4. Eufriesea danielis (Schrottky, 1907)

Eumorpha combinata var. danielis Schrottky, 1907

Moure (1967b) considered Eufriesea danielis as a junior synonym of Ef. violacea (Blanchard, 1840) . This synonymy was followed by Kimsey (1982) and Kimsey & Dressler (1986). Moure (1967b) also stated that the onomatophore of this species was probably lost and was followed in this regard by all subsequent authors. Moure (1999), on the other hand, revalidated Ef. danielis and considered it to be part of a species group also comprising Ef. auriceps (Friese, 1899) and Ef. violascens (Mocsáry, 1898) . He considered a specimen deposited at MPSP, numbered 102.887, as the holotype of Ef. danielis (see Moure 1999: 91).

Nemésio & Silveira (2007: 886) considered Eufriesea danielis as a junior synonym of Ef. auriceps . Moure et al. (2007) considered Ef. danielis as a valid species and doubted the specimen listed by Moure (1999) is a true holotype, especially because Schrottky’s identification label dated from 1912. Nemésio (2009a) considered Ef. danielis as a synonym of Ef. auriceps again, based on (i) the fact that both onomatophores Ef. auriceps (a male) and Ef. danielis (a female) were collected at the same locality (Asunción, Paraguay) and (ii) the supposed holotype female of Ef. danielis matched the paralectotype female of Ef. violascens, from the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil, considered by Moure (1976) as Ef. auriceps . Nemésio (2009a: 30–32) supported Moure’s (1999) interpretation that the bee numbered 102.887 at MPSP is the true onomatophore of Ef. danielis for the reasons presented therein.

Nevertheless, a re-examination of the original labels of the specimen numbered 102.887 at MPSP supports Moure et al. (2007) interpretation that this specimen should not be considered as the onomatophore of Eufriesea danielis . The fact that the bee only received a label with its specific identity in 1912 is not a reason strong enough to disqualify this specimen as an onomatophore, as another true onomatophore described in the same paper (Schrottky 1907) was also only labeled in 1912 (see Nemésio 2009a: 30–32). The reason to disregard this specimen as the onomatophore is the label with the collector datum: “Schrottky leg.”. Schrottky (1907: 57), Moure et al. (2007) and even Nemésio (2009a: 30, footnote 4) reported that the species was described based on a female collected by János Dániel Anisits (Rasmussen et al. 2009), after whom the species was named.

Although this specimen was collected in Paraguay and perfectly matches the description provided by Schrottky, it should not be considered the onomatophore as Moure (1999) and Nemésio (2009a) maintained, because the specimen does not have a typical Anisits label (with “J.D. Anisits” printed in small font, vertical, on left label margin). Rather its labels indicated that the specimen was collected by Schrottky himself [see photographs of the labels and of the specimen in Nemésio (2009a: 34)].

As the identity of this species has been problematic [it has been considered a junior synonym of different species, as mentioned above—which led Nemésio (2009a) to designate a neotype to Eufriesea violacea to avoid any future misunderstandings on the identity of this species], a thorough search for the onomatophore of Ef. danielis should be carried out. Type specimens collected by Anisits have been found at the ‘Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt Universität’, Berlin (CR, pers. obs.). It is also possible that specimens collected by D. Anisits are deposited at the ‘Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales’, Buenos Aires and at the Museo de La Plata. If, after a careful search, the onomatophore of Ef. danielis is not found, we strongly recommend that the specimen numbered as 102.887, deposited at MPSP, should be designated as the neotype of this species, due to the reasons pointed out in Nemésio (2009a: 30–32) and, especially, because it is the only known specimen belonging to this species identified by Schrottky himself.