Zapotecia keiteli Michaelsen 1902

1. * Zapotecia keiteli Michaelsen, 1902 Zapotecia keiteli Michaelsen, 1902: 16–19. Embleton 1903: 41. Michaelsen 1903: 109. Cognetti de Martiis 1905: 35. Michaelsen 1905: 26. Gates, 1942: 94. Zicsi & Csuzdi 1991: 31. James 1993: 5, 6. Fragoso et al. 1995: 112 (table). Rodríguez Aragonés 1999: 11, 23–24 (fig. 2), 63. Reynolds & Reynolds 2001: 17. Fragoso & Brown 2007: 63 (table). Rodríguez et al. 2007: 94 (table). Cervantes Olvera 2012: 8, 12, 13, 33. Cervantes et al. 2015: poster. Fragoso & Rojas 2016: 122 (table). Locus typicus. “ Haiti, Port au Prince” Distribution. Haiti (Embleton 1903, misspelled as “Haita”; Michaelsen 1905; Zicsi & Csuzdi 1991; Fragoso et al. 1995; Rodríguez Aragonés 1999; Reynolds & Reynolds 2001; Fragoso & Brown 2007; Rodríguez et al. 2007; Cervantes et al. 2015); HT, Ouest Department, Port-au-Prince Arrondissement, Port-au-Prince (Site 1, Fig. 1) (Michaelsen 1902; Michaelsen 1903; Cognetti de Martiis 1905; Gates 1942; Cervantes Olvera 2012). Remarks. This species is only known from its type locality in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and has not been collected on the island ever since. Zapotecia is currently a small genus with only two additional species, both from Mexico (James 1993). Specimens with affinities to Z. keiteli have been reported from Cuba (Rodríguez Aragonés 1999; Rodríguez et al. 2007). Cervantes Olveras (2012) reported a species morphologically similar to Z. keiteli from Veracruz, Mexico. The original description of Z. keiteli is based on a couple of juvenile specimens. Given this, the unusual geographical distance between these records (not seen in any other species within this group) and subtle differences between Michaelsen (1902) and the diagnosis provided by Rodríguez Aragonés (1999) (e.g., body size, presence and absence of typhlosole), there is still the possibility that these records might represent morphologically similar species rather than the same taxon. However, Zisci & Csuzdi (1991) considered Z. keiteli as a junior synonym of Z. amecamecae Eisen, 1900, based on literature review and examination of a single Mexican specimen. We therefore refrain from a taxonomical decision until fresh material from Hispaniola can be obtained and compared with other Zapotecia populations using an integrative approach.