identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EB2068C85AFFDBFC18FBCBFAE4803A.text	03EB2068C85AFFDBFC18FBCBFAE4803A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chlaeniini Brulle 1834	<div><p>Tribe  Chlaeniini Brullé, 1834</p><p>(see below, key to the adults of subtribes of  Chlaeniini Brullé, 1834)</p><p>NOTES ON TRIBAL CHARACTERIZATION OF  CHLAENIINI</p><p>Regarding delimitation of  Chlaeniini, a tentative diagnosis was recently given by Guéorguiev (2014: 89). That included common traits for the  Carabidae Conchifera (sensu Jeannel 1949b) as well as distinguishing tribal features.</p><p>However, in the course of the current study, we established three features of tribal significance (Guéorguiev ibid.), namely 1) the elytron with internal plica; 2) metepisternum laterally coadunate with elytral epipleuron; and 3) stria 7 distinct to apex, not uniformly present in all representatives of the tribe. These character states are only useful as supplemental traits given the context and restrictions provided below.</p><p>1) As stated by Jeannel (1949a) and verified herein the crossed elytral epipleuron is present in  Chlaeniina (except for  Grundmannius) and absent in  Callistina .</p><p>2) The coadunate metepisternum and elytral epipleuron is a feature to consider with some caution. Based on a comprehensive study of the morphology of carabid taxa from different tribes and on an earlier statement of Habu (1956), Bousquet (1996: 449) stated that “I have found this feature in all species of oodines and panagaeines studied and in some species of  Chlaeniini . Likely the character state has been secondarily lost in several chlaeniine lineages”. Ober &amp; Maddison (2008) investigated the phylogenetic relationships among the harpalinae tribes using data from two nuclear loci and found that in most trees, oodines, chlaenines, panagaeines, and the genus  Dercylus Laporte, 1832 form a clade. Given the Ober &amp; Maddison investigations and pygidial gland defensive secretion data, Bousquet (2012: 53) then stipulated anew, now with improved evidential support, that the complex of  Panagaeini –  Chlaeniini –  Oodini “possibly constitute a clade since the adults (except in some chlaeniines) have the metepisterna coadunate with the elytral epipleura, a synapomorphic condition that has probably been secondarily lost in some chlaeniine lineages”. However, no study has explored the distribution and extent of this character across all relevant taxa. What is known shows it is absent in representatives of the two callistine genera,  Callistus and  Callistomimus (see Terada &amp; Wu 2018: 5, fig. 3H). Among the taxa from  Chlaeniina we studied, the appearance of the character varies. In some species the coadunation is obvious (Chlaeniellus Reitter, 1908, Chlaeniostenus Kuntzen, 1919), in others – less noticeable (Amblygenius La Ferté-Sénectère, 1851 and some Pleroticus Péringuey, 1896), and it is ambiguous or appears to be lacking in some (Callistoides, some Stenochlaenius Reitter, 1908). To avoid incorrectly scoring this state care must be taken to note the condition of the specimen. If present, the state can be seen when both the sternal and elytral structures are in close proximity to each other. It is the case when the elytra are closely retracted and the lateral margin of the anterior part of the metepisternum forms a more or less distinct protrusion that covers the paired site on the medial margin of the elytral epipleuron. If the lateral margin of the metepisternum does not cover the medial margin of the elytral epipleuron then the state of the character can be difficult to ascertain though it is present. Compare the Figure 3A, B and Figure 12: the first two figures show “unnatural” states or artifacts of preservation where the metepisternum does not reach the epipleuron though both structures lie on the same level (Fig. 3A) or are concealed under the epipleuron (Fig. 3B). In Figure 12 the “natural” condition is shown - the metepisternum is tightly retracted on epipleuron.</p><p>3) In most chlaeniine genera, stria 7 is well-marked along the whole elytron length, including near the apex. However,  Callistus lunatus and some species of  Holosoma have stria 7 obliterated apically. In  Hololeius ceylanicus stria 7 is usually hardly distinguishable in basal three fourths and well-perceptible on apical one fourth only.</p><p>KEY TO THE ADULTS OF SUBTRIBES OF  CHLAENIINI BRULLÉ, 1834</p><p>1. Galea of maxilla two-segmented (Figs 2B; 11B). Tips of ultimate maxillary and labial palpomeres slightly rounded, truncate or widened (cf. Habu 1987: 7, figs 4-13). Pronotum with or without posterolateral setiferous puncture. Elytral epipleuron straight throughout or crossed (i.e., plica present) near apex ........................................... 2</p><p>— Galea of maxilla one-segmented (cf. Andrewes 1921: 233, fig. 12a; Jeannel 1942: 978). Tips of ultimate maxillary and labial palpomeres acuminate (cf. Habu 1987: 7, fig. 3). Pronotum without posterolateral setiferous puncture. Elytral epipleuron straight throughout (i.e., plica absent) ........... subtribe  Callistina Laporte, 1834</p><p>2. Pronotum with posterolateral setiferous puncture. Lateral edge of elytral epipleuron bare. Elytral epipleuron crossed near apex. Metacoxa with only anterolateral seta ................................................................................ ....................................... subtribe  Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (all genera save  Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965)</p><p>— Pronotum without setiferous puncture. Lateral edge of elytral epipleuron spiniferous (Fig. 11A). Elytral epipleuron straight throughout. Metacoxa with two lateral setae ............. subtribe  Chlaeniina (genus  Grundmannius).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C85AFFDBFC18FBCBFAE4803A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C859FFD7FC22F96DFBC38748.text	03EB2068C859FFD7FC22F96DFBC38748.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lapitachlaenius Kipling & Will 2025	<div><p>Lapitachlaenius n. gen.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 7C063127-9D26-4B44-9D46-EEC43214085B</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. —  Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879: 70, here designated.</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — Integument of body glabrous throughout except for typical sensory setae (i.e., lacking pubescence as extensively evident in most  Chlaenius s.l. species), concolorous often with a subtle aeneus or cupreous shade; surface of elytra immaculate. Pronotum and elytra smooth (without punctuation as in most  Chlaenius s.l. species). Penultimate labial palpomere glabrous (also on inner margin), but with a minute seta near apex; ultimate labial palpomere fusiform in both sexes, not widened at apex, shorter than penultimate palpomere. Mentum tooth large, simple, widely rounded at apex. Antennomeres 1-3 and basal fifth to quarter of antennomere 4 glabrous; antennomere 3 just slightly longer than antennomere 4. Pronotum without anterolateral setiferous puncture, with posterior setiferous puncture about twice the width of fovea distant from posterior angle. Basal margin of elytra present, reaching base of stria 1 and/or base of parascutellar striole; parascutellar striole present, relatively long, punctiform (not linearly impressed as discal striae), reaching basal margin of elytra, not anastomosing with stria 1; interval 3 with four to seven foveate setiferous punctures; interval 8 interrupted subapically by a brief fusion of striae 7 and 8 (Fig. 4), thus it is separated in two parts, long anterior and short posterior. Prosternal process unbordered. Metepisternum with sublateral longitudinal sulcus (Fig. 3A, B). Middle tibia straight in both sexes. Tarsomeres glabrous dorsally; male protarsomeres 1-3 more or less strongly dilated; tarsal claws simple, not pectinate (pectinate in species of  Chlaenioctenus Bates, 1892; cf. Liu et al. 2013).</p><p>ETYMOLOGY. — The generic name is derived from the term “Lapita”, which is the name used for the Neolithic Austronesian culture that included the people thought to be the first settlers of the islands in the region, including Viti Levu, and the Greek noun “chlaena” [χλαῖνα] (cloak, mantle). The name is treated as a Latin masculine.</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Habitus</p><p>Medium sized for chlaeniines, with elongate, slightly convex body and glabrous integument.</p><p>Chaetotaxy</p><p>Labrum anterior margin with six dorsal equidistantly spaced setae as well with a row of shorter marginal lateral setae along each side and corner (each row continues ventrally at level of medial dorsal seta). Clypeus with two lateral punctures. One supraorbital seta on each side, located near posterior eye margin. Stipes with long dorsal seta; antennomere 2 with short ventral seta. Maxilla with two-segmented galea and pointed, highly bent at apex lacinia (Fig. 2B); apical margin of ligula with a pair of large and long medial setae and two groups of three or four, rather short and small, anterolateral setae (Fig. 2C). Penultimate labial palpomere glabrous, except for single minute apical seta; ultimate labial palpomere with sparse short setae visible only at higher magnification (Fig. 1D). Mentum with two long, paramedial setae. Submentum with two long, lateral setae. Pronotum with posterior lateral setiferous punctures, each puncture far removed from angle, distant by more than twice its diameter. Elytron with four to seven discal setiferous punctures in interval 3 near stria 2, (most apical one usually smaller and less perceptible than others); parascutellar seta present, at base of striae 1 and 2, puncture large, foveate, separated from basal margin by more than one of its diameters; apical portion of stria 7 with five to seven setiferous punctures (rarely a few of them on interval 7, not in stria), apical puncture closer to suture than to apex (Fig. 4); umbilicate series consisting of 18-19 setiferous punctures of various sizes, not forming distinct groups. Mesocoxa with one posteromedial and one lateral seta; metacoxa with one lateral seta. Protrochanter and mesotrochanter with one seta. Metafemur without posterior setae. Abdominal ventrites 3-5 without ambulatory setae; last ventrite with two marginal setae in male and four setae in female. Gonocoxite 2 with one large dorsomedial seta, one lateromedial ensiform seta, and pair of nematiform setae.</p><p>Head</p><p>Eyes conspicuously large, protruding, with short tempora and dorsal diameter longer than combined length of antennomeres 1 and 2. Frons with small, punctiform, deepened frontal impressions. Mandibles relatively short, almost as long as wide, with outer margin evenly arcuate and strongly pointed incisor teeth; right mandible (Fig. 2A), with: 1) long retinacular ridge, however without anterior retinacular tooth and posterior retinacular tooth; 2) distinct terebral tooth; and 3) well-formed premolar and molar tooth; left mandible (not figured) of similar structure as right one, but with more prominent terebral tooth, distinct posterior retinacular tooth and respectively clear posterior occlusal groove between posterior retinaculum tooth and premolar. Maxillary palpomere 4 fusiform, slightly longer than palpomere 3, nearly as long as (but considerably narrower than) maxillary palpomere 2 (Fig. 2B). Ligula with glossal sclerite dilated anteriorly and slightly down directed, its apical margin straight in middle and bent at sides, paraglossae with lobes not extended distally beyond anterior margin of glossal sclerite. Mentum tooth simple, widely round at apex, with deep paramedial pits. Submentum narrow medially (and deeply concave at point of gular apical insertion), wider laterally. Gula widened posteriorly, separated from genae by distinct gular longitudinal sutures.</p><p>Thorax</p><p>Pronotum with sides widened, convexly rounded from anterior angles to point of maximum width then almost straight to posterior angles; maximum width just before middle; pronotum base with ( L. specularis n. comb.) or without ( L. speciluferus n. comb.) setal fringe along edge. Lateral bead distinct, narrow anteriorly, widened posteriorly, ended just at posterior angles. Anterior margin concave, submarginal bead laterally present, lacking in medial half; anterior angles very prominent, rounded at apex. Basal margin sinuate, slightly convex laterally, subconcave medially, without marginal bead, posterior angles obtuse and widely rounded. Disc with paramedial, parentheses-like, broad, shallow impressions that join with basolateral impressions; apical transverse impression present or not, if present shallow medially; basal transverse impression absent. Prosternum with median longitudinal sulcus shallowly impressed; prosternal process elongate-rhomboid, unbordered, pointed at apex. Mesosternum deeply concave. Metepisternum longer than wide, with deep sublateral sulcus along half to entire length, with lateral border slightly convex, coadunation with epipleuron located anteriorly and medially; suture between metepisternum and metepimeron distinct.</p><p>Elytra</p><p>Disc subconvex. Basal margin distinct laterally, forming at humerus obtuse angle with lateral margin, ended medially at level of angular base of stria 1 (i.e., at the level of parascutellar setiferous puncture).</p><p>Legs</p><p>Profemur in male with (Fig. 1D) or without (Fig. 9) small, ventral tooth-like tubercle near base. Metacoxal basal sulcus short, ended at medial third. Mesotibial ctenidium (see Bousquet 1999: 13, 14) well-differentiated, consisting of 12-15 closely situated, subapical setae. Mesotarsomeres 1-3 and metatarsomeres in both sexes with 1-3 beneath with two rows of short and stout ventral setae and two rows of ventrolateral setae; onychium ventrally with one, rarely with two pairs of setae at apical half.</p><p>Female genitalia</p><p>See species description.</p><p>Male genitalia</p><p>See species description.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION AND DIVERSITY</p><p>The genus is endemic to the easternmost part of Melanesian Island arc and includes two species, one from the archipelago of Vanuatu and one from the archipelago of Fiji.</p><p>MONOPHYLY AND RELATIONSHIPS</p><p>At least four outstanding autapomorphies that are present in  Lapitachlaenius n. gen., support the distinctiveness of the new genus. Three of them are features of the elytra, and one of the pronotum disc: 1) each elytron with a glistening, mirror-like area; 2) interval 3 with four to seven large, foveate setiferous punctures; 3) interval 8 distinctly interrupted into two portions along its length and 4) pronotum disc with broad and shallow paramedial, parentheses-like impressions that join with the baso-lateral impressions. These traits along with some other peculiar features (see Diagnosis), unusual among chlaeniine carabids, provide solid basis for recognition of the new genus.</p><p>We examined selected character states and their distribution among the species of  Chlaeniina from the Australasian and Oceania regions (Table 3) east of the Lydekker Line. This line demarcates the edge of the Sahul continental shelf and is used as an outermost boundary for delimitation of the typical Australasian fauna from the  Oriental fauna (Beron 2015). In total, 31 representatives of the subtribe  Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 have been reported to occur east of the Lydekker Line, 20 of them are microendemic species (Table 3). These locally endemic species are known from: Micronesia, incl. Ogasawara Isl., Southern Mariana Isl. and Palau Isl. (5 species in  Chlaenius; cf. Darlington 1970a; Kasahara 1991; Mandl 1992), New Guinea with New Britain (13 species in  Chlaenius and  Hololeius; cf. Sloane 1920; Darlington 1968; Azadbakhsh &amp; Kirschenhofer 2019), Aru Islands (1 species of  Chlaenius; Häckel et al. 2023), Solomon Islands (5 species in  Chlaenius; cf. Emden 1937; Darlington 1968, 1970b), Australia (10 species of  Chlaenius and  Hololeius; Sloane 1920; Moore 1987), Lord Howe Island (1 species in  Chlaenius; cf. Moore 1985, 1992), Norfolk Island (2 species in  Chlaenius; cf. Moore 1985), New Caledonia (4 species of  Chlaenius, cf. Fauvel 1882; Chaudoir, 1883; Heller 1916; Sloane 1920; Darlington 1968; Kirschenhofer 2002, 2015), Vanuatu (3 species in  Chlaenius and  Lapitachlaenius n. gen.; cf. Emden 1937; Moore 1985), Fiji (4 species in  Chlaenius and  Lapitachlaenius n. gen.; cf. Darlington 1968; Evenhius 2007; present study), Samoa (2 species in  Chlaenius; cf. Csiki 1915; Andrewes 1927),Tahiti (1 species in  Chlaenius; cf. Darlington 1970a). No representative of the subtribe is known from New Zealand. Larochelle &amp; Larivière (2001) stated that two Australian mainland  Chlaenius species were introduced to Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands and that it is likely that will be discovered in New Zealand in time.</p><p>We found that the adults of  Lapitachlaenius n. gen. share some specific features with the  “ bimaculatus ” group of subgenus  Lissauchenius W. S. MacLeay, 1825 . The last group includes four taxa in Australasia and Oceania –  Chlaenius bimaculatus pongraczi Jedlička, 1951,  Ch. flaviguttatus (W. S. MacLeay, 1825),  Ch. olthofi Darlington, 1968 and  Ch. rufifemoratus (W. S. MacLeay, 1825) as first and third taxa are endemics in New Guinea (Table 3). Species of  “ bimaculatus ” group and species of  Lapitachlaenius n. gen. share: antennomere 3 not or only slightly longer than antennomere 4; mandibles relatively short, as long as wide, moderately arcuate towards tips (Fig. 2A); abdomen largely smooth and glabrous medially; male front femur with a small tooth-like tubercle below (Fig. 1D) (character presumed to have been secondarily lost in  L. specularis n. comb.). For more on the distribution of the enumerated characters in some taxa of the  “ bimaculatus ” group see Darlington’s (1968) “Key to species of  Chlaenius of New Guinea ”. It is assumed that the six species noted above share the state of having a simple mentum tooth that is rounded at apex. Among the taxa of  “ bimaculatus ” group the simple mentum tooth is only documented in  Ch. olthofi (Darlington ibid.).</p><p>A plausible hypothesis of the evolution of the genus is that there was a single, eastward, long-distance dispersal event (Gillesbie et al. 2012), perhaps in the Early Miocene (or during an earlier geological epoch), of a common ancestor of  Lapitachlaenius n. gen. and the  “ bimaculatus ” group of  Lissauchenius . Presumably, after the colonization event the lineage experienced remarkable modifications in terms of the pronotum relief, elytral relief, and elytral setiferous setation, all well before both the Fiji-Vanuatu split (Martin 2013) and then subsequently underwent species-level differentiation.</p><p>Formation of the two species is potentially a relatively recent event. It is likely the result of the separation of a widespread, ancestral population in the course of the breakup of the formerly continuous Vityaz Arc that separated into the Vanuatu and Fijian land masses, with the North Fiji Basin opening between them during the subduction processes in the Miocene (Martin 2013; Gill et al. 2022). The breakup of this arc acted as a significant vicariance event and driver for speciation in various groups (Liebherr 2005; Ferguson et al. 2023; Saxton et al. 2023).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C859FFD7FC22F96DFBC38748	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C859FFDBFC6CFD0AFBF2840D.text	03EB2068C859FFDBFC6CFD0AFBF2840D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chlaeniina Brulle 1834	<div><p>Subtribe  Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834</p><p>Chlaenides Brullé, 1834: 123.</p><p>TYPE GENUS. —  Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810 (see Bousquet 2012: 962-963).</p><p>DIAGNOSIS OF THE SUBTRIBE. — Head with one (posterior) supraorbital setiferous puncture. Mandible without setiferous puncture in scrobe. Maxilla with two-segmented galea. Ultimate maxillary and labial palpomeres inserted centrically in penultimate palpomeres (not obliquely as in panagaeines). Pronotum with posterolateral setiferous puncture (except for  Grundmannius), majority of taxa without anterolateral setiferous puncture, exceptionally – with one ( Chlaeniodus Jeannel, 1949) or more ( Chlaenius leucops Widemann, 1823, species of subgenera  Eurydactylus LaFerté-Sénectère, 1851 and Pelasmomimus Grundmann, 1955), and  Viridagonum azureoviride Sciaky, Facchini &amp; Anichtchenko, 2024) such punctures. Elytral intervals 8 and 9 normal throughout (without any part modified to form а furrow or ridge as in oodines). Elytral epipleuron crossed (except for  Grundmannius) and laterally evident. Fore coxal cavities biperforate. Middle and hind femur posterior margins without notably elongate setae. Adhesive setal pads on ventral surface of male protarsomeres 1-3 of “spongy” type.</p><p>In addition, the bulk of species have elytra lacking discal setiferous punctures, with a few exceptions ( Chlaenius luisae Gestro, 1895,  Ch. tetraphacus Alluaud, 1918,  Grundmannius dispar, Lapitachlaenius speculiferus n. comb.,  Mirachlaenius barbarae, some  Holosoma sp.,  Viridagonum lumawigi Lassalle, 2015). Most species have also metepisternum laterally coadunate with elytral epipleuron (for manifestation of this character see the notes below) as well as mesosternum deeply concave in middle ( Grundmannius dispar and examined species from Callistoides Motschulsky, 1865, Ocybatus LaFerté-Sénectère, 1851 and Pseudochlaeniellus Jeannel, 1949 have a scarcely concave mesosternum).</p><p>PROVISIONAL KEY TO THE ORIENTAL AND AUSTRALASIAN GENERA OF  CHLAENIINA BRULLÉ, 1834 (BASED ON THE CHARACTERS RECORDED IN PUBLICATIONS AND OUR EXAMINED MATERIAL)</p><p>1. Dorsal surface of body more or less densely pubescent (in  Holosoma only elytra laterally) and/or more or less coarsely punctate. Elytra maculate or immaculate ........................................................................................ 2</p><p>— Dorsal surface of body glabrous. Protonum and elytra impunctate (excl. local micropunctations), smooth. Elytra immaculate ................................................................................................................................................. 5</p><p>2. Elytral stria 8 deeper than striae 3–7 and 1–2 anteriorly, as deep as striae 1–2 posteriorly ............................... ...................................................................................................................  Hololeius LaFerté-Sénectère, 1851</p><p>— Elytral stria 8 shallower than or as deep as other striae ................................................................................. 3</p><p>3. Elytral basal margin shallowly arcuate posteriorly, junction with lateral margin at humerus typically obtusely angled, rarely nearly right angled. Anterior width of metepisternum 1.2 times or less its medial length ...... 4.</p><p>— Elytral basal margin deeply arcuate posteriorly, junction with lateral margin at humerus acutely angle. Anterior width of metepisternum 1.5 times or more its medial length ..................................  Holosoma Semenov, 1889</p><p>4. Protarsomere 4 deeply bilobed apically. Basal margin of elytra incomplete ...................................................... .......................  Viridagonum Lassalle, 2015, in part ( V. azureoviride Sciaky, Facchini &amp; Anichtchenko, 2024)</p><p>— Protarsomere 4 slightly or not bilobed apically (except for subgenus  Lithochlaenius Kryzhanovskij, 1976 of genus  Chlaenius, which protarsomere 4 deeply bilobed apically but with basal margination of elytra incomplete, absent from medial portion; cfr. Sciaky et al. 2024) ...................................................  Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810</p><p>5. Ligula with apical margin excavated (cf. Chaudoir 1857; Ullah et al. 2022). Penultimate labial palpomere plurisetose, with row of long setae on inner border (cf. Kirschenhofer, 2010; Facchini, 2011) ............................... ......................................................................................................................  Harpaglossus Motschulsky, 1858</p><p>— Ligula with apical margin straight. Penultimate labial palpomere glabrous on inner border, with at most one to three very small and short setae at apex ....................................................................................................... 6</p><p>6. Elytral striae (except for parascutellar striole) linear, well-impressed; interval 3 with large, foveate, discal setiferous punctures. Dorsal surface of body faintly metallic, unicolored ..............................  Lapitachlaenius n. gen.</p><p>— Elytral striae punctiform, shallowly impressed; interval 3 usually without discal setiferous punctures or occasionally in  Mirachlaenius barbarae, one or two, scarcely perceptible discal punctures in interval 3. Dorsal surface of body vividly metallic, unicolored or bicolored ............................................................................................. 7</p><p>7. Dorsal surface of body unicolored, completely green. Antennae and legs bicolored. Mentum tooth at apex slightly bifid ...............................................  Viridagonum Lassalle, 2015, in part ( V. lumawigi Lassalle, 2015)</p><p>— Dorsal surface of body bicolored, head and pronotum bluish-green, elytra red-copper. Antennae and legs unicolored, black. Mentum tooth at apex widely round .........................................  Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C859FFDBFC6CFD0AFBF2840D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C855FFD3FC97FAACFA2F842A.text	03EB2068C855FFD3FC97FAACFA2F842A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lapitachlaenius speculiferus (Fairmaire 1879)	<div><p>Lapitachlaenius speculiferus (Fairmaire, 1879) n. comb.</p><p>(Figs 1 A-D; 2A-C; 3A, B; 4; 5A-D; 6; 7; Tables 1-3)</p><p>Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879: 70 (type locality: “I. Viti.” [= Iles Viti, cf. Fairmaire, 1881]). — Fairmaire 1881: 247. — Evenhuis 2007: 6.</p><p>Prosopogmus speculifer – Csiki 1930: 566. — Lorenz 1998: 277; 2005: 264.</p><p>Prosopogmus speculiferus – Lorenz 2025: https://www.catalogueoflife. org/data/taxon/6VZCH.</p><p>TYPE MATERIAL. — Not examined. Should be present in MNHN, according to original description. Indications about number or sex of specimens in the type series was not included in Fairmaire’s (1879, 1881) publications .</p><p>OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Fiji • 1 ♂;  Viti Levu Isl., Lami [River]; 0-200 m a.s.l.; XII.1978; N. L. H. Krauss leg.; BPBMENT 2008013406  •   1 ♀;  Viti Levu Isl., Belt Road, 6 mi. W. of Suva; 29.VII.1938; E. C. Zimmerman leg.; beating shrubs;  Prosopogmus speculiferus Fairm. det. B. P. Moore’ 78; BPBMENT 2008013408  •   1 ♂;  Viti Levu Isl., Sigatoka [River], Sand Dunes National Park; 3. VI.1903; Frank Parker leg.; hand netted; FBA 028093; BPBMENT 2008013409; EMEC1411137  •   1 ♀;  Viti Levu Isl., Korovisilou; 17.XI.1974; B. P. Moore leg.; ANIC  •   1 ♂;  Viti Levu Isl., Korovisilou; 19.IV.1979; B. P. Moore leg.; ANIC  •   1 ♂, 3 ♀;  Viti Levu Isl., Nausori H [igh]l[a]nds; B. P. Moore leg.; ANIC  •   3 ♂, 1 ♀;  Ovalau Island, Wainiloka; 28-30.IX.1937; J. M. Valentine leg.; ANIC  •   1 ♂;  Viti Levu, Naridivatu, side of Mt. Lomalagi; 5.II.1968; G. F. Gross leg.; SAMA 25-51014  •   1 ♀;  Ovalau Island, Draiba Trail; 600- 800 ft.; 9.VII.1938; Y. Fondo leg.; BPBMENT 2008013407  •   1 ♂;  Vanua Levu, Seanganga - Ndreketi [River]; 25.X.1977; G. Kuschel leg.; Entomology Division D. S. I. R. New Zealand;  Prosopogmus speculifer Fairm. det. B. P. Moore’ 80; NZAC  .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. —  Lapitachlaenius speculiferus n. comb. differs clearly from its congener in the Vanuatu archipelago, by the pronotum basal edge without setal fringe, the elytral stria 7 parallel or subparallel to adjacent striae (Fig. 1A, B), the ventral side of male profemur with tooth-like tubercle near base (Fig. 1D), and the median lobe of aedeagus with longer shaft and nearly straight apical lamella (Fig. 5 A-D).</p><p>ETYMOLOGY. — The name  “ speculiferus ” is not a properly formed Latin word [ICZN Art. 26] though it appears to be based on the Latin word  speculifer (-a, -um). Both  speculifer and speculifera can be nouns for “mirror-bearer”. Also, these and speculiferum can be adjectival for “mirror-bearing”. However, since  “ speculiferus ” is not a Latin word and Fairmaire did not specify how it was being used, it must be treated as a noun in apposition [ICZN Art. 31.2.3] that is indeclinable and retains its original spelling even if moved to a feminine genus. Csiki’s (1930) use of “  Prosopogmus speculifer ” is considered an unjustified emendation and so we use Fairmaire’s original spelling.</p><p>REDESCRIPTION</p><p>Habitus</p><p>Medium sized, oblong (BL: 9.70-10.60 mm, BW: 3.50- 4.00 mm), dorsally with flat pronotum and slightly convex elytra, ventrally body more convex than dorsally (Fig. 1B).</p><p>Color and luster</p><p>Dorsal surface slightly aeneus or cupreous colored with a moderate to dark tone, clypeus and mandibles reddish brown, palpi, antennae, apex of femur, tibiae and tarsomeres rufous, ventral surface and remaining part of legs reddish black (Fig. 1A). Integument moderately glossy, ventrally glossier than dorsally; median part of each elytron (intervals 2 to 5) with microsculpture absent or scarcely visible, forming a transverse “mirror” region.</p><p>Microsculpture and punctation</p><p>Dorsal surface with very distinct, well-impressed isodiametric meshes, sculpticells on elytra larger than those on head and pronotum; ventral surface with isodiametric to slightly transverse mesh microsculpture. Head dorsal surface (excl. mandibles and labrum) strigose and more or less densely micropunctate, punctures coarser and denser on frons and near eyes (Fig. 1C); genae only ventrally strigose. Pronotum smooth, without punctation. Prosternum and mesosternum smooth; proepisternum largely impunctate, superficially punctate only medially (Fig. 1B); mesoepisternum punctate anteriorly, nearly smooth posteriorly. Metasternum most surface smooth, macropunctate only laterally; metepisternum macropunctate (Figs 3A, B). Abdominal ventrites 1-4 macropunctate and longitudinally wrinkled on sides.</p><p>Head</p><p>About two-thirds width of pronotum (Table 2). Labrum rectangular, slightly concave medially, with rounded angles, as long as clypeus. Clypeus concave anteriorly, round at angles; clypeal suture reduced, thinner and shallower laterally than medially. Antenna relatively long, two last antennomeres exceeding base of pronotum, with pubescence starting from segment 4.</p><p>Thorax</p><p>Pronotum subcordate, about a third wider than long (PW/ PL: 1.34-1.38); width at apex about two thirds width at broadest point and fifth-sixth or slightly more than width along basal margin (Table 2); pronotum disc depressed on most surface, just barely convex at sides anteriorly, midline distinct, impressed, about a half of pronotum length, not reaching anterior and posterior margins.</p><p>Elytra</p><p>A little more than one and a half times as long as wide (EL/ EW: 1.55-1.63), about a third wider than pronotum and more than two and a half times longer than pronotum (see Table 2). Humerus not denticulate, subangulate. Marginal furrow very narrow anteriorly, appreciably broad posteriorly, with maximum width near penultimate umbilicate puncture. Apical sinuation distinct, deep.</p><p>Legs</p><p>Protibia appreciably dilated at apex, mesotibia slightly dilated at apex, metatibia with nearly parallel sides. Male protarsomeres 1-3 expanded (Figs 1A, D), 1 subtriangular, as long as wide, 2 and 3 wider than long; ventral adhesive setae present only at apical 3/4 of protarsomere 1 and entire surfaces of 2 and 3; 3 and 4 eccentrically attached to the preceding tarsomere (with basal axis of the former affixed laterally of the latter). Pro- and meso-tarsomeres 4 in both sexes from above incised on two fifths.</p><p>Female genitalia</p><p>Laterotergite with 13-15 small distal setae on posterior margin (Fig. 6). Gonocoxite 1 subconical, slightly longer than wide, apex without setae. Gonocoxite 2 scarcely curved, pointed distally, as long as wide at base, with one large dorsolateral seta, one large dorsomedial seta and two fine nematiform setae equidistant from apex and middle of gonocoxite. Spermathecal complex (Fig. 7) with a compact bursa copulatrix, with bursal sclerite on dorsal wall, and with a long, straight, undifferentiated spermatheca (receptaculum and seminal canal undistinguishable), proximally joined to bursa copulatrix; spermathecal gland small, rounded, with long spermathecal canal connected near very end of seminal canal (spermathecal canal differentiated to a narrower, short part and a broadened, longer part); common oviduct connected anteriorly to a pair of lateral oviducts and posteriorly to bursa copulatrix, its posterior and medial wall with a very long, densely coiled villous canal that distal end presents a long, free appendix and proximal end joined to distal bursa copulatrix.</p><p>Male genitalia</p><p>Median lobe of aedeagus tubular, rather long, in lateral view (Figs 5C, D) shaft bent ventrally at right angle towards a rather short and narrow basal bulb, basal bulb with an elongate and narrow apical aileron, apex long convex dorsally and concave ventrally; median lobe in dorsal view (Figs 5A, B), with broad shaft slightly curved to left, triangular apical lamella widely rounded at tip, and long ostium not reaching basal bulb; sclerotized portion of internal sac (endophallus) with complex architecture, including a large round basal sclerite (dorsal view) located near proximal end of ostium and a thick apical saddlelike sclerite concave dorsally, convex ventrally, both sclerites connecting by a long coiled filament which apical part ends with three spikes as medial spike bifurcate at tip (ventral view). Left paramere larger than right one, elongate rather than typical “conchoid”, with apical part widely rounded; right paramere elongate, shorter and narrowed than left paramere.</p><p>BIONOMIC</p><p>Labels data for four of the five specimens indicate that they were collected near rivers and perhaps in riparian habitats, in particular these rivers are Sigatoka River, Lami River, and Rewa River on Viti Levu and Ndreketi River on Vanua Levu. Locality data for the specimen from Ovalau Island indicates that it was collected between 180 m and 240 m a.s.l. Likely this is a location in the tropical moist forests west of Draiba Village.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C855FFD3FC97FAACFA2F842A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C851FFD2FC80F94DFAEE86C8.text	03EB2068C851FFD2FC80F94DFAEE86C8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lapitachlaenius specularis (Emden 1937) Kipling & Will 2025	<div><p>Lapitachlaenius specularis (Emden, 1937) n. comb.</p><p>(Figs 8A, B; 9, 10; Table 3)</p><p>TYPE MATERIAL. —   Holotype. Vanuatu • 1 ♂; Erromango Isl.; VIII.1930; L. E. Cheesman leg.; “  Chlaenius specularis n. sp. van Emden” det. 1937; B. M. 1930-496; NHMUK.</p><p>Paratypes. Vanuatu • 1 ♂; Erromango Isl.; VIII.1930; L. E. Cheesman leg.; NHMUK 014439769 •  1 ♀; Erromango Isl.; VIII.1930; L. E. Cheesman leg.; NHMUK 015543670 .</p><p>The holotype and four paratypes are stored in NHMUK. With the assistance of Dr Hongbin Liang and Dr Alexander Anichtchenko (see Acknowledgements), we were able to virtually, by means of images, investigate the holotype and two paratypes (Figs 8A, B; 9).</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — This species is distinct from  L. speculiferus n. comb., in that stria 7 is distinctly curved outward near the middle of elytron (Fig. 8B), the pronotum basal edge with setal fringe in medial half, the ventral side of male profemur without tooth-like tubercle near base (Fig. 9) and the median lobe of aedeagus with shorter shaft and apical lamella bent to left (Figs 10B, E).</p><p>Emden (ibid.) stated that  L. specularis n. comb. has the third elytral stria with 5-7 setiferous discal punctures and that its mandibles are densely wrinkled dorsally whereas specimens of its Fijian congener exhibit the third stria with 4 (very rarely with 5) punctures and the dorsal side of the mandibles only moderately wrinkled.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This species was described by Emden (1937) from the island of Erromango, the fourth-largest island in the Vanuatu archipelago. The author provided a rather good, for that time, description and placed it in the genus  Chlaenius . In his discussion, Emden stressed several important features: 1) elytron with a roughly triangular specular spot, broadly reaching the suture, touching the tip of the 4th or 5th lateral striae, shiny around the 2nd punctured of the 3rd interval and the varying color nuances in and around the spot; 2) pronotum disc basal impressions continuing towards the front border as indistinct S-shaped impressions; 3) 3rd elytral stria with 5-7 engraved punctures, the first and second of which lie in the “mirror” spot; and 4) underside and upper side of body glabrous. At the end of description, the author expressed suggestion that the species may belong to a separate genus: “Die gerunzelten Mandibeln, die wohl sogar die Aufstellung einer besonderen Gattung rechtfertigen würden, und der Spiegelfleck trennen die Art von allen bekannten [The wrinkled mandibles, which would probably even justify the establishment of a separate genus, and the mirror spot separate the species from all known]”.</p><p>The careful examination of the Emden’s description as well as images of and information about characters in the holotype and two paratypes (see the above “Type material”) show that this species shares with  Lapitachlaenius speculiferus n. comb. all the autapomorphies of the new genus. These species appear very closely related based on their shared morphological similarities and that they inhabit very close, though isolated islands. Based on this evidence we concluded both species form a clade we treat as a genus. On the other hand, several clear distinctions between the two species (see Diagnosis under  L. speculiferus n. comb.) are evidence that the two taxa are distinct and plausibly reproductively isolated species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C851FFD2FC80F94DFAEE86C8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C850FFD2FC4EFAECFBB38401.text	03EB2068C850FFD2FC4EFAECFBB38401.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Grundmannius Basilewsky 1965	<div><p>Genus  Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965</p><p>Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965: 223 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. —  Ectenognathus dispar Péringuey, 1896 .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — Mandibles very long, subfalciform. Galea two-segmented. Pronotum without setiferous punctures. Metepisternum coadunate with elytral epipleuron. Lateral edge of elytral epipleuron spiniferous (clothed with short spines). Elytral epipleuron not interrupted by plica. Metacoxa with two lateral setae, anterolateral one and posterolateral one.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C850FFD2FC4EFAECFBB38401	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C850FFC9FC47F96EFDCF86A8.text	03EB2068C850FFC9FC47F96EFDCF86A8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Grundmannius dispar (Peringuey 1896)	<div><p>Grundmannius dispar (Péringuey, 1896)</p><p>(Figs 11 A-D; 12; 13A, B; 14A-E; Tables 4, 5)</p><p>Ectenognathus dispar Péringuey 1896: 521 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. —   Mozambique • 3 ♂, 1 ♀; Cabo Delgado Province,  Megaruma river near Mecufi; 6.VII.1983; P. Beron et V. Beshkov leg.;  Grundmannius dispar Basilewsky det. Kirschenhofer 2014; BG-NMNHS-ENT-000000006143; BG-NM-NHS-ENT-000000006144; BG-NMNHS-ENT-000000006145; BG-NMNHS-ENT-000000006146  .</p><p>South AFrica • 1 ♂;  Transvaal, 2 mi. N. of Messina; 590 m a.s.l.; 24.III.1958; E. S. Ross &amp; R. E. Leech leg.; CAS  .</p><p>TAXONOMIC COMMENTS (BASED ON MATERIAL EXAMINED). Below we list morphological features not given in the works of Péringuey (1896) and Basilewsky (1965). A complete redescription, including a detailed description of the structures of female reproductive tract, was not possible as no fully sclerotized female individuals were available to us.</p><p>General morphology</p><p>Large specimens with glabrous integument of body, with elytra bicolored and rounded at apex; elytron with parascutellar stria not anastomosing with stria 1, base of stria 1 joining base of stria 2; lateral edge of elytral epipleuron with 32-34 short, wellvisible spines more conspicuous and denser located medially and posteriorly (Fig. 11A); metathoracic flight wings long, fully developed. Antennomere 3 glabrous at low magnification but with sparse minute hairs visible at higher magnification, 3 significantly longer than antennomeres 1-2 as well as antennomere 4; maxillary palpomere 1 with very scant, hardly visible hairs, palpomeres 2-3 glabrous; galea two-segmented (Fig. 11B). Anterior coxal cavities biperforate (Fig. 11C) – a characteristic of the assemblage  Chlaeniini +  Oodini +  Panagaeini (see Jeannel 1949a: 774, 848). Metepisternum distinctly coadunate with elytral epiepleuron, with inner border 1.15-1.20 times longer than anterior border (Fig. 12). Tarsomeres 1-5 in both sexes finely grooved on dorsal side; male tarsomeres 1-3 somewhat flattened dorsally, with adhesive vestiture on ventral side of “spongy” type (Fig. 11D). Female mediotergite VIII continuous medially; ovipositor with laterotergite having about 25-30 apical setae, gonocoxite 1 having an apical fringe of four long setae and gonocoxite 2 having by one large dorsolateral and one large dorsomedial ensiform seta and two nematiform setae (Fig. 13A); spermatheca with compact bursa copulatrix and wide common oviduct (Fig. 13B). Male abdominal segment VIII, with mediotergite uninterrupted medially and antecostal portion encompassing aedeagus ventrally (Fig. 14A). Plesiomorphic for  Carabidae left-everting aedeagal configuration (median lobe lies on its right side in repose and left side superior) (Fig. 14A). Median lobe of aedeagus long and thin, moderately curved ventrally, with straight apex, very short apical lamella, small and very short basal bulb, proximal end of ostium near middle of shaft and internal sac with one sclerite at proximal position (Figs 14 B-E). Right paramere elongate, somewhat shorter than left paramere, which is conchoid (Figs 14B, C).</p><p>Chaetotaxy</p><p>Labrum with six equidistant setae. Clypeus with two mediolateral setae. One supraorbital seta each side behind middle of eyes. Stipes with one anterior and one posterior seta. Ligula apical margin with a pair of long setae. Penultimate labial palpomere glabrous, without setae on internal margin. Mentum with two paramedial setae. Submentum with two long medial setae, without lateral setae. Elytral sensory system consisting of markedly small setiferous pores and short setae, both being barely detectable, as some pores (umbilicate series and those in apical portion of stria 7) located at or near apices of small protuberances, not in foveae, as usual in carabid beetles; parascutellar setiferous puncture small, on interval 1 near to angular base of stria 1 (but not in stria 1), seta rather short (but twice as long as discal setae); elytral intervals 1, 3, 5 and 7 with eight to twenty hardly visible, short setae, located in a row; apical portion of stria 7 with two short setae; umbilicate series consisting of 24-27 fine and hardly visible short setae. Protrochanter with long hind seta. Mesocoxa with one long posteromedial seta and one short lateral seta, with pubescent anterolateral surface; mesotrochanter with one hind seta. Metacoxa with two lateral setae, a rather long anterolateral one and a short posterolateral one; mesotrochanter without seta. Abdominal ventrites 2-5 with scarce hairs in middle; ventrites 4-5 with two long ambulatory setae; last ventrite with two setiferous punctures in male and four in female.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The species was described in the genus  Ectenognathus Murray, 1858 from “Middle Limpopo ”, based on single female specimen (Péringuey 1896). This generic assignment seems to have been made by Péringuey as a result of apotypic traits present in both of his species and the type species of the genus,  E. dryptoides Muray, 1858 (Murray 1858): very long and glabrous last two joints of labial and maxillary palpomeres; simple mentum tooth, rounded at tip; long and subfalcate mandibles ( E. dryopoides has mandibles much more falcate and curved at apex than mandibles of  G. dispar); moderately emarginate labrum; narrow, subcordiform pronotum, with sides more or less broadly reflexed behind.</p><p>Nearly 70 years later the situation changed after more data on the morphology of  Chlaeniini have been amassed.Studying one male specimen of  E. dispar with broken protarsomeres and comparing it with the type of  E. dryptoides, Basilewsky (1965) established the genus  Grundmannius . He made this decision because of the presence of simple, non-crossed elytral epipleuron and the absence of the lateral setiferous punctures on pronotum in the first species. Accordingly, he placed the new genus in subtribe  Callistina, with species that possess the two aforementioned characters. Contrary to this, the presence of crossed elytral epipleuron in  E. dryptoides – “the reflexed margin of the elytra, particularly towards the apex” (see Murray 1858) supports placement of this species as a member of subtribe  Chlaeniina . Based on the thesis/antithesis 66(61) of Basilewsky (1950: 51) we can provide two more distinctions between the monotypic genera  Ectenognathus and  Grundmannius . Both the maxillary palpomeres and tarsomeres dorsally are pubescent in the former genus whereas they are glabrous in the latter genus.</p><p>Recently, Kirschenhofer (2010) supported the view of Basilewsky that the genus is a member of  Callistina, but stated that  G. dispar is a very characteristically distinct species in terms of its genital morphology and external characteristics and it should be placed in its own subtribe. Currently,  Grundmannius is placed in tribe  Lachnophorini (Lorenz 2025) . Such a placement might have been based on a few external characters, such as falciform mandibles and lack of elytral plica, which are found in lachnophorines and lacking in most chlaeniines (Table 4) as well as accepting the supposition by Chaudoir (1876: 8-9; see also Basilewsky &amp; Grundmann 1955: 201) that  Ectenognathus may be a lachnophorine. Additional arguments for such an assignment can be inferred from the view that the presumed basal chlaeniines and basal odacanthines (to which lachnophorines were referred before the work of Liebherr 2016) share a similar ground plan of the body and similar way of life (Baehr 1996: 263, 2005: 183).</p><p>To ascertain the relationships of  Grundmannius the comparative method was applied, looking for similarities and differences of the morphology of adults. Two sets of characters were investigated: the first set focused on features thought to likely resolve the tribal affinity of the genus in regard to Chlaeniiini and  Lachnophorini (Table 4) and a second set to assign the genus subtribal position within  Chlaeniini (Table 5). For character states in Lachnnophorini, we carefully surveyed the works of Ball &amp; Hilchie (1983), Liebherr (1988, 2016), Liebherr &amp; Will (1998), Erwin &amp; Zamorano (2014) and Moret &amp; Ortuño (2017). In summary (Table 4),  Grundmannius is much more similar to chlaeniines sharing with some or all of them: an obtuse tip of terminal palpomeres; glabrous maxillary apical palpomere; glabrous antennomere 2; one supraocular setiferous puncture; biperforate anterior coxal cavities (character state unknown in lachnophorines); metepisternum coadunate with elytral epipleuron; adhesive vestiture of male protarsomeres 1-3 of “spongy” type; rounded elytral apex. Among the characters enumerated, there are three of tribal importance for  Chlaeniini – the coadunate metepisternum, the adhesive vestiture of male protarsomeres 1-3, and single supraocular setiferous puncture.  Grundmannius and  Lachnophorini share only the lack of elytral plica. However, the last character state occurs in the chlaeniine subtribe  Callistina .</p><p>Grundmannius dispar and representatives of the subtribe  Chlaeniina share many important features not found in species of  Callistina (Table 5), such as: smooth macrosculpture of cuticle; pubescence absent from integument; glabrous antennomere 2; narrow and blunt tip of ultimate palpomeres; glabrous interior side of penultimate labial palpomere; two-segmented galea; mentum tooth present; pronotal epipleuron reflexed at rear; presence of discal punctures in elytral interval 3; metepisternum coadunate with elytral epipleuron. Among taxa placed in the tribe  Chlaeniini, only  G. dispar and species of  Callistina share the lack of the pronotal posterolateral setiferous punctures and elytral epipleuron not being interrupted by a plica. The character evidence supports classifying the genus as a member of the subtribe  Chlaeniina, not in  Callistina (cf. Basilewsky 1965). We hypothesize that the absence of the elytral epipleural plica and the lack of the posterior pronotal setiferous punctures in  Grundmannius and  Callistina represent independent character losses. The spermatheca of  G. dispar remains unknown and given its utility in other taxa it is likely that this structure will yield evidence regarding the taxonomic position of this species within chlaeniines.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C850FFC9FC47F96EFDCF86A8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C84BFFC9FC7CFF08FBDE806A.text	03EB2068C84BFFC9FC7CFF08FBDE806A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mirachlaenius Facchini 2011	<div><p>Genus  Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011</p><p>Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011: 348 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. —  Mirachlaenius barbarae Facchini, 2011 .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — Integument of body glabrous. Dorsal surface of body vividly metallic, bicolored. Elytra immaculate. Penultimate labial palpomere glabrous on inner border, with at most one to three very small setae at apex. Metepisternum coadunate with elytral epipleuron, with anterior border longer than inner border. Elytral epipleuron near apex interrupted by plica.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C84BFFC9FC7CFF08FBDE806A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C84BFFCAFC41FD8AFE598669.text	03EB2068C84BFFCAFC41FD8AFE598669.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mirachlaenius barbarae Facchini 2011	<div><p>Mirachlaenius barbarae Facchini, 2011</p><p>(Figs 15; 16A, B; 17A, B)</p><p>Mirachlaenius barbarae Facchini, 2011: 349 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. —   India • 1 ♀; South India, Devata,  Nilgiri Hills; Stegmann leg.; SMNS 1983  .</p><p>TAXONOMIC SUPPLEMENT (BASED ON SPECIMEN EXAMINED)</p><p>Added to the information noted by Facchini (2011: 348-350) in the original description based on two male specimens, we report following new morphological data. Stipes with long dorsal seta, as long as length of stipes; antennomere 2 with short ventral seta. Maxilla with two-segmented galea. Penultimate labial palpomere glabrous, except for two, minute apical ventral setae. Mentum with two long, paramedial setae; mentum tooth truncate at apex. Submentum with two very long, lateral setae. Pronotum without setal fringe along basal edge. Basal and lateral margins of elytra forming small denticle at humerus; left elytron with two small, nearly imperceptible, discal setiferous punctures, first puncture in anterior fifth on interval 3 adjacent to stria 3, second puncture in center of interval 3 near apical end, closer to apex than to suture, right elytron without discal punctures (this character state in partial accordance with Facchini 2011: 350 who stated that just one discal pore was present on one of the elytra); parascutellar puncture large, foveate, at angular base of stria 1; apical portion of stria 7 with three setiferous punctures, terminal puncture closer to apex than to suture and distant from two anterior punctures; umbilicate series consisting of 21-23 setiferous punctures of various sizes. Prosternum with shallowly impressed median sulcus; prosternal process wide at apex, unbordered. Metepisternum wider than long, with anterior border longer than internal border, without sublateral longitudinal sulcus. Protrochanter with anterior seta. Mesocoxa with one posteromedial seta and one or two lateral setae; mesotrochanter with posterior seta. Metacoxa with only anterolateral seta. Metafemur without posterior setae. Abdominal ventrites 3-5 with ambulatory setae each side; last ventrite with four setae in female. Pygidial glands system with a bilobed reservoir – larger reniform lobe (main part of reservoir) and smaller spherical dorsal lobe (Fig. 15). Collecting duct arising from ventral basal part of a narrow channel (here named “reservoir junction channel”) connecting main lobe of reservoir with efferent duct. Laterotergite with eight to ten small distal setae on posterior margin (Fig. 16A). Gonocoxite 1 broad, slightly longer than wide, apex without setae. Gonocoxite 2 elongate, slightly curved, base well protruding outward, without ensiform setae, with two close, very fine and short nematiform setae (hardly visible at highest magnification), situated in an elongate pit-like depression near apex of gonocoxite (Figs 16A, B). Spermathecal complex with small bursa copulatrix; spermatheca narrow and very long, slightly but clearly differentiated to very long seminal canal and short, coiled receptaculum (Figs 17A, B); spermathecal gland elongate, with spermathecal canal slightly differentiated, connected near middle of receptaculum; common oviduct with villous canal.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Since the original description (Facchini 2011), the specimen we examined is the first female and the third individual known of  M. barbarae . Study of this material allowed us to make a contribution to the morphology of the species especially regarding the female reproductive and pygidial defensive gland structures, Additionally, we report on some external characters not discussed in the original description.</p><p>Forsyth (1972: 299-300) discussed a compound reservoir of the pygidial gland with a main reservoir and a dorsal lobe that occurs in the tribes  Harpalini Bonelli, 1810,  Licinini Bonelli, 1810,  Platynini Bonelli, 1810,  Anthiini Bonelli, 1813 and  Dryptini Bonelli, 1810 (ibid. 288, fig.42). Pygidial gland dorsal lobes are also present in  Sphodrini Laporte, 1834 (Will et al. 2010) and some  Pterostichini (Baehr &amp; Will 2019) . Expanded and lobe-like structures on the efferent duct is known from some Abacetini Chaudoir, 1873 (Will et al. 2000). An independent evolution of a separate main reservoir and dorsal lobe connected by a reservoir junction channel is found in species of  Sphodrosomus Perroud, 1864 ( Pterostichini) from New Caledonia (Will 2006). A reservoir without a dorsal lobe is found in  Chlaeniini and most other carabid tribes (Balestrazzi et al. 1985; DazziniValcurone &amp; Pavan 1980; Will 2000). Given the paucity of studies of the pygidial gland system for most species of carabids, it is not surprising that our investigation revealed a bilobed gland reservoir in the genus  Mirachlaenius . What is even more interesting in the pygidial gland system of this genus, it is the presence of a narrow channel (Fig. 15) that links between the main reservoir and the efferent duct. This specific structure is named reservoir junction channel. This is the first such structure observed in  Chlaeniini and among carabids the only known analogous form is that of the pterostichine  Sphodrosomus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C84BFFCAFC41FD8AFE598669	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C848FFCAFED9FB8BFECE87AC.text	03EB2068C848FFCAFED9FB8BFECE87AC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stenoodes Basilewsky 1953	<div><p>Genus  Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953</p><p>Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953: 55 .</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. —  Stenoodes jeanneli Basilewsky, 1953 .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — Elytral epipleuron at apex interrupted by plica. Metepisternum coadunate with elytral epipleuron. Elytral interval 9 deep and forming a marginal furrow, more evident in posterior half, so that outer margin of interval 8 elevated to form a ridge. Integument of body, antennomeres 1-3 and palpomeres glabrous. Hind femur with one, basal posterior seta. Submedial assemblage of setae of mesotibia absent.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C848FFCAFED9FB8BFECE87AC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
03EB2068C848FFCAFED2F9CDFBDF858D.text	03EB2068C848FFCAFED2F9CDFBDF858D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stenoodes jeanneli Basilewsky 1953	<div><p>Stenoodes jeanneli Basilewsky, 1953</p><p>(Fig. 18 A-C)</p><p>Stenoodes jeanneli Basilewsky, 1953: 55 .</p><p>TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype. Madagascar • 1 ♂; Ambohitsitondrona; X.1948; Michel leg.; “  Stenoodes jeanneli,  nov. gen., n. sp. ”; P. Basilewsky det., 1952; MNHN.</p><p>TAXONOMIC SUPPLEMENT (BASED ON HOLOTYPE)</p><p>The following additions and specifications are added to the original description. Stipes with long and fine dorsal seta, longer than length of stipes; antennomere 2 with long ventral seta. Clypeus concave in front, with two clypeal setae; clypeus fused with frons (no frontoclypeal suture). Mentum with two long paramedial setae. Submentum with two long lateral setae. Pronotum anterior and posterior transverse impressions barely distinct only medially; basal margin without bead, basal edge without setal fringe (Fig. 18B). Prosternum with median longitudinal sulcus shallowly impressed. Parascutellar seta present, small, located at level of elytral stria 2; parascutellar striole long, not joining elytral stria 1, almost reaching medial end of basal margin. Elytral interval 3 with two discal setiferous punctures near stria 2, first more evident, situated in medial fifth of elytral length, second, less perceptible than first, located in posterior fourth (Fig. 18A). Stria 8 distinct in anterior four-seventh where deeper than striae 1-7. Intervals 8 and 9 normal in anterior four-seventh, modified towards apex as interval 8 elevated, forming a ridge, 9 deepened and widened backwards, forming a marginal furrow (Fig. 18C). Mesotrochanter with seta. Mesotibia without submedial assemblage of setae. Metafemur with long basal posterior seta opposite metatrochanter.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Stenoodes was introduced for the distinctively autapomorphic species  S. jeanneli (Basilewsky 1953) . The genus was originally placed in the tribe  Oodini though the author (ibid.) did not report on the unique modifications in elytral intervals 8 and 9 (see Introduction) that are the most recognizable morphologic features of the tribe. Recently, the genus was categorized as a representative of the tribe  Chlaeniini and listed immediately after  Hololeius (Lorenz 1998, 2005). This move was made because “  Stenoodes was strikingly looking like an Indian  Hololeius, that may have been unknown to Basilewsky” (Wolfgang Lorenz, pers. comm.). Careful study of the holotype of  S. jeanneli revealed that it possesses the modifications in elytral intervals 8 and 9 typical of  Oodini and that its integument is glabrous outside of the typical sensory setae, consistent with the original placement of Basilewsky (1953). The presence of a basal posterior seta on hind femur and lack of mesotibial submedial assemblage of setae (for the second character see Guéorguiev &amp; Schmidt 2016) both are likely plesiomorphic conditions in this group of carabids. That led to supposition that  Stenoodes is most likely an early branch in the tribe. The other oodine groups that possess basal posterior seta on metafemur are  Oodinus Motschulsky, 1865 and  Stenocrepis Chaudoir, 1857 (Bousquet 1996), three Australian species of  Nanodiodes Bousquet, 1996 as well as two of the four recognized species groups of  Brachyodes Jeannel, 1949 (unpublished data). While the representatives of the first genus are mainly restricted to the world tropical regions, with two species occurring subtropical areas of the southernmost United States, members of  Stenocrepis inhabit the New World from southern Ontario south to Uruguay and Argentina, including the West Indies (Spence 1983; Bousquet 1996, 2012). Taxa of  Brachyodes live mainly in the tropics of the Old World, with only a few species reaching southern skirts of the Palaearctic Region (Bousquet 2017; unpublished information).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB2068C848FFCAFED2F9CDFBDF858D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Guéorguiev, Borislav;Will, Kipling	Guéorguiev, Borislav, Will, Kipling (2025): A new genus and tribal placement for Ceneus speculiferus Fairmaire, 1879, comments on Grundmannius Basilewsky, 1965, Mirachlaenius Facchini, 2011 and Stenoodes Basilewsky, 1953, and a key to the Oriental and Australasian genera of Chlaeniina Brullé, 1834 (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zoosystema 47 (15): 231-259, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a15, URL: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/zoosystema2025v47a15.pdf
