Amisega aeneiceps Ducke, 1903

Rosa, Paolo & Brothers, Denis J., 2025, Nomenclatural and taxonomic updates on the Brazilian cuckoo-wasp catalogue (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae), Zootaxa 5642 (6), pp. 501-541 : 504

Amisega aeneiceps Ducke, 1903

Amisega aeneiceps Ducke, 1903 a: 130 . Lectotype presumed to be lost, originally designated by Kimsey in Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 92 based on a ♀ collected at Itaituba on 05.ix.1902 by A. Ducke and deposited at MNHN.

Amisega aeneiceps : Lucena et al. (2024: 10).

Kimsey (in Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 92) designated the lectotype of Amisega aeneiceps based on a male from Itaituba but apparently did not pin any type label to the specimen in the collection. As noticed by Rosa et al. (2020: 24) and illustrated by Lucena et al. (2024: fig. 8) the only specimen labelled as “TYPE” [with printed red label typical of type material deposited at MNHN] is a male collected at Obidos, one of the type localities mentioned in the original description, and not in Itaituba. It has to be noted that Kimsey and Bohart systematically selected as holotypes or lectotypes specimens at MNHN previously labelled with printed labels “TYPE” or “ LECTOTYPE ” by an unknown technician, who often did not pay attention to original descriptions ( Rosa 2024a). In this case, the specimen labelled as “TYPE” was part of the type series, labelled as such by Ducke, and matches one of the type localities given in the description. Rosa et al. (2020) did not comment on the discrepancy between the locality of the specimen they considered as the lectotype and that specified by Kimsey, and they did not “invalidate” the female lectotype as implied by Lucena et al. (2024) who stated: “Our interpretation is that the lectotype designation by L.S. Kimsey is still valid”. Rosa et al. (2020) apparently considered that Kimsey specified the wrong locality, whereas Lucena et al. (2024) considered that Kimsey specified the wrong sex. Taking into consideration that no specimen has Kimsey’s lectotype label, and none matches the data provided with the lectotypification, the lectotype cannot be unambiguously identified and should be considered lost or destroyed. Paralectotypes are deposited at HMNH, MNHN, NHMW, NMBE, and MPEG ( Rosa et al. 2020; Lucena et al. 2024) and there is no confusion about the identity of the species, so designation of a neotype is not necessary.