Ábrahám Levente (szerk.): Válogatott tanulmányok VII. - Natura Somogyiensis 22. (Kaposvár, 2012)
Ábrahám L.: "On the other hand, what is this Eastern aeschnoides?" Morton 1926 - an undescribed Palpares species from the Eastern Mediterranean (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae)
86 Natura Somogyiensis Kocák et al. (1995) changed the status from subspecies to species. In his online database (ZIN database), Krivokhatsky (1998b,) mentioned it as a valid species, however it was not included in the published checklist (Krivokhatsky 1998a). More than a decade later, the species was mentioned by (Krivokhatsky 2011) as a valid species again. The status of taxon was not discussed in the monograph written by Aspöck et al. (2001). Stange (2004) mentioned it among the list of synonyms, but the synonym of the species was not indicated as "NEW SYNONYM" in this book. During examination of the male specimen of Palpares chrysopterus Navás, 1910, Palpares turcicus Kogak, 1976 proved to be a junior synonym of Palpares chrysopterus Navás, 1910. The current status of the taxon is an invalid. Palpares hispanus Hagen, 1860 Palpares hispanus Hagen, 1860 - Hagen 1860 (Odescr), Kolbe 1884 (Syn), Brauer 1876 (Tax), Aspöck et al. 1980 (Syn), 2001 (Tax) For the beginning of the 19th century, the real distribution of P. libelloides was more clearly understood, especially the fact that the species did not occur in South Africa. At the same time, even before the description of Palpares hispanus, it was also presumed (Rambur 1842, Walker 1853) that a Palpares taxon different from P. libelloides populated the West Mediterranean. Rambur (1842) reported Palpares libelloides from the South of Europe and Constantinople (today: Istanbul, Turkey) and distinguished it, for the first time, from species collected in Spain. He referred to them as a Spanish (Andalusia) variety of P. libelloides. Walker (1853) also regarded the taxon living in Spain as a variety of P. libelloides. Not much later, Hagen (1860a) described a new Palpares species from the Mediterranean, namely Palpares hispanus Hagen, 1860, and gave a differential diagnosis on P. libelloides and P. hispanus taxa. Hagen (1860b,c) further clarified the distribution of P. hispanus ("Spain and Tunesia") in a later publications. Soon after this, he gave a brief description of the larvae of the species (Hagen 1866) stating, at the same time, that all the specimens he had examined earlier, previously assumed to be P. libelloides from Spain, proved to be P. hispanus. Later on, Hagen (1873) and McLachlan (1873) simultaneously produced a detailed description of the larva of the species. A few years later, it was listed as a valid species by the Austrian Brauer (1876) in his European fauna catalogue, too. Nevertheless the taxonomical status of P. hispanus later became uncertain, as Kolbe (1884) published a paper claiming that P. hispanus was only a variety of P. libelloides and the Palpares libelloides-group required revision. This opinion has dominated the German literature ever since i.e. Hölzel (1972), Aspöck et al. (1980, 2001). On the other hand, mainly due to the publications of McLachlan (1889), P. hispanus was presented as a valid species in the English literature (McLachlan 1889, 1898, Banks, 1913, Morton 1926, Stange 2004) as well as in the Spanish literature (Pictet 1865, Navás 1904,1915, 1916, Monserrat 1978, 1982, Monserrat and Díaz-Aranda 1987, Díaz-Aranda and Monserrat 1988). McLachlan (1889) pointed out that Kolbe (1884), by specifying Africa as an occurring place of P. libelloides, did not facilitate the clarification of the actual distribution of the species. To make the situation even worse, he confused the morphological characters of P. libelloides and P. hispanus. In his study, he emphasized the different characters of the two species and noted that P. libelloides did not occur in North Africa. Furthermore he presumed that P. hispanus also lived in the
