The collection, known as CSIOC, was born in 1975 when English researcher Dr. Anthony J. Shelley conducted the first studies on onchocerciasis and mansonellosis in Brazil. From those early voucher specimens, the archive grew into a reference repository holding 24,671 catalogued records covering 3,992 localities, 19 countries and 152 species. Today it accounts for roughly 90 percent of the blackfly distribution records available in Brazil’s national biodiversity information systems, making it the country’s main public repository for this medically important insect family.

But the true historical weight of the collection lies in its older material. Two historic subcollections — those of Adolpho Lutz and César Pinto — are preserved under its care. Lutz, a pioneering Brazilian parasitologist and zoologist, described 27 blackfly species between 1903 and 1925, collecting primarily in southeastern Brazil, with the Bocaina Mountain Range a particular hotspot. Pinto, Lutz’s main disciple in blackfly research, published the first checklist of Simuliidae species in Brazil in 1931 and dedicated himself to preserving his mentor’s legacy. Together, these two collections form the documentary backbone of the new catalogue.

Compiling the type catalogue was no simple task. The team cross-checked primary specimen labels against original published descriptions, historical records and the continuously updated CSIOC database. Where possible, they corrected type locality names and added first-order political divisions that many original descriptions had omitted. The result is a stabilised nomenclatural foundation for Brazilian blackfly taxonomy, covering 34 nominal species — approximately 34.5 percent of the known Simuliidae fauna in Brazil — as well as 12 species currently regarded as junior synonyms.

The catalogue documents 350 primary type specimens, including 11 holotypes, 18 lectotypes, three neotypes and 318 paratypes, alongside 235 secondary types comprising 202 paralectotypes, 30 syntypes and three allotypes. An additional 88 specimens with unclear type status are also recorded, treated as possible paralectotypes or possible syntypes where their inclusion in original type series cannot be definitively confirmed. The team even encountered a specimen labelled as a

The distinction between primary and secondary types matters more than it might first appear. Under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the name-bearing specimens of a species anchor its identity in perpetuity. A holotype is the single specimen upon which a species name is fixed; a lectotype is a specimen later selected from the original syntype series when no holotype was designated; a neotype is a replacement chosen when the original name-bearing material has been lost or destroyed. Paratypes, paralectotypes and allotypes supplement these, documenting the variation observed in the original series. The presence of 18 lectotypes and three neotypes at CSIOC signals that many of the species described by early Brazilian workers lacked a single designated type specimen, a common practice in the era of Lutz and Pinto, when authors often worked with series of specimens without formally fixing a name-bearer. The designation of lectotypes and neotypes in later decades was therefore a necessary act of nomenclatural housekeeping, and the physical survival of these specimens is what gives the new catalogue its stabilising force.

The fragility of century-old material is a genuine concern for any collection of this age. Lutz’s Simuliidae Collection, assembled between 1903 and 1925, preserves specimens in four different ways: mounted on permanent microscope slides, sealed in glass ampoules, stored in alcohol, and pinned dry. Each preservation method carries its own vulnerabilities. Slide-mounted specimens depend on the integrity of the mounting medium, which can crack, shrink or crystallise over decades, exposing delicate morphological structures to air and desiccation. Alcohol-preserved material requires vigilance against evaporation and concentration changes. Pinned specimens are susceptible to pests, humidity and physical damage. The curatorial review conducted during the preparation of the catalogue addressed precisely these threats: slides and labels were cleaned and decontaminated with isopropyl alcohol and acetone, mounting medium was replenished where it had degraded, and entomological pins and pinning foam were replaced in dry-preserved specimens. Such interventions, though seemingly mundane, are what allow type specimens to remain usable for morphological study generations after their collection.

The photographic documentation accompanying the catalogue represents a parallel effort to safeguard these specimens against physical loss. Fifteen figures illustrate the conservation status of 28 primary type specimens from species described by Lutz and Pinto, captured with specialised equipment: pinned types were photographed using a Leica M205C stereomicroscope with the Auto Montage system, which stitches together images taken at different focal planes to produce fully sharp composite photographs, while slide-mounted specimens were imaged with a Zeiss Axio Imager 2 microscope. High-resolution images of type specimens serve a purpose beyond documentation. They allow taxonomists anywhere in the world to examine critical morphological features without shipping irreplaceable specimens across borders, reducing both the risk of loss and the handling stress on fragile material. In an era when international specimen loans are increasingly constrained, such image archives function as a form of insurance for the nomenclatural record.

The digitisation programme that produced these images is itself a story of institutional policy meeting scientific necessity. Fiocruz’s Policy for the Preservation of Scientific and Cultural Collections, known as Preservo, provided the microscopy and image analysis equipment and funded scholarship holders to generate high-resolution image archives across the institution’s collections. In 2022, a professional with prior knowledge of medical entomology was selected to digitise the CSIOC collection specifically, trained in the image platform and guided by Fiocruz’s Digitization Manual and curator-set priorities. That type material sat at the top of the priority list reflects a widely shared principle in natural history curation: name-bearing specimens carry documentary and reference value that ordinary vouchers do not, and their loss would destabilise the nomenclature of entire species groups. The catalogue now published is described as one of the first products of this systematised digitisation effort, suggesting that further outputs from the collection’s image archive can be expected.

The broader significance of the CSIOC’s holdings becomes clearer when placed in the context of blackfly biology. Simuliidae is a relatively small family of blood-feeding flies, but its medical and veterinary importance is disproportionate to its diversity. Female blackflies require blood meals to develop their eggs, and their bites can provoke severe allergic reactions in humans and livestock. More significantly, several species are vectors of disease agents: Leucocytozoon parasites of birds, Onchocerca parasites causing onchocerciasis in cattle, and both onchocerciasis and mansonellosis affecting humans. Accurate species identification is the foundation of all vector control work, because vector competence varies sharply between species, and morphologically similar species can differ profoundly in their epidemiological role. This is where a type catalogue earns its keep: by confirming which physical specimens define each species name, it ensures that researchers identifying field-caught flies are comparing them against the correct nomenclatural benchmark.

The historical collections at CSIOC also preserve a scientific discovery that has become a cornerstone of blackfly morphology. César Pinto, in his 1930 work on blackfly bionomics and morphology, highlighted a sensory organ that Lutz had discovered in the third segment of the maxillary palps of these insects. This structure, now known as the sensory vesicle or Lutz’s organ, remains a taxonomically important character in simuliid systematics. That the material documenting such discoveries survives in Rio de Janeiro, catalogued and now imaged, illustrates why historical collections are not merely archives of dead insects but active repositories of morphological evidence that continues to inform contemporary research.

The catalogue’s methodology also reveals the detective work inherent in type curation. The researchers consulted card files compiled by Dr. Vulcano that document Lutz’s collection, alongside original species descriptions, Brazilian species catalogues and the collection’s own database. The primary criterion for establishing type status was the comparison between original specimen labels and the original published descriptions of each species, a standard that guards against the gradual accumulation of mislabelled material over decades. Specimens whose type status could not be definitively confirmed were flagged with a question mark and coded as possible paralectotypes or possible syntypes, an honest acknowledgment of uncertainty that is itself valuable information for future researchers. The catalogue also standardised type locality data, correcting altered place names and adding first-order political divisions such as Brazilian states that many original descriptions had omitted, with editorial additions clearly marked in brackets to distinguish them from the original text.

For Brazil specifically, the catalogue’s coverage is substantial. The 34 nominal species documented represent approximately 34.5 percent of the known Simuliidae fauna in the country, and the inclusion of 12 junior synonyms helps clarify which names are actually in use. Synonymy — the recognition that two published names refer to the same species — is a persistent source of confusion in taxonomy, and catalogues that explicitly record synonymised names prevent researchers from inadvertently treating a single species as two. The CSIOC team’s ongoing fieldwork, including expeditions to the Amazon Region and central-western Brazil and the description of new species in recent decades, continues to expand this knowledge base, and the collection’s virtual catalogue is continuously updated as digitisation and data informatisation proceed. In this sense, the printed type catalogue is best understood not as a final word but as a snapshot: a verified, stabilised baseline from which the next century of Brazilian blackfly research can proceed with confidence in the identity of its foundational specimens.

Subject of Research: Type catalogue of the Simuliidae (Diptera) Collection of the Oswaldo Cruz Institute

Article Title: Type catalogue of the Simuliidae ( Diptera ) Collection of the Oswaldo Cruz Institute

Article References: Molina, Ó. S., Aranda, A. T., Chimes, F. G., & da Silva, I. R. (2025). Type catalogue of the Simuliidae (Diptera) Collection of the Oswaldo Cruz Institute. Natural History Collections and Museomics, 2, 1-60. https://doi.org/10.3897/nhcm.2.153713

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/nhcm.2.153713

Keywords: Type, catalogue, Simuliidae, Diptera, Collection, Oswaldo, Cruz, Institute, scientific research