Promacus taeniopus Rondani, 1873

Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, Zootaxa 4989 (1), pp. 1-438 : 60-61

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.5117140
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/686387A0-FFF6-FF97-5889-F8F6FADB63D0
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Promacus taeniopus Rondani, 1873
status

Treatment

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1873e: 292.

TYPE LOCALITY: “ Keren [Keren ( Eritrea)]”.

TYPE MATERIAL: 1 ♀, lectotype ( MSNG): Bogos, 1870, Keren, O. Beccari / Promacus taeniopus Rond. / Typus / taeniopus Rond. / Syntypus ♀ Promacus taeniopus C. Rondani, 1873 .

PARALECTOTYPE EXAMINED: 1 ♂ ( MSNG): Bogos, 1870, Keren, O. Beccari / Syntypus ♂ Promacus taeniopus C. Rondani, 1873 .

PARALECTOTYPE NOT EXAMINED: 1 ♀ ( MZUF: Box 71): Promacus taeniopus Rns., Abiss. [= Abyssinia ( Eritrea)] / Bogos 1870, Keren, O. Beccari .

CURRENT STATUS: valid species, as Alcimus taeniopus ( Oldroyd 1980: 335) View in CoL .

REMARKS: Rondani (1873f: 292) described Promacus taeniopus , without specifying the number of specimens and without selecting a holotype, from material collected by O. Beccari and O. Antinori. Guiglia (1957: 196) reported the “type” and one “cotype” of Promacus taeniopus in the MSNG [♀ ♂. Type and cotype]. She unambiguously selected the type (female) and cotype (male), which therefore must be considered, respectively, as the lectotype and paralectotype (I.C.Z.N. 1999: Article 74.5). Raineri & Rey (1996: 30) incorrectly reported “Typus, Cotypus (♂, ♀)”. Neither Guiglia (1957) nor Raineri & Rey (1996) mentioned the MZUF female (this additional specimen is a paralectotype). Rondani described this nominal species under the generic name “ Promacus ”, which is an “incorrect subsequent spelling of Promachus Loew, 1848 ” ( O’Hara et al. 2011: 151).