Ellampus schulthessi subauratus Mocsáry, 1890

(Fig. 12 A–D)

Ellampus schulthessi var. subauratus Mocsáry, 1890: 51 . Holotype ♂; Russia: Raddefka [= Evreyskaya autonomous Prov.: Radde] (ETHZ).

Ellampus sareptanus var. subauratus: Bischoff 1913: 9 (cat.).

Omalus sareptanus var. subauratus: Trautmann 1927: 36 (cat., descr.).

Omalus Horvathi [!] var. subaurata: Linsenmaier 1951: 96 (cat.).

Omalus (Omalus) sareptanus var. subauratus: Linsenmaier 1959: 20 (cat.).

Philoctetes schulthessi subauratus: Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 257 (synonymous of Philoctetes sareptanus (Mocsáry, 1889)) .

Type locality: Russia: “ Patria: Raddefka in territorio Amurensi Sibiriae (Coll. Schulthess-Rechbergi) ”.

Holotype, ♂: Raddefka // Schulthessi v. subauratus <handwritten in red> det. Mocsary // Omalus Pz. sareptanus Mocs . Linsenmaier det. 57.

Remarks. Ellampus subauratus was described as a subspecies of Ellampus schulthessi Mocsáry, 1890 and synonymised with Ellampus sareptanus Mocsáry, 1889 (currently Philoctetes sareptanus) by Kimsey & Bohart (1991). However, it is separated from the latter by different punctation on the last metasomal tergum, which is very fine and dense in Ph. sareptanus, but sparse and shallow in Ph. subauratus . For this reason, we consider Philoctetes subauratus (Mocsáry, 1890) spec. resurr. to be a separate species.

After type examination of both types, we can state that Philoctetes conifer (Semenov-Tian-Shanskij, 1932) is conspecific with Ph. subauratus . Semenov-Tian-Shanskij (1932) followed Bischoff’s (1913) classification of the species and wrote that he did not know Ph. sareptanus (“ mihi in natura ignotae specie ”) and consequently considered Ph. schulthessi and Ph. subauratus varieties of Ph. sareptanus . Here, we propose the synonymy Ellampus schulthessi subauratus Mocsáry, 1890 = Ellampus (Dictenulus) conifer Semenov-Tian-Shanskij, 1932, syn. nov.