O. Merkl szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 69. (Budapest, 2008)

LECTOTYPE DESIGNATION OF ASTENUS LA TICEPS Material examined - Lectotype (male, dissected, aedeagus mounted on card, HNHM), herewith designated, labelled as follows: "HUNG., Szabolcs-Sz. m., Bátorliget, Bátorligeti-láp", "talajcsapda, 1990. VII.16-X.17., leg Loksa L", "Astenognathus laticeps (Petri) det.: Ádám, 1991", "Lectotypus o* Astenognathus laticeps Merkl, 1991 des. O. Merkl, 2008". Paralectotype, labelled as follows: "DicsőSztMárt." [= Dicsöszentmárton, now Tarnäveni in Romania], "Paralectotypus o* Astenognathus laticeps Merkl, 1991 des. O. Merkl, 2008" (1 male, HNHM). Further specimens, not syntypes, not sexed: Schässbg. [= Schässburg, now Sighisoara in Romania], PETRI (handwritten: Astenus v. laticeps) (2 specimens, HNHM); Hu. Pálháza, Com. Zemplén, Nagypéterménkő, 1955.LX.28-X5. Exc. KASZAB Z. (1 specimen, HNHM). Remarks - Astenus procerus ab. laticeps PETRI, 1912 is considered to be a nomen nudum of A. procerus (ICZN 1999: Arts. 10.2, 45.6.2). TÓTH (1983) used the name as a variety, but that did not make the name available. In a book chapter authored by O. MERKL (1991) that had several contributors/identifiers, L. ÁDÁM listed this species with a discussion referring to the specimens studied and characters by which it is distinguished from A. procerus. This discussion (unintentionally) became a description of a taxon, with the mentioned specimens acting as syntypes. This use of the name is validating it so then MERKL is the author of A laticeps in 1991, not PETRI, 1912. According to ICZN (1999: Art. 50.1) the author of a name is the person who first publishes it in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability. ÁDÁM (in the book chapter authored by O. MERKL) cited it as a species, not an aberration, form, or variety. A reference is given to characters, some feeble characters and a feeble comparison are provided, and this use has evidently satisfied the other relevant criteria of availability in force in 1991. No type is selected but two specimens (with their exact data) are mentioned. As the original PETRI specimens (that are from the series on which the PETRI name is based) were then not found, only the "Dicsöszentmárton" and the Bátorliget specimens can be considered as syntypes for MERKL's description. The Bátorliget specimen is hereby selected as lectotype. In the aforementioned discussion an unconfirmed synonymy (with A. romanus COIFFAIT, I960) is mentioned. The author goes on to surmise that "In all probability..." A. laticeps and A. romanus COIFFAIT are synonyms. It is not based on a study of the type material of A, romanus, but only descriptive text and an aedeagus drawing in CoiFFAIT's publication.