Probolus detritus
Creators: name: Dal Pos, Davide
name: Heilman, Victoria
name: Welter-Schultes, Francisco
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Ichneumonidae
Probolus
Probolus detritus

description: Probolus detritus (Brullé, 1846)
(Figures 4a, 34, 35)
Ichneumon detritus Brullé, 1846: 302 (descr.); Cresson 1862: 208 (dist.); Berthoumieu 1904: 44 (cat.); Townes 1944: 376 (as a synonym of Ctenichneumon syphax (Cresson)); Townes and Townes 1951: 296 (as a synonym of Ctenichneumon syphax (Cresson)).
Ichneumon indistinctus Provancher, 1875: 23, 75 (descr., key); Ichneumon indistinctus Berthoumieu 1904: 43 (cat.); Barron 1975: 487 (cat., syn.). Synonymised by Barron (1975: 487).
Amblyteles illaetabilis Cresson, 1877: 190 (descr., key); Dalla Torre 1902: 817 (cat.); Berthoumieu 1904: 53 (cat.); Cresson 1916: 35 (cat.); Brimley 1938: 404 (dist.). Synonymised by Townes (1961: 107). Synonymised by Townes (1961: 107).
Amblyteles innotabilis [sic] Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat., dist., incorrect subsequent spelling). First reviser (ICZN 1999, Article 24.2): Townes (1944: 319).
Amblyteles detritus Cresson 1877: 192 (descr., dist., key, notes); Provancher 1879: 11 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 293, 299 (descr., dist., key); Cresson 1887: 184 (cat.); Smith 1890: 22 (dist.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 809 (cat.); Johnson 1927: 144 (dist.); Cushman 1928: 923 (dist.); Johnson 1930: 98 (dist.).
Amblyteles indistinctus Cresson 1877: 192 (descr., dist., key); Provancher 1879: 11 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 293, 300 (descr., dist., key); Cresson 1887: 189 (cat.); Smith 1890: 22 (dist.); Fyles 1894: 54 (dist.); Slosson 1896 (dist.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 818 (cat.); Fyles 1916: 56 (dist.); Gahan and Rohwer 1917: 306 (cat., lectotype designation); Johnson 1930: 98 (dist.).
Amblyteles (Amblytelesi) detritus Viereck 1917: 360 (key).
Probulus illaetabilis Townes 1944: 319 (cat.); Fattig 1950: 30 (dist.); Townes and Townes 1951: 283 (cat., dist.).
Probulus indistinctus Townes 1944: 319 (cat.); Fattig 1950: 30 (dist.); Townes and Townes 1951: 283 (cat., dist.); Heinrich 1962a: 520 (as a synonym of Probolus expunctus (Cresson)).
Probulus detritus Townes 1961: 107; Heinrich 1962a: 519 (descr., dist., key, notes); Heinrich 1977: 121 (descr., dist., key, notes); Carlson 1979: 514 (cat.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 640 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016.
Original type series
Syntypes ♀ of Ichneumon detritus (MNHN); lectotype ♂ of Amblyteles illaetabilis (ANSP); lectotype ♀ of Ichneumon indistictus, designated by Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 306) (LUEC).
Brullé (1846, p. 302) described Ichneumon detritus without specifying the number of specimens included in the description.
Townes (1944, p. 376) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Heinrich’s (1962a, p. 776) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ did not constitute a valid lectotype designation (ICZN 1999, Article 74.5). In this paper, we decided to take a more conservative approach, referring to the specimen(s) as ‘syntypes’ ICZN (1999, Article 73.2).
Cresson (1877, p. 190) described Amblyteles illaetabilis without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 35), in his list of types, simply reported the type to be a male from Georgia and ‘In good condition’, without clarifying the number of specimens. Townes (1944, p. 319) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Carlson (1979, p. 317) stated that Cresson (1916) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916, p. 1) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’. Furthermore, it suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention of selecting a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Heinrich’s (1962a, p. 519) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ was in errror.
Provancher (1875, p. 75) described Ichneumon indistinctus from Québec without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 306) designated the lectotype, addressing it as ‘Type– Female, yellow label 185. 2nd Coll. Pub. Mus., Quebec’. Subsequently, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) incorrectly employed the term ‘Holotypus’ for the same specimen. Barron (1975, p. 487) considered valid the designation of Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 75).
Type locality
United States of America, ‘la Caroline’ (Ichneumon detritus), Georgia (Amblyteles illaetabilis); Canada, Québec (Ichneumon indistinctus).
Brullé (1846, p. 304) reported Ichneumon detritus for ‘la Caroline’. The same author, when reporting the locality for Ephialtes irritatus Fabricius, stated ‘l’Amérique du Nord (la Caroline)’. It is not clear what Brullé (1846, p. 304) was referring to with ‘la Caroline’ – possibly the region encompassed by the two Carolinas (North and South).
Type specimens examined
Syntypes ♀ of Ichneumon detritus: ‘[White round label] Caroline/L’herminier // [White label] Ich./ detritus Br. // [White label, red writing] TYPE // [Green label] MUSEUM PARIS // [White label] Muséum Paris/EY9952’ (images examined; available at https://science.mnhn.fr/insti tution/mnhn/collection/ey/item/ey9952)
Material examined
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA: Okaloosa Co., 1 mi. N. Holt, Blackwater River For., 03 November 1978, leg. L. Stange & H.V. Weems, Jr., 1♀ (FSCA).
Updated distribution (Figure 35)
CANADA: Ontario (Heinrich 1962a), Québec (Provancher 1875; Fyles 1894); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Arkansas (Heinrich 1977), Delaware (Cresson 1877), Florida (new state record), Georgia (Cresson 1877; Fattig 1950), Louisiana (Heinrich 1977), Maine (Cresson 1877; Heinrich 1962a), Massachusetts (Cresson 1877; Johnson 1930), New Hampshire (Cresson 1877; Slosson 1896), New Jersey (Cresson 1877; Smith 1890), New York (Cresson 1877; Cushman 1928), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962a), Pennsylvania (Cresson 1877; Heinrich 1962a), Rhode Island (Heinrich 1962a), South Carolina (Heinrich 1962a).
Host
Unknown.
Male
The syntypes of Amblyteles illaetabilis Cresson, 1877 are males and thus their description functions as a description of the male. Moreover, Heinrich (1962a, p. 520) also provided a description of the males.
Comments
The taxonomic history of detritus is complicated. Cresson (1877, p. 192) synonymised Ichneumon syphax Cresson, 1864 under Amblyteles detritus (Brullé, 1846). Conversely, Townes (1944, p. 376) transferred syphax under the genus Ctenichneumon, and synonymised detritus under syphax disregarding that detritus was the senior name that should have had precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.1). In the same work, Townes (1944, p. 319) maintained as valid both illaetabilis and indistinctus, transferring them under the genus Probolus. This view was followed by Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283, 296). After Townes (1961, p. 107) examined the syntypes at MNHN, detritus was resurrected and transferred to the genus Probolus, treating Amblyteles illaetabilis as its synonym. Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) followed Townes’ (1961, p. 107) view, but treated indistictus as a synonym of Probulus expunctus (Cresson, 1864). It was Barron (1975, p. 487) who, based on the original type series of indistinctus, recognised indistictus as junior synonym of detritus instead of expunctus.
description: Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1921-1924, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619