nigro-binotata (Mormidea) Berg 1879: 279–280. [Figs 127–129]

Original data: “ ♂ et ♀ ”; “ Patria: Buenos Aires.” [syntypes (one of each sex, see “ Notes ” below]

NON-TYPE ♀: “ Buenos Aires ”; “nigrobinotata Berg.”; “Distant Coll. 1911–383.”; “NHMUK 010592366”. Specimen well preserved (Fig. 127).

NON-TYPE ♂: “ Buenos Aires ”; “ Tylospilus nigrolimbatus [sic!] 199 Berg”; “Distant Coll. 1911–383.”; “NHMUK 010592367”. Specimen carded; Fourth and fifth right antennomeres missing (Fig. 128).

NON-TYPE ♀: “ Buenos Aires ”; “nigrobinotata Berg.”; “Distant Coll. 1911–383.”; “NHMUK 010592368”. Specimen carded; well preserved (Fig. 129).

Current status: Tylospilus nigrobinotatus (Berg, 1879) (see Thomas 1992: 117). [Berg considered Tylospilus a subgenus of Podisus]

Notes: The first author examined and imaged two female specimens labelled as types in MLPA. While Berg (1879: 279–280) did describe the species from two specimens (“Los dos individuos que poseo, fueron recojidos en Buenos Aires, por los Sres. GUENTHER y LYNCH.”), he however noted that he had male and female. Although he later (Berg 1883: 203) explained that he had made an “equivocacion inexplicable” when he described the species in Mormidea instead of Podisus, subgenus Tylospilus, he is unlikely to have made a mistake concerning the sex of his specimens. There could have been an error in the typesetting of the sex symbols but it seems unlikely as Berg gave a wide range of measurements, which would support the fact that there was a male and a female (females are usually much larger than males). The male type would thus appear to be missing in MLPA. And neither was it found by Bachmann (1999, 2012) at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (MACN) in Buenos Aires, where some more of Berg’s typical material can be found.

Three specimens were found in NHMUK, one male and two females collected in Buenos Aires. As these three specimens came from Distant’s collection, it is difficult to tell how he obtained them. Berg did make donations to NHMUK in the mid 1880s (Accessions Register; Hampson 1906: 571) and Distant (1885: 60) even stated: “Prof. C. Berg, of the Museo Publico at Buenos Ayres, having recently submitted the types of his described species and also some others, unnamed, for my comparison and identification, [...]”. Therefore, it could well be that Berg donated specimens to Distant or exchanged some with him. Encouraged by the fact that Hemiptera specimens from Argentina were rare still in 1911 at NHMUK, and probably, in all British/European collections, we originally felt justified to think that the male specimen could be the missing syntype or that all specimens could be metatypes, according to Oldfield Thomas (1893: 242) ’s definitions, also repeated by Charles Schuchert (1897: 637–638).

However, a specimen of Acanalonia chloris (Berg, 1879) found in NHMUK would seem to invalidate our theory. Indeed, this specimen bears the following labels “ Acanonia chloris Berg. ”; “Scott Coll. 88-11.”; “Cum typo comparat”; “Ex Coll. Bergiana”. The last two labels are found to be typical of Berg’s collection: white rectangles with border and text printed in red. If Berg always labelled his specimens so clearly as coming from his collection (“Ex Coll. Bergiana”) and as metatypes (“Cum typo comparat”), it is unlikely that the three NHMUK specimens are types or even sent by Berg. Nevertheless, the above specimen of A. chloris and its labels are proof that Berg donated or exchanged specimens (see also Berg 1879: 44) and the missing male type of Mormidea nigro-binotata could have been such a specimen. Another possibility concerning the whereabouts of the missing type is that if it had been found not to be conspecific with the other type specimen it could have been ulteriorly described as another species. Indeed, one of the syntypes of Myrmecalydus celeripes Berg, 1879 became a paratype of Cydamus delpontei Kormilev, 1953. Finally, whichever was the way the three Argentinian specimens in NHMUK came into Distant’s possession, they definitely are topotypes and specimens of historical value.

Brugnera et al. (2020b: 131) speculated that Berg had been mistaken as to the sex of the smaller specimen and designated the larger specimen as lectotype. However, it is the smaller specimen which bears the most original data, including Berg’s determination label.