Onthophagus fuscus Boucomont, 1932

Figs. 1–2, 18–20.

Type material. Not examined.

Non-type material examined (73 males, 147 females). 1 male: “ México, Cerro Blanco, Mcpo. de Suchil, Edo. de Durango, 29–30/IX/1975. G. y V. Halffter cols. Cebo excremento de venado cola blanca” (GHC) ; 2 males, 4 females: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, 27/VII/1978. R. E. Halffter col. Cebo excremento de venado” (GHC: 4 females; VMC: 2 males) ; 1 male, 7 females: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, SW Vicente Guerrero. 1–6/VII/1978. G. y V. Halffter cols. Colectas en Rancho La Peña. Cebo carroña” (GHC: 1 male, 6 females; VMC: 1 female) ; 1 male: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, 22/VIII/81, V. Halffter col.” (GHC) ; 2 males, 1 female: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, Rancho de La Peña, VIII/81 ” (GHC: 1 male; VMC: 1 male, 1 female) ; 9 males, 8 females: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, VIII-IX/87, Anduaga/Santos” (IEXA); 1 male, 1 female: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, VIII/90. R. Terrón. 2600 m ” (IEXA) ; 19 males, 58 females: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, 6/IX-10/XII/86. Encinar. NTP-80.” (IEXA) ; 24 males, 61 females: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, 4/VII. 4/IX/ 86. 2450 m.” (IEXA) ; 1 female: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, alt. 2400 m.” (IEXA) ; 5 males, 6 females: “ México, La Michilía, Edo. de Durango, VII-86.” (IEXA) ; 4 males, 4 females: “ México, Zacatecas, Tlaltenango, 2591 m, 27/VII/2003. G. Nogueira col.” (IEXA) ; 4 males, 3 females: “ México, Aguascalientes, Sierra Fría, Los Encinos, 7/VIII/91. Alt. 2500 m. G. Nogueira, col.” (IEXA) ; 1 male: “ México, Jalisco, Volcán de Tequila. 2150 m. 10/VIII/94. G. Nogueira col.” (IEXA) .

……continued on the next page Remarks. Length: 8.9 ± 0.7 mm. Zunino & Halffter (1988) suggested that O. fuscus had four subspecies with slight differences: O. fuscus canescens, O. fuscus fuscus, O. fuscus mycetorum, and O. fuscus parafuscus . In this work, we highlight a set of differences in features as color, pubescence, clypeal and frontal carinae, pronotal prominence, clypeus shape, genae, aedeagus, lamella copulatrix, female genital sclerites, and geographical distribution of these taxa (Table 1, Figs. 18 – 20). This set of features led us to consider all the subspecies proposed by Zunino & Halffter (1988) as different species that can be easily diagnosed, but closely related.