Phyllophaga rugosa ( Melsheimer, 1845 )

Schnepp, Kyle E., 2019, Three new synonymies in Phyllophaga Harris, 1827 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), with lectotype and neotype designations, Insecta Mundi 742 (742), pp. 1-6 : 2

Phyllophaga rugosa ( Melsheimer, 1845)

Figures 3–4 , 9–10

Ancylonycha rugosa Melsheimer 1845: 140 . Neotype: MCZ, here designated, male.

Phyllophaga rugosa (Melsheimer) : Haldeman and LeConte 1853: 59; Glasgow 1916: 371.

Lachnosterna rugosa (Melsheimer) : LeConte 1856: 252.

Phyllophaga chippewa Saylor 1939b: 455 . New synonymy. Type: USNM, male.

Ancylonycha rugosa was described by Melsheimer (1845) from Virginia. Haldeman and LeConte (1853) included it in Phyllophaga in their revision of Melsheimer’s catalogue. LeConte (1856) used the generic name Lachnosterna for this species and most other Phyllophaga (sensu stricto). Saylor (1939b) described Phyllophaga chippewa from a single male collected in Schley, Minnesota ( Fig. 10 ), and compared it with Phyllophaga knochii (Schoenherr and Gyllenhal) . While P. chippewa does belong in Group IX of Horn’s (1887) revision, as stated by Saylor (1939b), there are some significant differences between this species and P. knochii , including pronotal punctation and clypeal emargination. The parameres of P. chippewa are mostly developed, looking normally sclerotized, but the base of the genitalia ( Fig. 4 ) is clearly underdeveloped and misshapen. The genitalia appear to be a deformity of P. rugosa , as stated by Luginbill and Painter (1953). After examination of the type, P. chippewa is externally within the variation of P. rugosa and the collection locality is also within the range of P. rugosa ( Pike et al. 1977) . Being the type of P. chippewa remains the only known specimen, I concur with Luginbill and Painter (1953) in considering it a deformed specimen of P. rugosa and here formally synonymize the two species.

A search for Melsheimer’s type of A. rugosa turned up no specimens and is presumed lost. A neotype of A. rugosa is here designated to fix the name to a single specimen to allow comparison to other types. The specimen chosen is a dissected male ( Fig. 3 ) from North Carolina in the Horn Collection. Label data ( Fig. 9 ) are as follows: “N. C // ♂ // HornColl/ H [handwritten] 5774 // MCZ-ENT 00711292 // [on red] NEOTYPE / Ancylonycha rugosa / Melsheimer, 1845 / Det: K. E. Schnepp 2018”.

Figures

Figures 1–6. Male genitalia of Phyllophaga type specimens. 1) Phyllophaga sociata, lectotype. 2) Phyllophaga knausii, lectotype. 3) Phyllophaga rugosa, neotype. 4) Phyllophaga chippewa, holotype. 5) Phyllophaga bipartita, lectotype. 6) Phyllophaga falta, holotype.

Figures 7–12. Specimen labels of Phyllophaga type specimens. 7) Phyllophaga sociata, lectotype. 8) Phyllophaga knausii, lectotype. 9) Phyllophaga rugosa, neotype. 10) Phyllophaga chippewa, holotype. 11) Phyllophaga bipartita, lectotype. 12) Phyllophaga falta, holotype.