Leptoceraea viridis Jakovlev, 1873 (Figs. 6–10) Leptoceraea viridis Jakovlev, 1873: 39. Lectotype (Putshkov & Kerzhner 1983: 81): ♂, Russia, Astrakhan; ZMAS. Leptoceraea granulosa: Hsiao (1965a: 56). Unavailable name (ICZN 1999, Art. 13.1). Leptoceraea granulosa Hsiao, 1965b: 427, 433. Holotype: ♂, China, Sinkiang [= Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region], Turpan; NKUM! Synonymized by Putshkov & Kerzhner (1983: 81). Confirmed subjective synonym. Tuberculoceraea ismatae Ahmad & Kamaluddin, 1981: 137. Holotype: ♂, Pakistan, Sind, Thatta; NHMUK. Synonymized by Göllner-Scheiding (1983: 109). Agraphopus viridis: Putshkov (1962: 147, 148) (in key, redescription, habitus, figure, description of larva, description and figure of egg, bionomics, distribution), Kerzhner & Jaczewski (1964: 820) (in key, host plant), Kerzhner (1972: 356) (in key, figures, distribution, host plant), Putshkov & Kerzhner (1983: 81) (type material), Putshkov (1986: 98, 99) (in key, redescription, habitus, figures, larva, description and figure of egg, distribution, bionomics). Leptoceraea viridis: Stichel (1960: 439) (in key, habitat, host plant, distribution), Stichel (1961: 722) (catalogue, distribution), Stichel (1962: 202) (catalogue, distribution), Chopra (1967: 365, 371, 377, 381) (figures), Göllner-Scheiding (1977: 249) (redescription, figures, type material, distribution, host plant, phenology, in key), Ahmad & Kamaluddin (1981: 139) (diagnostic characters), Göllner-Scheiding (1983: 109) (catalogue, distribution, bibliography), Moulet (1991: 414) (type material), Moulet (1995: 231) (in key, redescription, figures, bionomics, distribution), Kis (2001: 74) (redescription, habitus, bionomics, host plant, distribution), Namyatova (2005: 49) (diagnostic characters, figures, records, distribution), Dolling (2006: 26) (catalogue, distribution). Leptoceraea granulosa: Göllner-Scheiding (1977: 248) (identity, type material, distribution), Hsiao (1977: 262) (redescription, figures, distribution), Göllner-Scheiding (1983: 109) (catalogue, distribution, bibliography), Yang et al. (1991: 27) (type material), Liu et al. (1994: 106) (listed, distribution), Hua (2000: 184) (distribution), Namyatova (2005: 49) (listed), Dolling (2006: 25) (catalogue, distribution). Type material examined. Leptoceraea granulosa Hsiao, 1965. Holotype: ♂, “ [ch] \ 20–140 [‘20’ crossed out by hw] [ch] \ [ch]” [pr, with pr horizontal line between lines 2 and 3], “1958. V.29 \ [ch, pr]”, “ Leptoceraea [hw] \ granulosa [hw] \ HSIAO [hw] \ [ch] 19 [pr] 64 [hw]” [red, with pr black frame]; pinned, flagellum of left, distiflagellum of right antenna, left fore and middle tarsi, right middle and hind legs and left hind leg lacking (Figs. 11–14). Discussion. Leptoceraea granulosa was described based on a single male (the holotype) from Turpan city in the east of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China (Hsiao 1965b). The original description (Hsiao 1965b) and Yang et al. (1991) indicated that the holotype was preserved in IZAS, however, it apparently has never been deposited there; currently it is in NKUM and it was re-examined during the present study. Kerzhner & Jaczewski (1964), Putshkov & Kerzhner (1983) and Putshkov (1986) recognized only a single valid species of Leptoceraea Jakovlev, 1873 (downgraded to a subgenus of Agraphopus Stål, 1872), L. viridis, and treated L. femoralis (Horváth, 1897) and L. granulosa as its junior synonyms. Göllner-Scheiding (1977) and Namyatova (2005) demonstrated that L. femoralis was a valid species different from L. viridis; none of them, however, had the opportunity to access the type material of L. granulosa. As its original description does not make it possible to decide its identity, moreover the areas of L. viridis and L. granulosa broadly overlap and both species potentially occur in Xinjiang, neither Göllner-Scheiding (1977) nor Namyatova (2005) were able to elucidate the identity of L. granulosa, and accordingly both of them, also followed by Dolling (2006), decided to tentatively list it as a potentially distinct species of uncertain identity. A re-examination of the holotype of L. granulosa (Figs. 6–10) in course of the present study and its direct comparison with several non-type males of L. viridis from various localities (Russia: Astrakhan [type locality of L. viridis]; Georgia: Aresch [= Areshperani]; Azerbaijan: Geok Tapa; Romania: Caraorman), deposited in the HNHM, could find no difference between the two species. The genital capsule of the holotype (Fig. 9) is identical with that of L. viridis (figured by Chopra 1967: 371, fig. 8; Kerzhner 1972: 355, figs. 23, 27; Putshkov 1986: 102, fig. 57/1; Namyatova 2005: 50, figs. 1–3), therefore L. granulosa is considered as conspecific with L. viridis, and the synonymy of the two species, proposed by Putshkov & Kerzhner (1983), is accordingly confirmed. Distribution. This species is distributed in the Middle East and Central Asia, and it was also recorded from the neighbouring marginal regions of Europe, from North Africa, and from Pakistan (Göllner-Scheiding 1977, 1983; Putshkov 1985; Moulet 1995; Namyatova 2005; Dolling 2006). Global and local distribution maps were presented by Putshkov (1986: 98, fig. 54), Moulet (1995: 233, map 34), and Namyatova (2005: 51, fig. 7). The species is rare in China, no specimens other than the holotype of L. granulosa have been seen; it apparently only occurs in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, representing the easternmost boundary of the area of the species. It was listed from Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, Shanxi, Yunnan, and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China (Hua 2000), but these records are based on unknown sources, and the occurrence of the species in these regions is doubtful.

Published as part of Rédei, Dávid, 2018, A review of the species of the tribe Chorosomatini of China (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Rhopalidae), pp. 308-328 in Zootaxa 4524 (3) on pages 311-313, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4524.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/2610569