identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
B20E4654FFAEFF90BAF42A1FFC3AC30C.text	B20E4654FFAEFF90BAF42A1FFC3AC30C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis Portevin 1907	<div><p>Genus Adelopsis Portevin</p><p>Adelopsis Portevin, 1907: 71; Jeannel, 1936: 59 (redescription) (sensu Gnaspini, 1996: 533 and Gnaspini and Peck, 1996: 407, redescription). Type species: Catops ruficollis Portevin, 1903, here considered a senior synonym of Adelopsis heterocera Portevin, 1907, originally established as type species, by monotypy.</p><p>Iutururuca Gnaspini, 1993: 79 (as subgenus). Type species: Adelopsis leo Gnaspini (orig. des.). n. syn.</p><p>Excelsiorella Salgado, 2008a: 210 (as genus); Gnaspini et al., 2016: 274 (synonymy). Type species:</p><p>Excelsiorella latissima Salgado (orig. des.).</p><p>Note: Gnaspini (1993: 79) described the subgenus Iutururuca (as subgenus of Adelopsis) for a group of Brazilian species having the spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at the apex. Gnaspini (1996) discussed that this feature also appears in other groups of species (e.g., in the group elephas), and that author decided not to assign species to subgenus until a proper phylogenetic analysis of Adelopsis is conducted, which is needed to assure that the remaining, non- Iutururuca, species of Adelopsis do form one (or more) monophyletic group(s) [namely, subgenus/subgenera]. Considering that this feature appears within different groups of species (for instance, in the group ascutellaris, in taxa that were formerly considered to belong in subspecies of the same species; see also our discussion about groups of species), we prefer to propose here the synonym.</p><p>Therefore, Adelopsis is now considered to have no subgenera.</p><p>Besides the typical characters of the tribe, species of Adelopsis are characterized by having (except when noted): Antenna reaching base of elytra when laid back. Abdominal ventrites (sternites), especially sternites V–VII (preceeding the genital segment VIII), may be altered. Aedeagus broad; base curved downwards, with the orifice somewhat facing ventrally, at an angle of 45° from the horizontal axis (but in a few species it follows the longitudinal axis of the aedeagus—see our discussion about species groups); apical orifice dorsally subterminal and cuting the left side of aedeagus; flagellum elongate, strongly developed. Parameres flat, curved, shorter than aedeagus, bearing 3 small terminal setae, inserted close to each other. Genital segment globular, slightly longer than broad; lateral lobes bearing several long and short setae; the spiculum gastrale may be straight and of the same width along its axis, or its anterior apex may be enlarged or divided. Spermatheca varies among species; it is frequently 2-turns coiled (and may have more turns) and always ends with a distinct bulb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFAEFF90BAF42A1FFC3AC30C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFA2FF99BAF42C68FBBEC410.text	B20E4654FFA2FF99BAF42C68FBBEC410.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray 1856)	<div><p>Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856)</p><p>(Figs. 4–16)</p><p>Catops ascutellaris Murray, 1856: 460 [and Fig. 55].</p><p>Ptomaphagus ascutellaris; Portevin, 1921: 536.</p><p>Adelopsis ascutellaris; Jeannel, 1936: 65 [and Figs. 88–89] (combination not stated as taxonomic change); Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 (type seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: 1 “ type ” male and 1 “ type ” female in BMNH (Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syn-types—sex and number of specimens not given in original description. Note: the original description did not state number and sex of specimens and gave locality just as “Caraccas”. Szymczakowski (1961) stated he examined a specimen labeled “Caracas, Catops ascutellaris Murray (Type) ”. Labels (both specimens): “ Mon. Cati Caracas / Caracas 1819 / 9010”. Both are here illustrated. Note: Cati is a barrio (neighborhood) in Caracas (situated in a mountain-ringed valley) and probably a forested collecting locality in 1819 .</p><p>For taxonomic reasons, the male “type” is here designated as lectotype; and the female as paralectotype.</p><p>Length: 7/8 lin. (= 2.2 mm) (original description); 1.8 mm (Jeannel, 1936, probably referring to the MNHN specimen [which is the one listed as examined], which we measured 1.9 mm); 2.0 mm (male) and 1.9 mm (female) (our measurements).</p><p>Type locality: Caracas, [Distrito Capital, Venezuela] .</p><p>Additional material examined: 1 male in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Env. de Caracas / Sallé 1848 // [?] 9 48 // 55 // G. Portevin det., 1902”. Note: The specimen size, aedeagus and genital segment agree with those of the BMNH lectotype, leading us to admit they belong to the same species .</p><p>Additional material examined (misidentification): 1 additional male in MNHN (“det. G. Portevin 1902”) (Gnaspini, 1996: 541) [head and pronotum missing]—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Adelopsis portevini sp. n.</p><p>Taxonomic Notes.</p><p>1) Murray (1856: 461) explained that he received the species from Deyrolle “under the manuscript name of aequinoctialis ”, but decided to use a different name. Therefore, this is not a case of a synonym, as it seems to be in Hatch (1928: 168) and Jeannel (1936: 65 —as “ aequinoctialis Deyrolle (in litt.)”).</p><p>2) The record of this species in Jeannel (1922: 21, 35, 42, fig. 26) seems to be a misidentification of “ Adelopsis filicornis ” Jeannel, 1936 [species presently placed in the genus Parapaulipalpina] (Jeannel, 1936: 66)—see Taxonomic Note under Parapaulipalpina filicornis .</p><p>3) Jeannel (1936: 65) examined five specimens in MNHN from the same locality, referring to them as “probable cotypes” (one of them with label “ aequinoctialis Deyr.”—therefore, this might actually have been a syntype examined by Murray) [two of them, males, available for study for Gnaspini, 1996—see Additional material]; Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 stated that Jeannel did not know the type of this species (and based his description on five probable cotypes from MNHN) and he (Szymczakowski) could analyze a male specimen labeled “ Catops ascutellaris Murray (Type) ” (but did not mention the depository). He also stated that that type is identical to the specimens in MNHN, so he corroborated Jeannel (1936) interpretation. However, see “Additional material examined (misidentification)”.</p><p>Yet, because both Portevin (1921) and Jeannel (1936) referred to the specimen examined as “Sallé”, we understand that Portevin did not examine the types either.</p><p>4) Salgado (2005: 968 [and Fig. 13]) examined 2 females from MHNG (from a different and distant locality) and identified them as belonging to this species. Comparing his figure with the type female spermatheca illustrated here, we interpret his identification as a misidentification. We reinforce the statement that, because ptomaphagines (mainly the Neotropical ones) are very similar to each other based on external characters (with some exceptions, of course), it is difficult to relate female specimens to a given species without the presence of males in the same collection (and, even in this case, it may be difficult).</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal, but slightly shorter than the usual height (Fig. 12). Winged. No posterior projections on male ventrites (used hereafter as abdominal morphological sternite VI). Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin curved outward, with a pronounced curve to its left end (Figs. 6, 8, 9). Flagellum shorter (about 2/ 3 in length) than aedeagus, with apex bent at 90º (Fig. 6). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.27–0.29. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width slightly wider than the rounded base (Fig. 11). Male mesotibia with a sharp curve medially on the internal margin, being slightly bent medially (Fig. 14). Spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a long and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 16). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.14.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Distrito Capital: known only from type locality (original description; Portevin, 1921; Jeannel, 1936; Szymczakowski, 1961; here).</p><p>Note: Erroneous records: (1) Hatch (1928: 168) also gave Colombia, in error(?); (2) the “Bolívar State” record in Salgado (2005), based on females, is in error (see Taxonomic Note 4, above).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856) and A. ovalis Jeannel, 1936 are very similar to each other. The male mesotibia is bent medially (Figs. 14, 24) and the eyes seem to be slightly reduced in both species (Figs. 12, 21). The aedeagus is very similar (Figs. 5–9, 17–20), with some differences that should be addressed more carefully in the future. The illustrations in Jeannel (1936: Figs. 89, 78) differ, but they are considered not to be precise enough (for instance, the ‘diagonal strip’ illustrated by Jeannel in the aedeagus of A. ascutellaris could not be observed on the specimens here analyzed). Unfortunately, the genital segment of the specimen of A. ovalis is missing, and cannot be used to separate the species. Adelopsis ascutellaris is from Caracas, Venezuela and A. ovalis is from ‘Venezuela’, making it impossible to use this information as a reference. The latter species is slightly larger (around 20–30%) than the former, but only one specimen was available.</p><p>In addition, Szymczakowski (1975: 14), when discussing identity of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 and describing and assigning subspecies to that species, commented that it is probable that A. ovalis would also be synonym of A. brunneus . This has never been used in the literature. We did not have access to specimens of A. brunnea, but based on the illustrations in both Jeannel (1936: Fig. 86) and Szymczakowski (1975: Fig. 2), the arm of the right lobe of the aedeagus seems to be slightly narrower, but, again, the illustrations may not be precise. Adelopsis brunnea is from ‘Colombia’, and, since both species have been described in the same work and had their aedeagus dissected, we understand that Jeannel indeed considered them as separate species, although he might have been mistaken. Its length is intermediate between that of A. ascutellaris and of A. ovalis .</p><p>Yet, A. sanlorenzo Gnaspini and Peck, 2001, also from Colombia, also has a similar aedeagus, but the genital segment and spermatheca seem to differ from those of A. ascutellaris .</p><p>Usually just the analysis of the genital segment and male mesotibia are needed for species recognition. For instance, the aedeagus of A. azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 31–35, 41–45) are similar to those of the species cited above, but the male mesotibia is curved, and the antenna and the spermatheca also seem to be different. Yet, A. orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat., previously assigned as subspecies of A. brunnea, have completely different spiculum gastrale in the genital segment when compared to all species cited above.</p><p>In summary, we here prefer to keep the species cited above as a separate species, but we intend to make a more careful examination, including the analysis of the types of all species in the group.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFA2FF99BAF42C68FBBEC410	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFA7FF98BAF429FFFDF8C7FC.text	B20E4654FFA7FF98BAF429FFFDF8C7FC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel 1936	<div><p>Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936</p><p>(Figs. 17–25)</p><p>Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936: 65 [and Figs. 77–78]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group ascutellaris); Salgado, 2010: 215 (assignment to group peruviensis). Here returned to group ascutellaris.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN ( Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Venezuela ”. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and the genital segment was missing. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.5 mm (original description); 2.3 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: “ Venezuela ” .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal, but slightly less than the usual height (Fig. 21). Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to original description (key couplet)]. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus is an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin curved outward, with a pronounced curve to its left end (Figs. 18, 20). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus, with apex bent at 90º (Fig. 17). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.31. Genital segment missing. Male mesotibia with a sharp curve medially on the internal margin, being slightly bent medially (Fig. 24). Female unknown.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: known only from “ type locality” (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks.</p><p>1) See Taxonomic Remarks under Adelopsis ascutellaris, above.</p><p>2) Szymczakowski (1975: 14) stated that it is very probable that A. ovalis is a synonym of A. brunnea; and he proposed to use the latter as the valid name [but the former has page precedence] if this synonymy is proved right. However, this ‘potential synonymy’ has never been used in the literature afterwards. We here presently consider both as valid species, and do not propose a revalidation because we understand that Szymczakowski´s statement is not a valid taxonomic act.</p><p>3) This species is tentatively assigned to subgroup, since the genital segment (which is here considered important for subgroup assignment) is unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFA7FF98BAF429FFFDF8C7FC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFA6FF98BAF4294BFDF8C3FD.text	B20E4654FFA6FF98BAF4294BFDF8C3FD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis brunnea Jeannel 1936	<div><p>Adelopsis brunnea Jeannel, 1936</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 86–87].</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus brunneus; Szymczakowski, 1975: 15 [and Fig. 2] (type seen).</p><p>Adelopsis brunnea brunnea; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (spelling corrected to feminine gender); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group), 430.</p><p>Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in BMNH [not presently in BMNH (when we requested it for analysis), not examined].</p><p>Length: 2.2 mm (original description and Szymczakowski, 1975).</p><p>Type locality: “ Colombie ”.</p><p>Distribution. Colombia: known only from “ type locality” (original description; Szymczakowski, 1975).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks.</p><p>1) See Taxonomic Remarks under Adelopsis ascutellaris, above.</p><p>2) Szymczakowski (1975: 14) stated that it is very probable that A. ovalis is a synonym of A. brunnea; and he proposed to use the latter as the valid name [but the former has page precedence] if this synonymy is proved right. However, this ‘potential synonymy’ has never been used in the literature afterwards. We here presently consider both as valid species, and do not propose a revalidation because we understand that Szymczakowski´s statement is not a valid taxonomic act.</p><p>3) As proposed in Gnaspini (1996: 539) and Peck et al. (1998: 62), all subspecies of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 are here raised to species status. The combination of the variation observed on aedeagus, genital segment, eyes, antenna, male mesotibia, and spermatheca allow taxon recognition (see discussion under each of these taxa). As a result, this would be the only subspecies left in the species. Therefore, we here abandon the use of subspecies in A. brunnea .</p><p>4) This species is tentatively assigned to subgroup, since the genital segment (which is here considered important for subgroup assignment) is unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFA6FF98BAF4294BFDF8C3FD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFA6FF9BBAF42D4DFDF8C484.text	B20E4654FFA6FF9BBAF42D4DFDF8C484.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis brasiliensis Jeannel 1936	<div><p>Adelopsis brasiliensis Jeannel, 1936</p><p>(Figs. 26–27)</p><p>Adelopsis brasiliensis Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 75–76]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (tentative assignment to group ascutellaris); Salgado, 2010: 214 (assignment to group capitanea). Here returned to group ascutellaris.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN ( Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “Blumenau / S.O. [sud oeste = southwestern; but actually southern] Brasilien / (Reitter)” // “ Ptomaphagus braziliensis n. sp. ”. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and both aedeagus and genital segment were missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 3.5 mm (original description); 3.15 mm (our measurement). It has a large size when compared to other species in the genus.</p><p>Type locality: Blumenau, Santa Catarina State, Brazil .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal, but slightly less than the usual height (Fig. 26). Winged. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Aedeagus and genital segment missing. Female unknown.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Santa Catarina State: known only from type locality (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks.</p><p>1) Unfortunately, both aedeagus and genital segment of the specimen examined were missing, not allowing a proper recognition of the species, even using illustrations in Jeannel (1936: Figs. 75–76). The aedeagus seems similar to that of other species in the group (see also Taxonomic Remarks under Adelopsis ascutellaris, above). However, the species is very large when compared to other species in the group. It is from a locality where it is the only species of the group recorded so far, except for A. curvipes Salgado, 2005 (length 2.75 mm), from a close locality. Therefore, we prefer to keep it as a separate species, and, in the future, compare it to the type of A. curvipes, to check for synonymy.</p><p>2) This species is tentatively assigned to subgroup, since the genital segment (which is here considered important for subgroup assignment) is unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFA6FF9BBAF42D4DFDF8C484	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFA5FF9ABAF42EE0FC52C15A.text	B20E4654FFA5FF9ABAF42EE0FC52C15A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis azzalii Szymczakowski 1975	<div><p>Adelopsis azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 new status</p><p>(Figs. 28–40)</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975: 18 [and Figs. 8–11].</p><p>Adelopsis brunnea azzalii; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (spelling corrected to feminine gender).</p><p>Type material examined: (Probable) Holotype male and 1 female in CBCV. Labels: “Sierra de S. Luis Hueque / Cueva 1 / m. 700 Edo. FA. [Falcón State] // Venez. Bordón / leg. 18iv1971 // en guano de Phillostomus ” [ Phyllostomus]. One additional male with same data except for date 26vi1971 (the specimen was previously dissected, and the genital segment was missing). Note: The original description listed holotype male and 2 male paratypes in CBCV (and 1 male paratype in ISZP), but we had access to 2 males and 1 female from CBCV—we accepted the male with the date published to be the holotype; and we are not sure if the three specimens examined from CBCV are those listed in the original publication (resulting, in this case, that the author did not mention that the ‘second’ male had a different date of collection and that he misidentified a female as a male) or if there are two other male paratypes with same data as the holotype elsewhere. All three specimens are here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.05–2.2 mm (original description); 2.0 (‘holotype’) and 1.7 mm (male) and 1.9 mm (female) (our measurements).</p><p>Type locality: Cueva de Hueque (“cueva 1”), 700 m, Sierra de S. Luis, Falcón State, Venezuela .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 36). Last antennomere wide, with a conic projection medially (Fig. 29). Data on wings not observed. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin curved outward, with a pronounced curve to its left end (Figs. 34, 35). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus, with apex bent at 90º, and bearing a basal piece (Fig. 32). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.32–0.34. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width about twice as wide as the rounded base (Fig. 28). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 38). Spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 40). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.13.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Falcón State: known only from type locality (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. As proposed in Gnaspini (1996: 539) and Peck et al. (1998: 62), all subspecies of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 are here raised to species status. The combination of the variation observed on aedeagus, genital segment, eyes, antenna, male mesotibia, and spermatheca allow taxon recognition (see discussion under each of these taxa).</p><p>The aedeagus of A. azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 31–35), A. brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 41–45), and A. ovalis Jeannel, 1936 (Figs. 17–20) are very similar to each other. The first two species have male mesotibia curved (Figs. 38, 51) whereas the latter species has it bent medially (Fig. 24), and this is used to separate the first two from the latter (see also Taxonomic Remarks under A. ascutellaris, above). The eyes of A. brevicollis seem to be larger than those of A. azzalii (Figs. 47, 36) and the spermathecae seem different too (Figs. 53, 40). Yet, A. azzalii is recorded from a cave in Venezuela, whereas A. brevicollis is recorded from a cave in Trinidad. Therefore, we here prefer to keep the species cited above as a separate species, but we intend to make a more careful examination, including the analysis of the types of all species in the group.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFA5FF9ABAF42EE0FC52C15A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFBBFF84BAF42BF7FC52C434.text	B20E4654FFBBFF84BAF42BF7FC52C434.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis brevicollis Szymczakowski 1975	<div><p>Adelopsis brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 new status</p><p>(Figs. 41–53)</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975: 21 [and Figs. 12–16].</p><p>Adelopsis brunnea brevicollis; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (spelling corrected to feminine gender). Holotype male in BMNH (n° 1961-188), not presently in BMNH (when we asked for it for analysis), not examined. Original description stated two additional paratype females.</p><p>Type locality: Oilbird Cave (on dryish bat guano), Oropuche, Trinidad .</p><p>Material examined: 3 male and 6 female topotypes in SBPC (now in CMNC). Labels: Trinidad: Oropouche Cave / 7.x.89 JPEC Darlington / light trap. One male (1.95 mm) and one female (2.0 mm) are here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.1 mm (male) and 1.9 mm (females) (original description); 1.8 and 1.95 mm (3 males, two of them with the larger size) and 1.9–2.1 mm (5 females, and an additional female measured 1.65 mm) (our measurements).</p><p>Note: Considering that species in the group ascutellaris have very similar habitus and aedeagus, and considering that more than one species can be found in the same locality, we understand that this record should be considered with caution.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 47). Winged. Last antennomere wide, with a short conic projection medially (Fig. 48). No posterior projections on male ventrites.Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin curved outward, with a pronounced curve to its left end (Figs. 44, 45). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus, with apex bent at 90º (Figs. 41, 42). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.28. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawnshaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width about twice as wide as the rounded base (Fig. 46). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 51). Spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the rounded apical bulb (Fig. 53). Proportion spermatheca/ elytron = 0.12.</p><p>Distribution. Trinidad: known only from type locality (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. As proposed in Gnaspini (1996: 539) and Peck et al. (1998: 62), all subspecies of A. brun- nea Jeannel 1936 are here raised to species status. The combination of the variation observed on aedeagus, genital segment, eyes, antenna, male mesotibia, and spermatheca allow taxon recognition (see discussion under each of these taxa).</p><p>The aedeagus of A. brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 41–45), A. azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 31–35), and A. ovalis Jeannel, 1936 (Figs. 17–20) are very similar to each other. The first two species have male mesotibia curved (Figs. 38, 51) whereas the latter species has it bent medially (Fig. 24), and this is used to separate the first two from the latter (see also Taxonomic Remarks under A. ascutellaris, above). The eyes of A. brevicollis seem to be larger than those of A. azzalii (Figs. 47, 36) and the spermathecae seem different too (Figs. 53, 40). Yet, A. brevicollis is recorded from a cave in Trinidad, whereas A. azzalii is recorded from a cave in Venezuela. Therefore, we here prefer to keep the species cited above as a separate species, but we intend to make a more careful examination, including the analysis of the types of all species in the group.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFBBFF84BAF42BF7FC52C434	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFBAFF84BAF42903FDF8C344.text	B20E4654FFBAFF84BAF42903FDF8C344.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis linaresi Szymczakowski 1969	<div><p>Adelopsis linaresi Szymczakowski, 1969 status restablished</p><p>Adelopsis linaresi Szymczakowski, 1969: 407 [and Figs. 1–10].</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus linaresi; Szymczakowski, 1975: 15 [and Fig. 1] (lowered to subspecies status).</p><p>Adelopsis brunnea linaresi; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (spelling corrected to feminine gender).</p><p>Holotype male in MUCV, not examined.</p><p>Length: 2.4 mm (holotype male) and 2.4–2.5 mm (2 female paratypes) (original description).</p><p>Type locality: Cueva del Guacharo, Gran Derrumbe, 1065 m, Caripe, [Monagas State], Venezuela. Distribution. Venezuela: Monagas State: known only from type locality (original description; Szymczakowski, 1975).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks.</p><p>1) As proposed in Gnaspini (1996: 539) and Peck et al. (1998: 62), all subspecies of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 are here raised to species status. The combination of the variation observed on aedeagus, genital segment, eyes, antenna, male mesotibia, and spermatheca allow taxon recognition (see discussion under each of these taxa).</p><p>Based on the original illustration, the aedeagus of this subspecies (Fig. 8 in Szymczakowski, 1969) differs from that of other species in group ascutellaris, especially by having a ‘high’ apical portion of the right lobe, with a sinuate apical margin; and the profemur seems unique (Fig. 9 in Szymczakowski, 1969). Therefore, we here reassign the status of species for this taxon.</p><p>2) This species is tentatively assigned to subgroup, since the genital segment (which is here considered important for subgroup assignment) is unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFBAFF84BAF42903FDF8C344	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFBAFF87BAF42ED3FCD0C3A8.text	B20E4654FFBAFF87BAF42ED3FCD0C3A8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis portevini Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Adelopsis portevini, new species</p><p>(Figs. 54–61)</p><p>Holotype, male (MNHN). Type locality and data: Venezuela: Distrito Capital: Caracas region, Sallé, 1848. Labels: “[?] 9 48 / Sallé 1848 Env. de Caracas // det. G. Portevin, 1902”. Specimen here illustrated. Note: specimen misidentified as Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856) — Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. ascutellaris, above.</p><p>Length: Head and pronotum are missing, but we judge that the specimen would measure around 1.6–1.7 mm.</p><p>Short Description. Head and pronotum are missing. Data on wings not observed. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin almost straight, slightly concave (Figs. 55, 57). Flagellum much shorter (about 1/ 4 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 55). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.34. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width slightly wider than the rounded conic base (Fig. 58). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 60). Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given in honor of G. Portevin, who examined the specimen, for his large contribution to systematics of cholevines and many other beetle groups.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Distrito Capital: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The species can be separated from others in the group by a combination of characters. The flagellum of the aedeagus is very short, which seems to be unusual in the group. The male mesotibia is curved, as in A. azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat., and different of A. ascutellaris (Murray, 1856) and A. ovalis Jeannel, 1936 . The tip of the aedeagus is similar to that of A. orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat., which also has a curved male mesotibia, but the spiculum gastrale of the genital segment is markedly different between the two species.</p><p>Although it is based on a single and incomplete male, we believe that it is appropriate to describe a new species because the specimen is already placed in a collection, with a mistaken identification label, and, if kept this way, it may create more confusion for future taxonomists of the group.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFBAFF87BAF42ED3FCD0C3A8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB8FF81BAF42BF7FD83C23C.text	B20E4654FFB8FF81BAF42BF7FD83C23C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis orcina Szymczakowski 1975	<div><p>Adelopsis orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 new status</p><p>(Figs. 62–75)</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus orcinus Szymczakowski, 1975: 18 [and Figs. 3–7].</p><p>Adelopsis brunnea orcina; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (spelling corrected to feminine gender).</p><p>Type material examined: (Probable) Holotype male, 4 males and 2 females in CBCV. Note: The original description listed holotype male and 1 male and 1 female paratypes in CBCV (and 1 male paratype in ISZP), but we had access to 7 specimens (5 males, 2 females, all with the same data). Labels: “Uria: Sierra de Coro / m. 1100 Edo. FA [Falcón State] // Cueva de Camburales // Venez. Bordón / leg. 17 vi 1973 ”. Note: one male specimen (1.9 mm) was previously dissected (thus we understand it is the holotype), and the tip of the aedeagus is broken and the genital segment and previous abdominal segment were missing. We dissected two additional males (both 2.0 mm, one of them attached to the same pin as the ‘holotype’), which are here illustrated, and the two females, one of them (1.95 mm) here illustrated (and the second female has the same type of spermatheca).</p><p>Length: 2.1–2.4 mm (original description); 1.9–2.25 mm (males) and 1.9–1.95 mm (females) (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Cueva de Camburales, Sierra de Coro, 1100 m, Uria, Falcón State, Venezuela .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 62). Winged. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down wide trapezoid with the apical margin almost straight, slightly curved outward (Figs. 71, 74). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus (Fig. 71). Proportion aedeagus/ elytron = 0.32–0.33. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with short branches (Fig. 69). The emargination of the posterior margin of the last male ventrite is undulate (Fig. 68) (but we understand that the view in which the illustration is made may interfere in the final interpretation). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 66). Spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 75). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.11.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Falcón State: known only from type locality (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. As proposed in Gnaspini (1996: 539) and Peck et al. (1998: 62), all subspecies of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 are here raised to species status. The combination of the variation observed on aedeagus, genital segment, eyes, antenna, male mesotibia, and spermatheca allow taxon recognition (see discussion under each of these taxa).</p><p>The genital segment of A. orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. has a spiculum gastrale with divided apex (Figs. 69, 82). Actually, the spiculum gastrale of the male specimens of A. orcina here examined markedly differ from the original description (Szymczakowski, 1975: Fig. 7). Our interpretation is that Szymczakowski commited a mistake in his drawing based on the fact that a divided spiculum gastrale was not known, and probably not expected, at that time.</p><p>The tip of the aedeagus of A. orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 70–74) resembles that of other species in the group, for instance, of A. azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 31–35) and A. brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 41–45), but the body of the aedeagus seems more robust. Therefore, we here prefer to keep this taxon as a separate species, but we intend to make a more careful examination of all species in the group.</p><p>The broken aedeagus has a “typical” coiled piece below the flagellum. This piece was not observed on the other two males examined (maybe our fault), but appears on the specimens of A. pteromoria here illustrated—the aedeagus of the latter species has a typical right lobe (as in Figs. 79–80), which unfortunately could not be compared to the tip of the broken aedeagus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB8FF81BAF42BF7FD83C23C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFBFFF83BAF42F0BFC78C748.text	B20E4654FFBFFF83BAF42F0BFC78C748.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis pteromoria Szymczakowski 1975	<div><p>Adelopsis pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 new status</p><p>(Figs. 76–88)</p><p>Adelopsis brunneus pteromorius Szymczakowski, 1975: 21 [and Figs. 17–25].</p><p>Adelopsis brunnea pteromoria; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (spelling corrected to feminine gender).</p><p>Type material examined: (Probable) Holotype male and 4 males in CBCV. Note: The original description listed holotype male (4-VII-1971) and 1 male and 3 female paratypes (either 4- or 17-VII-1971, not clear which specimen of which date) in CBCV (and 1 male and 1 female paratypes in ISZP), but we had access to 5 male specimens (all with the same data; and all with same aedeagus, genital segment, and seemingly typical protibia) and no female. Labels: “Cerro Caparade / Cueva del Tigre / m. 300 Edo. FA. [Falcón State] // Venez. Bordón / leg. 4.vii.1971 ”. One specimen (2.6 mm) with red square label (probably the holotype) here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.2–2.7 mm (original description); 2.6 mm (one male with red square—illustrated), 2.2 mm (other male with red square), and 2.65 mm (remaining males) (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Cueva del Tigre, 300 m, Cerro Capadare, Falcón State, Venezuela .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 83). Winged. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down wide trapezoid with the apical side strongly wider than the basal side, and with the apical margin curved outward and bearing a slight emargination medially (Figs. 77, 79). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus and bearing a?-shaped basal piece (Figs. 76, 77). Proportion aedeagus/ elytron = 0.29. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with short branches (Fig. 82). The sides of emargination of the posterior margin of the last male ventrite are projected (Fig. 81) (but we understand that the view in which the illustration is made may interfere in the final interpretation). Male protibia seems curved medially (Fig. 86) (but we understand that the view in which the illustration is made may interfere in the final interpretation). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 87). Females not examined.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Falcón State: known only from type locality (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. As proposed in Gnaspini (1996: 539) and Peck et al. (1998: 62), all subspecies of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 are here raised to species status. The combination of the variation observed on aedeagus, genital segment, eyes, antenna, male mesotibia, and spermatheca allow taxon recognition (see discussion under each of these taxa).</p><p>The genital segment of A. pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. has a spiculum gastrale with divided apex (Figs. 82, 69). The tip of the aedeagus of A. pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 76–80) is wide and bears pointy projections laterally, being markedly different from that of other species in the group. The aedeagus seems to have a “typical” coiled piece below the flagellum, also seeming exclusive to this species (but see Taxonomic Remarks under A. orcina, above). The sides of the medial emargination of the last ventrite seem projected and pointy (Fig. 81), also different from all other species in the group, although this might be a result of the view illustrated. Therefore, we here prefer to keep this taxon as a separate species, but we intend to make a more careful examination of all species in the group.</p><p>The spermatheca illustrated by Szymczakowski (1975: Fig. 25) is probably broken, considering that the spermatheca of the species of the group ascutellaris is generally coiled. Unfortunately, we did not have female specimens among the specimens examined to verify the shape of the spermatheca.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFBFFF83BAF42F0BFC78C748	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFBDFF8DBAF42897FE3FC0ED.text	B20E4654FFBDFF8DBAF42897FE3FC0ED.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis ruficollis (Portevin 1903)  1903	<div><p>Adelopsis ruficollis (Portevin, 1903)</p><p>(Figs. 89–106)</p><p>Catops ruficollis Portevin, 1903: 166 [and Fig. 7].</p><p>Adelopsis heterocera Portevin, 1907: 72 [and Fig. 2a,b]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen; spelling corrected to original form, feminine gender); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group). n. syn.</p><p>Ptomaphagus ruficollis; Jeannel, 1922: 42 (footnote 2)</p><p>Ptomaphagus heterocerus; Jeannel, 1922: 42 (and footnote 2).</p><p>Adelopsis ruficollis; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 100–102] (combination not stated as taxonomic change — see Taxonomic Note) (types seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group ascutellaris); Salgado, 2010: 215 (assignment to group elephas). Here returned to group ascutellaris.</p><p>Adelopsis heterocerus; Jeannel, 1936: 67 [and Figs. 98–99] (combination not stated as taxonomic change—see Taxonomic Note) (types seen).</p><p>Type material of A. ruficollis examined: 2 “ type ” males in MNHN ( Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syntypesseveral specimens, sex not given, in original description (and in Jeannel, 1936). Labels: “ Cochabamba / Bolivie // Ptomaphagus ruficollis Port. ” and “ Cochabamba / Bolivie / Germain // Jeannel vidit // C. ruficollis Prt // Ptomaphagus ruficollis Port. ”. Note: the second specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus was missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]; the first specimen was here dissected and illustrated. Both specimens share a reduced eye and are considered to belong in the same species .</p><p>For taxonomic reasons, the first male “type”, here dissected, is here designated as lectotype; and the remaining specimens (including those not examined here) as paralectotypes.</p><p>Length: 2.1 mm (original description); 2.0 mm (Jeannel, 1936); 2.3 mm (our measurement—both specimens).</p><p>Type locality: Cochabamba, [Cochabamba Department], Bolivia. Note: Jeannel, 1936 included “ 2500 m, on the Andes”, which is not in type labels .</p><p>Type material of A. heterocera examined: 2 “type” males in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541).—assumed as syn-types— 3 male syntypes in original description [Jeannel (1936) referred to several specimens]. Labels: “ Cochabamba / Germain” // “Jeannel vidit” and “ Cochabamba / Bolivie / Germain”. Note: both specimens were previously dissected, and the aedeagus of both were missing, and the genital segment of the first was also missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. PG had previously examined one of the types (here illustrated).</p><p>Length: 1.8 mm (original description and Jeannel, 1936); 1.9 and 1.8 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality of A. heterocera: Cochabamba, [Cochabamba Department], Bolivia .</p><p>Taxonomic Note. Jeannel, 1922: 42 (and footnote 2) synonymized “ Adelopsis Portevin [1907] (type species: A. heterocera Port.)” under “ Ptomaphagus Illiger [1798]” (and included “ Ptomaphagus ruficollis ” Portevin [1903]), which was followed by Hatch, 1928: 164, 168. However, Jeannel, 1936: 66–67 did not mention his synonymy and he seemed to treat both species as if he considered them in Adelopsis in 1922.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes very reduced in size (Figs. 97, 103). Last antennomere deeply concave (Fig. 105). Elytra truncate, with rounded projections close to the internal border (Figs. 96, 99). Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to Jeannel, 1936 (key couplet)]. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subquadrate with the apical margin straight (Figs. 90, 92, 101), thin, almost pointy, in lateral view (Figs. 89, 91, 100). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus and undulate (Figs. 90, 101). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.30. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width about three times as wide as the rounded base (Figs. 95, 102). Female unknown (at least not examined).</p><p>Distribution. Bolivia: Cochabamba Department: known only from type locality (original descriptions; Jeannel, 1936; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. Although the sizes of the specimens of the two species are slightly different, the two species share significant features, especially the reduced eyes and the elytra (see below); the aedeagus, the flagellum of the aedeagus, and genital segment are very similar; and both species share the same type locality. Therefore, we here consider A. heterocera (the original type species of Adelopsis) a junior synonym of A. ruficollis .</p><p>The elytra are indeed truncate, as illustrated in original descriptions (Portevin, 1903: Fig. 7, 1907: Fig. 1) and have rounded projections close to the internal border (Figs. 96, 99), which seem to be an unique feature among species of Adelopsis . The concave nature of the last antennomere (especially when seen in lateral view—Fig. 105 and Fig. 2 in Portevin, 1907) also seems to be a diagnostic feature of the species. A ventrally concave last antennomere has been recorded in a few species, mostly from Central America and mostly in the group elephas, but also in group ascutellaris ( A. albipinna Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. coronaria Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. gilli Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. pileata Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. rostrata Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. sinuosa Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, A. stella Gnaspini and Peck, 1996).</p><p>The detailed view of the aedeagus tip of A. ruficollis illustrated in Jeannel (1936: Fig. 102) seems to be in error, when compared to our drawings. We could not see a projection; which led Salgado (2010: 215) to assign this species to group elephas.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFBDFF8DBAF42897FE3FC0ED	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB3FF8CBAF42C67FB2AC570.text	B20E4654FFB3FF8CBAF42C67FB2AC570.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis bellator Szymczakowski 1968	<div><p>Adelopsis bellator Szymczakowski, 1968</p><p>(Figs. 107–113)</p><p>Adelopsis bellator Szymczakowski, 1968: 15 [and Figs. 5–12]; Salgado, 2010: 213 (restablishment of original spelling, not stated as taxonomic change, probably as a lapsus; assignment to group). Note: we here adopt the original spelling.</p><p>Adelopsis bellatrix; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (unjustified emendation—‘bellator’ is a noun, not an adjective) (holotype and paratypes seen).</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male and 13 paratypes (males and females) in ZMHB (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Peru, Dep Cuzco / Cajon, Bergland / 1500m / Garlepp S.V. / XII.1900 ” . Paratypes with same data except for different dates, between XI.1900 and I.1901 (Szymczakowski, 1968: 18 refers to 15 paratypes). One paratype male (XII.1900 —aedeagus confers with that of holotype) and one female (I.1901) here illustrated .</p><p>Length: 2.2 mm (holotype) and 1.95–2.35 mm (paratypes) (original description; which confers with our measurement of the holotype examined); 2.0– 2.4 mm (males and females) (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Bergland, Cajon, Cuzco Department, Peru .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 111). Winged. (It seems to have) No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subquadrate with the apical margin curved outward, and densely covered with short setae ventrally (Figs. 108, 109), thin, almost pointy, in lateral view (Fig. 107). Flagellum shorter (about 1/ 4 in length) than aedeagus and with seemingly bifid apex (Fig. 108). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.27. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width about twice as wide as the rounded base (Fig. 110). Spermatheca with 1-turn placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a long, seemingly twisted body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 112). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.10.</p><p>Distribution. Peru: Cuzco Department (original description; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. This species can be easily recognized by its aedeagus, which is straight (unique in the genus), and with the ventral face of the right lobe thoroughly covered with short setae (Fig. 109); the apical margin of the right lobe is rounded, also differently from other species in the group. In A. longipalpus Gnaspini and Peck, 2001, from Colombia, the body of the aedeagus is also straight, but the tip is curved ventrad.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB3FF8CBAF42C67FB2AC570	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB1FF88BAF42E1BFB79C6D4.text	B20E4654FFB1FF88BAF42E1BFB79C6D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis benardi (Portevin 1923) in Szymczakowski 1963	<div><p>Adelopsis benardi (Portevin, 1923)</p><p>(Figs. 114–127)</p><p>Ptomaphagus benardi Portevin, 1923: 380 [as 1823 in Jeannel, 1936: 65].</p><p>Adelopsis benardi; Jeannel, 1936: 65 [and Figs. 92–93] (combination not stated as taxonomic change, because he did not mention the species was not described under Adelopsis) (type seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Brésil, Theresopolis? / Coll. A. Grouvelle 1917” // “ Ptomaphagus benardi / det. G. Portevin ”.</p><p>One additional female also labeled “ type ” in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Brasilien / S. Paulo: / Alto da Serra / 10.1926. F. Chaus leg. / Eing. Nr.27, 1928”. Notes: (1) this female is not listed in the original description, and it is listed in Jeannel (1936), but not as a type, and it is listed as from “Mus. Hambourg” [ZMUH]; (2) because this female is from a different locality, it is not possible to be sure that it belongs in the same species, and this should be considered a doubtful record. Both specimens here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.5 mm (original description); 3.0 mm (Jeannel, 1936); 2.6 mm (male) and 2.55 mm (female, doubtful record) (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: “? Teresópolis”, [Rio de Janeiro State], Brazil. Note: Jeannel, 1936: 66 listed the locality either with or without the “?”, but the type label indeed reads “Theresopolis?” (see above) .</p><p>Additional material examined (misidentification): 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 670 [and Figs. 8–9], as “ bernardi ” [sic], with a redescription—Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Adelopsis szymczakowskii sp. n.</p><p>Taxonomic Notes.</p><p>1) A Szymczakowski (1963: 670) record from São Paulo State is here recognized as a different species ( A. szymczakowskii sp. n., see above), and it is not possible to recognize which part of the redescription given could be used as description of A. benardi .</p><p>2) Salgado (2005: 969 [and Figs. 16–17]) examined several specimens from Santa Catarina, Brazil (from MHNG and CPMG) and one male from Paraguay (from MHNG), which are far from the type locality, and identified them as belonging to this species. Comparing his figure 16 with the type male genital segment illustrated here, we interpret his identification as a misidentification. Unfortunately, he did not mention if this illustration refers to Santa Catarina or Paraguay specimens; but, because his figure 17 certainly refers to Santa Catarina (because he had females only from that locality), we may interpret (with no certainty) that figure 16 refers to a male of the same locality. Therefore, the female record may also be in error, and it is at least a doubtful record. Moreover, both Salgado (2005: 969) and Salgado (2015: 33, where he added more records from Santa Catarina) did not include Paraguay in the Distribution of this species (although he clearly stated, in 2005, that Santa Catarina was a new record). Therefore, the Paraguay record should be treated with caution at all. Yet, A. guarani Salgado, 2010 was described from Paraguay, unfortunately based only on a female, and therefore here considered a nominal species, but should be checked against this record to verify if they might belong into the same species. Therefore, we preferred not to include Salgado (2005, 2015) as references for this species in the synonymic list above.</p><p>Moreover, the species of the subgroup grouvellei nov. (which have the genital segment as that illustrated in Salgado, 2005 in his Fig. 16) recorded in Santa Catarina are A. grouvellei (type from Bahia), A. asperoides (type from São Paulo), and A. luculenta (type from São Paulo), all three recorded for the first time in Santa Catarina also by Salgado (2005), and here considered doubtful records (see Taxonomic Note at each species). A fourth species of a similar case is A. aspera (type from São Paulo), which was recorded in Santa Catarina by Jeannel (1936) based on a female.</p><p>On the other hand, A. triangulifer is indeed recorded in both Santa Catarina and São Paulo States, based on the similarities of the aedeagus and genital segments based on illustrations, reinforcing the need for illustrating these features from several views, which was not done for the species cited in the previous paragraph.</p><p>3) We reinforce the statement that, because ptomaphagines (mainly the Neotropical ones) are very similar to each other based on external characters (with some exceptions, of course), it is difficult to relate female specimens to a given species without the presence of males in the same collection (and, even in this case, it may be difficult). Therefore, the female records in both Jeannel (1936) and Salgado (2005) should be considered doubtful records (and the latter may be in error—see Note 2, above). Yet, we examined the female cited in Jeannel (1936) (see our Fig. 127) and its spermatheca differs from that illustrated in Salgado (2005); therefore, at least one of those records (if not both) is in error.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 120). Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to Jeannel, 1936 (key couplet)]. Male ventrites with a pair of posterior projections (Figs. 125, 126). Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subtriangular (Fig. 116) with the apical margin deeply emarginated (Fig. 117), with a sinuate margin ending almost pointy, in lateral view (Fig. 114). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, strongly curved, almost forming a 1-turn coil (Figs. 114, 115). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.34. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment with a very short and wide base, with a curved margin, and divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 119). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 123). Male metatibia with a long, shallow emargination internally (Fig. 124).</p><p>The doubtful record female has a spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 127). Proportion spermatheca/ elytron = 0.10.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Rio de Janeiro State (original description; Jeannel, 1936, type seen; here).</p><p>Note: Doubtfull and Erroneous records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: Santa Catarina (Salgado, 2005, 2015) and São Paulo (Jeannel, 1936; Szymczakowski, 1963) States; Paraguay: Alto Paraná Department (Salgado, 2005).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The male metatibia, with a medial emargination internally, seems to be an external diagnostic character of this species, in addition to the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus, which is deeply emarginated in frontal view (Fig. 117). The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 114) also seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB1FF88BAF42E1BFB79C6D4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB6FF8BBAF42A23FE91C6D4.text	B20E4654FFB6FF8BBAF42A23FE91C6D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis insolita Szymczakowski 1961	<div><p>Adelopsis insolita Szymczakowski, 1961</p><p>(Figs. 128–136)</p><p>Adelopsis insolitus Szymczakowski, 1961: 144 [and Figs. 8–10]; Salgado, 2005: 963.</p><p>Adelopsis insolita; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (holotype seen; spelling corrected to feminine gender); Salgado, 2005: 971 [and Fig. 20], 2010: 213 (assignment to group).</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male in NHRS (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “Sta Catharina / Nova Teutonia / Brasil. /5.1938 / Fr. Plaumann ”. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.0 mm (original description); 2.05 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Nova Teutônia, Santa Catarina State, Brazil .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes seem slightly reduced (Fig. 133). Winged [differing from original description, as apterous]. Arm of the right lobe of the aedeagus elongate, with apex bent internally (Fig. 131). Proportion aedeagus/ elytron = 0.40, considerably large in comparison with other species in the genus. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment with a very short and wide base, with an almost straight margin, and divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 132). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 135). Female unknown.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Santa Catarina State: known only from vicinity of type locality (original description; Salgado, 2005; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 130, with a prolonged projection, also seen in Fig. 10 in Szymczakowski, 1961), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 131), seems to help in the recognition of this species, as well as a slightly reduced eye. Although our figures of the aedeagus are somewhat confusing because we did not add many details, we understand they are still useful for species recognition.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB6FF8BBAF42A23FE91C6D4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB5FF8BBAF42A23FBDFC1C1.text	B20E4654FFB5FF8BBAF42A23FBDFC1C1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis mrazi Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Adelopsis mrazi, new species</p><p>(Figs. 137–142)</p><p>Adelopsis grouvellei; Szymczakowski, 1963: 671 [and Figs. 10–12 or 13—it is not possible to recognize which one refers to the specimen here assigned to this species] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. grouvellei, below).</p><p>Holotype, male (NMPC). Type locality and data: Brazil: São Paulo State: São Paulo, Jaro Mráz leg. Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense ”. Specimen here illustrated. Note: specimen misidentified as Adelopsis grouvellei Jeannel, 1936 in Szymczakowski (1963: 671) — Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. grouvellei, below.</p><p>Length: 2.0 mm.</p><p>Short Description. Data on eyes and wings not observed. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subrectangular, with the apical margin straight (Fig. 140), with a rounded margin, in lateral view (Figs. 137, 139). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, strongly curved, almost forming a 1-turn coil. Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.39, considerably large in comparison with other species in the genus. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment with a very short and wide base, with a curved margin, and divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 142). Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given to honor Jaro Mráz, collector of the present species, and of many cholevines elsewhere.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 137), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 140), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB5FF8BBAF42A23FBDFC1C1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB4FF8ABAF42BF7FEFFC108.text	B20E4654FFB4FF8ABAF42BF7FEFFC108.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis szymczakowskii Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Adelopsis szymczakowskii, new species</p><p>(Figs. 143–149)</p><p>Adelopsis benardi; Szymczakowski, 1963: 670 (as “? bernardi ” [sic]) [and Figs. 8–9] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. benardi, above).</p><p>Holotype, male (NMPC). Type locality and data: Brazil: São Paulo State: São Paulo, Jaro Mráz leg. Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense ”. Specimen here illustrated. Note: specimen misidentified as Adelopsis benardi (Portevin, 1923) in Szymczakowski (1963: 670) — Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. benardi, above.</p><p>Length: 2.5 mm (our measurement; agrees with Szymczakowski, 1963).</p><p>Short Description. Data on eyes and wings not observed.Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subquadrate and bearing two triangular projections at the sides (Fig. 145), with a sinuate margin ending almost blunt with a pointy projection, in lateral view (Fig. 143). Flagellum almost as long as aedeagus, strongly curved and projected laterally, forming a tape-shaped coil longer than 1-turn (Fig. 143). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.33. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment with a very short and wide base, with a curved margin, and divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 147). Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given in honor of Wacław Szymczakowski, who examined the specimen, for his large contribution to systematics of cholevines.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 143), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 145) and the coiled tape shaped flagellum (Fig. 143), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB4FF8ABAF42BF7FEFFC108	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FFB4FFB5BAF42C17FAFCC48B.text	B20E4654FFB4FFB5BAF42C17FAFCC48B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis waclawi Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Adelopsis waclawi, new species</p><p>(Figs. 150–151)</p><p>Adelopsis grouvellei; Szymczakowski, 1963: 671 [and Figs. 10–12 or 13—it is not possible to recognize which one refers to the specimen here assigned to this species] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. grouvellei, below).</p><p>Holotype, male (NMPC). Type locality and data: Brazil: São Paulo State: São Paulo, Jaro Mráz leg. Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense”. One male paratype with same data. Holotype here illustrated. Note: specimens misidentified as Adelopsis grouvellei Jeannel, 1936 in Szymczakowski (1963: 671) —Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. grouvellei, below.</p><p>Length: 2.0– 2.3 mm.</p><p>Short Description. Eyes normal. Winged.Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subrectangular, with a rounded margin, in lateral view (Figs. 150, 151). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, strongly curved, almost forming a 1-turn coil (Fig. 150). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.35. Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given in honor of Wacław Szymczakowski, who examined the specimens, for his large contribution to systematics of cholevines.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 150) seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FFB4FFB5BAF42C17FAFCC48B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF8AFFB7BAF42BF7FD7EC1C0.text	B20E4654FF8AFFB7BAF42BF7FD7EC1C0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis grouvellei Jeannel 1936	<div><p>Adelopsis grouvellei Jeannel, 1936</p><p>(Figs. 152–163)</p><p>Adelopsis grouvellei Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 90–91]; Szymczakowski, 1963: 671 (redescription—but see Taxonomic Notes) (holotype and “ paratype ” seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen of the type locality in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Bahia, Brésil (tabacs) / A. Grouvelle, 1913”.</p><p>One additional female also labeled “ type ” in BMNH [listed under examined material in Jeannel, 1936, but not as type] (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / C. Darwin / Darwin coll. 1885-119 / Rio—8?9” [there is possibly a number between 8 and 9, but it is where the pin hole is placed]. Note: Because this female is from a different locality, it is not possible to be sure that it belongs in the same species, and this should be considered a doubtful record. Both specimens here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 3.0 mm (original description); 2.25 mm (male) and 2.0 mm (female, doubtful record) (our measurement). Note: our measurement highly differs from that in the original description.</p><p>Type locality: “ Bahia (collected in Paris on tobacco from Bahia)”, Brazil .</p><p>Additional material examined (misidentification): 3 males (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 671 [and Figs. 10–13]— Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—they belong in two different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Adelopsis mrazi sp. n. and Adelopsis waclawi sp. n.</p><p>Taxonomic Notes.</p><p>1) Szymczakowski (1963: 671) analysed the holotype and what he called a paratype (possibly the doubtful female “type” listed above), and three additional males from São Paulo [his Figs. 10–12 (one specimen) and 13 (a different specimen). The São Paulo records are here recognized as two different species ( A. mrazi sp. n. and A. waclawi sp. n. see above), but we could not relate either of them to Szymczakowski (1963) figures. Therefore, Szymczakowski (1963: 671) citation for A. grouvellei is partly right (holotype seen) and partly in error. Yet, Szymczakowski (1963) gave a redescription of the species, based on all specimens he examined (i.e., based on [at least] three different species); therefore, it is not possible to recognize which part could be used as description of A. grouvellei .</p><p>2) Szymczakowski (1970: 329 [and Fig. 1]) recorded this species in Paraná State, Brazil, and comments (as he did in 1963) that the tip of the aedeagus of this species is very variable, what we here recognize actually to be different species. Unfortunately, we could not relate Szymczakowski (1970) figures to a species, and not even to his 1963 figures (see previous note), and we did not have access to the material he examined. Therefore, this record should be considered at least to be doubtful, but it is probably erroneous (especially because of the large distance from the “ type locality”).</p><p>3) Salgado (2005: 969 [and Figs. 18–19], 2015: 33) recorded this species from Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Unfortunately, he did not illustrate the aedeagus (which is “mandatory” for the proper recognition of species in Adelopsis) and the genital segment illustrated (his Fig. 18) fits any species in the subgroup grouvellei here established. The spermatheca illustrated (his Fig. 19) is complex enough to possibly allow recognition of species, but differs from all spermatheca described so far. Yet, this record is distant from the “ type locality”, and other species occur in the area. Therefore, this record from Santa Catarina should, at least, be considered doubtfull. Other species of the subgroup grouvellei nov. recorded in Santa Catarina are A. asperoides and A. luculenta (both recorded for the first time in Santa Catarina also by Salgado, 2005), and A. aspera, recorded by Jeannel (1936) based on a female, all with types from São Paulo and here considered doubtful records (see Taxonomic Note at each species). On the other hand, A. triangulifer is indeed recorded in both Santa Catarina and São Paulo States, based on the similarities of the aedeagus and genital segments based on illustrations, reinforcing the need for illustrating these features from several views, which was not done for the species cited in the previous phrase.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal. Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to original description (key couplet)]. Male ventrites with a pair of posterior projections. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upsidedown trapezoid, with the apical margin curved outward and bearing a row of small tubercles (Figs. 154, 155), with a sinuate margin ending bluntly, in lateral view (Fig. 152). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, strongly curved, almost forming a 1-turn coil (Fig. 152). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.32. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 158). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 161).</p><p>The doubtful record female has a spermatheca with many narrow turns followed by a short and curved body ending in a rounded apical bulb (Fig. 163). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.13.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Bahia (original description; Szymczakowski, 1963; here),</p><p>Note: Doubtfull and Erroneous records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: Paraná (Szymczakowski, 1970), Rio de Janeiro (original description; Szymczakowski, 1963), Santa Catarina (Salgado, 2005, 2015), and São Paulo (Szymczakowski, 1963) States.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 152), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 155, which shows the diagnostic ‘tubercles’ along the apical margin of the right lobe), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF8AFFB7BAF42BF7FD7EC1C0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF88FFB1BAF42BF7FEBBC14C.text	B20E4654FF88FFB1BAF42BF7FEBBC14C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis aspera Jeannel 1936	<div><p>Adelopsis aspera Jeannel, 1936</p><p>(Figs. 164–178)</p><p>Adelopsis asper Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 94–96]; Szymczakowski, 1963: 675 (but see Taxonomic Notes).</p><p>Adelopsis aspera; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen; spelling corrected to feminine gender); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: “ Holotype ” male in BMNH and 1 “type” male and 1 “type” female in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Note: sex and number of specimens not given in original description, referred to as in BMNH and MNHN, but specimens from the type locality are listed only from BMNH; therefore we interpret that Jeannel considered the latter to be the holotype. Labels: “ Holotype ”: “Alto da Serra, São Paulo, / Brazil / G.E. Bryant 5.iii.1912 // G. Bryant Coll. 1919-147” // “ R. Jeannel det. n. sp.”; male “type” in MNHN with same labels except for date (28.ii.1916) (which aedeagus confers with that of the “ holotype ”); female “type” in MNHN: “Blumenau, Brasilia // 17334”. Because this female is from a different and distant locality, it is not possible to be sure that it belongs in the same species, and this should be considered a doubtful record. All specimens here illustrated .</p><p>Length: 2.0 mm (original description, which confers with the male from MNHN); 2.25 mm (“ holotype ” male), 2.0 mm (MNHN male), 1.8 mm (female) (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Alto da Serra, São Paulo State, Brazil [Note: “Alto da Serra ” is presently known as Paranapiacaba, a Biological Station and a settlement near (Southeast of) São Paulo city] .</p><p>Additional material examined (doubtful record): 4 females (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 675- Brazil: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Note: Szymczakowski (1963) also listed one additional male (which was not received by us for examination, or illustrated by him). Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt. / Mus Pragense”. Length: 1.95–2.1 mm. Note: this is considered a doubtful record because it is based on females (and the male was not illustrated), and the 2-turns spermatheca is common among species of Adelopsis, and because other species have been described from São Paulo, with females (and, therefore, spermatheca) unknown ( A. asperoides, A. luculenta, A. mrazi sp. n., A. szymczakowskii sp. n., A. waclawi sp. n.). Two specimens dissected, one is here illustrated.</p><p>Taxonomic Notes.</p><p>1) In addition to the doubtful record of a female from Santa Catarina cited in material examined, Jeannel (1936: 66) also recorded “ Paraguay ”, without mentioning number or sex of specimen(s), in DEIC (as “Museum Dahlem”; not examined). Yet, A. guarani Salgado, 2010 was described from Paraguay, unfortunately based only on a female, and therefore here considered a nominal species, but should be checked against this record to verify if they might belong into the same species. Again, considering the different and distant locality of those records, we consider both to be doubtful records.</p><p>2) The spermatheca of the female from MNHN differs from that of the females from NMPC, and we may conclude they belong in different species. Because Szymczakowski (1963: 675) did not illustrate the male he analysed from NMPC (and because we did not have access to this male), we cannot be sure if this record really refers to A. aspera . However, the NMPC specimens were collected in São Paulo, very close to the type locality and may refer to this species.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 171). Winged. Male ventrites with a pair of posterior projections (Figs. 174, 175). Right lobe of the aedeagus with a long arm and apex as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin trilobed (Fig. 169), with a sinuate margin ending bluntly, in lateral view (Figs. 164, 167). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 165). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.31–0.34. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 170).</p><p>The doubtful record female in MNHN (from Santa Catarina) has a spermatheca with a globose bulb placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a 3-turns coiled, followed by a long and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the rounded apical bulb (Figs. 176, 177). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.14. The doubtful record females in NMPC (from São Paulo) have a spermatheca similar to the previously described one except for the presence of a basal globose bulb (Fig. 178). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.13.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State (original description; here).</p><p>Note: Doubtfull records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: Santa Catarina (original description, a female) and São Paulo (Szymczakowski, 1963, females) States; “ Paraguay ” (original description).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 164, showing the very long arm of the right lobe), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 169, showing the very distinctive right lobe ending on a trilobed apex), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p><p>This species is a good example to show the need to illustrate as many views of the aedeagus as possible. For instance, Figs. 165 and 166 show dorsal views of the aedeagus, but the first is a little bit rotated towards the apex whereas the second is rotated towards the base, and they are quite different from each other. As it is, Fig. 165 shows that the tip of the right lobe is very different from that of A. benardi (as in Fig. 117), especially if we consider that a small difference in the angle of illustration may change the depth of the emargination observed. However, Fig. 169 shows a different pattern than that observed in Fig. 117, allowing recognition of species. Indeed, Fig. 96 in Jeannel (1936) also shows the trilobed tip of the right lobe, but the view used seems to ‘exagerate’ the length of the arm of the right lobe.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF88FFB1BAF42BF7FEBBC14C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF8EFFB3BAF42BF7FC4BC5AC.text	B20E4654FF8EFFB3BAF42BF7FC4BC5AC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis asperoides Szymczakowski 1963	<div><p>Adelopsis asperoides Szymczakowski, 1963</p><p>(Figs. 179–189)</p><p>Adelopsis asperoides Szymczakowski, 1963: 675 [and Figs. 18–21]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (holotype and paratype seen); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male and 1 paratype male in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus Pragense” . Holotype here illustrated. The aedeagus of the paratype agrees with that of the holotype.</p><p>Length: 2.2 mm (original description); 2.3–2.35 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: São Paulo, [São Paulo State], Brazil .</p><p>Additional material examined (misidentifications): 5 males (Gnaspini, 1993: 83 [and Figs. 23–29]— Brazil: Minas Gerais: Montes Claros, in cave) in MZSP—they belong in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Adelopsis claudina sp. n.</p><p>Taxonomic Notes.</p><p>1) The Gnaspini (1993: 83) record from Minas Gerais State is here recognized as a different species ( A. claudina sp. n., see above).</p><p>2) Salgado (2005: 969 [and Figs. 14–15], 2015: 32) recorded this species from Santa Catarina State, Brazil (and still cited Gnaspini’s, 1993 record from Minas Gerais state, which was stated as a wrong record in Gnaspini, 1996: 540). Unfortunately, he did not illustrate the aedeagus (which is “mandatory” for the proper recognition of species in Adelopsis) and the genital segment illustrated (his Fig. 14) fits any species in the subgroup grouvellei here established. The spermatheca illustrated (his Fig. 15) is a 2-turns spermatheca, common to several species of the genus (as can be seen in several species here illustrated). Yet, this record is far from the “ type locality”, and other species occur in the area. Therefore, this record from Santa Catarina should, at least, be considered doubtfull. Other species of the subgroup grouvellei nov. recorded in Santa Catarina are A. grouvellei (type from Bahia) and A. luculenta (type from São Paulo) (both recorded for the first time in Santa Catarina also by Salgado, 2005), and A. aspera (type from São Paulo), recorded by Jeannel (1936) based on a female, all here considered doubtful records (see Taxonomic Note at each species). On the other hand, A. triangulifer is indeed recorded in both Santa Catarina and São Paulo States, based on the similarities of the aedeagus and genital segments based on illustrations, reinforcing the need for illustrating these features from several views, which was not done for the species cited in the previous phrase.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal (Fig. 187). Winged. Male ventrites with a pair of posterior projections. Right lobe of the aedeagus with a long arm and apex as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin emarginated (Fig. 183), with a sinuate margin ending bluntly, in lateral view (Figs. 179, 181). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 180). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.27. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 186).</p><p>Female originally unknown. Salgado (2005) recorded this species from Santa Catarina, here considered a doubtful record, illustrating the spermatheca (his Fig. 15).</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State (original description; here).</p><p>Note: Doubtfull and Erroneous records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Minas Gerais (Gnaspini, 1993) and Santa Catarina (Salgado, 2005, 2015) States.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The lateral view of the aedeagus (Fig. 179), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Figs. 183, 184, showing the very distinctive ‘Y’-shaped crest, also illustrated in Fig. 21 in Szyczakowski, 1963), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF8EFFB3BAF42BF7FC4BC5AC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF8DFFB2BAF428BBFDF8C137.text	B20E4654FF8DFFB2BAF428BBFDF8C137.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis luculenta Szymczakowski 1963	<div><p>Adelopsis luculenta Szymczakowski, 1963</p><p>(Figs. 190–195)</p><p>Adelopsis luculentus Szymczakowski, 1963: 673 [and Figs. 14–17].</p><p>Adelopsis luculenta; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (holotype seen; spelling corrected to feminine gender); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Note for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt. / Mus. Pragense”. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and the genital segment was missing. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 3.7 mm (original description and our measurement). It is a very large size when compared to other species in the genus.</p><p>Type locality: São Paulo, [São Paulo State], Brazil .</p><p>Taxonomic Note. Salgado (2005: 971 [and Figs. 21–22], 2015: 34) recorded this species from Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Unfortunately, he did not illustrate the aedeagus (which is “mandatory” for the proper recognition of species in Adelopsis) and the genital segment illustrated (his Fig. 21) fits any species in the subgroup grouvellei here established. The spermatheca illustrated (his Fig. 22) is a 2-turns spermatheca, common to several species of the genus (as can be seen in several species here illustrated). Salgado (2005) recorded size range as ‘2.60–3.70 mm’, the latter being exactly the size recorded in the original description; however, he did not state if this measurement was taken from the specimens he had at hand or from the original description—in other words, it is not possible to know if he had specimens as large as the holotype (which seems to be a diagnostic feature of the species) or not. Yet, this record is far from the “type locality”, and other species occur in the area. Therefore, this record from Santa Catarina should, at least, be considered doubtfull. Other species of the subgroup grouvellei nov. recorded in Santa Catarina are A. grouvellei (type from Bahia) and A. asperoides (type from São Paulo) (both recorded for the first time in Santa Catarina also by Salgado, 2005), and A. aspera (type from São Paulo), recorded by Jeannel (1936) based on a female, all here considered doubtful records (see Taxonomic Note for each species). On the other hand, A. triangulifer is indeed recorded in both Santa Catarina and São Paulo States, based on the similarities of the aedeagus and genital segments based on illustrations, reinforcing the need for illustrating these features from several views, which was not done for the species cited in the previous phrase.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal. Winged. (It seems to have) No posterior projections on male ventrites. Right lobe of the aedeagus with a long arm and apex as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin straight (Figs. 191, 193), with a curved margin ending bluntly, in lateral view (Figs. 190, 192). Flagellum almost as long as aedeagus, strongly curved and projected laterally, forming a tape-shaped 1-turn coil (Fig. 190). Proportion aedeagus/ elytron = 0.24. Genital segment missing.</p><p>Female originally unknown. Salgado (2005) recorded this species from Santa Catarina, here considered a doubtful record, illustrating the spermatheca (his Fig. 22).</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State (original description; here).</p><p>Note: Doubtfull records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Santa Catarina State (Salgado, 2005, 2015).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks.</p><p>1) The lateral view of the aedeagus (Figs. 190, 192), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Figs. 191, 192), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p><p>The original illustration of the aedeagus (Szymczakowski, 1963: Fig. 17) is somewhat confusing because he did not highlight the presence of a coiled tape-shaped flagellum, but the axis of the flagellum is highlighted and resembles our figures.</p><p>This species is also distinctive by its large size when compared to other species in the genus and by the pointy tip of the antenna (Fig. 194), which has been rarely recorded in the genus (especially when the group benardi is considered).</p><p>2) This species is tentatively assigned to subgroup, since the genital segment (which is here considered important for subgroup assignment) is unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF8DFFB2BAF428BBFDF8C137	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF83FFBDBAF42BF7FE74C594.text	B20E4654FF83FFBDBAF42BF7FE74C594.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis claudina Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Adelopsis claudina, new species</p><p>Adelopsis asperoides; Gnaspini, 1993: 83 [and Figs. 23–29] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under A. asperoides, above).</p><p>Holotype, male (MZSP). Type locality and data: Brazil: Minas Gerais State: Montes Claros, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-44.004166&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-19.660833" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -44.004166/lat -19.660833)">Lapa da Claudina</a> (MG- 088, 19º39’39” S 44º00’15” W), X-1985, F. Chaimowicz leg. 4 male paratypes with same data . <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-44.004166&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-19.660833" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -44.004166/lat -19.660833)">Notes</a>: 1) we here assign as holotype the specimen illustrated in <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-44.004166&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-19.660833" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -44.004166/lat -19.660833)">Gnaspini</a> (1993); 2) specimens misidentified as Adelopsis asperoides Szymczakowski, 1963 in Gnaspini (1993: 83) — <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-44.004166&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-19.660833" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -44.004166/lat -19.660833)">Gnaspini</a>, 1996: 540, and see <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-44.004166&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-19.660833" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -44.004166/lat -19.660833)">Notes under A.</a> asperoides, above.</p><p>Short Description (based on figures in Gnaspini, 1993). Data on eyes and wings not observed. Right lobe of the aedeagus with a long arm and apex subrectangular with the apical margin straight, with a curved margin ending bluntly, in lateral view. Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus and with seemingly bifid apex. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with long branches. Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given as a noun in apposition, referring to the type locality.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Minas Gerais State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The combination of the lateral and frontal views of the aedeagus and size and shape of the flagellum (as in Figs. 23–26 in Gnaspini, 1993) seem to help in the recognition of this species. In lateral view, the tip of the aedeagus resembles that of A. luculenta (see Figs. 190, 192), but the apical opening of the aedeagus seems to be larger in the latter species and the flagellum is quite different.</p><p>This is a good example of the need to carefully examine and illustrate the apex of the aedeagus. Based only on illustrations in Szymczakowski (1963), Gnaspini (1993) misidentified this species as A. asperoides Szymczakowski, 1963 .When he started a revision of the genus and examined types (Gnaspini, 1996), he recognized differences when several views were taken.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF83FFBDBAF42BF7FE74C594	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF83FFBFBAF42E8AFCEAC7A4.text	B20E4654FF83FFBFBAF42E8AFCEAC7A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis bruchi (Pic 1926)	<div><p>Adelopsis bruchi (Pic, 1926)</p><p>(Figs. 196–208)</p><p>Ptomaphagus bruchi Pic, 1926: 1 .</p><p>Adelopsis bruchi; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 73–74] (combination not stated as taxonomic change, because he did not mention the species was not described under Adelopsis) (type seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group benardi). Here assigned to group bruchi nov.</p><p>Type material examined: 2 “ type ” males and 1 “ type ” female in MNHN and 3 “ type ” specimens in MACN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syntypes—sex and number of specimens not given in original description, but referred to Bruch and Pic collections [but Jeannel, 1936 referred to only “ 1 male, in Pic collection”]. Labels [MNHN specimens]: “R. Argentine / Prov. B. Ayres / C. Bruch ” // “ Ptomaphagus bruchi ” // “Jeannel vidit”. Additional 1 male and 1 female attached to the same pin with same data added of date “ 9.vii.1923 ”. All 3 MNHN specimens as well as one type male from MACN here illustrated .</p><p>For taxonomic reasons, the MNHN male “type” singly attached to a pin is here designated as lectotype; and the remaining specimens as paralectotypes.</p><p>Length: 2.5 mm (original description); 2.8 mm (Jeannel, 1936); 2.3 mm (our measurement, all 3 MNHN specimens).</p><p>Type locality: “ Argentina ” [Jeannel, 1936 added “ Buenos Aires ”] .</p><p>Additional material examined: 24 specimens in MACN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Prov. B. Aires / 09 vii 1923 / C. Bruch ” .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal. Winged. Male ventrites with a pair of posterior projections.Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus seemingly subquadrate in dorsal or ventral views (Figs. 203, 205), but clearly pointy, subtriangular in frontal view (Fig. 196), and pointy in lateral view (Figs. 202, 204). Flagellum thick and shorter (about 1/ 3 in length) than aedeagus, with a bent apex (Fig. 203). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.27. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment divided at apex, with long branches (Fig. 206). Male mesotibia curved, slightly bent internally (Fig. 201). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Figs. 207, 208). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.12.</p><p>Distribution. Argentina: Buenos Aires Province: known only from type locality (from type labels [incomplete data in original description]; Jeannel, 1936; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The pointy aedeagus in lateral view (Figs. 202, 204), together with the frontal view of the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus (Figs. 196, 203), seems to help in the recognition of this species.</p><p>This species is another good example to show the need to illustrate as many views of the aedeagus as possible. For instance, the pointy nature of the apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus can be observed in frontal view of the apex (Fig. 196), but cannot be seen in dorsal view (Fig. 203), which is also different from Fig. 74 in Jeannel (1936), illustrated with the adeagus slightly rocked towards its apex, in which the opening of the aedeagus appears deeper and the left lobe appears longer when compared to our Fig. 203.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF83FFBFBAF42E8AFCEAC7A4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF87FFB8BAF4294BFE7CC28C.text	B20E4654FF87FFB8BAF4294BFE7CC28C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis triangulifer Szymczakowski 1961	<div><p>Adelopsis triangulifer Szymczakowski, 1961</p><p>(Figs. 209–219)</p><p>Adelopsis triangulifer Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 [and Figs. 4–7], 1963: 670; Salgado, 2005: 963 (type seen [the only reference he made to the species in the whole text]), 2015: 3 (in Abstract). Here assigned to group triangulifer nov. Note: we here readopt the original spelling (see Taxonomic Note).</p><p>Adelopsis triangulifera; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (holotype seen; unjustified emendation—see Taxonomic Note); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 434 (tentative assignment to group camella); Salgado 2010: 213 (assignment to group ascutellaris), 2015: 34 [and Figs. 26–28].</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male in NHRS (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “Sta Catharina / Nova Teutonia / Brasil., /5.1939 / Fr. Plaumann ”. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.0 mm (original description); 1.98–2.3 mm (Salgado, 2015); 2.0 (NHRS) and 1.9 (NMPC) mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Nova Teutônia, Santa Catarina State, Brazil .</p><p>Additional material examined: 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 670— Brazil: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt. / Mus. Pragense”. Note: the aedeagus, genital segment, and last ventrite confer with those of the holotype .</p><p>Taxonomic Note. Gnaspini (1996) corrected all species names in Adelopsis to the feminine gender. However, since latin words ending with -fer are either adjectives or nouns, and article 31.2.2. of ICZN (see ICZN, 1999) states that a name should be considered to be a noun in apposition when the original author did not state the intention either to use a noun or an adjective and there is no evidence of intention (although Szymczakowski wrongly used masculine adjectives for other species names in Adelopsis), we here reestablish the original spelling.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal. Winged [differing from original description, as apterous]. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus pointy and triangular in both frontal and lateral views (Figs. 209–212). Left lobe of the aedeagus subtriangular and broad, resulting in a narrow, slit-shaped dorsal opening (Fig. 210). Flagellum shorter (about 1/ 4 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 210). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.42, considerably large in comparison with other species in the genus. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight (Fig. 214). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally (Fig. 218).</p><p>Female originally unknown. Salgado (2015) added some records from near the type locality illustrating the spermatheca (his Fig. 28).</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Santa Catarina (original description; Salgado, 2015; here) and São Paulo (Szymczakowski, 1963; here) States.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The pointy aedeagus in both frontal and lateral views and the shape of the short left lobe of the aedeagus (Figs. 209–212) seem to help in the recognition of this species. As commented above, for group triangulifer nov., the resemblance of the genital features with those of the genus Ptomaphagus is high, including the elongate, pointy tiped aedeagus, the straight spiculum gastrale of the genital segment, and the ‘simpler’ spermatheca (S-shaped [from Salgado, 2015], and not coiled as in most species of Adelopsis), except for the trapezoidal ligula, typical of species of Adelopsis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF87FFB8BAF4294BFE7CC28C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF86FFBBBAF42C5BFBD2C2FD.text	B20E4654FF86FFBBBAF42C5BFBD2C2FD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Adelopsis darwini Jeannel 1936	<div><p>Adelopsis darwini Jeannel, 1936</p><p>(Figs. 220–222)</p><p>Adelopsis darwini Jeannel, 1936: 66; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen). Type material examined: Holotype female [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in BMNH (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Maldonado, Uruguay / C. Darwin // Darwin coll. 1885-119”. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 3.0 mm (original description); 2.45 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Maldonado, [Maldonado Department], Uruguay .</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes normal. Winged. Female mesotibia curved (Fig. 222). Spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 220). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.10. Male unknown.</p><p>Distribution. Uruguay: Maldonado Department: known only from type locality (original description).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks.</p><p>1) This species was not assigned to species group in Salgado (2010) (and kept here as not assigned) because it was based only on a female.</p><p>2) The specimen has a 2-turns spermatheca and a curved mesotibia, which fits in several species of Adelopsis . Therefore, although it is the only species recorded so far from Uruguay, we understand it should be considered a ‘nominal species’ (a species inquirenda), because it could probably not be recognized.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF86FFBBBAF42C5BFBD2C2FD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF85FFBBBAF42E4AFAE7C095.text	B20E4654FF85FFBBBAF42E4AFAE7C095.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Parapaulipalpina Gnaspini	<div><p>Genus Parapaulipalpina Gnaspini</p><p>Parapaulipalpina Gnaspini, 1996: 524 . Type species: Parapaulipalpina dentata Gnaspini (orig. des.).</p><p>= Viruana Salgado, 2013a: 89 (as subgenus of Excelsiorella Salgado [2008], synonymized under Adelopsis Portevin [1907] by Gnaspini et al., 2016: 274); Gnaspini et al., 2016: 274 syn. Type species: Excelsiorella tambopata Salgado (orig. des.).</p><p>Besides the typical characters of the tribe, species of Parapaulipalpina are characterized by having (based on Gnaspini, 1996): Small body. Antenna somewhat short. Aedeagus elongate, apical orifice dorsally subterminal and cutting the apex of the aedeagus slightly left from the median axis; the dorsal opening being somewhat oval in shape; aedeagus somewhat S-shaped in dorsal view; flagellum elongate, longer than the aedeagus; basal bulb of the flagellum placed outside the aedeagus in rest position. Genital segment globular, spiculum gastrale straight and somewhat long. Male ventrites bear no projections. Spermatheca bearing a 2-turns coil and a long apical bulb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF85FFBBBAF42E4AFAE7C095	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF85FFBABAF42C62FADBC1B6.text	B20E4654FF85FFBABAF42C62FADBC1B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Parapaulipalpina filicornis (Jeannel 1936)	<div><p>Parapaulipalpina filicornis (Jeannel, 1936)</p><p>(Figs. 223–227)</p><p>Adelopsis filicornis Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 83–85].</p><p>Ptomaphagus ascutellaris [species today in Adelopsis]; Jeannel, 1922: 21, 25, 42 (misidentification—see Taxonomic Note).</p><p>Parapaulipalpina filicornis; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen).</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “Nov. Gren. [Nova Grenada, a former name for Colombia] // Magd…” [not possible to read properly, but probably referring to Magdalena Department]. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus and genital segment were missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 2.0 mm (original description); 1.75 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: “ Colombia ” .</p><p>Additional material examined (misidentification): 1 additional female labeled “ type ” in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541) which actually belongs in the genus Paulipalpina (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here referred to as Paulipalpina sp. at the end of the section on Paulipalpina .</p><p>Taxonomic Note (misidentification): When describing “ Adelopsis filicornis ”, Jeannel 1936 added in the synonymic list “ ascutellaris Jeannel, 1922, Arch. Zool. exp., t. 61, p. 21 et 42, fig. 26 (not Murray)” as if his 1922 “ ascutellaris ” was an homonym, but Jeannel 1922: 21, 35, 42, fig. 26 always referred to the latter species as “ Ptomaphagus ascutellaris Murray ” [1856], never as a “new species”. Therefore, we here understand this was a case of misidentification and not homonym, and “ filicornis ” was not intended to be a “new name”, as wrongly interpreted by Peck et al., 1998: 63.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes reduced. Antenna slender. Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to original description (key couplet)]. Aedeagus and genital segment missing. Female unknown.</p><p>Distribution. Colombia: probably Magdalena Department: known only from “ type locality” (original description [only “ Colombia ”]; here).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. Because the aedeagus was missing, the generic assignment was based on Fig. 85 in Jeannel (1936) —this species was placed by Gnaspini (1996) in Parapaulipalpina because the last maxillary palpomere is not smaller than the penultimate, and the aedeagus is somewhat S-shaped, with the genital orifice cutting medially and a very long flagellum. However, the antenna is indeed slender, as is the case with species of Paulipalpina .</p><p>The strongly reduced eyes have not been recorded so far among species in the genus (and also not in Paulipalpina, although reduced eyes have been recorded), and may be considered a diagnostic feature of the species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF85FFBABAF42C62FADBC1B6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9BFFA5BAF42BF7FC76C4AD.text	B20E4654FF9BFFA5BAF42BF7FC76C4AD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina Gnaspini and Peck	<div><p>Genus Paulipalpina Gnaspini and Peck</p><p>Paulipalpina Gnaspini and Peck, 1996: 434 . Type species: Adelopsis claudicans Szymczakowski (orig. des.).</p><p>Besides the typical characters of the tribe, species of Paulipalpina are characterized by having (based on Gnaspini and Peck, 1996): Antenna slim, giving the impression of being elongate, reaching base of elytra when laid back; last segment lighter in color. Last segment of the palp about half the length of the previous segment. Aedeagus elongate, apical orifice dorsally subterminal and cutting the apex of the aedeagus slightly left from the median axis; the dorsal opening being somewhat oval in shape; flagellum somewhat elongate, from 0.5 to 0.8 times as long as the aedeagus. Genital segment globular, spiculum gastrale straight and short. In several of the species studied, the male mesotibia is bent medially (in which case, the female mesotibia is generally curved), and in some cases it is not bent but rather curved (and the female tibia is either straight or curved). Male ventrites bear no projections. In most species, the spermatheca has 5 (or 4) turns, the first three (or two) following the longitudinal axis and the other two following a transverse axis, which are followed by a long curve, ending in a kind of bulb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9BFFA5BAF42BF7FC76C4AD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9BFFA7BAF429BAFDFCC70F.text	B20E4654FF9BFFA7BAF429BAFDFCC70F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina simoni (Portevin 1903)	<div><p>Paulipalpina simoni (Portevin, 1903)</p><p>(Figs. 228–237)</p><p>Catops simoni Portevin, 1903: 167 [and Fig. 8].</p><p>Pseudonemadus simoni; Portevin, 1914: 193.</p><p>Adelopsis simoni; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and allegedly Fig. 79 —but this figure may refer to P. jeanneli sp. n. —see Note under that species] (combination not stated as taxonomic change) (type seen); Szymczakowski, 1968: 14 [and allegedly Figs. 1–4, but none of them refer to P. simoni, but to ‘ P. claudicans ’ (according to Gnaspini, 1996: 540, but see Taxonomic Note 2, below), P. aragua sp. n., and P. coatepec sp. n. —see Taxonomic Notes].</p><p>Paulipalpina simoni; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 (type seen).</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Type material examined: Holotype female [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Colonia Tovar / E. Simon 1.ii.88 // Jeannel vidit // C. Simoni Port. // Pseudonemadus Simoni Port ”. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 1.9 mm (original description); 2.2–2.5 mm (Jeannel, 1936 —he had only two specimens, one female and one male, but we are not able to identify which one refers to each value given by that author because our measurements largely differ—for us, the type female measured 2.1 mm and the male from Brazil measured 1.8 mm); 2.1 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: Colonia Tovar [as “Towar” in Jeannel, 1936], [Aragua State], Venezuela .</p><p>Additional tentative material examined (Topotypes): 1 male and 2 females in SBPC (now in CMNC). Labels: “ Venezuela / Aragua / Colonia Tovar / 5.vii–13.viii.86 / B. Gill 2000m ”. Specimens here illustrated. Length: 2.1 mm (male), 2.2 and 2.25 mm (females) (our measurement).</p><p>Additional material examined (here considered misidentification—see Taxonomic Notes, below):</p><p>- 1 male (Jeannel det., 1936: 66 [and figure(s)—see note below]— Brazil: São Paulo: Alto da Serra) in BMNH (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Paulipalpina jeanneli sp. n .</p><p>Note: Jeannel, 1936 Figs. 79 and 97 referred to the illustrated male as “from Venezuela ”, but he had at hand 1 female from Venezuela and 1 male from Brazil; therefore at least Fig. 97 (if not both) refers to the male from Brazil, and not from Venezuela, as already mentioned in Szymczakowski (1968: 14).</p><p>- 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 671, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 1]— Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it was identified as P. claudicans in Gnaspini (1996: 540), which was possibly a misidentification [see Note under P. claudicans, below]. Labels: São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense”.</p><p>- 2 males (no det. label, probably Szymczakowski det., 1968: 14 [and Figs. 2–3]— Venezuela: Aragua: Rancho Grande) in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—they belong in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Paulipalpina aragua sp. n .</p><p>- 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1967, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 4]— Mexico: Coatepec) in ZMHB (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Paulipalpina coatepec sp. n .</p><p>Taxonomic Notes. 1) Because the type specimen is a female, it is not possible to assure assignment of other specimens to this species. We examined topotypes and we find the spermatheca of the female topotypes (Figs. 236, 237) to be very similar to the spermatheca of the type specimen (Figs. 228, 229), and we conclude that they belong to the same species. So far (and also considering our unpublished notes on the many still undescribed species in SBPC collection), there is no record of more than one species of Paulipalpina collected in the same locality. We then accept that the male topotype here examined and illustrated (Figs. 233–235) would represent the male of this species, and we consider the other patterns of aedeagus, from different localities, to represent different species (see above), namely: Jeannel (1936: 66, São Paulo = P. jeanneli sp. n.), Szymczakowski (1968: 14, Aragua = P. aragua sp. n.), Szymczakowski (1968: 14, Mexico = P. coatepec sp. n.); for the record in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, São Paulo), see Note 3, below.</p><p>We should highlight that Szymczakowski (1968: 14) also added a discussion about the high variability in P. simoni, which is due to misidentification (as discussed in Gnaspini, 1996), because this variability is actually related to his analysis of different species of what is now known as the genus Paulipalpina, which is very conservative in external morphology. A similarity in aedeagus morphology also occurs among species of Ptomaphagus (see, e.g., Peck, 1973).</p><p>2) Salgado (2014: 16 [and Figs. 14–15]) recorded this species from Peru. Using the same reasoning as above, we recognize this record as a new species, here described as P. consuelo .</p><p>3) Gnaspini (1996: 640) corrected the record in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, São Paulo) as belonging in P. claudicans . It indeed does not belong in P. simoni, but it possibly does not belong in P. claudicans either (see Taxonomic Note under that species).</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes slightly reduced (Fig. 230). Winged (topotype; apterous, according to Jeannel, 1936 (key couplet)). Right lobe of the aedeagus slightly longer than left lobe; both thin (Figs. 233, 234). Right lobe pointy, with apex slightly curved and very shortly projected ventrad, in lateral view (Fig. 233). Dorsal opening of the aedeaus round and taking about 1/6 of aedeagus length (Fig. 234). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, bearing a basal piece (Fig. 234). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.33. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight (Fig. 235). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body, which increases in width towards apex and ends in a round apical bulb (Figs. 228, 229, 236, 237). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.17–0.18. Female mesotibia slightly curved internally (Fig. 232).</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Aragua State (original description; Jeannel, 1936; here).</p><p>Note: ‘Erroneous’ records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: São Paulo State (Jeannel, 1936, Szymczakowski, 1963); Mexico: Veracruz State (Szymczakowski, 1968); Peru: Cuzco Department (Salgado, 2014); Venezuela: Aragua State (Szymczakowski, 1968).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9BFFA7BAF429BAFDFCC70F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF99FFA6BAF42A1FFE6DC514.text	B20E4654FF99FFA6BAF42A1FFE6DC514.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina dispar (Portevin 1903)	<div><p>Paulipalpina dispar (Portevin, 1903)</p><p>(Figs. 238–244)</p><p>Catops dispar Portevin, 1903: 167 [and Fig. 9].</p><p>Pseudonemadus dispar; Portevin, 1914: 193.</p><p>Adelopsis dispar; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 80–82] (as junior synonym of Adelopsis exiguus; combination not stated as taxonomic change) (types seen).</p><p>Paulipalpina dispar; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 (combination and resurrection from synonymy) (types seen); Salgado, 2010: 210 (reaffirmed as synonym of Paulipalpina exigua based on Jeannel, 1936, and citing Peck et al., 1998, but not the explanation in Gnaspini, 1996—but see Taxonomic Note).</p><p>Type material examined: 1 “ type ” male and 1 “ type ” female in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syn-types—several specimens, sex not given in original description. Labels: Male: “ Colombie // Ptomaphagus dispar Prt. // Catops dispar Prt ”; Female: “ Colombie / G. Portevin 1902”. Note: the male specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus and genital segment were missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. Specimens here illustrated .</p><p>For taxonomic reasons, the male “type” here examined is here designated as lectotype; and the other specimens (including the ones not examined here) as paralectotypes.</p><p>Length: 1.5 mm (original description); 1.8 mm (Jeannel, 1936, referring to the species as Adelopsis exiguus, but probably referring to the specimens he recognized as Adelopsis dispar [see Taxonomic Note]); 1.6 mm (male) and 1.75 mm (female) (our measurement).</p><p>Type locality: “ Colombie ” .</p><p>Taxonomic Note. Gnaspini (1996) preferred to resurrect P. dispar and maintain P. exigua as a nominal species based on the facts that [1] Jeannel proposed the synonymy based only on the description of P. exigua, which type is apparently not available, [2] the difference in size is big- 1,5 and 1,0 mm, respectively -, and [3] the species of this genus are mostly externally similar to each other, leading to misidentification without dissection of genitalia. Salgado (2010: 210) agreed with the synonymy of Jeannel, apparently without analyzing specimens either, based on his statement that both species are from Bogotá, which is not true—the type locality of P. exigua is Bogotá, but the type label of P. dispar simply reads “ Colombie ”; Jeannel, 1936: 66 listed “several specimens” from “region of Bogotá ”, but he was probably referring to additional specimens examined, and not to types because the type label of P. dispar reads “ Colombie ” and because he apparently did not have acces to the type of P. exigua (our interpretation of his “Obs.” and of the fact that he did not mention the type depository, which he did when he examined types). Moreover, we understand that P. dispar can be related to a specimen (and, therefore, examined and described) whereas P. exigua can not (because the type is apparently unavailable). Therefore, we decided to keep them as separate species until a proper study solves the question.</p><p>Short Redescription. Eyes slightly reduced (Fig. 238). (Seemingly) Wingless. Aedeagus and genital segment missing. Male mesotibia slightly curved internally (Fig. 240). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by additional 3-turns transversal to the spermatheca body, followed by a thick, curved body, ending in an elongate apical bulb (Fig. 242). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.25.</p><p>Distribution. “ Colombia ”: known only from “ type locality” (original description; Jeannel, 1936; here).</p><p>Note: Doubtfull record: Jeannel (1936: 66) included a record for “ Brazil ” (a male), which may either refer to P. exigua or P. dispar, considering that he thought these species as synonyms; and which may be in error, considering that species ranges in the tribe are generally not large and that the record in Brazil is not precise, and considering that the aedeagus of species of Paulipalpina seem similar to each other at first glance.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. Considering the illustration in Jeannel (1936: Fig. 82), the aedeagus seems a diagnostic feature of this species, by having a dorsal opening very long when compared to other species of the genus, taking about 1/3 of the aedeagus length. However, this feature should be taken with caution because Jeannel’s illustration might be related to the ventral opening (since the opening illustrated starts exactly where the ventral ligula is placed) instead of the dorsal opening.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF99FFA6BAF42A1FFE6DC514	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF98FFA1BAF428E3FC68C514.text	B20E4654FF98FFA1BAF428E3FC68C514.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina claudicans (Szymczakowski 1980)	<div><p>Paulipalpina claudicans (Szymczakowski, 1980)</p><p>Adelopsis simoni; Szymczakowski, 1963: 671, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 1] (misidentification—and identified as P. claudicans in Gnaspini, 1996: 540 [and see Notes under P. simoni, above], but probably also a misidentification—see Taxonomic Notes).</p><p>Adelopsis claudicans Szymczakowski, 1980: 518 [and Figs. 12–19].</p><p>Paulipalpina claudicans; Gnaspini and Peck, 1996: 434 comb.; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 [and Figs. 56–62]; Salgado, 2005: 971 [and Figs. 23–24], 2015: 36.</p><p>Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.</p><p>Holotype male in MHNG (not examined): “ Brésil, Santa Catarina, Nova Teutônia, 300–500 m, VII.1958, leg. F. Plaumann ” [the original description refers to 2 male and 2 female paratypes in IZSP; not examined]. Note: This species was illustrated in Gnaspini (1996: Figs. 56–62) based on topotypes (collected by the same collector) from FMNH, and considered the same species in comparison with the illustrations from the original description (especially the shape of the aedeagus and of the mesotibia), and because so far (and also considering our unpublished notes on the many still undescribed species in SBPC collection), there is no record of more than one species of Paulipalpina collected in the same locality (as also discussed for P. simoni, above).</p><p>Length: 2.2 mm (holotype) and 2.0– 2.1 mm (paratypes) (original description).</p><p>Material examined: A) 1 female in NHRS (“P. Gnaspini det., 1994”) (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Brasilien / Nova Teutonia / 27º11’ B. 52º23’ L. / Fritz Plaumann / x.1938 ”; additional label: “ Adelopsis sp., female, Szymczakowski det., 1961”. Length: 2.0 mm (our measurement). Note: The female examined is a topotype (collected by the same collector) and shows the same spermatheca pattern as the one illustrated in Gnaspini (1996) and we therefore consider it to belong to the same species. It has a curved mesotibia (not bent as in males).</p><p>B) 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 671, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 1]— Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541), misidentified as Adelopsis simoni [Portevin, 1903; today in Paulipalpina] in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, 1968: 14) (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), which is correct (see Taxonomic Notes under P. simoni, above), but possibly misidentified as P. claudicans in Gnaspini (1996: 540) —see Taxonomic Notes. Labels: São Paulo / Bras. Mráz lgt / Mus. Pragense”. Length: 2.1 mm (our measurement). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.34.</p><p>Taxonomic Notes. 1) Gnaspini (1996: 540) identified the NMPC specimen misidentified as P. simoni in Szymczakowski (1963: 671, 1968: 14) as belonging in P. claudicans because the specimen also has a bent mesotibia and the tip of the aedeagus is similar. Szymczakowski (1980: 518) also mentioned that the specimen from Brazil that he previously recognized as ‘ Adelopsis simoni ’ could refer to ‘ Adelopsis claudicans ’. However, because the speci- men is from a different locality (and we have discussed here that identification of specimens of different localities far from the type locality may incur a misidentification—see several Notes under species of Adelopsis, above) and because we actually found some slight differences between the illustrations we made for this specimen and for the topotypes we analysed, we prefer to consider this a doubtful record, and we intend to reexamine the specimen in the future, to solve this question.</p><p>2) Salgado (1999: 45) recorded this species from Rio de Janeiro, based on only one female, and gave no figures. We reinforce the statement that, because ptomaphagines (mainly the Neotropical ones) are very similar to each other based on external characters (with some exceptions, of course), it is difficult to relate female specimens to a given species without the presence of males in the same collection, especially from a different and distant locality. We therefore prefer to consider this a doubtful record.</p><p>3) Salgado (2005: 971, 2015: 36) added several records from the type locality. However, the spermatheca illustrated in Fig. 24 in Salgado (2005) completely differs from that illustrated in Gnaspini (1996: Fig. 62), and also from the pattern most commonly observed in species of the genus (although some different patterns have also been illustrated). Because of this important difference, we understand that one of the two illustrated females does not belong to the species, and this should be clarified in the future.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: Santa Catarina State: known only from type locality (original description; Gnaspini, 1996; Salgado, 2005, 2015; here).</p><p>Note: Doubtfull records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: Rio de Janeiro (Salgado, 1999) and São Paulo (Gnaspini, 1996: 540—record missed in Salgado, 1999, 2005, 2015) States.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF98FFA1BAF428E3FC68C514	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9FFFA0BAF428E3FD66C4E0.text	B20E4654FF9FFFA0BAF428E3FD66C4E0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina aragua Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Paulipalpina aragua, new species</p><p>(Figs. 245–249)</p><p>Adelopsis simoni; Szymczakowski, 1968: 14 [and Figs. 2–3] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above).</p><p>Holotype, male (MNHN). Type locality and data: Venezuela: Aragua State: Rancho Grande [ National Park north of Maracay], Marcuzzi 449 . One male paratype with same data. Note: specimens misidentified as Paulipalpina si- moni (Portevin, 1923) in Szymczakowski (1968: 14) —Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above. Specimens here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 1.9 mm (both specimens, our measurement).</p><p>Additional tentative material examined (Topotypes): 2 females in SBPC (now in CMNC). Labels: “ Venezuela / Rancho Grande / Ber 194 / 51 kg litter / S. Peck”. Specimens here illustrated. Length: 1.8 and 1.95 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Short Description. Eyes normal. Winged. Right lobe of the aedeagus slightly longer than left lobe (Figs. 245, 248). Right lobe pointy, with apex slightly curved and shortly projected ventrad in lateral view (Fig. 233), divided in dorsal view (Fig. 248). Dorsal opening of the aedeaus as a diagonal slit (Fig. 248). Flagellum shorter (about 4/ 5 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 248). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.40. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight (Fig. 246). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by additional 3-turns transversal to the spermatheca body, followed by a short body, ending in a rounded apical bulb (Fig. 249). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.20–0.22.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given as a noun in apposition, referring to the type locality.</p><p>Distribution. Venezuela: Aragua State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. The bifid tip of the aedeagus of P. aragua sp. n., in dorsal view, markedly differs from that of the remaining species described so far in the genus, except for its slight resemblance to that of P. ecuatoriana Salgado, 2010, from Ecuador.</p><p>The illustrations of the aedeagus in Szymczakowski (1968, Figs. 2-3) differ from ours (Fig. 248) in showing a very large dorsal opening whereas we interpreted the dorsal opening to be a narrow slit. This may be explained by supposing that Szymczakowski’s illustration might be related to the ventral opening instead of the dorsal open-ing—in this case his illustration will agree with ours.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9FFFA0BAF428E3FD66C4E0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9EFFA3BAF4284FFBB1C76C.text	B20E4654FF9EFFA3BAF4284FFBB1C76C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina coatepec Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Paulipalpina coatepec, new species</p><p>(Figs. 250–255)</p><p>Adelopsis simoni; Szymczakowski, 1968: 14 [and Fig. 4] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above).</p><p>Holotype, male (ZMHB). Type locality and data: Mexico: Veracruz State: Coatepec 6, Flohr coll. Note: specimen misidentified as Paulipalpina simoni (Portevin, 1923) in Szymczakowski (1968: 14) —Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above). Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 1.95 mm (our measurement).</p><p>Short Description. Eyes normal. Winged. Right lobe of the aedeagus slightly longer and thicker than left lobe (Figs. 250, 251). Right lobe pointy, with apex enlarged, slightly curved and shortly projected ventrad, in lateral view (Fig. 250). Dorsal opening of the aedeaus round and taking about 1/7 of aedeagus length (Fig. 251). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus (Fig. 251). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.39. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight (Fig. 253). Male mesotibia medially bent internally (Fig. 255). Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given as a noun in apposition, referring to the type locality.</p><p>Distribution. Mexico: Veracruz State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. In lateral view, the tip of the aedeagus of P. coatepec sp. n. resembles that of P. consuelo sp. n., from Peru, and, slightly, that of P. claudicans (Szymczakowski, 1980), from Brazil. However, in frontal view, it markedly differs from that of the remaining species described so far in the genus, except for its slight resemblance to that of P. arcuata Salgado, 2014, from Peru, from which it differs in lateral view.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9EFFA3BAF4284FFBB1C76C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9DFFA3BAF42AFBFBF1C2B1.text	B20E4654FF9DFFA3BAF42AFBFBF1C2B1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina consuelo Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Paulipalpina consuelo, new species</p><p>Paulipalpina simoni; Salgado, 2014: 16 [and Figs. 14–15] (misidentification, here—see Notes under P. simoni, above).</p><p>Holotype, male (FMNH, not examined, assignment made to the specimen illustrated in Salgado, 2014: Figs. 14–15; data taken from Salgado, 2014: 16). Type locality and data: Peru: Cuzco Department: Consuelo, Manu road km 165, 1-X-1982, rotten palm, L.E. Watrous &amp; G. Mazurek leg . Paratypes (from Salgado, 2014: 16): 1 female with same data as holotype; same place as holotype, 5-X-1982, 1 male and 1 female, rotten palm fruit, L.E. Watrous &amp; G. Mazurek leg. Note: specimens misidentified as Paulipalpina simoni (Portevin, 1923) in Salgado (2014: 16) —see Notes under P. simoni, above).</p><p>Short Description (based on figures in Salgado, 2014 —see complete description there). Right lobe of the aedeagus slightly longer and much wider than left lobe. Right lobe pointy, with apex enlarged, slightly curved and shortly projected ventrad, in lateral view; as an upside-down trapezoid with apical margin emarginated, in frontal view. Dorsal opening of the aedeagus round and taking about 1/10 of aedeagus length. Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus.</p><p>Female spermatheca not illustrated but described in Salgado (2014: 16) as being very similar to his Fig. 24 in Salgado (2005 — for ‘ P. claudicans ’—see Taxonomic Note 3 under that species), bearing 5 to 7-turns and having a very reduced apical bulb.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given as a noun in apposition, referring to the type locality.</p><p>Distribution. Peru: Cuzco Department: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. In lateral view, the tip of the aedeagus of P. consuelo sp. n. resembles that of P. coatepec sp. n., from Mexico, and, slightly, that of P. claudicans (Szymczakowski, 1980), from Brazil. However, in frontal view, it markedly differs from that of the remaining species described so far in the genus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9DFFA3BAF42AFBFBF1C2B1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9DFFA2BAF42F81FC7BC58E.text	B20E4654FF9DFFA2BAF42F81FC7BC58E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina jeanneli Gnaspini & Peck 2019	<div><p>Paulipalpina jeanneli, new species</p><p>(Figs. 256–261)</p><p>Adelopsis simoni; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Fig. 97; and maybe also Fig. 79 —see Note] (misidentification—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under P. simoni, above).</p><p>Holotype, male (BMNH). Type locality and data: Brazil: São Paulo State: Santo André, Parque Estadual de Paranapiacaba [given on type label as “ Alto da Serra ”], G.E. Bryant. 12.iii.1912, G. Bryant Coll. 1919-147. Note: specimen misidentified as Paulipalpina simoni (Portevin, 1923) in Jeannel (1936: 66) —his Figs. 79 and 97 referred to the illustrated male as “from Venezuela ”, but he had at hand 1 female from Venezuela and 1 male from Brazil; therefore at least his Fig. 97 (and maybe also Fig. 79) refers to this male from Brazil, and not from Venezuela, as already mentioned in Szymczakowski (1968: 14) —see also Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and Notes under P. simoni, above. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus was missing (but considered to be the one illustrated in Fig. 97 in Jeannel, 1936) [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’ – this specimen aedeagus might refer to a glass slide at MNHN collection, labeled ‘ Adelopsis simoni Alto della Sierra, Brésil (édéage)’]. Specimen here illustrated.</p><p>Length: 1.8 mm (our measurement—very different from the values from Jeannel, 1936 —either 2.2 or 2.5 mm—see Note under P. simoni).</p><p>Short Description. Eyes normal (Fig. 257). (Seemingly) Wingless.Aedeagus missing. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment short and straight (Fig. 256). Male mesotibia slightly curved internally (Fig. 260). Female unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The name is given in honor of René Jeannel, who examined the specimen, and for his large contribution to systematics of cholevines and many other beetles.</p><p>Distribution. Brazil: São Paulo State: known only from type locality.</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. Considering the illustration in Jeannel (1936: Fig. 97), the tip of the aedeagus of P. jeanneli sp. n. seems different from that of the remaining species described so far in the genus, although having a slight resemblance to that of P. claudicans (Szymczakowski, 1980), also from Brazil, and P. clavigera Gnaspini and Peck, 1996, originally described from Costa Rica and Panama. However, male specimens of the latter two species have mesotibia bent medially, whereas the specimen of P. jeanneli sp. n. does not.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9DFFA2BAF42F81FC7BC58E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
B20E4654FF9CFFAEBAF4289CFE2DC410.text	B20E4654FF9CFFAEBAF4289CFE2DC410.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paulipalpina Gnaspini & Peck 1996	<div><p>Paulipalpina sp.</p><p>(Figs. 262–267)</p><p>Material examined: 1 female (MNHN). Locality and data: Colombia:? Magdalena Department. Labels: “Nov. Gren. [Nova Grenada, a former name for Colombia] // Magd…” [not possible to read properly, but probably referring to Magdalena Department]. Specimen here illustrated. Note: specimen (listed as examined in Gnaspini, 1996: 541) misidentified as ‘ Adelopsis filicornis Jeannel, 1936 ’, presently in Parapaulipalpina, labeled “type” and placed together with the holotype of that species (a single specimen listed in original description)—Gnaspini, 1996: 540, and see Notes under Parapaulipalpina filicornis, above.</p><p>Short Description of the specimen. Eyes reduced (Fig. 263). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by additional 3-turns transversal to the spermatheca body, followed by a thick, curved body, ending in an elongate apical bulb (Fig. 262). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.21. Mesotibia slightly curved internally (Fig. 267).</p><p>Taxonomic Remarks. We decided to not assign this specimen to a new species, because it would have the status of a ‘species inquirenda’ (because it is based on a single female). However, we should reinforce the fact that this specimen has a [erroneous] ‘type’ label, and it was placed together with the type of Parapaulipalpina filicornis (see Note under that species) and can create confusion in the future if this is not corrected. The spermatheca (Fig. 262) is very similar to the spermatheca here illustrated of the female paralectotype of Paulipalpina dispar (Portevin, 1903) (Fig. 242), which is also from ‘Colombia’, with no precise locality. Although they are both from Colombia, both without precise locality, we prefer to avoid assigning specimens to species without a high probability of being correct.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20E4654FF9CFFAEBAF4289CFE2DC410	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gnaspini, Pedro;Peck, Stewart B.	Gnaspini, Pedro, Peck, Stewart B. (2019): Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens. Zootaxa 4696 (1): 1-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1
