Conorhinus protractus, Uhler, 1894: 284
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4809.2.5 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4F2E64FD-FB91-485F-A1DE-F803FA86EF02 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E13256-FFB1-FF98-FF6D-8DFAFB8FF90E |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Conorhinus protractus |
status |
|
protractus Uhler, 1894: 284 ; Conorhinus
( Figs. 64–67 View FIGURES 60–67 )
Current status: Triatoma protracta ( Uhler, 1894) ; combination proposed by Neiva (1914: 58).
Non-type male ( Figs. 64–66 View FIGURES 60–67 ) with labels ( Fig. 67 View FIGURES 60–67 ): “Co- [hw] / type ” [red, pr] // “ Los Ange ” [hw] // “ PR Uhler / Collection” [pr] // “protractus / Uhler” [hw] // “379” [pr]
Remarks. The specimen above was mistakenly labelled as cotype, because it was not in the series originally examined by Uhler (1894), which is deposited in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., USA ( Lent & Wygodzinsky, 1979: 302). Uhler mentioned three specimens in the description of C. protractus : two labelled “Cal. II” and one from “Lower California (Santa Cruz?)”. He also stated that the species was common in San Diego, southern California but did not cite Los Angeles as being mentioned on the label of the type specimens. The presence of a label bearing “Los Ange” on the male specimen provides further evidence that the male specimen in the Museum für Naturkunde is not part of the type series.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Conorhinus protractus
Rodrigues, Juliana Mourão Dos Santos, Moreira, Felipe Ferraz Figueiredo, Deckert, Jürgen & Galvão, Cleber 2020 |
protractus
Uhler, P. R. 1894: 284 |