Anisopodus argus Bates, 1872, return to original combination

(Fig. 12)

Anisopodus argus Bates, 1872: 216; Gemminger, 1873: 3150 (cat.); Bates, 1881: 163; 1885: 398 (distr.); Blackwelder, 1946: 613 (checklist); Chemsak & Linsley, 1970: 407 (lect.).

Hyperplatys argus; Aurivillius, 1923: 417 (cat.); Blackwelder, 1946: 616 (checklist); Gilmour, 1965: 592 (cat.); Chemsak et al., 1992: 137 (cat.); Monné & Giesbert, 1994: 247 (checklist); Maes et al., 1994: 39 (distr.); Monné, 1995: 68 (cat.); Maes, 1998: 928 (distr.); Monné, 2005: 47 (cat.); Swift et al., 2010: 38 (distr.); Maes et al., 2010: 446 (distr.); Audureau & Roguet, 2018: 69 (distr.); Monné, 2020: 58 (cat.).

Bates (1872) described Anisopodus argus based on “several examples” from Nicaragua. Aurivillius (1923), without explanation, transferred the species to Hyperplatys Haldeman, 1847 . It is difficult to understand the reasons why Aurivillius (1923) made this decision. Examination of the photograph of some specimens of the type series, as well as other specimens, show that the species is better placed in Anisopodus White, 1855 . Although the metafemora do not surpass the elytral apex, the size of metatarsomere I (about three times longer than II–III together), as well as the shape of the metafemora (peduncle noticeably long) and general appearance (somewhat elongate and slender) agrees much better with the type species of Anisopodus ( A. arachnoides) than with the type species of Hyperplatys ( H. maculata Haldeman, 1847) (metatarsomere I, at most, twice as long as II–III together; metafemoral peduncle short; and general appearance shorter and stouter). Accordingly, the species is transferred to the original genus.