Pamene seminotata Filipjev 1926

26. seminotata Filipjev, 1926 (Figs 28, 61, 69) Pamene [sic!] seminotata Filipjev, 1926. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 91(1) (1925): 116. TL: Russia, “ Stavropol ”. Types. Lectotype ♀: “ Ставрополь – К. 29/III 14 г. [Stavropol – K. 29.III 14]”, “ Pamene seminotata Fil. ♀ Type ”, gold circle, “микр. преп. [praep. micr.] N 7010 ♀ ”, “Lectotypus Pammene seminotata Fil. ”, “ ZISP INS _LEP_ 0001955”, “Praep. micr. SVN 24194 Pammene regiana (Zeller, 1849) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024”. Paralectotype: ♂ – “Х. Романовский Куб. обл. лес Н. Филипьев 23/IV 20 [Romanovsky farm, Kuban Region, forest 23/IV 20 N. Filipjev]”, gold circle, “ Pammene seminotata Fil. ♂ Type”, “микр. преп. N 7010 ♂ | Pammene seminotata Fil. [praep. micr. № 7010 ♂ | Pammene seminotata Fil.]”, “Paralectotypus Pammene seminotata Fil. ”, “Praep.micr. SVN 24193 Pammene regiana (Zeller, 1849) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024”. Present status. Pammene regiana (Zeller, 1849) syn. nov. Comments. The genitalia of the male paralectotype were figured by Danilevsky & Kuznetzov (1968). They also considered the type specimens as a holotype and a paratype. Since holotype was not designated in the original description, the specimen mentioned by Danilevsky & Kuznetzov (1968) as the holotype is designated here to be a lectotype. Taxonomic notes. Danilevsky & Kuznetzov (1968) treated seminotata as a subspecies of Pammene trauniana (Dennis et Schiffermüller, 1775), distributed in Crimea, the Caucasus, Iran, and mountainous Turkmenistan. They noted that high variability and the presence of intermediate forms do not justify recognizing seminotata as a separate species. Razowski (2003) questioned this opinion and suggested that these specimens require re- consideration. In addition to the previously mentioned types, the ZISP collection includes the following specimens of seminotata: a female from Crimea, a specimen without an abdomen from Georgia, eight specimens from Armenia, and one female from Turkmenistan. My examination of the type specimens of seminotata and the material mentioned above reveals that seminotata does not correspond to any specimens of trauniana in the ZISP collection or those illustrated in Razowski (2003). The male and female genitalia of seminotata are identical to those of regiana Zeller, 1849, sensu Razowski (2003). At the same time, regiana includes another subspecies described from Georgia – Pammene regiana caucasica Kuznetzov, 1968 – which does not correspond to either regiana sensu Razowski (2003) or seminotata. Since type and non-type specimens of seminotata show no clear differences from European specimens of regiana, seminotata is considered here as a junior synonym of regiana (syn. nov.). The taxonomic status of caucasica remains unclear and requires further research.