Psechrus mimus Chamberlin, 1924

Figs 63h–i

Psechrus mimus Chamberlin 1924: 2 (Description of p.s.a. ♀). [Holotype p.s.a. ♀ (SB 191, label marked with ‘TYPE’) from CHINA: Jiangsu Province: Suzhou (‘Suchan’); N. Gist Gee leg.; Type No. 863; |A31|; USNM 1054; Paratypes: 1 p. s.a. ♀ (SB 603), 1 juv. (SB 723), with same data as for holotype; USNM (p.s.a. ♀), MCZ 1025 (juv.), all type material examined]. Lehtinen 1967: 261 (Syn. with P. torvus, rejected by subsequent authors). Levi 1982: 123 (Syn. with P. sinensis). Xu and Wang 1983: 35, figs 1–7 (Illustration of ♂ and ♀). Song 1987: 68, fig. 34 (Illustration of ♂ and ♀). Song 1988: 133. Song et al. 1999: 397, figs 232E–F, Q–R (Illustration of ♂ and ♀). Wang and Yin 2001: 337 (Removed from syn. with P.sinensis, considered as nomen dubium).

Psechrus sinensis — Levi 1982: 123, figs 34–39, ad part, figs 36–39 misidentified (figs 36–37: illustration of p.s.a. ♀).

Remark: Wang and Yin (2001) considered P. mimus as nomen dubium giving the reason that “Chamberlin described P. mimus from an unidentifiable female juvenile...”. The holotype (Figs 63h–i) as well as one paratype (SB 603) are herein considered pre-subadult females. Therefore, it is indeed very complicated, if not impossible, to assign these specimens to a particular species. In Psechrus females the pre-epigynes mostly show already speciesspecific characters, but the pre-pre-epigynes (of antepenultimate instar females) are hard to characterise. Hence, for now I agree with Wang and Yin (2001) in regarding P. mimus as nomen dubium. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded, that P. senoculatus, which is regarded as valid species in the present study, is a synonym of P. mimus as proposed by Song (1988); however, there is no clear evidence for that. With additional material (including p.s.a. ♀♀, s.a. ♀♀ and adults) from the type locality, Suzhou, this problem may be solved.

m–o: Photos by Ping Feng, Dali, China.