Apterotarpela Kaszab, 1954
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.17109/AZH.64.4.277.2018 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BBAE26-FFFF-FFFC-FE2D-A39F55A03E41 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Apterotarpela Kaszab, 1954 |
| status |
|
Type species Apterotarpela klapperichi Kaszab, 1954 , by monotypy.
Kaszab 1954: 262; Nabozhenko & Löbl, 2008: 247.
General morphology of adults. Body usually slender, strongly shiny, without or with weak metallic shade ( Figs 3A–C View Fig ). Head punctured by elongate punctures dorsally, with large convex eyes. Mentum without strong elevation at middle. Pronotum transverse; disc weakly depressed at each side near base, with elongate punctures; anterior angles not strongly projected. Prothoracic hypomera with fine dense wrinkles. Prosternal process weakly convex and weakly projected. Elytra with visible coeloconic sensilla in deep round small microfoveae, which are sometimes located in large tubercles on interstriae ( Figs 3A,C View Fig ); striae with furrows or elongate not connected foveae; eighth interstria carinate or weakly elevated apically, connected with elytral edge; epipleura not reaching sutural angles. Winged or wingless. Winged species have humeral elevation near base of elytra ( Figs 3B,C View Fig ). Mesoventrite simple, not strongly depressed at middle; lateral margins of mesocoxal process not strongly elevated and laterally flattened. Abdominal ventrite 5 completely beaded along apical surface, pubescent apically. Male pro- and mesotarsi not widened.
Male genitalia and terminalia. Aedeagus ‘helopioid’; apical piece acute apically; median lobe with widely rounded apex ( Figs 4A–C View Fig ). Inner sternite VIII weakly sclerotized, without additional sclerotized armature ( Fig. 4E View Fig ). Gastral spicula with straight branches, lobes without lateral teeth ( Fig. 4D View Fig ).
Female genital tubes. Spermatheca without basal duct, without short common duct basally and with multiple long branches ( Fig. 4F View Fig ).
Comments and comparison. KASZAB (1954) compared this genus with Asian Tarpela and distinguished Apterotarpela by the absence of wings. STEINER (2009) indicated (by citation of HORN 1870) that the American Tarpela species are fully winged, whereas the majority of Helops species are flightless. ESPAÑOL
(1956) and recently NABOZHENKO with co-authors ( KESKIN et al. 2017, NABO- ZHENKO et al. 2017) indicated that the presence, reduction or absence of hind wings in Helopini can be used as differential character only for species level. Comparative length of metaventrite, which relates with development of wings and often different even in closely related species. American Tarpela , Helops and Nautes are polyphyletic groups and the differential characters between these genera are not clear ( CIFUENTES-RUIZ et al. 2014). Species of all three genera would be fully winged, species of Neoarctic and Neotropic Helops have entire wings, reduced wings or wingless. The main and indistinct differences between Nautes – Tarpela and the New World Helops are in the structure of prosternal process and mesoventrite. Tarpela and Nautes Pascoe, 1876 have projected prosternal process and very deeply depressed mesoventrite with strongly elevate and flat or weakly convex lateral margins of mesocoxal process ( Fig. 2D View Fig ).
Apterotarpela can be compared with the New World Helops , from which it differs in the structure of eighth elytral interstriae connecting with elytral margin (American Helops and Tarpela have eighth interstria not connecting with elytral margin ( Fig. 2F View Fig )), elytra with dorsal epipleural carina not reaching apex (but reaching eighth interstria) ( Figs 3D, E View Fig ) and surface of prothoracic hypomera with fine wrinkles, (not coarse punctures or deep and coarse not interrupted ribs as in the genera Helops , Tarpela ( Fig. 2E View Fig ) and Nautes ). In addition, Apterotarpela differs from New World Tarpela in the structure of mesoventrite (see general morphology of Apterotarpela ). See difference of Apterotarpela from Nipponohelops in the key.
Two Chinese species of Tarpela described by KASZAB (1954), T. clypealis and T. subasperipennis , have all characters of Apterotarpela excluding presence of fully developed wings and must be transferred to this genus. All three species of Apterotarpela externally similar to Nalassus .
Comparative material examined: Tarpela brownii Bates, 1870 ( Fig. 2A–C View Fig ) (type species of the genus Tarpela ), holotype ( BNHM) with labels: “Type H. T.” (circle), “nicaragua = Chontales ”, “ Tarpela Brownii F. Bates type.”, “F. Bates Coll. 81–19”
Tarpela costata Champion, 1887 ( Fig. 2D–F View Fig ) ( CN): 1 m, Mexico, Salcocotan , Nayant .,
30.vii.1984 (leg. Barrera).
Distribution: The Eastern Palaearctic. China (Fujian). of aedeagus (penis), D, K = gastral spicula, E, J = male inner sternite VIII, F = female genital tubes (ag – accessory gland of spermatheca, v – vagina, s – spermatheca)
(Wenxian), B = C. solitarius, female from Sichuan (Venchuan), C = C. solitarius, holotype, Sichuan (Nanping), D = C. interruptus, female from Gansu (Wudu), E = C. stanislavi sp. n .,
holotype, female, Yunnan, F = C. solitarius, elytral intervals, female, G = C. interruptus, elytral intervals, female. H = C. stanislavi sp. n., elytral intervals, female
| BNHM |
Beijing Natural History Museum |
| T |
Tavera, Department of Geology and Geophysics |
| CN |
Wellcome Collection of Bacteria, Burroughs Wellcome Research Laboratories |
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.