Leptomantispa axillaris (Navás)

Pires Machado, Renato Jose, Li, Hongyu & Ohl, Michael, 2025, Solving taxonomic and nomenclatural problems among the Neotropical species of the family Mantispidae (Insecta, Neuroptera), Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 72 (1), pp. 57-83 : 57-83

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.3897/dez.72.148626
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0625BBFD-D761-4A86-BA92-4E362BC2199B
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15731223
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4D89AB13-C2CB-55B1-8CDF-9FE9B984A403
treatment provided by	Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift by Pensoft
scientific name	Leptomantispa axillaris (Navás)
status

Treatment

Leptomantispa axillaris (Navás) View in CoL

Mantispa axillaris Navás, 1908: 412. Syntypes: male, female ( MNHN, MZBS). Type locality: Brazil: Goiás: Jataí. View in CoL

Notes.

This species was described by Navás (1908) based on a series of males and females from the municipality of Jataí in Goiás state in central Brazil. For a long time, this species was not mentioned again in the literature. It was listed by Penny (1977) and later redescribed by Penny and Costa (1983), but without seeing any of the syntypes. All subsequent identifications of this species were based on what was proposed by Penny and Costa (1983). Also, Machado and Rafael (2010) did not see any of the syntypes, but they transferred the species to Leptomantispa , the current placement of the species ( Tauber et al. 2017; Ardila-Camacho et al. 2018; Alvim et al. 2019).

Although the taxonomic identity of Mantispa axillaris has never been seriously questioned, it can hardly be confirmed without studying at least one of the syntypes. Unfortunately, the types seem to be lost. Ohl (2004) indicated that they should be housed at MZBS and MNHN, but he did not locate them, and Tauber et al. (2017) presented the same conclusion, mentioning that they could not find the types. In fact, they suggested that a neotype should be designated. We also failed in confirming the whereabouts of the types in both collections during our study.

At the moment, we propose that L. axillaris should be treated as a valid name for the sake of nomenclatural stability. Furthermore, the interpretation of axillaris , proposed by Penny and Costa (1983), matches the original description, and many other specimens of L. axillaris have been recorded in areas very close to the type locality ( Machado and Rafael 2010). We agree with Tauber et al. (2017) that a neotype should be designated, but we believe that this specimen should be from the type locality, and since no material from the locus typicus is available at the moment, we refrain from designating a neotype here.