Ceraeochrysa cornuta (Navás, 1925) Chrysopa cornuta Navás, 1925: 65, fig. 1 (not Chrysopa cornuta Navás, 1926) [MNHN, Lectotype]. Junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa cincta (Schneider, 1851: 86) by Adams (1982: 72). Synonymy with Cer. cincta (Schneider) reversed by Legrand et al. (2008: 126), reinstated by Freitas et al. (2009: 530). Ceraeochrysa cornuta (Navás). First designation as a valid species in Ceraeochrysa by Legrand et al. (2008: 126). Designation reversed by Freitas et al. (2009: 530). Here: Status reinstated, combination reinstated. Ceraeochrysa (= Chrysopa) caligata [Banks, 1945: 154; Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ), Holotype]. First identification as a junior synonym of Cer. cornuta by Legrand et al. (2008: 528). Reinstated as a valid species (Freitas et al. 2009: 526). Here: Synonymy reinstated. Background: Adams (1982: 72) identified both Chrysopa caligata (Banks) and Chrysopa cornuta (Navás) as junior synonyms of Ceraeochrysa cincta (Schneider). He stated that he considered the C. cornuta synonymy as provisional because at that time he had not seen the type. Subsequently, (i) the C. cornuta type (a female) was found in the MNHN and Adams & Penny (1985: 440–441) restated Adams’ conclusion that C. cornuta was synonymous with Cer. cincta. (ii) Adams & Penny (1985: 442) also reinstated Cer. caligata as a valid species. Over the years since 1985, Ceraeochrysa caligata (Banks) [here, = Cer. cornuta) has been recognized as a valid species separate from Cer. cincta [see references in Legrand et al. (2008; 126)]. Males of the two species are easily distinguished on the basis of genitalic characters (Adams & Penny 1985; Freitas et al. 2009); the larvae are also distinct (Tauber & de León 2001). Although Freitas et al. (2009) claim that Cer. caligata and Cer. cincta females cannot be differentiated, we have found that species-specific genital characteristics [described and illustrated by Adams and Penny (1985)] consistently separate females of the two species. Moreover, an additional, external character [presence or absence of red spots on the mesonotum) recently was shown to distinguish adults (males and females) of the two species (Viana & Albuquerque 2009, as Cer. caligata). These marks occur on a large proportion of Cer. caligata adults, but they are absent in Cer. cincta. Types: The C. cornuta lectotype (a female, examined, CAT) has very distinct Cer. caligata -like markings on the mesonotum (Fig. 1), and its genital characteristics (protruding lip of the subgenitale, the length and tightness of the bend in the U-shaped spermatheca) are those of Cer. caligata females as illustrated by Adams & Penny (1985: 469) (notes by CAT and by Gilberto S. Albuquerque, March 2008). Thus, we re-confirm the identification of the C. cornuta lectotype as conspecific with Cer. caligata. Conclusion: Given that Navás’ description was published before Banks’, Ceraeochrysa cornuta (Navás) has precedence as the valid name of the species. And, the identification of Cer. caligata as a junior subjective synonym of Cer. cornuta by Legrand et al. (2008) pertains.

Published as part of Tauber, Catherine A. & Flint, Oliver S., 2010, Resolution of some taxonomic and nomenclatural issues in a recent revision of Ceraeochrysa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), pp. 55-67 in Zootaxa 2565 on pages 56-57, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.294309