While working on adding resources on Heteroptera to the Library of Identification Resources, I came across this striking observation of an ambush bug (Reduviidae, subfamily Phymatinae) from the Dominican Republic:
© Jiri Hodecek, some rights reserved (CC-BY-NC) https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/171587100
It is identified as Paraphymata saileri Kormilev, 1962, a genus and species described from a single specimen from Haiti. In the same publication, Phymata superba Kormilev, 1962 is first described, also described from a single specimen from Haiti. The publication is available online from the publisher (archived).
There, the holotype of Paraphymata saileri is described as follows:
♂, Haiti, Acc. Hinche, August 30, 1930 (H. L. Dozier).
Whereas the holotype of Phymata superba is described as:
This species is so striking, that Dr. H. G. Barber put the label “New Gen.-sp. Has tarsi.”
♂, Haiti Port-au-Prince, August 15, 1924 (W.A. Hoffman).
However, looking at the holotypes online show something else, for Paraphymata saileri (link):
And for Phymata superba (link):
The labels are exactly the other way around! Kormilev’s publication does luckily make it clear which species is which, both in the descriptions and in the associated figures, where fig. 355 (left) belongs to Paraphymata saileri and fig. 356 (right) belongs to Phymata superba (and I must say, are both wonderful drawings, made by Carlos A. Wappers).
So, what happened to the labels? Did Kormilev mix up the type localities in his manuscript? Or were the labels mixed up during deposition of the specimens, or in the digitization process? Barber’s confident comment of “New gen+sp.” (as opposed to the “Gen? sp?” in the other set of labels) could make sense for the specimen that actually led to a new genus and species (Paraphymata saileri), but both specimens are striking and distinct in their own ways, and Phymata superba is still in its own, new subgenus.
Update: The images actually have their original EXIF metadata, allowing us to determine the following: the photos of the labels were taken on January 2nd, 2003 (with a Fujifilm FinePix S5000), in sequence of specimen number, about 3–5 minutes apart. This suggests to me that the labels were photographed one by one, with only one set of labels off its pin at a time, making it unlikely the error occurred there. Most of the files where then modified (with Adobe Photoshop) on August 9th, 2011, again in sequence but about 1–2 minutes apart. Notably, two of the files were modified a day later (August 10th), just a few seconds apart: the two files belonging to Paraphymata saileri and Phymata superba.
