S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 55. (Budapest, 1994)

Parapyroppia cornuta (Berlese, 1910) comb. n. Oribella cornuta Berlese, 1910: 265. Oribella cornuta Castagnoli & Pegazzano 1985: 90. Parapyroppia monodactyla Pérez-Ifiigo et Subias, 1978: 303, figs 1-8. syn. n. Parapyroppia

monodactyla Bernini, Arcidiacono & Avanzati 1983: 191, figs 1-3, pl. 1-3. There is a long series of this species in the collection from different times and some of them labelled "tipico". I have seen nearly all the slides and all contain the same species. Some of them are in good condition. I designate the specimen in slide 93/36 as lectotype. It is no doubt that this species is identical with Parapyroppia monodactyla described by Pérez-Ifiigo et Subias. The original description was modern and complete, Bernini et al.'s (1983) redescription is also excellent. So the recognition of this species is not problematic. I publish only one drawing (Fig. 33) now from the lectotype only for the sake of proof. Dorycranosus splendens (Coggi, 1898) Cepheus splendens Coggi, 1898: 68, figs 1: 1-8. Liacarus alatus Berlese, 1904: 273. syn. n. Liacarus alatus Castagnoli & Pegazzano 1985: 8. Dorycranosus alatus Woolley 1969: 189, figs 13-14. Dorycranosus alatus Bernini, 1973: 381, figs. 7c-f, 8a-e, 9a-c. Liacarus moraviacus Willmann, 1954: 257, fig. 22. syn. n. Dorycranosus moraviacus Ghilyarov 1975: 181, fig. 371. Liacarus punctulatus Mihelcic, 1956: 154, fig. 1. syn. n. Dorycranosuspunctulatus Pérez-Ifiigo 1971: 270, figs 6-7. This species with its slides is in the Berlese Collection and its relationships were well discussed by Bernini (1973). He gave also a good redescription. But his final opininon was that D. splendens and D. alatus are not identical. I studied the slides in the Berlese Collection (Figs 31-32), I saw Coggi'

s publication and also studied the specimens which were determined earlier as D. moraviacus by me. On this basis I am sure that they belong to the same species. Therefore, D. alatus, D. moraviacus and D. punctulatus (which was redescribed by Pérez-Inigo) are the junior objective synonym of D. splendens. The interpretation of Krivolutsky in Ghilyarov 1975 of D. splendens seems to be incorrect, therefore, D. curtipilis Willmann, 1935 is a valid species. Oripoda australis Berlese, 1916 Oripoda australis Berlese, 1916: 310. Oripoda australis Castagnoli & Pegazzano 1985: 31. Only a single slide with one specimen (206/7) is present in the collection. It is considered to be the holotype by monotypy. The exemplar is in exellent condition, well identifiable. In spite of the dorsoventral embedding the ventral side was also observable.