tabida (Arma) Signoret 1863: 544 . [Figs 197–199]

Original data: “ Chile.” [syntype (s)]

NON-TYPE ♂: “Balzapamba (Ecuad.) R. Haensch S.”; “1903-322”; “NHMUK 010939527”. Left fourth and fifth antennomeres missing (Fig. 197).

NON-TYPE ♀: “Balzapamba (Ecuad.) R. Haensch S.”; “Co-types Breddin. Purch. of Haensch Podisus tabidus Sign. ”; “1903-322”; NHMUK 010939525”. Left fourth and fifth antennomeres, and right fifth antennomere missing (Fig. 198).

NON-TYPE ♀: “Balzapamba (Ecuad.) R. Haensch S.”; “BRIT. MUS.”; “ Podisus sp. (1-198)”; “NHMUK 010939526”. Left fourth and fifth antennomeres, right fifth antennomere, and left middle leg missing (Fig. 199).

Current status: Brontocoris tabidus (Signoret, 1863) (see Thomas 1992: 31). However, see “ Note ”.

Note: Thomas (1992: 84–85) noted that he had located in the collection a pair of Ecuadorian specimens labeled as “cotypes” of Podisus tabidus (Signoret, 1863), a male and a female which he identified as P. crassimargo (Stål, 1860) . We have actually found three such specimens in the collection, one male and two females. The first author identified the male as P. congrex (Stål, 1862) and the females were identified by Ricardo Brugnera (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, UFRGS) as Podisus ventralis (Dallas, 1851) . We can only share Thomas’s puzzlement as to the meaning of “cotypes”. Distant (1906: 32) had raised a doubt concerning the specimens purchased from Haensch in 1903, which “were specified as cotypes of some of the species described by Herr Breddin”. Here, Distant [?] had clearly determined the species as not one described by Breddin.