Lusius tenuissimus (Heinrich, 1938)

Figs 29–31

Mesochorischnus tenuissimus Heinrich, 1938: 129 (original description, key).

Lusius tenuissimus – Townes & Townes 1973: 221 (catalogue, new combination). — Yu & Horstmann 1997: 491 (catalogue). — Laurenne et al. 2006: 469 (new record). — Quicke et al. 2009: 1405 (distribution). — Yu et al. 2012 (catalogue); 2016 (catalogue). — Rousse et al 2013: 71 (key, new records).

Original type series

Syntypes: multiple females and males, unknown number (MZPW). Heinrich (1938: 129) described the species based on multiple specimens, males and females, without clearly declaring the number of specimens nor designating any of them as the name-bearing type. Initially, Rousse et al. (2013: 72–73, figs 42–43) incorrectly referred to the type as holotype. The employment of the term “ holotype ” does not constitute a valid lectotype designation (ICZN 1999: article 74.5, 74.7). A more in-depth study of the MZPW collection will be required prior to the designation of a lectotype; therefore, for the moment, the type specimens should be referred to as syntypes (ICZN 1999: article 73.2).

Type localities

Madagascar: Ampandrandava, Anivorano, Rogez, Tananrive, Tamatave.

Kenya: Mombasa.

Material examined

UGANDA • 1 ♀; Kibale NP, Kanyawara Bio Station; 00°33′54.4″ N, 30°21′29.8″ E; 1509 m a.s.l.; 20 Jun. 2010; S. Katusabe and Co. leg.; Malaise trap; F. Di Giovanni det.; FDG .

ZIMBABWE • 1 ♀; Salisbury [= Harare], Chishawasha; Mar. 1981; A. Watsham leg.; D. Dal Pos det.; NHMUK • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; Apr. 1981; D. Dal Pos det.; NHMUK .

Distribution

Democratic Republic of Congo (Rousse et al. 2013); Kenya (Heinrich 1938; Rousse et al. 2013); Madagascar (Heinrich 1938); Malawi (Rousse et al. 2013); Nigeria (Rousse et al. 2013); South Africa (Rousse et al. 2013); Tanzania (Laurenne et al. 2006); Uganda (new record); Zimbabwe (Rousse et al. 2013) (Figs 30–31).

Remarks

Yu et al. (2016) mentioned Quicke et al. (2009) as the first authors to report Lusius tenuissimus for Tanzania. This is incorrect. The first to report the species were Laurenne et al. (2006) in their list in appendix 1.

Heinrich (1938: 129) stated that the species is “ Largement répandu, mais rare [= widely distributed, but rare] ”. This statement seems to be largely true as Lusius tenuissimus is probably the most widely spread species of Phaeogenini across Africa. It cannot be considered “rare” as Heinrich (1938) stated, but surely it is not largely abundant. The number of specimens per country from Rousse et al. (2013) and this current contribution seem to corroborate that. Also, the specimen from Uganda represents the first record for the country (Figs 30–31).