Xenispa aeneipennis Sekerka 2017, comb. nov.

(Fig. 8)

Cephaloleia aeneipennis Baly, 1859: 59 (original description).

Type locality. ‘Venezuela’.

Type material examined. HOLOTYPE: pinned, ‘Type | H. T. [w, p, cb, circle label with red frame] || Type [g, hw, s] || Cephaloleia | aeneipennis | Baly | Venezuela [w, hw by Baly, s]’ (BMNH).

Remarks. BALY (1859) described this species based on a single specimen as he clearly indicated. Subsequently it was mentioned only in catalogues (e.g. WEISE 1911, BRYANT 1942, UHMANN 1957a).STAINES & GARCÍA- ROBLEDO (2014) provided redescription, colour photograph and reported additional specimen from Colombia without any further data.

I have studied the holotype and in my opinion the species belongs to the genus Xenispa as it possesses all principal characters of that genus, e.g. long antennae, serrate lateroapical margins of elytra, smooth and convex frons and vertex. Therefore I hereby transfer Cephaloleia aeneipennis to the genus Xenispa.

Xenispa aeneipennis is most similar to X. carinata (Pic, 1934) also known from Venezuela. The two species can be distinguished using the herein proposed key to Venezuelan species of Xenispa, see page 374.

I was not able to verify the identity of the specimen from Colombia (STAINES & GARCÍA- ROBLEDO 2014) as it was not found in the collections of NHMW (Harald Schillhammer, pers. comm. October 2017) and I doubt that the identification was correct since the authors made numerous errors in species identification. So the holotype remains the only specimen of this species known to me.

Distribution. Colombia? (STAINES & GARCÍA- ROBLEDO 2014) and Venezuela (BALY 1859).