An annotated and illustrated Type Catalogue of the predacious Shieldbugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) in the Collection of the Natural History Museum, London Author Roell, Talita Laboratório de Entomologia Sistemática, Instituto de Biociências, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves 9500, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Author Lemaître, Valérie A. 0000-0003-4802-2711 Natural History Museum London, Department of Life Sciences (Insects), Cromwell Rd, London SW 7 5 BD, England v.lemaitre@nhm.ac.uk Author Webb, Michael D. 0000-0002-1312-6142 Natural History Museum London, Department of Life Sciences (Insects), Cromwell Rd, London SW 7 5 BD, England. m.webb@nhm.ac.uk Author Campos, Luiz A. 0000-0001-5414-8746 Laboratório de Entomologia Sistemática, Instituto de Biociências, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves 9500, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. luiz.campos@ufrgs.br text Zootaxa 2023 2023-02-03 5232 1 1 105 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5232.1.1 journal article 311702 10.11646/zootaxa.5232.1.1 89fb7023-0164-4162-a8b4-5990686d5e7d 1175-5326 7609794 E7B67882-2148-49C5-9F09-D5CAA95A21D1 acuta ( Macrorhaphis ?) Dallas 1851: 88 . [ Fig. 1 ] Original data : “ ♂”. “a. Congo . Presented by Sir John Richardson, M.D.” [ syntype (s)] . SYNTYPE ♂: blue-margined syntype disc; red-margined type disc; rectangular orange label “HOLOTYPUS ♂”; “ Congo / 43 56”; “2. MACRORHAPHIS ACUTA ,”; “NHMUK 010592174”. Carded specimen; third to fifth left antennomeres, and fourth and fifth right antennomeres missing ( Fig. 1 ) . Current status : Macrorhaphis ( Megarhaphis ) acuta Dallas, 1851 (see Schouteden 1907: 39 , for the subgeneric placement.). Note : Walker (1867a: 129) listed a unique specimen of Dallas’s species and it is likely that Dallas just had one (especially as Dallas had stated only one measurement and noted: “Antennae pale brown, with the apex of the third and fourth joints pitchy ( fifth wanting ).” [emphasis ours]. Still, we cannot be certain and therefore consider the specimen a syntype , although G. Schmitz had placed a holotype male label on the specimen. Thomas (1994: 185) did not mention having seen the type under the material he examined.