Holopyga chrysonota ( Förster, 1853 )

Rosa, Paolo, Farhad, Afrouz, Talebi, Ali Asghar, Ameri, Ali, Baiocchi, Daniele, Halada, Marek & Rakhshani, Ehsan, 2024, The Iranian Chrysididae (Hymenoptera), the current state of the art, with an updated checklist and description of eleven new species, Journal of Insect Biodiversity and Systematics 10 (4), pp. 827-951 : 848-849

Holopyga chrysonota ( Förster, 1853)

Ellampus chrysonotus Förster, 1853:347 . Holotype ♀; Hungary (Berlin).

Holopyga ovata var. h Dahlbom, 1854:53. Syntypes ♂♂, ♀♀ [not holotype]; Austria; Greece: Rhodes Is. (Vienna, Berlin). Holopyga ignicollis Eversmann, 1858:549 . Lectotype ♀ designated by Rosa et al., 2020b:100. Russia: “ campis Orenburgensibus et in promontor Uralensib.” (Krakow).

Holopyga ignicollis Dahlbom, 1854 sensu auctorum (see Rosa et al., 2020b); Farzaneh et al., 2017:496 (Fars); Farhad et al., 2017:881 (Alborz, Hormozgan, Kerman, Mazandaran), 882 (fig. 3); Falahatpisheh et al., 2019:4 (Fars).

Distribution. Iran (Alborz, Hormozgan, Kerman, Mazandaran). West-Palaearctic, from Western Europe to Central Asia; Northern Africa ( Linsenmaier, 1999).

Remarks. Holopyga similis was synonymised by Bischoff (1913) with H. chrysonota ( Förster, 1853) . Rosa et al. (2020b) pointed out that H. chrysonota is a different species and H. similis is the first available name for H. chrysonota sensu Linsenmaier (1959a , 1968, 1987, 1997, 1999). Dahlbom’s (1854) name H. ignicollis [actually given as var. h] is invalid. Eversmann (1858:549) was the first author to treat “var. ignicollis Klug ” (the name given by Dahlbom (1854) to one of the specimens examined in Berlin) as a valid subspecific name, thus making the name available as a species-group name ( ICZN, 1999: Article 45.6). As a consequence, Eversmann (1858) is the author of the species ( Rosa et al., 2020b).