22 H. STEMPFFER 



One of them does in fact have a label referring to this description. Examination of 

 the fore tarsi shows that one of these is a male, the other a female but both lack the 

 extremity of the abdomen and, besides, are rather discoloured, probably on account 

 of age. Among the hundreds of specimens of Ornipholidotos which I have had the 

 opportunity of examining, collected more or less recently, I have found none which 

 can undoubtedly be regarded as exactly matching Dewitz's " type " specimens of 

 muhata. In the absence of genitalia for comparison and in view of the inconclusive 

 nature of any comparison based on external characters in this genus, it is, therefore, 

 impossible at present to identify Dewitz's species, which must remain a species 

 dubium. 



On the other hand the male genitalia figured by Bethune Baker as those of muhata 

 are instantly recognizable as those of the well known species 0. kirbyi (Pentila kirbyi 

 Aurivillius, 1895), the holotype of which I was able to dissect in 1947, and of which I 

 have examined the genitalia of some fifty specimens from various African localities. 



We have therefore a case in which (1) the species named as the type-species of the 

 genus is a species dubium (muhata) and (2) the species on which the description of the 

 genus was in fact based is an easily recognized species, currently known as kirbyi. 

 In order to overcome the uncertainties of this situation I am applying to the Inter- 

 national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to set aside all type-fixations for 

 the genus Ornipholidotos made prior to their ruling and to rule that the type-species 

 of that genus be Pentila kirbyi Aurivillius (1895, Ent. Tidskr. 16 : 198) as defined by 

 Stempffer (1947, Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 40 : 169). 



Fig. 12. Ornipholidotos kirbyi (Aurivillius), <$ genitalia. 



