Abstract. 1. We surveyed the treatment of taxonomic information in 567 papers published in nine entomological journals in 2016.2. The proportion of papers that provide taxonomic data in sufficient detail to permit precise validation of taxonomic identifications is vanishingly small: most did not cite identification methods, most did not state whether identified material had been vouchered, and taxon concepts were almost universally absent in non-taxonomic papers. Overall, the combination of all three factors was provided less than 2% of the time and almost two-thirds of all papers provided none of the three.3. We suggest that journals should modify the templates used by editors and reviewers by overtly including the following questions:i. Are Order and Family named in the title, abstract or keywords? ii. Are the methods used for identification of all studied taxa stated clearly? iii. Is it clear who did the identifications, are they named and is their contact information and/or institutional affiliation provided?iv. Is the literature whereupon these identifications are based cited appropriately? This would include some reference to as thorough a revisional taxon concept statement as possible, preferably from recent revisions if available.v. Are exemplars of all focal species (or all sampled individuals) vouchered in a named repository (ideally with contact person name and accession numbers or other means of ready detection)?4. Accurate and replicable taxonomic identification is the cornerstone of biology, without which entomological research risks becoming irreproducible and thus not scientific.

A taxonomic revision of Colletes Latreille species with known geographic distribution in Chile is presented. In addition to the traditional morphological approach to taxonomy, DNA barcoding was employed to facilitate sexual association and cryptic species recognition. I provide diagnoses, synonymies, geographic and floral records, and a fully-illustrated key for 31 recognized species, 23 of them previously described: C. alocochila Moure, C. atacamensis Janvier, C. atripes Smith, C. bicolor Smith, C. chusmiza Rojas & Toro, C. cognatus Spinola, C. cyanescens (Haliday), C. cyaniventris Spinola n. stat., C. flaminii Moure, C. fulvipes Spinola, C. gilvus Vachal, C. guanta Rojas & Toro, C. longiceps Friese, C. lucens Vachal, C. mastochila Moure, C. murinus Friese, C. musculus Friese, C. nigritulus Friese, C. patagonicus Schrottky, C. quelu Rojas & Toro, C. rutilans Vachal, C. sulcatus Vachal, and C. vicugnensis Rojas & Toro. In addition, eight new species are described: C. arthuri n. sp., C. coquimbensis n. sp., C. flavipilosus n. sp., C. kuhlmanni n. sp., C. nigropilosus n. sp., C. simulatus n. sp., C. toroi n. sp., and C. ventricarinatus n. sp. Lectotypes for the following species are designated: Andrena cyanescens, Colletes bicolor, C. campoi Herbst, C. chubutensis Cockerell, C. gilvus, C. lucens, C. patagonicus, C. rufosignatus Cockerell, and C. viridans Vachal. Colletes seminitidus Spinola and C. viridans are both proposed as junior synonyms of C. cyanescens, and C. araucariae Friese is considered a junior synonym of C. sulcatus. Colletes cyaniventris n. stat. is resurrected from synonymy.

No abstract

No abstract