Speocharis (Speocharis) nietoi Salgado 1988

Speocharis (Speocharis) nietoi Salgado, 1988 (Fig. 10) Speocharis (Speocharis) nietoi Salgado, 1988: 61; figs. 2–7. Current accepted name Quaestus nietoi (Salgado, 1988): Fresneda et al., 2024: 489. Type locality Cueva del Sierru [original citation: “Cueva del Sierru, en San Pedro de Tolivia (Asturias)”]. Type material Possible paratypes: MZB 78-2213, MZB 78-2214 (5 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀), type loc., 13-IV-1985?, J. M. Salgado leg. Remarks When citing the information regarding the type series, Salgado (1988: 61) does not give a data for the paratypes. However, subsequently (p. 65) he does assign a date of 13 April 1985, given as the capture date of the holotype and allotype, to a series of 166 ♂♂ and 141 ♀♀ specimens (which match the number of specimens in the type series). The labels of the material deposited in the MCNB (5 ♂♂ and 5 ♀♀) have the date 9 March 1986, which corresponds to a large group of specimens from the same locality, also mentioned by the author (p. 65) but excluded from the type series (Article 72.4.6.). These specimens have red labels bearing the inscription “Paratipus / Speocharis nietoi n. sp. / J. Mª Salgado det.”. The labels (including the capture labels) were hand-written by O. Escolà. Salgado (1988) indicates that the holotype ♂ and allotype ♀ are deposited in his own collection, and that the paratypes are in his own collection and in the collections of the CZULE and MNHNP. We believe that once the description had been published, the author’s idea was to donate paratypes to the MCNB, However, either the MCNB specimens are true paratypes and the date on the capture label is wrong (i.e. it should be 13 April 1985), or they correspond, as the date indicates, to the large series captured on 9 March 1986 that was erroneously labelled as a paratype. The precision of the published information and the information on the labels admits no other explanation bearing in mind, as well, that Salgado (1988) cites over 3000 specimens from the type locality. Although it is likely that these specimens are really paratypes (indeed, Fresneda & Salgado, 2016, mention the deposit of paratypes in the MCNB), we cannot be absolutely sure that this is so.