Eutermes rippertii subsp. iheringi Czerwinski

2) Eutermes rippertii iheringi Czerwinski, nomen dubium

Eutermes rippertii var. iheringi Czerwinski 1901: 6

“ Eutermes rippertii iheringi ” - Snyder 1949: 349 (listed under “not classified”) “ Eutermes rippertii iheringi ” - Constantino 1998: 210 (listed under “names of uncertain position”) “ Eutermes rippertii iheringi ” - Krishna et al. 2013: 1900 (listed under “ Nasutitermitinae incertae sedis ”)

Type-series: Czerwinski (1901) mentions 16 specimens (syntypes) including imagoes, nasutes, workers and nymphs, collected by Ihering from Brazil, “ Rio Grande ” (MZPW), all lost.

Type-locality. Same as E. burmeisteri (see above).

Etymology: Not mentioned by Czerwinski, but obviously named for the collector, H. Ihering.

Translation of the original description. Diagnosis (original in Latin): “Third yellow line near the subcosta absent. Third segment of antenna longer than the second. Distance from antenna to eye half its diameter.” Description (original in Russian): “ 4 workers, 4 nasutes, 4 nymphs, 4 winged (2 males and 2 females). Given by Iering from Brazil (Rio Grande) in 1893. The length of the body of the winged forms is 8 mm, with the wings 18 mm. Differs from Eutermes rippertii Rambur in features and signs: a yellow line under the subcostal vein is absent, the third segment of the antenna is larger than the second, the ocellus is separated from the compound eye by half of its diameter, the median vein does branch to the subcostal vein.”

Discussion. Described by Czerwinski as a variety of Nasutitermes rippertii (Rambur, 1842), it is available as a subspecific name (ICZN article 45.6). However, N. rippertii occurs only on the Bahamas and Cuba and all records of this species from South America are misidentifications (e.g. Hagen 1858). Czerwinski presents only a brief description of the alate. The “yellow line near the subcosta” refers to a paler line between veins M and Cu which is present in many species (see Banks 1919 description of N. rippertii). Cerwinski’s description does not match the imago of any Nasutitermitinae from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. All of them have the paler line between M and Cu, most are conspicuously smaller, and very few have the 3rd article of the antennae longer than the 2nd. It is likely that this was also a mixed series, including nasute soldiers from one species (possibly C. fulviceps) and imagoes from another. The imago probably does not belong to the Nasutitermitinae. This case apparently has no solution and this name should be treated as a nomen dubium.

Czerwinski (1901) also lists several other termite species sent by Ihering, some of which were misidentified by him. His No. 41 was identified as “ Eutermes rippertii Rambur ” (= Nasutitermes rippertii). Interestingly, Jhering (1887a) also mentions “ Eutermes rippertii ”, apparently referring to Cortaritermes fulviceps. Cerwinski’s No. 50, “ Eutermes lividus Burmeister (?)” (= Nasutitermes lividus), also does not occur in South America. The problem in both cases is that they might inadvertently be regarded as valid locality records of these species.