Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 97. (Budapest 2005)
Kirejsthuk, A. G.: On the fauna of Nitidulidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) from Taiwan with some taxonomical notes
Amystrops (Amyslrops) nigripennis (REDTENBACHER, 1867) Remarks - The synonymy of both generic and species names of this species was explained in KlREJTSHUK (1998), which remains without changes. However, The name Propetes was first proposed for a leafhopper genus of Proconiini (Auchenorrhyncha, Cicadellinae; genus Propetes WALKER, 1851) (METCALF 1965: 516). Subsequently, as the valid generic name for the beetle species should be used Amystrops GROUVELLE, 1906 (= Propetes REITTER, 1875, not WALKER, 1851, Platychorinus GROUVELLE, 1906, Platychoropsis GROUVELLE, 1913, Haptoncognathus GlLLOGLY, 1962). Subfamily Carpophilinae Carpophilus (Ecnomorphus) acutangulus REITTER, 1884 Carpophilus acutangulus REITTER, 1884: 299. Carpophilus cingulatus REITTER, 1884: 299, syn. n. Remarks - The holotype of C (E.) acutangulus, female (BMNH) ("Japan, G. Lewis, 1910-320", "Carpophil. acutangulus m. n. sp."); the lectotype of C (E.) cingulatus, female (BMNH), here designated ("Japan, G. Lewis, 1910-320", "Nagasaki, 13.11-21.IV. 81", "Carpophil. cingulatus m. Japan") and other specimens from the East Chinese (Palaearchearctic) province (BMNH, ZISP) were studied. This species is rather characteristic in the shape of pronotum and other external characters. Probably, REITTER in the original descriptions and key to Japanese Nitidulidae wanted to separate two species [here treated as C (E.) acutangulus and C (E.) sibiricus], however he designated as type specimens the representatives of the same species. This species is closely related to C (E.) plagiatipennis (Motschulsky, 1858). See also below the notes to C. (E.)sibiricus. Carpophilus (Ecnomorphus) sibiricus REITTER, 1879 Remarks - The holotype of C. (E.) sibiricus, male (DEI) ("Amur", "Reitter", "6315", "coll. Kultze") and some hundreds of specimens from many collections (BMNH, HNHM, SMNS, ZISP, ZMB) were studied. This species is nearly as variable as C. (E.) dubitabilis GROUVELLE, 1897. REITTER (1884: 258 and 299) mentioned quite distinct characters for separation of two species which were named by him as C. (E.) acutangulus and C. (E.) cingulatus, but he designated as a type for
