New world lampyrid types at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

. New World lampyrid taxonomy faces severe taxonomic impediments. Most species remain known from original taxonomic descriptions only, often insufficient for accurate identification. Therefore, the study of type specimens is critical to ensure proper identification. The Russian entomologist Viktor Ivanovich Motschulsky was one of the most important authors of firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) taxonomy during the XIX th century, and his work is still relevant today. Part of his material, including the type specimens of several species, is deposited at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Unlike their European, Asian, and Oceanian counterparts, the taxonomy of Neotropical fireflies is still in its infancy, partly due to largely outdated literature and difficulties in accessing type specimens. Here, we review the type specimens of 38 firefly species deposited at ZIN, 15 of which are holotypes and 7 are lectotypes. For each specimen, the name-bearing status, condition of preservation, as well as the associated label data are provided. Lectotypes are designated for the following species described by Motschulsky: Bicellonycha lividipennis , Ellychnia californica , Lychnuris klugii , Macrolampis longipennis , Pseudolychnuris suturalis , Telephoroides lineaticollis , Telephoroide occidentalis .


Introduction
Investigation of type material is critically important for any taxonomic work.Unfortunately, information on centuries-old type specimens may be hard to obtain for several reasons.Type specimens may have been destroyed or are poorly labelled, or their depository institution has not been clearly given.All these problems are relevant for the type material of Viktor Ivanovich Motschulsky (1810Motschulsky ( -1871, also known as Motchoulsky, de Motschoulsky), Russian amateur entomologist, who described numerous insect taxa (nearly 5000 according to Motschoulsky 1869), especially in the order Coleoptera, since the late 1830s.His last works were published after his death, until 1875.Despite Motschulsky's remarkable entomological knowledge, he was sometimes not very thorough in his work.His descriptions were often very short, and type specimens were not always explicitly mentioned, sometimes not discussed at all, or even containing misleading information (e.g.attributing wrong type localities; see Bousquet 1997).Since he deposited types in multiple institutions, including his private collection, Motschulsky's types are often difficult to find.Most of his type specimens are now in the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia).However, many of his types are in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg), among other places.
Motschulsky's work is particularly relevant to Lampyridae taxonomy because he described several of the genus-and species-level names in this family (Motschulsky 1853).However, his original taxonomic descriptions lacked illustrations of diagnostic features and are often insufficient for the accurate identification of fireflies.Since then, such limitations have been largely overcome by past or ongoing taxonomic work in many parts of the world: North America (e.g., Fender 1970), Europe (e.g., Geisthardt 1982), Oceania and Eastern Asia (e.g., Ballantyne et al. 2019).However, with the notable exception of Zaragoza-Caballero's team in Mexico (cf. Perez-Hernandez et al. 2022), little taxonomy on Neotropical lampyrids has occurred since their original descriptions.Yet, type specimens are still critical for the identification of Neotropical fireflies (e.g., Silveira & Mermudes 2014;Silveira et al. 2016;2019).Documentation of the whereabouts and state of preservation of type specimens from the Neotropical region is crucial to the continued improvement of firefly taxonomy worldwide.
Most of Motschulsky's descriptions of Lampyridae were published continuously from 1852 up to 1854 in his Études Entomologiques.During this time, Motschulsky was living in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he joined a group of amateur entomologists assembled around Édouard Ménétries .The latter was a curator of the entomological collection in the Zoological Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (in St. Petersburg, Russia), which would become the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ZIN) in 1931.Members of this amateur group helped Ménétries prepare specimens, often taking some to their private collections.The subsequent curator of the ZIN collection, August Morawitz, discouraged this practice of taking specimens from the ZIN holdings (Krivokhatsky 2013).
Vasiliy Fomich Grey (ca 1815-1864, William Grey, Basile Grey), a gardener and member of the aforementioned entomological group (Reiman 1999), also had a private entomological collection.After Grey's death, his collection -which included some Lampyridae types described by Motschulskywas added to the ZIN holdings after a period of unknown whereabouts.It is thought that Grey's collection was incorporated into ZIN via some other private collections (e.g., some specimens have also the label "ex.Tulinov coll.").Other parts of Motschulsky's collection were directly deposited in ZIN or thought to have been incorporated after his death, transferred to St. Petersburg in two boxes including types (Krivokhatsky 2013).All these materials are kept in ZIN.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008)  Here, we fill this gap by cataloguing the New World Lampyridae species described by Motschulsky.We provide detailed information about type specimens of 38 lampyrid species and their respective labels, in an important step to facilitate research on New World lampyrids.

Material and methods
For taxonomic hierarchy, we followed the classification system from Martin et al. (2019).We list each species under its original combination and indicate the current valid name.A list of synonyms for all 70 New World lampyrids species described by Motschulsky is provided in Table 1.
We provide, for each specimen, habitus pictures and report the name-bearing status, condition of preservation (e.g., complete or with any missing parts), and any label data.Label data is given as follows: double quotes (" ") for label data quoted verbatim, double forward slashes (//) to separate labels; double comma (") for line breaks, and square brackets [ ] for our comments or notes.
When the handwriting could be assigned to a writer, their name is listed.However, since Motschulsky's types came to ZIN in different ways, they were labelled inconsistently.Only in some cases, there are original handwritten labels of Motschulsky.Most of the types have labels written by some technician, particularly in Ménétries or Morawitz's time, and later pinned under the beetles.Some specimens bear handwritten labels by Ménétries and other handwritten labels of unknown origin, probably added to the specimens from Grey's collection before they reached ZIN.Specimens with all 4 label types can be assigned with certainty to Motschulsky's descriptions.If a type specimen is the only known specimen of that species to have been studied by Motschulsky, we considered it a holotype.For species whose lectotypes were designated by Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008), we list paralectotypes.
Motschulsky often cited some species attributed to other authors, but never published by them.In these cases, Motschulsky is considered the author of these species.Consider for example Costalampys klugii (Motschulsky, 1854): Motschulsky attributes the authorship of the original combination Lychnuris klugii to Dejean, but Motschulsky should be regarded as the author since Dejean never described it.Likewise, specimens identified by Motschulsky are deemed type specimens of these species.Some of the types were recognized and separated earlier, probably by G.G. Jacobson, who was a curator of Coleoptera in ZIN from 1897 to 1926.These types were placed in a small box and lent to a French specialist, interpreted here to be E. Olivier, who added bluish and reddish labels with his opinions on the status of the specimens before returning them.These specimens remained in this small box, most likely since the 1910s.
Regarding the fact that Motschoulsky's publications often have two different dates (one on first page, one on cover), we followed Griffin's (1936) dates based on information retrieved from the Moscow's Imperial Society of Naturalists.
Photos were taken with a Leica MZ 9.5 dissecting microscope coupled with a Leica DFC290 camera.The images were stacked using Helicon Focus software (Helicon Soft Ltd., Kharkiv, Ukraine).Images were edited in Adobe Lightroom® CC 2021 Software for light and contrast adjustment, and plates were assembled in Adobe Photoshop® CC 2021.

Preservation status
One antenna missing, elytra damaged, abdomen missing, otherwise well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Deyrolle, a famous insect dealer of the 19 th century (e.g., Deyrolle 1879), as the source of the specimen, from Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
One of the labels says "livida Motsch.Brasil", as seen in another syntype of Bicellonycha lividipennis Motschulsky, 1854b(Kazantsev & Nikitsky 2008).Moreover, this specimen bears a red label, and fits the description given for Bicellonycha lividipennis Motschulsky, 1854b.Together, we interpret this as evidence that this specimen is a male syntype of Bicellonycha lividipennis Motschulsky, 1854b, which we hereby designate as lectotype."Serra da Strella" probably refers to the Serra da Estrela Mountain, part of the Serra do Mar Mountain range, Southeastern Brazil.Several European naturalists set foot at the Serra da Estrela, where the diplomat and "academic extraordinary" baron Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff had a property, named "Fazenda da Mandioca" (Portuguese for "Cassava farm") (Papavero 1971).Langsdorff in fact shipped many specimens to ZIN (Papavero 1971).Therefore, it is reasonable to attribute "Serra da Strella" to the piedmont of the Brazilian Serra da Estrela, in today's Magé Municipality, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil.

Remarks
Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a syntype from ZMMU.Here we designate a second syntype.Motschulsky (1853: 30) described Dilychnia and only listed Dilychnia basalis in the publication, without providing a separate description for the species.A description for Dilychnia basalis was given by Motschulsky in a later publication (1854a: 7).Rendering D. basalis invalid would threaten the stability of this genus, since no other species were listed by the author.However, the article European Journal of Taxonomy 943: 24-58 (2024) 12.2.6 of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) ensures combined descriptions for monotypic genera and their respective species described before 1961.Therefore, by the provisions of article 12.2.6, the publication date of Dilychnia basalis is 1853, and not 1854 as given in Vaz et al. (2020).

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) found a male syntype from ZMMU, which was missing its head, as well as its pro and mesothorax.Here, we designate a female lectotype from ZIN, which renders the ZMMU specimen a paralectotype."Nov.Helv." (New Switzerland) probably refers to present-day Sacramento, California.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Harris as the provider of this specimen."Amer.bor." should refer to North America.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Preservation status
Fairly well-preserved, antennae and metatarsi lacking.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of specimens for this species.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype from ZMMU.Here, we designate a paralectotype from ZIN.A note added to the specimen suggests that the identification label is false ("Etiquette faussa!").While we can't tell if the label is false or not, the specimen matches the original description, particularly for its unique pubescence covering its pronotum and elytra.

Preservation status
Fairly well-preserved, lacking tarsi of pro, meso and metalegs.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Grey as the provider of this specimen.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of specimens for this species.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype from ZMMU.Thus, the ZIN specimen is a paralectotype.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype from ZMMU.Thus, the ZIN specimen is a paralectotype.The original description lists "Brazil" as the type locality of Lychnogaster cinctus, whereas the ZIN paralectotype examined here has a label saying "Brasil.Mer.", interpreted here as Southern Brazil.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
As pointed out by Silveira et al. (2021), Motschulsky misattributed the authorship of Lychnuris klugii to Dejean.Since Motschulsky, the rightful author, didn't determine the depository of his type specimens, the ZIN specimen is considered a syntype, and we designate it here as a lectotype of Lychnuris klugii.

Preservation status
Lacking antennae, otherwise well-preserved.

Preservation status
Fairly well-preserved, lacking antennae, one mesoleg and one metaleg.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) found a male syntype at ZMMU, which was "badly damaged", missing its head, as well as its pro and mesothorax.Here, we designate a male lectotype from ZIN, which renders the ZMMU specimen a paralectotype.

Preservation status
Well-preserved, but lacking a mesoleg and one of the metatarsi.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of this specimen.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Deyrolle as the source of the type material from Brazil.This species is known from Southern Brazil, including Santa Catarina (Bocakova et al. 2022).Since Deyrolle provided other lampyrid specimens to Motschulsky from this region, the holotype is possibly from Southern Brazil.Motschulsky (1853: 33) described Nyctocrepis and only listed Nyctocrepis demoulini in the publication, without providing a separate description for the species.A description for Nyctocrepis demoulini was LIMA W. et al., New world lampyrid types at ZIN given by Motschulsky in a later publication (1854a: 10).Rendering Nyctocrepis demoulini invalid would threaten the stability of this genus, since no other species were listed by the author.However, the article 12.2.6 of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) ensures combined descriptions for monotypic genera and their respective species described before 1961.Therefore, by the provisions of article 12.2.6, the publication date of Nyctocrepis demoulini is 1853, and not 1854 as given in Bocakova et al. (2022).

Preservation status
Well-preserved.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Preservation status
Well-preserved, missing one antenna.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of the type specimen for this species.

Preservation status
Fairly well-preserved, missing one elytron.

Remarks
Motschulsky (1854) listed Deyrolle as the source of the specimen from Santa Catarina, Brazil.The type specimen analysed here has a label saying "Brazil Bremei Deyrolle".However, it has another label saying "Cayenn.".Because of the confusion with the labels, we decided to interpret this specimen as a syntype.We also note that McDermott (1966) misspelled the species name as Aspisoma bremeri, which should be considered a lapsus calami and not an available name.

Preservation status
Fairly well-preserved, abdomen missing.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of this specimen.The original description lists Brazil as the type locality, but with a question mark.The provenance label on the holotype says that it came from Northern Brazil.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
E. Olivier added a label written "false label" for unclear reasons, and identified this specimen as Aspisoma pallidum Olivier.

Preservation status
Well-preserved, but with one broken antenna.

Remarks
E. Olivier added a label written "false label" for unclear reasons, and identified this specimen as Aspisoma pallidum Olivier.

Preservation status
Well-preserved, except for damaged antennae.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) found a syntype at ZMMU.The label says "♀", but it is clearly a male.We hereby designate the ZIN specimen as a lectotype, rendering the ZMMU specimen a paralectotype.

Preservation status
Antennae, metalegs, and abdomen lacking.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype at ZMMU.Therefore, the ZIN specimen is a paralectotype.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype at ZMMU.Therefore, the ZIN specimen is a paralectotype.Motschulsky (1853: 30) described Pseudolychnuris and only listed Pseudolychnuris vittata in the publication, without providing a separate description for the species.A description for Pseudolychnuris vittata was given by Motschulsky in a later publication (1854a: 9).Rendering P. vittata invalid would threaten the stability of this genus, since no other species were listed by the author.However, the article 12.2.6 of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) ensures combined descriptions for monotypic genera and their respective species described before 1961.Therefore, by the provisions of article 12.2.6, the publication date of Pseudolychnuris vittata is 1853, and not 1854 as given in Ladino-Peñuela et al. (2022).

Preservation status
Fairly well-preserved, terminalia missing.

Remarks
Pygolampis blanda Motschulsky, 1854b(nec. Photinus blandus Jaquelin Du Val 1857) is currently listed as Lampyridae incertae sedis (McDermott 1966).This species was described from "St.Domingo", currently Hispaniola.Motschulsky lists Dejean as the author of the species, but the former must be recognized as author, since Dejean's name is in litteris.Lacordaire (1857) mentions P. blanda Dejean as from Brazil, which probably misled McDermott to list it from this country in his catalogue (McDermott 1966: 123).Based on its brief description and its type locality, P. blanda could be allied LIMA W. et al., New world lampyrid types at ZIN to Robopus Motschulsky, 1853, but if transferred, it would cause a homonymy with Robopus blanda (Jaquelin Du Val, 1857), currently a junior synonym of Robopus nefarius (E.Olivier, 1912; see Keller & Branham 2021).Since Robopus is yet to be reviewed, and it is beyond the scope of this work to resolve this matter, we refrain from pursuing nomenclatural acts.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of specimens for this species.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Preservation status
Complete, well-preserved.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed Mannerheim as the provider of specimens for this species.The original description lists "Antilles" as the type locality.We note that Motschulsky used Pyrectomena (misspelling of Pyractomena) several times in his work.

Preservation status
Head fallen from thorax, lacking one of the protarsus and one mesoleg.

Remarks
Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype from ZMMU.Therefore the ZIN specimen is a paralectotype.Motschulsky listed Eschscholtz as the provider of specimens for this species.

Preservation status
Head fallen from thorax, lacking one of the protarsus and one mesoleg.

Remarks
Motschulsky listed "Ol." as the provider of specimens for this species, perhaps referring to the entomologist G. Olivier.Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) found a female syntype at ZMMU.Here, we found another female syntype from ZIN, which we designate as a lectotype.The ZIN syntype lacks a locality label, but the original description listed French Guiana and Brazil as type localities, which match the known distribution of the species (Souto et al. 2019).

Preservation status
Well-preserved, one of the elytra damaged.

Remarks
Kazantsev & Nikitsky (2008) designated a lectotype from ZMMU.The specimen found at ZIN is therefore a paralectotype.While we cannot tell whether the label is false, the specimen matches the original description in all but the "projected posterior angles of the pronotum" (Motchulsky 1854), which is rather subtle in this putative paralectotype.
recently catalogued the Lampyridae types described by Motschulsky deposited in the Zoological Museum of Moscow Lomonosov University (Moscow, Russia).However, LIMA W. et al., New world lampyrid types at ZIN Motschulsky's types in St. Petersburg, are still not catalogued, several of which are even not recognized.
The following abbreviations are used for the collections mentioned in this paper: ZIN = Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg, Russia); ZMMU = Zoological Museum of Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia).

Table 1
(continued on next 2 pages).List of New World Lampyridae species described byMotschulsky.