Androya obscuricollis ( Fairmaire, 1903 )

Simões, Marianna V. P., Husemann, Martin & Sekerka, Lukáš, 2021, A Catalog of the Tortoise Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae) Collection Deposited in the Zoological Museum Hamburg (ZMH), The Coleopterists Bulletin 75 (1), pp. 191-210 : 193

Androya obscuricollis ( Fairmaire, 1903) ( Figs. 5–6 )

Metriopepla obscuricollis Fairmaire 1903: 11 . Androya obscuricollis Spaeth 1911: 241 (junior

objective homonym), 1914b: 20 (synonymy).

Type Localities. Metriopepla obscuricollis Frm. : “ Madagascar ”; Androya obscuricollis Sp. : “ Madagascar: Diego Suarez”.

Type Specimens Examined. Syntype: pinned, “Coll. E. Ross | Berlin. N 113 [b, t, cb] || Coll. | Donckier [w, t, cb] || Cotype [r, t, cb] || obscuricollis | Fairm. i. l. [hw] | det. Spaeth [w, t, cb] || Madagas- | kar 1933 [b, t, cb] || Androya | obscuricollis | 20.) Fairm. | Madag. [b, hw, s, bf] || ZMH 823536 [w, bf, sf]” ( ZMH) .

Current Status. Valid species ( Borowiec and Świętojańska 2011).

Remarks. This species was described twice under the same name. Fairmaire (1903) described Metriopepla obscuricollis but did not mention the depository of type material, number of specimens, or a precise type locality. Later, F. Spaeth purchased the Cassidinae collection of H. Donckier (holder of one the most extensive collections at this time) containing type specimens designated by contemporary Cassidinae researchers, including L. Fairmaire, J. Weise, F. Chapuis, R. Gestro, and others. Among these was a series of specimens labeled as types of M. obscuricollis Fairmaire. Spaeth was unaware that the name was already published by Fairmaire in the journal Le Naturaliste and, thus, considered it an unpublished manuscript name (in litt.) and described the species as Androya obscuricollis ( Spaeth, 1911) . The name proposed by Spaeth was based on the same specimens Fairmaire used and is, thus, a junior objective homonym ( ICZN 1999). Spaeth (1914b) later synonymized his taxon with Fairmaire’ s species.

Spaeth did not state how many specimens he had at his disposal, nor did he mention where he got the material, but from the description it is evident that he must have had at least two specimens, as both sexes are mentioned. The ZMH specimen is part of the type series and was exchanged by Spaeth (ex coll. Donckier) with Ross. Thus, the specimen must be considered a syntype of both nominal taxa.The species was recently re-described in detail ( Borowiec 1994) ; LS examined the type series, which is consistent. There is, therefore, no need for lectotype designation .

Figures

Figs. 1–16. Type specimens of Cassidinae s. str. deposited at the Zoological Museum Hamburg. 1–4) Agenysa boliviana Spaeth, syntypes; 5–6) Androya obscuricollis (Fairmaire), syntype; 7–8) Aspidimorpha (s. str.) plasoni Spaeth, syntype; 9–10) Basiprionota sarawacensis (Spaeth), syntype; 11–12) Botanochara convexiuscula Spaeth, syntype; 13–14) Cassida aspectabilis Spaeth, syntype; 15–16) Cassida kristenseni Spaeth, syntype.