi, Pokkattu Gopi & Bijoy, Chenthamarakshan 2021 |
Euchroeus cupreiventris
Bingham, C. T. 1903: 495 |
Cameron, P. 1902: 423 |
Parnopes viridis Brullé, 1846: 13
Bischoff, H. 1913: 33 |
Bingham, C. T. 1903: 495 |
du Buysson, R. 1896: 478 |
Dalla Torre, C. G. de 1892: 112 |
Mocsary, A. 1889: 610 |
Smith, F. 1874: 453 |
Brulle, G. A. 1846: 13 |