Chromatanops

Number of species: 1.

Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393), Lewis (2016 a: 575). Both Chagas-Jr et al. (2014: 142) and Bonato et al. (2016) regarded C. bivittatus (the only species of Chromatanops) as a member of Cryptops, but at the same time Bonato et al. (2016) included Chromatanops as a subgenus of Cryptops. Pocock (1893: 462) described Cryptops bivittatus from “ St. Vincent ” by the only [?] specimen with “ Length about 15.5 mm ”. The original description is rather short and unillustrated. No information is available on clypeal setose plates, either the pretarsus or dorsal brush of maxillae 2, or length of the tarsungula. According to the original description (p. 462) the anterior margin of the forcipular coxosternite is “ straight and furnished with 6 bristles ” and sternites are “ furnished with the ordinary cross-shaped sulci [= sutures] ”. In 1903 Kraepelin (who listed two “ Exemplare aus Costa Rica und Columbien ” at hand) confirmed Pocock’s description in virtually all details; in particular he wrote (p. 50) that sternites are with “ starken Längs- and schwachen Querfurchen ”. In 1906 Verhoeff established the subgenus Chromatanops (for C. bivittatus only) herewith he surprisingly noted an absence [!] of sternal transverse thickening between coxae of legs (“ Hauptsternite ohne innere Verdickungsleisten ”; pp 289 – 290), in contrast to Pocock’s and Kraepelin’s data on presence of the sternal transverse suture (see above). He also noted an absence of sternal trigonal sutures (“ Keine Sternitdreiecke ”) and not definitely bordered endosternites (“ Endosternite nicht sharf abgegrenzt ”) (p. 290). In his short (and unillustrated) diagnosis Verhoeff gave no important morphological details that may be used for separation of his “ new subgenus ”. However he copied Pocock’s and Kraepelin’s data on presence of tergal accumulations of dark pigment (“ Körper mit schwartzen, in Längsstreifen angeordneten Pigmentmassen ”; p. 390), a character he apparently regarded as diagnostic for his new taxon (this idea is confirmed by the name “ Chromatanops ”). Other data on this mysterious Cryptops are scant, contained in Chamberlin (1922: 3), Attems (1930: 243), Bücherl (1942: 324), Kraus (1957: 387) and Chagas-Jr et al. (2014: 142). Of these only Attems gave a short morphological account, albeit reproducing data of three previous authors. Original data on the geographic distribution of “ Cryptops (Chromatanops) bivittatus ” (6 new localities from Peru) were presented by Kraus (1957), whereas the other three authors just copied the previous faunistic data. As for Verhoeff’s (1906) “ diagnostic ” dark coloration of his “ Chromatanops ”, we can state that it is of minor taxonomic value in Cryptops; Schileyko (2007: 88) wrote about pigmentation in Vietnamese material (150 specimens) of C. doriae Pocock, 1891: “ … about 40 % of specimens showing inner accumulations of dark pigment … This dark pattern is much better visible dorsally, sometimes also laterally and, much more rarely, ventrally ”. Schileyko’s data were confirmed by Lewis (2009) who analysed in detail a variability of some morphological characters, traditionally used in taxonomy of Cryptops (Cryptops) (p. 506): “ To summarise, some species always exhibit the [dark] pigmentation; some may or may not exhibit it and others … are not pigmented ”. Thus, this character may vary in Cryptops even intraspecifically, so it cannot be used for separation of any subtaxa in this genus. Summing up, as there are no reliable diagnostic characters to confirm Chromatanops as a subgenus, so Cryptops (Chromatanops) Verhoeff, 1906 is considered a junior synonym of Cryptops Leach, 1814 syn. nov. and Cryptops (Chromatanops) bivittatus Pocock, 1893 should be Cryptops (Cryptops) bivittatus Pocock, 1893 stat. nov.

Type species. Cryptops bivittatus Pocock, 1893 (by monotypy).