Resolution of some taxonomic and nomenclatural issues in a recent revision of Ceraeochrysa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)

Abstract

With the purpose of promoting nomenclatural stability, this paper addresses a number of errors, omissions, and controversial conclusions in a recent revision of the green lacewing genus Ceraeochrysa by Freitas et al. (2009). 1. Valid species, new combinations and synonymies: (a) We identified Ceraeochrysa chiricahuae Freitas and Penny (in Freitas et al. 2009), Chrysopa forreri Navás, and Chrysopa intacta Navás as subjective synonyms. Thus, Ceraeochrysa intacta, a species that was previously synonymized under Ceraeochrysa placita (Banks), becomes the valid name of the species [New status, new combination]. Chrysopa forreri is now synonymized under Cer. intacta, not Cer. placita [New synonymy]. And, Cer. chiricahuae becomes a junior synonym of Cer. intacta, not a valid species of Ceraeochrysa [New synonymy]. (b) We enumerate specific internal and external features of the Chrysopa cornuta Navás type that identify it as conspecific with Ceraeochrysa caligata (Banks), not Ceraeochrysa cincta (Schneider) as proposed by Freitas et al. (2009). Thus, Ceraeochrysa cornuta (Navás), which has priority, is reinstated as the valid name [Reinstated status, reinstated combination], and Ceraeochrysa caligata (Banks) is reinstated as a junior subjective synonym of Cer. cornuta, not a valid species [Reinstated synonymy]. (c) We provide documented evidence for reinstating three synonymies that Freitas et al. had reversed [Reinstated synonymies]: (i) Allochrysa parvula Banks is a junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa lineaticornis (Fitch); (ii) Chrysopa columbiana Banks is a junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa lineaticornis (Fitch); (iii) Chrysopa rochina (Navás) is a junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa cincta (Schneider). 2. Generic assignments: (a) Visual evidence is provided for the placement of Ceraeochrysa laufferi (Navás) in Ungla. Therefore, Ungla laufferi (Navás) is reinstated as the valid name [Reinstated combination]. (b) We question Freitas et al.’s rationale for including Cer. placita (Banks) and Cer. intacta (Navás) (as Cer. chiricahuae Freitas and Penny) in the genus Ceraeochrysa; female and larval features of the two species differ markedly from those used to characterize Ceraeochrysa species. As an alternative that recognizes the uncertainty surrounding the generic placement of these species and that avoids additional, unnecessary name changes, we propose including the caveat “genus incertae sedis” with the names, as follows: Ceraeochrysa placita (Banks), genus incertae sedis, and Ceraeochrysa intacta (Navás), genus incertae sedis. 3. Type designations: (a) Errors concerning the Chrysopa furculata Navás type in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), are corrected, and doubts raised by Freitas et al. (2009) concerning the identification of this specimen as the holotype are removed. (b) The earlier designation of the Chrysopa rochina (Navás) type in the MNHN as the lectotype (not holotype) is verified.