Stevenia florentina Rondani 1861

Stevenia florentina Rondani, 1861 ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: 1861e: 144 (key), 146 (description). TYPE LOCALITY: “ Etruria [Etruria (= Tuscany, Italy)]”. TYPE MATERIAL: 1 ♂, lectotype (missing left mid-leg) (MZUF: Box 17): Stevenia Desv. / florentina Rnd. / 905 / holotype ♂, Stevenia florentina Rnd., T. Pape det., 1986 / Paykullia partenopea (R.), T. Pape det., 1986. PARALECTOTYPES NOT EXAMINED: 2 ♂♂ (both missing left fore-legs) (MZUF: Box 17): Stevenia Desv. / florentina Rnd. ♂ / 905. CURRENT STATUS: junior synonym of Paykullia partenopea Rondani, 1861 (Pape 1989: 356); nomen dubium in Paykullia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Herting 1993: 116); junior synonym of Paykullia partenopea Rondani, 1861 (Peris & González-Mora 2007: 49; Cerretti et al. 2020: 85). REMARKS: Rondani (1861e: 146) described Stevenia florentina from just the male sex, without specifying the exact number of specimens, but giving a single measurement of length: “ Semel marem accepi a D. Piccioli florentino in Etruria lectum [Once I obtained the male collected in Etruria from the Florentine Piccioli]”. Rondani attributed the species name to Piccioli. Pape (1989: 356) reported a ‘holotype’ in the MZUF without knowing of two additional syntype males in the MZUF, which brings the original syntype series to three specimens. In his original description, Rondani did not explicitly refer to a single male specimen, therefore Pape’s reference to a ‘holotype’ specimen must be considered as a lectotype (I.C.Z.N. 1999: Article 74.6). The additional two males in the MZUF not examined by Pape are paralectotypes. Cerretti et al. (2020: 85) incorrectly cited a holotype of this nominal species in the MZUF. Two MZUF females numbered “905” are not included in the syntype series because of their sex.Published as part of Sforzi, Alessandra & Sommaggio, Daniele, 2021, Catalog of the Diptera types described by Camillo Rondani, pp. 1-438 in Zootaxa 4989 (1) on page 187, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4989.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/498062