Quedius (Microsaurus) walteri Korge, 1971

Yu, A. & Solodovnikov, 2005, New and little known species of Quedius from West Palaearctic (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Staphylininae), Zootaxa 902, pp. 1-13 : 4-5

Quedius (Microsaurus) walteri Korge, 1971

Korge 1971a: 44; Coiffait 1978: 182; Smetana 1995: 83.

Material examined. TURKEY: 6 ɗ, 5 Ψ "Borcka, Anat. b. [northern Anatolia] 1.­ 3.6.[19]60 leg. F. Schubert" ( NMW, FMNH); 1 ɗ, 1 Ψ, “ Turkey, Artvin, Karçal Daği, subalpine zone, 26.06.1998, leg. I. Belousov” ( FMNH); 1 ɗ, “ Turkey, Artvin, Karçal Daği, forest, 2425.06.1998, leg. I. Belousov” ( ZIN); 1 ɗ, “ Turkey, Rize, Gül Daği, Çağlayan River valley, 1000 m, AlnusRhododendron forest, 20. VI.1998, leg. A. Solodovnikov” ( ZIN); 1 ɗ, “Caucasus Armen. [ Armenien] Geb. [Gebirge] Leder Reitter / Quedius obliqueseriatus Epp. Coll. Reitter ” ( HNHM).

Discussion. This species from north­eastern Turkey is known only from few records ( Korge 1971a, Smetana 1995) and nothing was reported on its binomics. Morphologically, Quedius walteri is so distinct that it is difficult to affiliate it with any lineage of Quedius . Korge (1971a) tentatively placed it in the subgenus Microsaurus what was followed by Coiffait (1978). Smetana (1995) moved it to the subgenus Raphirus , but recently ( Smetana 2004) back to Microsaurus . There was neither an analysis to reveal phylogenetic relationships of Q. walteri , nor an attempt to elaborate a sound subgeneric system of Quedius . Thus, in the subgeneric placement of this species I tentatively follow Smetana (2004), the latest published assignment. It should be noted however that it is basically a habitus of Q. walteri (relatively small eyes, anteriorly narrowed pronotum, short elytra), which makes this species similar to some Microsaurus . In fact, Q. walteri shares major features of the body structure, and generally similar shape of the aedeagus (especially of the median lobe) with Q. transsylvanicus Weise, 1875 (species currently in the subgenus Raphirus ). Based on that similarity, I tentatively assume that Q. walteri and Q. transsylvanicus are closely related. However, even assuming their phylogenetic affinity one has to accept that they have undergone significant independent evolution since the time of divergence. There are significant morphological differences between them: Q. transsylvanicus has a different shape of the pronotum and the microsculpture of its upper body surface is transversal; it has no additional punctures near the posterior frontal punctures; its paramere is without inner lamellae but with sensory peg setae. Also, the distributions of the two species are restricted to the relatively remote mountain regions ( Q. transsylvanicus is endemic to the Carpathians).

Detailed bionomic data for Q. walteri are recorded only for one specimen from Gül Daği (see above), where it was collected in leaf litter of Alnus­Rhododendron forest at elevation of 1000 m. In Karçal Daği Q. walteri was collected both in the forest and subalpine altitudinal belts. Apparently the species is primarily a forest inhabitant, but, as many other montane forest species in very similar areas of the north­western Caucasus ( Solodovnikov 1998), it penetrates into the subalpine zone.

Male genitalia of this species are illustrated in Smetana (1995, Figs. 12–17 ) and here in Figs. 14–17 .

Habitus is provided here in Fig. 4 .

Figures

FIGURES 5 – 17. Quedius species, aedeagi. 5 – 7 Q. nonseriatus sp. nov.; 8 – 10 Q. henrii sp. nov.; 11 – 13 Q. humosus sp. nov.; 14 – 17 Q. walteri Korge; 5, 8, 11, 14 aedeagus laterally; 6, 9, 12, 15 aedeagus dorsally (parameral side); 7, 10, 13, 16 apical portion of paramere ventrally (side adjacent to median lobe); 17 apical portion of paramere latero­ventrally.

FIGURES 1 – 4. Quedius species, habitus. 1 Q. nonseriatus sp. nov., holotype; 2 Q. henrii sp. nov., holotype; 3 Q. humosus sp. nov., holotype; 4 Q. walteri Korge.