Ceraeochrysa everes ( Banks, 1920 )

Tauber, Catherine A. & Flint, Oliver S., 2010, Resolution of some taxonomic and nomenclatural issues in a recent revision of Ceraeochrysa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Zootaxa 2565, pp. 55-67 : 57

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.294309
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6206852
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D0066B-8E64-DE64-FF70-8977398AF971
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Ceraeochrysa everes ( Banks, 1920 )
status

Treatment

Ceraeochrysa everes ( Banks, 1920) View in CoL

Relevant synonymy below (See Freitas et al. 2009: 546 for a full list of synonyms).

Chrysopa everes Banks, 1920: 338 View in CoL [MCZ, Lectotype].

Ceraeochrysa everes (Banks) View in CoL . First combination in Ceraeochrysa View in CoL by Adams & Penny (1985: 452).

Chrysopa furcata Navás, 1922: 53 View in CoL . Preoccupied name.

Chrysopa furculata Navás, 1923: 39 View in CoL . Replacement name for C. furcata Navás. View in CoL [MNHN, Holotype]. Junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa gundlachi ( Navás, 1924: 329) View in CoL by Adams (1982: 72); junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa everes View in CoL by Adams & Penny (1985: 452).

Background: Freitas et al. (2009: 546) correctly listed Chrysopa furcata Navás View in CoL and Chrysopa furculata Navás View in CoL as synonyms of Ceraeochrysa everes (Banks) View in CoL . Also, they correctly mentioned that the original description stated that Navás had held the type in his personal collection and that it was found later in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN). However, some of their subsequent comments may cause uncertainty regarding the status of the Chrysopa furculata View in CoL type in the MNHN.

Type: Freitas et al. (2009: 548) stated that the type of C. furculata “… had a collection label of 1925, three years after the original description of C. furcata and one year after the first use of C. furculata .” This statement could cast doubt on the validity of the C. furculata type in the MNHN. However, as Legrand et al. (2008: 137) reported: (i) The first label on the Navás type in the MNHN carries a 1910 collection date, which is well before the publication date (1922) of C. furcata . (ii) The third and fourth labels on the specimen, a pink “ Typus ” label and a green printed label, are labels that Navás characteristically applied to the numerous types that he donated to the MNHN from his personal collection (see explanation and illustrations by Legrand et al. 2008: 109). Thus, the labels and history of the specimen coincide with published reports for Navás’ C. furculata type.

Conclusion: Doubts implied by Freitas et al. (2009) concerning the validity of the C. furculata type in the MNHN are answered, and the identity of the specimen as the holotype is re-confirmed.