S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 57. (Budapest, 1996)

die eben beschriebene Art mit dem Namen bezeichnet ist, muss man sie als die von F. beschriebene, die übrigen als später nachgesteckt annehmen. Fabricius' Beschreibung scheint diese Annahme zu rechtfertigen.". Erichson's statement does not appear to constitute lectotype designation, but I accept it as the fixation of the status of Dytiscus impressus. The genus Haliplus Latreille, 1802 originally included two species mentioned merely by name: Dytiscus obliquus Fabricius, 1787 and D. impressus Fabricius, 1787. Latreille (1810) designated Dytiscus impressus as the type; his action appears to be valid and acceptable in every respect. However, there are some doubts about the identity of this species (see above). This is why Latreille's type designation was rejected (F. BalfourBrowne 1936) and Dytiscus obliquus was designated as the type by F. Balfour-Browne (1938). Several early authors erroneously applied the name Dytiscus impressus for the species D. caesus Duftschmid, 1805, following Panzer (1794) who illustrated the latter species under the former name. Latreille might be expected to have actually been dealing with Panzer's (or others') species (although his reference to Fabricius is perfectly clear and unambiguous). Nevertheless, the identity of Dytiscus impressus cited by him in 1802 is without doubt, because there is no evidence of an error in that work. (Except for a possible misspelling or lapse, it is impossible to misidentify a name.) In my opinion, there is no reason to ignore Latreille's intention by designating the nominal species Dytiscus impressus as the type. His identification of this species may be questioned from his later descriptions but there is no reason to question it from his original publication. His designation, therefore, should be taken literally, and the nominal species Dytiscus impressus should be considered as the type of the genus Haliplus. In such cases, I believe that the type should be the species named, not some other one that might have been misidentified by certain writers. (The identity of a nominal species is another, taxonomical and not nomenclatorial problem.) The genus Cnemidotus Illiger, 1802 originally included three species mentioned merely by name: Dytiscus impressus Fabricius, 1787, D. obliquus Fabricius, 1787 and D. elevatus Panzer, 1794. The identity of Dytiscus impressus cited by Illiger may be contended. However, Illiger, Latreille, Panzer and many others besides consistently attribute the named species to Fabricius. It is entirely clear that they did not intend to give a name to a species different from the Fabrician Dytiscus impressus. Erichson (1832) was the first who applied the name Cnemidotus — based on Dytiscus caesus (D. impressus sensu Panzer) — for the genus recently known as Peltodytes, implying that D. impressus might have been misidentified by Illiger. Crotch (1870) quotes Dytiscus impressus as the type of the genus Cnemidotus. His citation, however, is indefinite (thus: "Dyt. impressus, etc."), therefore, it cannot be accepted as an unambiguous designation. He (Crotch in Crotch et al. 1870) also failed to make a valid designation, stating: "Cnemidotus as a genus was proposed by Illiger for what we call Haliplus. H. fulvus was in fact his type and caesus was not known to him." That species (Dytiscus fulvus Fabricius, 1801), however, was not originally included in Cnemidotus. Because there is no valid type designation for Cnemidotus Illiger, 1802 known to me, therefore, here I designate Dytiscus impressus Fabricius, 1787 as the type species. Erichson proposed the generic name Cnemidotus for the species Dytiscus impressus as erroneously determined by Panzer (as D. caesus). Subsequently Regimbait (1879) proposed the new generic name Peltodytes (without mentioning any species) for Cnemidotus as erroneously used by Erichson. Within a short time most of the authors accepted Peltodytes and rejected Cnemidotus reducing it to synonymy. It is entirely obvious that