Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875

Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, Zootaxa 4989 (1), pp. 1-438 : 233

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4989.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:89C63841-3CF4-491D-8C73-BEF7DCB18FB5
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4981639
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/686387A0-FF25-FF43-5889-FEC6FAC06520
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875
status

Treatment

Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875 View in CoL

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1875c: 454.

TYPE LOCALITY: “ Insula Bonae Fortunae (Borneo) , Provincia Sarawak [ Bona Fortuna Island, Sarawak Province, Borneo]” ( Rondani 1875c: 421).

TYPE MATERIAL: 1 ♂, lectotype (missing right hind-leg) ( MSNG): Sarawak / Sargus leoninus n° 61 / Typus / leoninus Rond. / Lectotypus [incorrectly designated], Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875 , Mason & Rozkošný, 2003 / Ptecticus melanurus (Walker, 1848) , Mason & Rozkošný det., 2005.

PARALECTOTYPES NOT EXAMINED: 1 ♂ ( MSNG): Sarawak / Sargus leoninus n. / Paralectotypus [incorrectly designated], Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875 , Mason & Rozkošný, 2003 / Ptecticus melanurus (Walker, 1848) , Mason & Rozkošný det., 2005; 3 ♂♂ (two missing the head) ( MSNG): Sarawak / Paralectotypus [incorrectly designated], Sargus leoninus Rondani, 1875 , Mason & Rozkošný, 2003 / Ptecticus melanurus (Walker, 1848) , Mason & Rozkošný det., 2005.

CURRENT STATUS: junior synonym of Ptecticus melanurus (Walker, 1884) View in CoL ( James 1975: 20, Woodley 2001: 214, 2011: 404, Mason & Rozkošný 2005: 53).

REMARKS: Rondani (1875c: 454) described Sargus leoninus from just the male sex, without specifying the exact number of specimens and not giving a range of lengths, from material collected by G. Doria and O. Beccari. Guiglia (1957: 196) reported a “ holotype ” (♂) in the MSNG without knowing of four males in the MSNG, which brings the original type series to five specimens. In his original description, Rondani did not explicitly refer to a single specimen therefore Guiglia’s “ holotype ” specimen must be considered as the lectotype (I.C.Z.N. 1999: Article 74.6). Raineri & Rey (1996: 50) also reported a single specimen in the MSNG. Subsequently, Mason & Rozkošný (2005: 54) unnecessarily designated a lectotype (♂) and paralectotypes (4 ♂♂) (I.C.Z.N. 1999: Article 74.1.1). The additional four males in the MSNG not examined by Guiglia are paralectotypes.