Cacostola simplex (Pascoe, 1859)

(Fig. 44)

Pachypeza simplex Pascoe 1859: 55; Nearns et al. 2014: 265 (holotype).

Cacostola simplex; Bates 1866: 31; Thomson 1868: 68; Lacordaire 1872: 687; Prudhomme 1906: 36 (distr.); Aurivillius 1923: 352 (cat.); Blackwelder 1946: 605 (checklist); Dillon and Dillon 1946: 262; Breuning 1949: 27 (syn.); Buck 1959: 601 (distr.); Marinoni and Martins 1982: 247 (reval.); Monné and Giesbert 1994: 195 (checklist); Monné 1994: 36 (cat.); 2005: 538 (cat.); Monné and Hovore 2006: 275 (checklist); Monné et al. 2012: 43 (distr.); Morvan and Roguet 2013: 29 (distr.); Monné 2018: 730 (cat.).

Trestonia simplex; Gemminger 1873: 3128 (cat.).

According to Marinoni and Martins (1982) (translated): “The holotype of C. simplex has features (especially those referring to pronotal pubescence) that allow identifying it as a distinct species from volvula and, accordingly must be revalidated.” We do not see significant differences in the pronotal pubescence of those two species. However, the distance between the upper eye lobes is distinctly greater in P. volvula (larger than three times width of one lobe (Fig. 5)) than in C. simplex (Fig. 44) (slightly narrower than twice width of one lobe) and the width of the upper eye lobes is wider in C. simplex (Fig. 44) than in C. volvula (Fig. 5) thus are character differences that do support the revalidation of C. simplex by Marinoni and Martins (1982).