Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes ( Kugelann, 1792 )

Lackner, Tomáš & Seres, Gábor, 2018, Revision of the subgenus Nessus of the genus Hypocaccus from Central Europe, with description of a new species (Coleoptera: Histeridae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 58 (2), pp. 419-439 : 421-425

Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes ( Kugelann, 1792)

( Figs 1–13 )

Hister rufipes Kugelann, 1792:304 (original description). ILLIGER (1807): 43 (as syn. of H. conjugatus Illiger, 1807 ).

Hister rufipes Paykull, 1798: 50 (original description; primary junior homonym).DUFTSCHMID (1805): 228 (redescription); PAYKULL (1811): 74 (redescription, incl. pl. VII: fig. 1).

Saprinus rufipes (Paykull) : GEBLER (1847): 449 (noted, new combination); REDTENBACHER (1849): 238 (keyed); C. THOMSON (1862): 240 (redescription); MARSEUL (1862): 491 (redescription, incl. pl. XVII: fig. 48); JAKOBSON (1911): 651 (noted).

Hypocaccus rufipes (Paykull) : C. THOMSON (1867): 401 (keyed); SCHMIDT (1885):313 (keyed); GANGLBAUER (1899): 390 (redescription); REITTER (1909): 293 (keyed).

Hypocacculus (Nessus) rufipes (Paykull) : REICHARDT (1932): 41, 113 (redescription, keyed, incl. pl. I: fig. 12, pl. III: figs 12–14, pl. IV: fig. 13); REICHARDT (1941): 284, 295 (redescription, keyed, incl.figs 145C, 153R); HORION (1949): 338 (noted); WITZGALL (1971): 173 (keyed); KRYZHANOVSKIJ & REICHARDT (1976): 203, 207 (redescription, keyed, incl. figs 403, 413, 419).

Hypocacculus (Nessus) rufipes (Kugelann) : MAZUR (1984): 90 (catalogue); MAZUR (1997): 255 (catalogue); MAZUR (2004): 94 (catalogue).

Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes (Kugelann) : MAZUR (2011): 209 (catalogue); LACKNER et al. (2015): 118 (catalogue).

Hister antiquulus Illiger, 1807: 43 (original description); GANGLBAUER (1899): 390 (synonymy).

Saprinus antiquulus: ERICHSON (1834) : 191 (new combination); MARSEUL (1855): 732 (redescription, keyed); MARSEUL (1862): 491 (redescription, incl. pl. XIII: fig. 48).

Saprinus longistrius Marseul, 1855: 684 (original description, incl. pl. XVIII: fig. 126). MARSEUL (1862): 492 (synonymy).

Type locality. Original type locality ‘Preussen [after title of the paper]’ changed here to: Hungary, Csongrád megye, Királyhegyes,Királyhegyesi puszta by designation of neotype.

Type material examined. Hister rufipes Kugelann, 1792 : NEOTYPE (present designation): ♁, mounted on a rectangular mounting card with genitalia extracted, disarticulated and mounted in Euparal on a separate plastic card under the specimen, with the following labels:‘HUNG., Csongrád m., / Királyhegyes, Királyhegyesi puszta, / héricses domb [printed] // löszgyep, talajcsapda, [loess grassland, pitfall] / 2013 iv.18., leg., / Deli / Tamás & Danyik Tibor [printed] // Hypocacculus rufipes / ( Kugelann, 1792) / det. O. Merkl, 2014 [printed] // Hister rufipes / Kugelann, 1792 / NEOTYPE / Des. T. Lackner 2017 [red label, printed]’ ( HNHM).

Hister rufipes Paykull,1798 . LECTOTYPE (present designation): pinned specimen, probably a female, right protarsus, right hind leg missing, with the following labels: ‘ Hister rufipes / Paykull, 1798 / Lectotype / Des. T. Lackner 2017 [red label, written]’ ( NRMH).

Hister antiquulus Illiger, 1807 . SYNTYPES: 1 ♀ ( Fig. 12 ), originally pinned, mounted on a rectangular mounting card, final three right metatarsomeres missing, ‘49200 [printed] // Hist.-Coll.( Coleoptera ) / Nr. 49200 / Saprinus antiquulus Illig. / Austria / Zool. Mus. Berlin [black-framed, printed label] // SYNTYPE / Hister antiquulus / Illiger, 1807 / labelled by MFNB 2016 [red label, printed] // antiquulus / Er. / Hist. ant. Ill* / rufipes Pk. / Austr. Hung [black-framed hand-written label]’ ( MFNB); 1 ♁, mounted on a rectangular mounting card, genitalia extracted and glued to the same mounting card as the specimen, with the following labels:‘49200 [written] // Hist.-Coll. ( Coleoptera ) / Nr. 49200 / Saprinus antiquulus Illig. / Austria / Zool. Mus. Berlin [black-framed, printed label] // SYNTYPE / Hister antiquulus / Illiger, 1807 / labelled by MFNB 2016 [red label, printed]’ ( MFNB); 1 ♀, with the labels identical to the preceding ( MFNB). The lectotype designation was not allowed by the MFNB staff, hence no lectotype is designated.

Saprinus longistrius Marseul, 1855 . LECTOTYPE (present designation): 1 spec. of unidentifiable sex ( Fig. 13 ), originally pinned, glued onto a rectangular mounting card, except for left protibia (sans tarsus) and right mesotibia all other body appendages and abdomen missing, ‘r? [tiny yellow rectangular label, completely illegible] // Saprinus / longistrius m. / Autr. Dej. / rufipes Pk. / Dej. 63 [round label, written in black ink] // Saprinus / longistrius / 124 Austria [yellow label written in black ink] // TYPE [red-printed label] // Museum Paris / coll. / De Marseul 1890 [printed] // Saprinus longistrius / Marseul, 1855 / LECTOTYPE / des. T. Lackner 2017 [red label, printed]’ ( MNHN). Additional specimen: 1 ♀, bearing Marseul’s round label: ‘126 / Saprinus / longistrius / m. / Autriche / Laferté / Dej. ’ ( MNHN). This specimen is probably the one mentioned by MARSEUL (1862: 492) as ‘sent to me afterwards and is not the type of my description’; see remarks.

Additional material examined. ARMENIA: PROVINCE UNKNOWN: Cevagjuch, 2.vi.1988, 1 ♀, Bečvář lgt. ( CTLA). AUSTRIA: Austria, no further data, 1 ♀, coll. Seidlitz ( ZSM); Austria, no further data, 2 ♁♁, 4 ♀♀, ( MFNB); Austria?, no further data, 1 ♀ ( MFNB). BURGENLAND: Zurndorf, 5 ♁♁, 2 ♀♀, H. Franz lgt. ( NHMW); Nickelsdrof, 1 ♁, H. Franz lgt. ( NHMW). LOWER AUSTRIA: Parndorfer Platte beim Neusiedl am See, 4 ♁♁, 2 ♀♀, H. Franz lgt. ( NHMW); Weiden am Neusiedlersee, 1 ♁, H. Franz lgt ( NHMW). VIENNA: Vienna env., 1 ♀, Reitter lgt. ( MNHN, coll. Thérond); Vienna env., Mödling, 1 ♀, H. Franz lgt. ( NHMW). CROATIA: Croatia, no further data, 2 spec., Padewieth lgt. ( HNHM). CZECH REPUBLIC: JIHOMORAVSKÝ KRAJ: Pouzdřany, 1♀, no further data ( NMPC). MORAVSKOSLEZSKÝ KRAJ: Bescides [= Beskydy Mountains], no further data, 1♀ ( NMPC). MORAVIA: Moravia, no further data, 1 ♁ 2 ♀♀ ( NMPC); Mähren [= Moravia], 1♁, 1 ♀, 1 spec., Märkel lgt. ( MTD). FRANCE: Gallia merid., no further data [locality doubtful] 1 ♀, Reitter & Leder lgt. ( NMPC). GEORGIA: TBILISI REGION: Tiflis [= Tbilisi], no further data, 1 ♁ ( MFNB). GERMANY: BAVARIA: Munich, no further data, 2 ♀♀ ( ZSM); Dachau Moor, iv.1956, 1 ♀, 2 ♁♁, Witzgall lgt. ( ZSM); Erlangen, Rosenh[auer?], no further data, 1 ♁ ( MFNB). HUNGARY: 1 spec., Hungaria, Bodemeyer lgt., no further details ( HNHM); 1 ♁, Ungarn, no further data ( MFNB); Hungaria, no further data, 2 ♁♁ ( MFNB); Hungary, no further data, 1 ♀, Kraatz ( MNHN). BÁCS- KISKUN MEGYE: Kalocsa, 2 spec., Speiser lgt. ( HNHM); Kiskunsági National Park, Kunszentmiklós, Apaj-puszta, 13.v.1977, 1 ♀, 1 spec. (pitfall trap), Ádám & Hámori lgt. ( CGSE). BARANYA MEGYE: St. Lőrincz [=Szentlőrinc], 1 spec., Victor Stiller lgt. ( HNHM). BÉKÉS MEGYE: Kevermes: Hármas-határ halom, 29.iii.2014, 1 ♁, 1 ♀ (pitfall trap), T. Deli & T. Danyi lgt. ( CGSE); Battonya, Tompapuszta, löszgyep [= loess grassland], 3.v.2013, 1♁, 1 spec., T.Deli & T.Danyi lgt. ( CGSE). BORSOD- ABAÚJ- ZEMPLÉN MEGYE: Bükk Mountains, Tard, 21.iii.1957, 1 spec., S. Tóth lgt. ( HNHM). CSONGRÁD MEGYE: Szeged, 4 spec., Victor Stiller lgt. ( HNHM). FEJÉR MEGYE: Martonvásár, 7.iv.1955, 1 spec. (from a corn field), Dr. Gozmány lgt. ( HNHM); Székesfehérvár, 1 spec., Lichtneckert lgt. ( HNHM); Martonvásár, 21.iv.1953 spec., J. Bagotai lgt., coll. Dr.D. Révy ( HNHM);Velencei hills, Nadap, Kőfejtő [=quarry], 204 m, 7.iv.1951, 1 spec., Kaszab & Székessy lgt. ( HNHM); Székesfehérvár, Börgöndi airport, 47º07′40.0″N, 18º30′03.7″E, 11.iv.2017, 2 spec. (pitfall trap), 25.iv.2017, 2 spec. (pitfall trap), V.Szénási & G. Seres lgt.( CGSE). PEST MEGYE: Budapest, no further details, 1 spec., Csiki lgt., ( HNHM); Budapest, no further details, 1 spec., Gutrányi lgt. ( HNHM); Budafok, 30.v.1907, 1 spec., collector unknown ( HNHM); Budapest, 7.v.1911, 1 spec., collector unknown ( HNHM); Budapest, 1 spec., Hajóss lgt. ( HNHM); Budapest, Füvészkert, iii.1879, 1 spec., collector unknown ( HNHM); Budapest, without further data, 3 spec., coll. Dr. R. Streda ( HNHM); Budapest, Lágymányos, 1 spec., coll. H. Diener ( HNHM); Budapest, Rákos, 1 spec., coll. H. Diener ( HNHM); Budapest env., Óbudai Hills, 1 spec., coll. H. Diener ( HNHM); Budapest env., Csepel-sz., 1 spec., coll. H. Diener ( HNHM); Nagykovácsi, Nagyszénás, Nagyszénás tető, 10.v.1954, 1 spec. (individual collecting on sheep excrements), S.-né Hámori & I.-né Kovács lgt. ( HNHM); Nógrádverőce [=Verőce], Katalinvölgy, 14.iv.1952, 1 ♀ (on cadaver), Endrődy lgt. ( CTLA); Pest m., Fót, Fóti-Somlyó, 13.iv.1980, 1♁ (individual collecting), Ádám lgt., ( CGSE). SOMOGY MEGYE: Zamárdi, Töreki láp, on the edge of a field, 5.v.1953, 1 spec., Kaszab lgt. ( HNHM); Siófok, 2 spec., Lichtneckert lgt. ( HNHM); Ságvár, 1 spec., Lichtneckert lgt. ( HNHM); Balatonszéplak, 1 spec., Dr. Lenci ( HNHM). VESZPRÉM MEGYE: Berhida, iv.1955, 2 ♁♁, 7 spec., Dr.Lenci lgt. ( HNHM). KAZAKHSTAN: KYZYLORDA REGION: Syr-Darja River, Perovsk [=Kyzylorda], 1♁, v.Bodemeyer lgt. ( MNHN, coll. Thérond). POLAND: HAJNÓWKA: Klesczele, żwirownia [=gravel pit], 28.iv.2004, 2 ♀♀, A. Byk lgt. ( MSNG). SLOVAKIA: KOŠICKÝ KRAJ: Zemplínske Vrchy, Ladmovce, 8.v.1979, 2 ♀♀, L. Mencl lgt. ( CTLA); Somotor, 2.iv.1997, 1 ♁ 1 ♀ (pitfall trap), T. Lackner lgt. ( CTLA); Streda nad Bodrogom, xi.1951 ♀, R. Veselý lgt. ( NMPC). ROMANIA: BANAT: Banat, no further data, 2 ♁♁, Reitter lgt. ( MMBC, NMPC). CONSTANŢA: Mangalia, 17.vii.1961, 1 ♁, no collector ( CTLA). RUSSIA: BELGORODSKAYA OBLASŤ: Valuyki, 1 ♀, Velichkovsky lgt. ( NHMW). ROSTOVSKAYA OBLASŤ: Sosnovyj village, 20.v.2000, 2 ♀♀, collector unknown ( MSNG). SERBIA: BELGRADE: Zemun, 30.v.1935, 1 ♁, 1 ♀, Nonveiler lgt. ( CTLA). SPAIN: ANDALUSIA: ‘Andalusia’, no further data, 1 ♀ ( MNHN, coll. Thérond) [dubious record, see remarks]. TURKEY: ANKARA: Çamlidere, Isik d., 23.vi.1947, 1 ♀, Expedition of the National Museum of ČSR ( NMPC). UKRAINE: Kleinrussland, no further data, 1 ♀ ( MFNB). LUHANSKAYA OBLASŤ: Kovalevka, Podolské, 2 ♀♀, Hanuš lgt. ( NMPC).

Diagnostic description of the neotype. Rather smallsized, roundly oval, light to dark brown saprinine histerid with complete frontal stria and densely punctate frons. Pronotal hypomeron asetose; pronotal disc (except for finely punctate median part) densely punctate. Elytral striae 1–4 thin, usually reaching ¾ of elytral length apically; 1 st elytral stria shorter than the rest; 4 th stria connected with almost complete sutural elytral stria. Apical elytral stria lacking. Elytral punctation usually confined to apical third. Both sets of prosternal striae connected apically; prosternal foveae present. Protibia with 8–10 tiny denticles diminishing in size proximally.

Redescription. PEL: 1.75–2.50 mm; APW: 0.75–0.90 mm; PPW: 1.40–1.60 mm; EW: 1.50–2.00 mm; EL: 1.20–1.50 mm. Body ( Figs 1–2 ) roundly oval, cuticle light-brown with slight (metallic) tinge; pronotum slightly darker than elytra; legs, mouthparts and antenna amber to reddish.

Head: frontal stria well-developed, outwardly arcuate; supraorbital stria vague, occasionally lacking; occipital stria very weak.Anterior angles of frons acute, protruding. Eyes flattened, but visible from dorsal view. Frontal disc even, rather densely punctate; punctures rather deep, separated from each-other by 0.5–1.5 times their own diameter, interspaces with fine alutaceous microsculpture; clypeus with coarser and denser punctation, punctures separated by less than half their diameter; anterior margin of clypeus elevated. Antennal scape slightly thickened, dorsally with several long setae; club rounded, slightly pointed apically; basal third asetose, apical 2/3 with short sensilla intermingled with sparse erect setae. Sensory structures of antennal club not examined. Labrum medially convex, punctate; labral pits present, each with two short labral setae. Subapical tooth of left mandible almost rectangular. Terminal labial as well as maxillary palpomere elongate, approximately 2.0–2.5 times as long as wide.

Pronotum: lateral sides slightly narrowing apically; disc with sparse and fine punctation, punctures separated by several times their diameter; laterally punctures become coarser and denser; marginal pronotal stria slightly carinate, visible along its entire length from dorsal view. Along pronotal base present double row of irregularly-sized punctures. Scutellum very small, triangular; pronotal hypomeron asetose.

Elytra: marginal epipleural stria fine, complete; marginal elytral stria complete, slightly carinate; apical elytral stria absent; elytral epipleuron with sparse microscopic punctures. Humeral elytral stria fine, impressed on basal elytral third; internal subhumeral stria fine, present medially, well-developed. Elytra with dorsal elytral striae 1–4 well-developed, all striae surpass ⅔ of elytral length apically, often reaching as far as ¾ of elytral length; first stria slightly shorter than the rest. Fourth dorsal elytral stria basally connected to complete sutural elytral stria; all striae in faint punctures; occasionally short vestigial stria present on fourth elytral interval medially. Punctation of elytral disc rather variable, punctures usually confined to basal elytral fifth, only occasionally entering elytral intervals 1–3, on fourth elytral interval (between fourth dorsal elytral stria and sutural elytral stria) punctures almost reach elytral half basally (but in many cases confined to apical elytral third); punctures separated approximately by 0.5–1.5 times their diameter, irregular in size; elytral flanks impunctate; extreme elytral apex impunctate. Occasionally sparse microscopic punctures present on entire elytral disc.

Propygidium and pygidium: propygidium with several rows of very dense punctures, separated by less than their own diameter; pygidium covered with regular round punctures separated by approximately their own diameter.

Prosternum: prosternal process anteriorly with traces of marginal prosternal stria; flanks of prosternal process densely punctate; carinal prosternal striae slightly divergent on prosternal apophysis, next subparallel to slightly approximate, united anteriorly just before carinate anteriorly united lateral prosternal striae. Next to carinal prosternal striae a line of punctures present mesally; prosternal foveae present, distinct.

Mesoventrite: lateral mesoventral stria present, complete, inwardly arcuate anteriorly, next to it line of punctures present mesally; mesoventral disc with very sparse and fine punctures; disc approximately three times as broad as long; meso-metaventral suture indistinct, meso-metaventral sutural stria in form of a chain of punctures.

Metaventrite: disc of metaventrite, except for several rows of irregularly-sized punctures along its base entirely smooth; lateral metaventral stria fine, complete, almost reaching metacoxa. Lateral disc of metaventrite with large deep punctures separated by one to several times their diameter; metepisternum with similar, even denser punctation.

Legs: protibia: outer margin of protibia with 8–10 denticles diminishing in size proximally; protarsal groove shallow; protibial spur tiny, growing out of near tarsal insertion; setae of outer row sparse, regular, rather long. Outer part of posterior surface of protibia rugulose-lacunose, separated from glabrous median part by distinct ridge bearing several denticles basally; apex of protibia with two tiny apical denticles; posterior protibial stria complete; setae of inner row regular, strongly sclerotized. Mesotibia: outer margin of mesotibia with row of gradually enlarging denticles distally; anterior face of mesotibia with another row of 4–5 widely spaced minuscule denticles. Metatibia: slightly longer and more slender than mesotibia; outer margin with single tiny denticle on basal fifth, longer single denticle present approximately in metatibial mid-length, another three much longer denticles present on apical metatibial fifth. Each meso- and metararsomere with single, rather long seta; ultimate meso- and metatarsomere as long as two preceding combined; meso- and metatarsal claws shorter than half of the ultimate meso- and metatarsomere, respectively.

Male genitalia: Sternite VIII ( Figs 3–4 ) slightly narrowing apically, sub-rectangular, apex with brush of short setae. Tergite X ( Fig. 6 ) rather small; tergite IX ( Fig. 6 ) medially with faint lines depicting suture; spiculum gastrale strongly dilated on both ends ( Fig. 3 ); ‘head’ with inwardly curved ‘horns’. Aedeagus ( Figs 10–11 ) slender overall, apex acute.

Variation. As a widely-distributed species, Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes expresses variations especially regarding dorsal as well as ventral punctation, carinal prosternal striae or colour of the dorsal cuticle. The cuticle can bear bronze to greenish metallic tinge, but is never distinctly dark-brown to black, as in the presumably closely related species H. (N.) hungaricus sp. nov. Occasionally, the fourth dorsal elytral stria can be only vaguely (or not at all) connected with the sutural one.

Differential diagnosis. Most similar to the newly described species H. (N.) hungaricus sp. nov., differing from it mainly in the absence of tiny metaventral tubercles in males and lighter coloration of the dorsum. Further differences are found on male genitalia. For complete differential diagnosis see KRYZHANOVSKIJ & REICHARDT (1976): 207.

Distribution. According to LACKNER et al. (2015), H. (N.) rufipes is known from the following countries: Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Iran, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia: Central European Territory, South European Territory, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. KRYZHANOVSKIJ & REICHARDT (1976) reported it also from southern Norway. Absent from the Mediterranean. Newly recorded from Turkey.

Biology. Found mostly on sandy soils in decomposing organic matter, on excrements, in dung, on carcass as well as decaying vegetables; often collected by pitfall trapping.

Remarks. KUGELANN (1792: 304) described the species Hister rufipes , which he provided with a very brief description: ‘Nigro-aeneus, corpore subgloboso, pedibus rufus [Black-metallic, body almost rounded, legs reddish]’. This Latin description was supplemented with a short description in German, which was basically the translation from Latin, adding that he (Kugelann) found this beetle one time in sand. This description has gone largely unnoticed for the next almost 200 years and all authors attributed the authorship of Hypocacculus (Nessus) rufipes to Paykull, 1798 instead. It was MAZUR (1984: 90) who attributed the name Hypocacculus (Nessus) [= Hister ] rufipes to Kugelann for the first time, referring to the catalogue of BICKHARDT (1916: 98) as the alleged original author of this combination. BICKHARDT (1916: 98), however, attributed the authorship of Hypoacculus rufipes to PAYKULL (1798) and did not mention Kugelann at all. It was therefore MAZUR (1984), who attributed the name Hister rufipes correctly to Kugelann for the first time. According to the curator of the Museum and Institute of Zoology in Warsaw, Poland (T. Huflejt) the collection of Kugelann was destroyed during the WWII. As this species is easily confused with the newly described H. (N.) hungaricus sp. nov. and the name Hister rufipes Paykull, 1798 is a junior homonym of Hister rufipes Kugelann, 1792 , a neotype designation has become necessary for this common, mainly Central and East European species.

ILLIGER (1807) mentioned ‘ Hister rufipes Kugelann’ with the correct and complete citation, meaning he must have read it, adding that ‘Ich finde sie nirgend geschrieben [I do not find it mentioned anywhere]’. He ( ILLIGER 1807: 43) attributed this name [ rufipes Kugelann ] to a specimen collected in Vienna and received from a certain ‘Mr. Megerle from Mühlefeld’. ILLIGER (1807) then continues: ‘Paykull’s rufipes should possess a complete sutural elytral stria as well as dorsal elytral striae almost reaching elytral apex, which does not correspond with our specimen [translated from German]’. Likewise, according to ILLIGER (1807: 43) Paykull does not mention the ‘characteristic punctures before the scutellum’. It is unclear what punctures ‘before scutellum’ ILLIGER (1807) had in mind, since in the description of Hister rufipes no punctures are mentioned. Based on the above mentioned it is obvious, that ILLIGER (1807) considered H. rufipes Kugelann as a species distinct from that of Paykull and he gave the priority to Paykullʼs name, probably due to the fact that Kugelannʼs name was overlooked, thought it was older and thus had the priotity. Instead he described a new species H. conjugatus Illiger, 1807 and considered H. rufipes Kugelann its synonym. However, Illiger based his observation on an additional specimen and subsequent authors considered H. conjugatus a synonym of Gnathoncus rotundatus ( Kugelann, 1792) ; first synonymized by ERICHSON (1834: 175).

ILLIGER (1807: 43) described Hister antiquulus from Austria as differing from Paykull’s Hister rufipes in its metallic colour (as opposed to Paykull’s black) and presence of frontal stria (indicating that Paykull’s rufipes does not possess a frontal stria). ILLIGER (1807) stated: ‘Einen kleinen aus Oesterreich erhaltenen Käfer würde ich für den Paykullischen rufipes halten, wenn nicht seine Farbe mehr metallisch als schwarz, und seine Stirn gerandet wäre.’ ILLIGER (1807) concluded the description of his new species ( antiquulus ) with: ‘Kugelann’s rufipes belongs to this species, which I determine based on a specimen that I was given by him; previously I attributed this specimen to [ Gnathoncus ] rotundatus [translated from German original]’. This means that Illiger must have seen a specimen of ‘ Hister rufipes Kugelann’ and described his ‘ antiquulus ’ as belonging (being related to) to it. He ( ILLIGER 1807) also believed that Paykull’s ‘ rufipes ’ is different in being more metallic and not having a frontal stria. We have located and examined Paykull’s type specimen of ‘ rufipes ’, and can conclude that it is only slightly metallic and does possess the frontal stria. PAYKULL’ s description (1798: 50) even states ‘fronte integra’ – most likely meaning that the frontal stria is complete. Either way, Illiger’s syntype material of ‘ Hister antiquulus ’ completely morphologically corresponds to Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes ( Kugelann, 1792) .

MARSEUL (1855: 732), in the section ‘species, which I have not seen’ provided a short description of Saprinus antiquulus , comparing it to S. (S.) chalcites ( Illiger, 1807), differing from it in ‘smaller size, strong shine and reddish-brown body appendages’. MARSEUL’ S (1855) short redescription of S. antiquulus is meaningless and does not provide any further clues to differentiate the species. In his later work ( MARSEUL 1862: 491) he provided a thorough redescription of Saprinus antiquulus , adding that ‘this small species from Hungary, which I was given by Dr. Kraatz under the name S. antiquulus Illiger corresponds well overall with its description by that author, if it were not for its frontal punctation, which is really rugose. It is probably identical to my Saprinus longistrius , although its subhumeral stria is loose (disjointed) [translated from French]’. MARSEUL (1862: 492) continues ‘However, the specimen [of S. longistrius ] which I have from M. de Laferté was sent to me afterwards and is not the type of my description [translated from French]’.

It is unclear whether it was the above-mentioned doubt ‘it is probably identical to my longistrius ’ by MARSEUL (1862) that led some further author to synonymize the two species, and further synonymize them both with Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes . The species was described based on unknown number of specimens and the lectotype designation is provided to fix the species identity. Nonetheless, we hereby confirm that the type specimen of Saprinus longistrius Marseul, 1862 is synonymous with Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes ( Kugelann, 1792) .

The record of this species from Spain (Andalusia) is based on a single female specimen, labelled: ‘ Andalusia / ex Reitter // A gracious offer! / by Reitter, originating / from the Schmidt’s collection / identified by himself as S. antiquulus ’ and is dubious, since YÉLAMOS (2002) in his monograph of the Histeridae of the Iberian Peninsula does not list this species as present there.

Figures

Figs 1–2. Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes (Kugelann, 1792), habitus. 1 – dorsal view; 2 – ventral view.

Figs 3–11. Male genitalia of Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes (Kugelann, 1792). 3 – VIII sternite and tergite, ventral view; 4 – ditto, dorsal view; 5 – ditto, lateral view; 6 – IX and X tergites, dorsal view; 7 – ditto, lateral view; 8 – IX sternite (spiculum gastrale), ventral view; 9 – ditto, lateral view; 10 – aedeagus, dorsal view; 11 – ditto, lateral view.

Figs 12–13. Hypocaccus (Nessus) rufipes (Kugelann, 1792), dorsal habitus. 12 – Hister antiquulus Illiger, 1807, syntype. 13 –Saprinus longistrius Marseul, 1855, lectotype.