The type material of the species of Laparocerus Schönherr, 1834 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae)

The type material of all species presently assigned to the curculionid genus Laparocerus Schönherr, 1834, and described prior to 2006, is here compiled as an advance of the revision of the genus undertaken by the author. A total of 105 names of taxa of the species level are considered valid and 24 invalid. These later cases relate to homonyms or synonyms, of which the following seven are here newly established (n. syn.): chaoensis Uyttenboogaart, 1940 = vandeli Roudier, 1958; eliasenae Uyttenboogaart, 1929 = cymbula Roudier, 1957; escalerai Uyttenboogaart, 1937 = longehirtus Roudier, 1957; hirtus Wollaston, 1854 = doramasensis Uyteenboogaart, 1929; morio Boheman, 1834 = obesulus Desbrochers, 1904; sanchezi Roudier, 1951 = nitidirostris Roudier, 1951; and susicus (Escalera, 1914) = tessellatus (Hustache, 1932). Laparocerus incomptus (Wollaston, 1864), type species of the subgenus Amyntas Wollaston, 1865, is re‐established as a good species. Furthermore, Laparocerus wollastoni Heer, 1857 (a fossil species) and L. piceus Boheman, 1834 are considered nomina dubia. A total of 52 lectotypes have been designated, as well as neotypes for Omias tessellatus Brullé, 1839 and Lichenophagus incomptus Wollaston, 1864. Some photographs of type specimens and of the two neotypes are provided. Depositary collections and type locality information has been revised and completed as far as possible.


Introduction
The monographic study of the genus Laparocerus Schö nherr, 1834, in which I have been involved for the last five years, covers a thorough field prospecting in Macaronesia (archipelagos of the Azores, Madeira, Selvagens, and Canaries) and west Morocco in the mainland (ca 20,000 exx), the systematic revision of all known species, description of new taxa, biological aspects, and the phylogeography of the group based on molecular analysis.
The present contribution is an advance of the revision results, consisting of the study of the type material of all previously described species-level taxa (prior to 2006) that have been ascribed originally or subsequently to the genus Laparocerus, regardless of the fact that for some taxa this situation may change in the near future. The following general catalogues have been consulted: Marseul (1872), Winkler (1932), Lona (1938), Lundblad (1958), Kocher (1961), Borges (1990), Machado and Oromí (2000), and Izquierdo et al. (2004).
Lectotypes and neotypes are designated as needed, following the rules and recommendations of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The global study with detailed diagnosis and identification keys will be presented elsewhere, but some new synonyms are also advanced here.

Material and methods
The type material was studied in situ at the museums or on loan in my cabinet, and compared with fresh material from the same or close localities, when available. It was possible to locate almost all the species alive in their original locality, thus gaining a more ample idea of their variation (many species were established on single specimens!). In very few cases dissection of the type material (not always in good condition) was needed. Digital photographs of almost all types were taken and are available upon request. A Nikon Coolpix 990 was used for this purpose. A sample of the photographs is presented in Figures 1 -5, 7, 8.

Type status and labelling
Half of all Laparocerus taxa were described by Thomas Vernon Wollaston (1822Wollaston ( -1878, who never designated a holotype (except for monotypy), but whose type series are easy to recognize in the Atlantic collections of the Natural History Museum, London, or at the Hope Entomological Collections, in the Oxford Museum. The red annealed circular labels indicating ''type'' to be found attached to some specimens in London are not original from Wollaston. They were placed as a routine curator work presumably by G. J. Arrow , thus having no nomenclatural value (Machado 1992). However, it has been agreed to give preference to the Wollaston Collection in London when designating lectotypes (cf. Smith and Graham 1982). In a few cases, a label in handwriting with the complete species name and the term ''type'' is attached. These informative labels were placed probably by Adrien Roudier when he studied the type material of Wollaston. Up to the present, no author has formally designated lectotypes or paralectotypes of species of Laparocerus.
In the Natural History Museum in London there is additional material of Wollaston that was incorporated in 1981 from the Exeter Museum, but there is no clear evidence that the contained Laparocerus are syntypes. Wollaston visited the Canaries and Madeira several times after the species descriptions were published (cf. Machado 2006). In the Madeiran Collection in London, for instance, there are some specimens which bear a locality number (see next paragraph) with a small dot as superindex, referring to material collected by Wollaston in the summer of 1855, a year after Insecta Maderensia was published.
Only the original labels pinned with the type specimens are here registered, in the following manner: [Text in brackets and lines of text separated/by a slash]. A small glued paper label with a number preceded by ''gen.'' (5genitalia) and emergent from the base of the mounting card in some type male specimens of Roudier, gives reference to the microscopic preparations of the aedeagus, which are stored separately (Coll. Roudier). Many type specimens do not bear an identification label, but are placed in the box adjacent to the corresponding name-label fixed on its bottom. In the Oxford Museum, all Wollaston specimens have received newly printed identification labels.
For all designated neotypes, lectotypes, or paralectotypes I have pinned red/orange labels in the form: NEOTYPE/LECTOTYPE/PARALECTOTYPE, original taxon name and the annotation ''A. Machado'', followed by the year when I studied the specimen. Sometimes a number preceded by ''AM'' (my personal database register) may also be included or attached in a small label. In order to save space, these designation labels are not further commented or copied in the label register of each species. Loan labels from institutions are also not recorded, as they will probably be removed.

Type localities
In the Wollaston collections references to the islands are indicated by a colour code line in the base of the mounting cardboard, or a little colour square paper placed beneath the pinned specimens. The colour code is explained in Table I. In some cases the colour may have changed by age and, for instance, dark blue (Gran Canaria) may look black (La Gomera, leg. Crotch), or red (La Gomera, leg. Wollaston) may look brownish/purple (Lanzarote). The exact localities within the islands are not indicated in all specimens. In most of the first Madeiran material (located in London and Oxford), a number below the mounting card refers to localities registered in separate lists (cf. Israelson 1991), and in some Canarian specimens a small abbreviation written in pencil, below the card indicates a locality (i.e. ''C''5Las Cañ adas, ''Tag.''5Taganana, ''A.M.''5Agua Mansa). Otherwise, type localities have been deduced from the original descriptions (ex litt.), which may also help in defining more precisely the locality, according to the information given. Wollaston was the collector of the majority of the specimens he studied, but not always. A full explanation of all Wollaston collections is available in a biographic book of the Victorian naturalist (Machado 2006).
Numbers in the locality labels of specimens collected by Charles Alluaud refer to localities published in his trip report (Alluaud 1891).

Depositary institutions
A list follows with the private or institutional collections in which type specimens of Laparocerus are deposited, preceded by the acronyms used in this contribution. The collections of interest in a given institution will be specified in the main text, with two exeptions: references to NHM, London and UMO, Oxford apply respectively to Wollaston's first and second collections, unless otherwise stated. AMC, private collection of Antonio Machado Carrillo, La Laguna, Spain; DEI, Deutsches Entomologisches

Taxonomic status
All species described prior to 2005 and that have been originally or subsequently assigned to the genus Laparocerus Schö nherr, 1834, are here listed in alphabetical order. Subgenera are not considered in the headings. The higher systematics of the Laparocerus s. l. will be discussed in future contributions; it will change considerably. The specific or subspecific status will also not be discussed in this contribution. The taxa are listed with the same species or subspecies category at which they were described. Properly named ''varietas'' of Wollaston are considered as subspecies (ICZN Art. 10.2). Taxonomic comments will usually refer to full synonymies, invalid substitution names or to highlight that a given species is the type-species of a described genus-level category. Only full species junior synonyms are commented, whether previously published or here established.

List of taxa
Taxa which are presently not valid are indicated by an asterisk (*) after the year of publication; two asterisks (**) indicate a nomen dubium. The expression ''same data'' refers only to locality, date, and collector. Roudier, 1963 Laparocerus (Atlantis) abditus Roudier 1963, p 136, Figure 2 (aedeagus Laparocerus aenescens  Omias aenescens Wollaston 1854, p 383. Remarks. According to Drouet (1859) the original series was almost 100 specimens. I have found many very old specimens of L. azoricus in several institutional collections, but unfortunately they do not bear any supporting evidence of being syntypes. Hartung and Morelet also collected the species in abundance during the same trip. L. azoricus is the type species of the subgenus Droetius Méquignon, 1942, by original designation. The abovementioned Otiorhynchus hartungi Heer is a nomen nudum. Remarks. Uyttenboogaart (1947 p 15) synonymized his species with L. morio Boheman, 1834, but Roudier (1958) indirectly resurrected the name when he described L. morio vandeli, as a junior synonym of it.

Laparocerus abditus
Laparocerus clavatus  Atlantis clavatus Wollaston 1854, p 363, Remarks. The type has no indication of locality, except for ''Canaries''. In his voyage to the Canaries in 1933, Pécoud collected in three islands: Gran Canaria (Telde, Cruz de Tejeda), Tenerife (Las Mercedes, Los Silos, Montañ a Bermeja), and La Gomera (Hermigua, Valle Gran Rey). I have been able to locate several closely related but different species of this group in Tenerife, La Palma, and Gran Canaria. All the specimens coincident with the type of L. crassus come from the NW of Tenerife, the old massif of Anaga. Pecoud's locality of ''Las Mercedes'' is in Anaga. Lindberg, 1950 Laparocerus (Wollastonicerus)  Remarks. According to Lindberg and Lindberg (1958, p 24), the original type series was formed by nine specimens. It seems the rest is not in the Zoological Museum of Helsinki at present (perhaps related to Loan C-89 1764-65). To date, I have not met this species in natura.

Remarks.
The holotype is a small specimen of L. hirtus Wollaston, 1864 and therefore L. doramasensis must be regarded as a junior synonym (new synonym!).
Laparocerus eliasenae (Uyttenboogaart, 1929 Remarks. Wollaston refers in the description to the sylvan districts above Taganana (a village), which are known as Vueltas de Taganana, a much more precise locality. There must be other paralectotypes somewhere; at least from Agua Mansa (leg. Loewe). Remarks. Roudier (1957a, p 20) relates the four specimens kept in the Collection Oberthü r-Wollaston in Paris to «a forme de L. grossepunctatus Woll. voisine de la subsp. tenuepunctatus à laquelle je la réunis, provisoirement tout au moins». Remarks. Specimens of Wollaston from Ribeiro de João Delgada, Cruzinhas, and Ribeiro Frio marked as ''var. ß'' are disregarded as paralectotypes.
Type material. Its type material is the same as for the replaced species name. Remarks. This is an unjustified replacement name for Laparocerus gracilis Wollaston, 1864, as already recognized in Winkler (1932Winkler ( , p 1448. For more information, see under gracilis.

Laparocerus globulipennis
Type material. Its type material is the same as for the replaced species name.
Laparocerus gomerensis Lindberg, 1953 Laparocerus (Wollastonicerus)  Remarks. Somebody added labels indicating ''Lanzarote'' and ''syntype'' to the specimens kept in London. It is a clear error as the card-line colour is red, corresponding to La Gomera. Wollaston (1864) mentions as a collecting locality the slopes of the low mountainridge immediately outside (and to the north of) San Sebatian. This locality is known as Lomo de Las Nieves. In the Hope Entomological Collections at Oxford there are three specimens mounted on cards with a black line. This material corresponds to the later captures of the Messrs Crotch and are not syntypes. Marseul (1872, p Woll.]. UMO, Oxford ( Figure 4B). Roudier, 1957 Laparocerus grossepunctatus combrecitensis Roudier 1957b, 90.

Laparocerus grossepunctatus combrecitensis
Remarks. The name L. grossepunctatus combrecitensis Roudier, 1957b, is the replacement name for L. grossepunctatus palmensis Roudier, 1957a(non palmensis Lindberg, 1953. Type material. Its type material is the same as for the replaced species name. Remarks. The name palmensis Roudier, 1957, entered in homonymy with Laparocerus palmensis subsequently Roudier (1957b) proposed the substitution name combrecitensis for it.
Remarks. The description of this species was based on a single female sent to Wollaston by M. de Marseul (Paris) as Canarian, but with no reference to the island of origin or the collector. Following the description there is a footnote (1865, p 56): ''Since the above was written, I have had some reason to suspect that the type from which my diagnosis of the L. incomptus was compiled (but which unfortunately has been returned to Paris, so that I cannot now re-examine it) may possibly have been but a very small and immature (female) specimen of the Atlantis tibialis-slightly aberrant, and perhaps obtained in the island of Hierro''. He received subsequently a second specimen from Marseul (see 1865, p 328 footnote), and confirmed his supposition. Wollaston knew L. tibialis originally (1864) from Tenerife and La Palma, and later (1865) also from El Hierro, having been collected there by the Messrs Crotch. The synonym has been generally accepted since then, but the case is more complicated. According to molecular data (to be published), the three islands are inhabited by different-although very similar-species. In 2002, the curator Mlle. Hélène Perrin and I were not able to find Wollaston's holotype in Paris. Thus, I consider it a better solution to establish a neotype from El Hierro. I have abundant specimens from that island and they are indeed of smaller size compared with specimens from Tenerife or La Palma. Moreover, Lichenophagus incomptus is the type species by monotypy of Amyntas Wollaston, 1865, described originally as subgenus of Lichenophagus Wollaston, 1854, and later transferred by Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal (1999)  Remarks. According to the description, there must be one more syntype somewhere. Marseul (1872, p 535) proposed the invalid replacement name Laparocerus tectus. Roudier (1957a, p 30) treated indutus as a subspecies of L. puncticollis Wollaston, 1864. The species is very common in the forested parts of the island. The type serie was probably collected in Monte Forte, the classical collecting-ground in the past. Remarks. According to the travel map and notes of Alluaud (1891) the type locality is ''sur le versant E. de la chaine central, dans la zone des lauriers, pès du lieu dit Topito''. A locality Topito at 850 m altitude is unknown at present, but probably is located along the old road (15 km) from San Miguel to El Paso, in the municipality of Breñ a Alta. Remarks. According to the description (''…rather abundant'') it is highly probable that there are many other syntypes around. However, I have not made paralectotypes out of several very old specimens of lanatus preserved in the DEI (Coll. Schaufuss, Coll. Kraatz, Coll. Stierlin, etc.) as there is no clear evidence of being syntypes of Wollaston.

Laparocerus longiclava
Remarks. According to the original description, the type of L. morio is from ''Lusitania, Mus. Dom. Faldermann''. The species is a common insect in Madeira  and the type locality ''Lusitania'' (5Portugal) must be an error, or perhaps a political generalization. This confusion has been already corrected by Lona (1938). The specimen originated probably from Funchal or its neighbourhood. A second very dirty specimen (R) of L. morio in the Collection Schö nherr (SMNH) has a label [Madeira] and is classified as Eremnus Barthelotti. This name is published ''Eremnus barthelotti. Dom. Guérin. Magaz. Zool.'' in Schö nherr (1842, p 228) as synonym of L. morio. Lundblad (1958, p 485 footnote 5) explains that perhaps Guérin had the intention of describing it, but there is no contribution by him in the Magazine of Zoology, and E. barthelotti should be just a nomen in litteris. That being the case, Eremnus barthelotti is not an available name.

Laparocerus navicularis
Type material. Its type material is the same as for the replaced species name. Remarks. Wollaston (1864) does not recall the precise locality where he captured the single type of this species, either the vicinity of Orotava or of Santa Cruz. The insect is identical in habitus, shape of eyes, and proportion of desmomeres with specimens from the coastal region close to Santa Cruz, presently a large city. Marseul (1872, p 529)  Remarks. Since this species shows important variations within the island of Gran Canaria, I am selecting as lectotype one specimen coincident in habitus with specimens collected by me in El Monte, one of the three localities mentioned in Wollaston's original description of obsitus. Marseul (1872, p 534) proposed the replacement name Laparocerus persitus, which is unjustified.  [Fernández]. ZMUH (Coll. Lindberg), Helsinki.

Laparocerus obtriangularis
Remarks. Lindberg based his description on four specimens only, deposited in the Zoological Museum in Helsinki. According to the Canarian collector's travel report (Fernández 1951), he collected a series of 40 exx in the Montañ a Tenisca, in Los Llanos. I have found many of these specimens in several institutions: 7 exx TFMC, Santa Cruz de Tenerife; 2 exx MNCN (Coll. González) Madrid, and 8 exx MNHN (Coll. Roudier), Paris. All specimens of the series, including the formal types, are equally immature (totally yellowish). One further yellowish specimen, but labelled ''Tenerife, Bco. Tahodio, 20/1/ 1951)'' is in the Museum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, and three more in Paris (Coll. Roudier); probably a labelling error.
Remarks. This is an invalid replacement name for Laparocerus obsitus Wollaston, 1865, as already recognized in Winkler (1932Winkler ( , p 1448.
Type material. Its type material is the same as for the replaced species name.
Type locality. Island of Madeira.
Remarks. The species was described by Boheman based on a single female labelled as from Lusitania (5Portugal); however, Gyllenhall is often cited as author. I have seen specimens of L. azoricus Drouet labelled as L. piceus in several collections (Coll. Stierlin, Osella, Poncy, etc.). Furthermore, Marseul (1872, p 548) placed the species with a question-mark as synonym of L. vespertinus  and it is recorded identically in Winkler (1932Winkler ( , p 1448, even though L. piceus Boheman, 1834 would have priority over L. vespertinus , as posteriorly recognized by Schmitz (1898, p 154) in his list of Madeiran coleoptera. It has been registered in several catalogues (Jacquelin du Val 1855; Lacordaire 1863; Lona 1938, etc.) as from Portugal, and only Lundblad (1958, p 485) assumes that the locality label ''Lusitania'' must be an error as in the case of L. morio, equally described by Boheman on a specimen provided by Falderman. Consequently, I assume the island of Madeira as the locality where the type really originated. The holotype of L. piceus is kept in Stockholm. It is a rubbed female specimen that resembles L. noctivagans , but could equally be assigned to L. lauripotens . Females of this group of Laparocerus (L. vespertinus, included) are not always easy to separate. Therefore I propose to consider L. piceus, a nomen dubium. Laparocerus propinquus Lindberg 1953 Figure 5A).

Laparocerus propinquus
Laparocerus ruteri Roudier, 1957 Laparocerus (Canopus) ruteri Roudier 1957a, p 33, 36, Figure 13 (aedeagus Remarks. Brullé (1839) did not mention the island of origin of the holotype, but Wollaston (1864, p 341) collected the species in Cubo de La Galga, and Cumbre above Buenavista, in the island of La Palma. L. sculptus is the type species of the subgenus Machadotrox Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal, 1999 by original designation. This subgenus was established to fill the gap left by Wollastonia Uyttenboogaart, 1936(non Heer, 1852, nec Horn, 1873  Remarks. Brullé (1839) did not mention the island of origin. The species inhabits Gran Canaria, as observed by Roudier (1957a). From the list of carabid species reported by Brullé, one can infer that in the case of Gran Canaria the insects were collected probably during two excursions; one in the vicinity of Las Palmas, and another more to the interior (Tafira, Santa Brígida?), both in the northern side of the island (cf. Machado 1992 Remarks. According to Escalera (1914), the original description of susicus was based at least on two specimens (''length. 5-7 mm'') from Agadir, and deposited in the MNCN, Madrid. In the Collection Escalera there are two specimens (damaged by Anthrenus) of Laparocerus from Mogador collected in 1906, a different locality, hence not syntypes, and one male specimen in good conditions, with a printed locality label reading ''Agadir'', but no further identification label. This specimen was located misplaced in the Collection with other curculionids. Moreover, some of Escalera's specimens went to Paris, apparently in the years 1968 and 1980. In the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle there are two specimens labelled as ''cotypes'' of Cyclobarus susicus, both from Agadir, but with different sets of labels and mounted on different types of cards. One of the syntypes ( Figure 6A), kept in Coll. Ruter (Muséum Paris, 1980), is a male of a Laparocerus and was studied by Ruter, who consequently transferred the species to that genus and provided a line drawing of its habitus (Ruter 1945). The second syntype ( Figure 6B), kept in Coll. Hoffmann (Muséum Paris, 1968) is a Cyclobarus. It seems that Escalera described susicus based on specimens pertaining to different species and genera. The textual description applies exactly to the Laparocerus, but the only syntype that bears at least one handwritten label of Escalera [''Agadir''] is the Cyclobarus (Figure 6B, second label from top). To designate this latter specimen as the name-bearing type (lectotype) would have rather cumbersome implications: firstly, a redescription of susicus would be necessary; secondly, Cyclobarus susicus would enter in synonymy with Cyclobarus mskalicus Escalera, 1914 (J. Pelletier, personal communication); thirdly, a new name would be needed for the Laparocerus species, despite the fact that it has been described as Cyclomaurus tessellatus Hustache, 1932 (as Laparocerus it enters in secondary homonymy with Laparocerus tessellatus (Brullé, 1839). A more practical solution for stability is to exclude the Cyclobarus specimen, and to designate the Laparocerus male from Agadir kept in Madrid as lectotype of susicus Escalera, 1914. Laparocerus tectus Marseul, 1872* Laparocerus (Laparocerus) tectus Marseul 1872, p 535.

Remarks.
Only the identification label of Omias tessellatus and the hole of a pin are in the box containing the material of Webb and Berthelot from the Canaries, deposited in the  Uyttenboogaart, 1937. Coll. Générale at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, at Paris. The curator Mlle Hélène Perrin and I were not able to find it in other collections. The type is apparently lost. Brullé (1839) did not mention an island of origin, but Wollaston (1864, p 360) associated Brullé's brief description to populations from Tenerife, El Hierro, and La Palma (Wollaston does not mention the type of Brullé, and he studied the coleoptera of Webb and Berthelot at Paris (perhaps already lost?). This interpretation of L. tessellatus has been accepted up to the present date. However, unpublished molecular data reveal that each island has a differentiated population, and, to a lesser extent, the same happens within Tenerife. Therefore it is highly necessary to fix the concept of this taxon by establishing a neotype. From the set of Teneriffan carabid species provided by Webb and Berthelot, it can be deduced that they all were collected in the mountains of Anaga, probably Monte Aguirre, just above the capital Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Machado 1992, p 266). I have selected a specimen from the interior of Anaga (Chinobre) as the neotype. The punctuation of the pronotum is much weaker and superficial, and the elytra more globose (particularly in the females).
Laparocerus tessellatus (Hustache, 1932 Remarks. Kocher (1961, p 56) does not see differences between this species and specimens of L. susicus from the same region (Foum-Assaka) in SW Morocco. This synonymy has been confirmed by my colleague Jean Pelletier (personal communication) who compared the type with specimens of Laparocerus susicus I sent to him (nov. syn.). Moreover, Laparocerus tessellatus (Hustache, 1932) is a secondary homonymy of Laparocerus tessellatus (Brullé, 1839), but there is no need of a replacement name. Remarks. The numbers attached to the paralectotypes may relate to localities in Tenerife, but if that is the case, no further information is available. The species is common in lower eastern localities of the island, like Santa Cruz, Gü ímar, or Candelaria.    Type material. Its type material is the same as for the replaced species name.

Results
The present revision accounts for 131 available Laparocerus names (species and subspecies), of which 105 are valid (including L. incomptus (Wollaston, 1864), bon. spec.). The total number of invalid names is 24, with the following breakdown: two cases of primary homonymy, two of secondary homonymy, 11 cases of objective synonymy, 11 of subjective synonymy (seven established here). All cases of objective synonymy originated in unjustified replacement names due to Marseul (1872), who considered homonymy to happen within the same tribe, and not just within the same genus. Only two cases-Laparocerus piceus Boheman, 1834 and Laparocerus wollastoni Heer, 1857-were not possible to solve, and are proposed as nomina dubia. As both names have not been applied to any taxon since their description long before 1899, there is no risk for universality and stability of nomenclature.
A total of 52 lectotypes have been designated as well as neotypes for Omias tessellatus Brullé, 1839 and Lichenophagus incomptus Wollaston, 1864. These two taxa and L. wollastoni Heer, 1857 are the only cases where the original type material has not been located and is presumably lost.

List of valid names
It is important to insist that the species or subspecies status of the valid taxa has not yet been revised. The list that follows reflects the current status, including treatments commented in the main text (the few cases are here underlined).