Monophlebus atripennis Burmeister, 1835

Gavrilov-Zimin, Ilya A., 2021, New and poorly known giant scale insects (Homoptera: Coccinea: Margarodidae s. lat.) from the Oriental region with taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on the subfamily Monophlebinae, European Journal of Taxonomy 746 (1), pp. 50-61 : 51-52

Monophlebus atripennis Burmeister, 1835

Monophlebus neglectus Gavrilov-Zimin, 2018: 159 , figs 9.4.6–9.4.7. Syn. nov. Remarks (the taxonomic notes published in Gavrilov-Zimin 2018: 153 on this subject are partly reported here for clarity)

Monophlebus , the type genus of the tribe Monophlebini , was originally introduced in the coccidological literature by Guérin-Méneville (1827) who did not include any species in this genus, but provided a diagnosis: “Genre de 1’ordre des Hémiptères, section des Homoptères, famille des Gallinsectes, établi par Latreille (Familles Naturelles du Règne Animal) et dont il ne donne pas les caractères; il dit seulement qu’il diffère des Dorthésies et des Cochenilles, parce que les antennes sont moniliformes et composées d’environ vingt-deux articles” ( Guérin-Méneville 1827: 99). Obviously, Guérin-Méneville mentioned male characters, because most of Monophlebinae males have “antennes …moniliformes” in contrast to all known females. The first species of Monophlebus were described 8 years later by Burmeister (1835), who provided very brief and incomplete descriptions of the males of M. atripennis Burmeister, 1835 from Java ( Indonesia) and M. fuscipennis Burmeister, 1835 from Germany. The type specimens of both these species were lost. Cockerell (1902a: 232; 1902b: 317) designated and discussed M. atripennis as a type species of genus Monophlebus , in spite of the absence of any characters for identification of this species. Reyne (1965) conducted an extensive study of Monophlebinae males, collected from Java, but was unable to identify M. atripennis . Moreover, scale insect systematics and identification is mainly based on female characters, whereas females of M. atripennis are unknown at all. So, an unambiguous identification of M. atripennis is not possible until now. The second species of Burmeister, M. fuscipennis , was transferred by Cockerell (1894) to his genus Palaeococcus Cockerell, 1894 . Later Cockerell (1902a: 233) designated M. fuscipennis as the type species of the genus. Several taxonomists ( Westwood 1845; Hempel 1920; Vayssière 1932) described additional species in the genus Monophlebus from other regions of the world, but not from Java! All these descriptions are also incomplete or even based on male characters only.

In order to resolve this very old problem, Gavrilov-Zimin (2018: 153) suggested to use the only properly described species of Monophlebus , M. neglectus Gavrilov-Zimin, 2018 , collected in Java, as the new type species of the genus. However, the replacement of the type species could only be accomplished with the used of the plenary power by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 81.1). Before the application to the ICZN, the type specimen for each involved species (the older type species and a newly proposed type species) have to be fixed. Since the type of Monophlebus atripennis is lost, an alternative solution was suggested by one of the ICZN commissioners (D.A. Dmitriev, Illinois Natural History Survey, USA, pers. com.). A neotype could be designated for Monophlebus atripennis , and if this type specimen is, at the same time, the holotype of Monophlebus neglectus , this would establish the objective synonymy between two species names. Following this recommendation, I here designate the holotype specimen of Monophebus neglectus also to be the neotype of Monophebus atripennis , establishing the formal synonymy between the two names. The neotype label data are: adult female, K 1301-a, Indonesia, Java, “Buitenzorg” [Bogor], 1907, host plant and collector’s name unknown. The neotype is deposited in the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences.