S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 34/1. (Budapest, 1981)

Limosina penetrans Collin, 1925:333 syn.n. Lectotype 6 (des. by ROHÁCEK in 1979) labelled: "Oxf.Univ.Arct.Expd.

, 1924 On 'Polar Bjom', N.Sea, between Newcastle and Norway", "C3 Jun.21.1924, C.S. Elton. Crawling on walls, of hold herring refuse", "6 Limosina penetralis Collin. J.E. Collin, Ann.Mag.N.H., Jul.

1925 p. 333. Paralectotypes: 1 p with same data as for lectotype; 1 6 labelled: "Oxf.Univ. Arct.Expd.

, 1924. On 'Polar Bjom', on Norway coast", "C 21, Jun.27.1924, C.S. Elton. On beam of hold", "A in cop. with B.", det. label as for lectotype; 1 p with same data as for male paralectotype but with "B in cop. with A" label; all deposited in the University Museum, Oxford. Further specimens belonging to the type series are also in the University Museum Oxford (not examined). Limosina pseudosetaria Duda was described from a single male differing from all related species in having a dorsopreapical seta on hind tibia. When examined the genitalia of the male holotype of L. pseudosetaria I found it to be con specific with L. penetralis Collin and differing only by the above seta on hind tibia. This holotype is apparently a mutant specimen, and the presence of dorsopreapical seta on its hind tibia must be considered as an atavistic feature, very sporadically occurring among normal specimens. Thus, Limosina penetralis Collin becomes a synonym of L. pseudosetaria Duda, and the species has rather paradoxical name now because it was named after a feature which it normally lacks. Limosina liliputana Rondani, 1880 sp. rev. Limosina liliputana Rondani, 1880:26 Lectotype p (des. by ROHÁŐEK in 1979) labelled: "1932" (= a catalogue No. - red numeral on oval label); deposited in the Museo Zoologico de "La specola", Firenze. Limosina (Leptocera) appendiculata Villeneuve, 1918:79 syn.n. Described from 2 6 "Franzensbad (= Frantiákovy Lázné, Czechoslovakia), 26.7.1913, Kowarz leg." and 1 p "Rambouillet (France), 30.4.1911, Villeneuve leg." (Villeneuve, 1918). Location of types unknown, probably lost (not examined). Limosina liliputana Rond, was described from some specimens from Italy. DUDA (1918) correctly recognized this species from RONDANI'

s (1880) description but later (DUDA, 1924) accepted VILLENEUVE' s opinion that the species he called L. liliputana is different from the true L. lili putana Rond, and Is identical with L. appendiculata Villeneuve, 1918. This interpretation was followed by all subsequent authors and L. liliputana Rond, was considered a species dubia. However, the examination of the type material of L

. liliputana proved that Is is conspecific with L. appendiculata Vill. which therefore becomes a synonym. The type material of L. appendiculata has not been traced but the VILLENEUVE* s (1918) description is sufficient for the recognition of this species. Limosina simplex (Richards, 1929) stat.n. (Figs. 5-8) Leptocera grenstedi var. simplex Richards, 1929:175 Holotype p labelled: "Essex: Epplng Forest 18.IX.

1927. O.W. Richards. B.M.

1929.444", "L. grenstedi var. simplex Richards p" and "Type" (on circular label with red margin). Paratype p labelled: "24/36", "Essex: Epping Forest 18.DC.

1927", L.simplex p paratype", "O.W. Richards Coll. B.M.

1967-510" and "Para-type" (on circular label with yellow margin). Both deposited In the British Museum (Natural History) (examined). The species has been described as a variety of Leptocera grenstedi Richards, 1929 (= synonym of L. collinl, see below) but it is a distinct species whose validity was confirmed by study of series of recently found material (22 6 17 p from some localities in N. Moravia and Slovakia, Czechoslovakia). Limosina simplex (Rich.) clearly occupies an intermediate position between its closest relatives L

. calcarifera Rohácek and L. collinl (Richards) and forms with them a separate L. collinl - group. All these taxa are very similar In outer appearence but differ distinctly in the formation of the male and female terminállá. L. simplex lacks the enlarged ventropreapical spine on hind tibia (in contrast to L. calcarifera) and its male 5th sternum (Fig. 5) and telomere (Fig. 6) differ In shape and armature from those of L. calcarifera (cf. Figs. 2, 6 in ROHÁCEK, 1975) and L. col- Uni (cf. Figs. 13, 16 in ROHÁCEK, 1975). Also the postabdomen (Figs. 7, 8) of female L. simplex Is very characteristic, especially as regards the 9th tergum fused with cerci and possessing a pair of small dorsal setulae and the 8th sternum with its posterior band-like appendage (mostly invaginated into postabdomen). 166