Paulipalpina aragua, new species

(Figs. 245–249)

Adelopsis simoni; Szymczakowski, 1968: 14 [and Figs. 2–3] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above).

Holotype, male (MNHN). Type locality and data: Venezuela: Aragua State: Rancho Grande [ National Park north of Maracay], Marcuzzi 449 . One male paratype with same data. Note: specimens misidentified as Paulipalpina si- moni (Portevin, 1923) in Szymczakowski (1968: 14) —Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above. Specimens here illustrated.

Length: 1.9 mm (both specimens, our measurement).

Additional tentative material examined (Topotypes): 2 females in SBPC (now in CMNC). Labels: “ Venezuela / Rancho Grande / Ber 194 / 51 kg litter / S. Peck”. Specimens here illustrated. Length: 1.8 and 1.95 mm (our measurement).

Short Description. Eyes normal. Winged. Right lobe of the aedeagus slightly longer than left lobe (Figs. 245, 248). Right lobe pointy, with apex slightly curved and shortly projected ventrad in lateral view (Fig. 233), divided in dorsal view (Fig. 248). Dorsal opening of the aedeaus as a diagonal slit (Fig. 248). Flagellum shorter (about 4/ 5 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 248). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.40. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight (Fig. 246). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by additional 3-turns transversal to the spermatheca body, followed by a short body, ending in a rounded apical bulb (Fig. 249). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.20–0.22.

Etymology. The name is given as a noun in apposition, referring to the type locality.

Distribution. Venezuela: Aragua State: known only from type locality.

Taxonomic Remarks. The bifid tip of the aedeagus of P. aragua sp. n., in dorsal view, markedly differs from that of the remaining species described so far in the genus, except for its slight resemblance to that of P. ecuatoriana Salgado, 2010, from Ecuador.

The illustrations of the aedeagus in Szymczakowski (1968, Figs. 2-3) differ from ours (Fig. 248) in showing a very large dorsal opening whereas we interpreted the dorsal opening to be a narrow slit. This may be explained by supposing that Szymczakowski’s illustration might be related to the ventral opening instead of the dorsal open-ing—in this case his illustration will agree with ours.