grandis (Canthecona) Dallas 1851: 91–92 . [Figs 75–77]

Original data: “ Of the four specimens in the Collection, two are males and two females ”; “a. Columbia. From M. Goudot’s Collection. b. Mexico. Presented by E. P. Coffin, esq. c. –––––.” [four syntypes, two males and two females]

SYNTYPE ♂: blue-margined syntype disc; red-margined type disc; “Columbia / 46 20”; “ Canthecona grandis identified by Dallas”; “NHMUK 010592339”. Right and left antennae missing (Fig. 75) .

SYNTYPE ♀: blue-margined syntype disc; “ Mexico / 43 13”; “ Mutyca phymatophora Walker’s catal.; “b”; “NHMUK 010747381”. Fifth left antennomere missing (Fig. 76) .

SYNTYPE ♀: blue-margined syntype disc; “ Mexico ”; “ Mutyca phymatophora Walker’s catal.”; “b”; “NHMUK 010747382” Fourth and fifth right antennomeres, and fifth left antennomere missing. The abdomen is damaged (Fig. 77) .

Current status: Alcaeorrhynchus grandis (Dallas, 1851) (Stål (1862b: 90) had placed Canthecona grandis Dallas, 1851 in his genus Mutyca . Bergroth (1891: 235) gave a new name to preoccupied Mutyca Stål, 1862; see also Schouteden 1907: 32; Kirkaldy 1909: 9).

Notes: Dallas had stated he had four specimens, 2 males and 2 females. Walker (1867a: 131) had placed the species under Mutyca phymatophora Beauvois, 1811 and listed 3 specimens with the provenances mentioned by Dallas (“a. Columbia. From M. Goudot’s collection. b, c. Mexico. Presented by E. P. Coffin, Esq.”) as well as a specimen with no data, just like Dallas had (“h. –––––?”). We have found three specimens; the specimen bearing the letter “c” in Dallas’s (1851) catalogue is missing or was not recognised. Thomas (1992: 21) explained: “I examined a male specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) labeled: (a) “Type,” (b) “ Canthecona grandis, identified by Dallas.”” We do not consider this a valid lectotype designation as Thomas just stated having examined a male specimen, one label of which read “Type”.