S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 59. (Budapest, 1998)

FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICA ROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK LIX 1998 pp. 57-72 An annotated checklist of the Ascalaphidae species known from Asia and from the Pacific Islands Gy. Sziráki An annotated checklist of the Ascalaphidae species known from Asia and from the Pacific Islands - A checklist with distributional data of 110 ascalaphid species and geographically separated subspecies known from Asia, New Guinea and New Caledonia is presented. Synonymy of Nousera Navás, 1923 and Pseudoptynx Van der Weele, 1909 is established, and due to homonymy, the latter generic name is replaced by its new junior synonym. New replacement names are given for two other genera and one species because of homonymy as well. These are: Ascalohybris for Hybris Lefebvre, 1842, Stylascalaphus for Stylonotus Needham, 1909 and Glyptobasis fraseri for Glyptobasis brunnea Fraser, 1922. INTRODUCTION In the last two decades revisions were published on ascalaphids of the New World at generic level (Penny 1982), of Australia (New 1984), and of the Afrotropical Region (Tjeder and Hansson 1992). Ascalaphidae of Europe are discussed within the monograph of European Neuropteroidea (Aspöck et al. 1980), but in the case of Asia the large part of the described taxa may be found only in separate papers. In the first modern world revision of the family (Van der Weele 1909a) 51 species were dealt from Asia and from the Pacific islands. In the monograph of Navás (1913a) the number of Asian (and Pacific) ascalaphid species was only slightly higher (59). As since the publication of the latter work many new species were described in more than thirty different papers, compilation of a checklist appeared to be necessary to make easier the handling of the Asian ascalaphid materials housed in different collections. The present checklist contains 110 species and distinct, geographically separated subspecies. As regards the distribution of the species, in addition to the above mentioned two world monographs and to the data of the original descriptions, first of all the papers of Fraser (1922), Alexandra v-M arty no v (1926), Kimmins (1949), Ghosh and Sen (1977), Aspöck et al. (1980), Gosh (1983a, 19836, 1988) and Aspöck and Holzel (1996) were considered. For the earlier synonymy at species level please confer the monograph of Van der Weele (1909a), which work is cited in all cases, when the species is included in it. The page num-