Celonites semenovi Kostylev 1935

Celonites semenovi Kostylev (Fig. 13) Celonites semenovi Kostylev, 1935: 112, [♀] (type locality: “ПерсиЯ” [Iran]). Type material. LECTOTYPE (DESIGNATED HERE): ♀, labeled “[golden disc] // Керман: стр. Мекран. [Kerman: Makran] / 14–18.III.1901 / Н. ЗарУдный. [N. Zarudny] // Coll. Semenov-Tian-Shansky // Celonites ♀ / semenovi. Typ / G. Kostylev det. 1932 // Lectotype ♀ / Celonites semenovi / Kostylev, 1935 / des. Fateryga, 2024 [red label] // Zoological Institute / St. Petersburg / INS_HYM_0000327 [pale yellow label]” [ZISP]. Current status. Valid (Carpenter 2001). Senior synonym of Celonites pictus rufiventris Gusenleitner, 1992, syn. nov. Remarks. Kostylev (1935) did not indicate any material examined. Therefore, the only available specimen with his identification label is designated here as the lectotype. The lectotype is lacking some legs. Photographs of the holotype of C. pictus rufiventris (ZOBODAT 2025b), described from Iran, were examined along with its original description (Gusenleitner 1992); it fits the lectotype of C. semenovi except that C. pictus rufiventris has a somewhat richer orange pattern. The taxonomic status of C. pictus pictus Richards, 1962 described from Senegal remains unclear. Two females from Morocco were examined and no evident structural differences from C. semenovi were revealed (both females had a coloration similar to that of the lectotype of C. semenovi, i.e., slightly less extensive orange patter than that in the holotype of C. pictus rufiventris). However, according to Volker Mauss (personal communication), there is a valuable difference in the COI-5P sequences between a specimen of C. pictus from Morocco (Fateryga et al. 2023a) and three specimens from the Arabian Peninsula (Schmid-Egger 2017). Males from the eastern populations (unavailable in the present study) should be compared with those from northern Africa. Until this is done, C. pictus is provisionally continued to be treated as a separate species closely related to C. semenovi.