Lacon candezei ( Desbrochers des Loges, 1875 )

Kundrata, Robin, Mertlik, Josef & Németh, Tamás, 2019, Unexpected diversity of Lacon Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera: Elateridae: Agrypninae) in the Levant: revised species concepts, new species, and an identification key, Zootaxa 4679 (3), pp. 401-449 : 412-415

Lacon candezei ( Desbrochers des Loges, 1875)

( Figs 36–51 , 194 )

Adelocera candezei Desbrochers des Loges, 1875: 37 .

= Adelocera kraatzi Schwarz, 1893: 192 ; synonymized by Schwarz (1894: 145).

Lacon candezei: Fleutiaux (1926: 93) ; see Hayek (1973: 14, 59).

Type material. Lacon candezei . Lectotype, male, „ Jordan, Naplouse [Nablus], candezei t m., Type probable CMFH 1968, Lectotype Adelocera candezei Desbr. C.M.F. von Hayek det. 1972“ ( MNHN).

Adelocera kraatzi . Described based on unknown number of specimens (most probably only a single specimen). Israel, “ Jerusalem, 1.3.[18]85, Dr. E. Leuthner leg.” ( Schwarz 1893). Not found despite several thorough searches in the SDEI collection (see also Hayek 1973: 59).

Type locality. West Bank: Nablus .

Other material examined. Israel, 1 male, „Israel/ Tel Aviv, Ilanoth, 24.4.1982, leg. Mühle, Coll. G. Platia, Coll. G. Platia, Lacon candezei (Dsb.) det. Platia 000“ ( PCGP); 1 male, Nahal Oren, Mt. Carmel, Israel, 22.IV. [19]96, Pavlicek & Chikatunov, Lacon candezei (Desbr.) , det. Preiss 2001 ( SMNH); 1 male, „Israel, N‘kziv, 24.iv.1999, 4-5, M. Finkel, Lacon candezei (Desbr.) , det. Preiss 2000 ( SMNH); 1 male, „Israel, Qedumim, 8.iv.2006, L. Friedman [leg.], Lacon candezei (Desbr) , det. Preiss 2009“ ( SMNH); 1 male, „Israel: Matta‘, 9.xi.2006, I. Shtirberg leg., Lacon candezei Det. V. Chikatunov “ ( SMNH); 1 male, „Israel: Matta‘, 19.iv.2007, I. Shtirberg leg.“ ( SMNH); 1 male, „Israel:Adullam, 3.IV.2003, U. Columbus, T. Levanony [leg.]” ( SMNH); 2 males, Israel:Adullam, 23.V.2003, O. Skutelsky [leg.], Lacon candezei det. V. Chikatunov [only in one specimen]” ( SMNH); 1 male, “Israel: Adullam, 15.v.2003, O. Skutelsky [leg.]” ( SMNH); 1 male, “Israel, Hanot, 1.4.[19]85, Coll. J. Halperin” ( SMNH); 2 males, “Israel, Upper Galilee, Biriyya, 11.III.2009, E. Rotholz [leg.]” ( SMNH); 1 male, “Israel: Amnun, 15.V.2003, Light trap, V. Kravchenko, V. Chikatunov [leg.], “ ( SMNH); 6 males, “Israel: Panyas, 20.IV.2002, V. Kravchenko [leg.], Light trap” ( SMNH); 1 male, “Israel: Tel Dan, 15.VI.2002, V. Kravchenko [leg.], Light trap” ( SMNH); 2 males, “Israel: Tel Dan, 20.IV.2003, Light trap, V. Kravchenko, V. Chikatunov [leg.], “ ( SMNH); 1 male, “Israel: Tel Dan, 16.V.2003, Light trap, V. Kravchenko, V. Chikatunov [leg.], “ ( SMNH); 1 male, “Israel, Buq’ata, 15.V.2003, Light trap, V. Kravchenko, V. Chikatunov [leg.], “ ( SMNH); 2 males, “Israel, Majdal Shams, 20.IV.2002, V. Kravchenko [leg.], Light trap” ( SMNH); 3 males, “Israel: Majdal Shams, 20.V.2001, V. Kravchenko [leg.]” ( SMNH); 1 male, ( IL) Mt. Carmel, Ha’airbaim (Fourties), N 32°45’, E 35°01’, pitfall trap in hollow, on Quercus calliprinos , 15.04.– 28.05.2009, P12, leg. J. Buse & T. Pavlicek“ ( SMNH); 1 male, „DCE Leuthner, Jerusal. 3. [19]85, Coll. Schwarz, candezei Desbr. “ ( SDEI); 1 male, „ Adelocera lithophila Cand. , Jerusalem, Tarnier“ ( SDEI); 2 males, „Israel, Golan Hts., Mas‘ada, 25.IV.2002, V. Kravchenko [leg.]” ( SMNH); 1 male, Golan-Höhen, Umg. [Umgebung = surroundings] El Quneitra, Österr. Un.-Baon, Camp Faouar, N 33°09’45”, E 35°50’30”, 1976” ( NHMW); 1 female, “Israel, N’kziv, 4.vi.1999, 4-5, M. Finkel, Lacon candezei (Desbr.) , det. Preiss 2000“ ( SMNH); 1 female, „Israel, N‘kziv, 24.iv.1999, 7-9, M. Finkel, Lacon candezei (Desbr.) , det. Preiss 2000“ ( SMNH); 1 male, „Israel/ Tel Aviv, Ilanoth, 24.4.1982, leg. Mühle“ ( PCVD); Jordan, 3 males, „O. Jordan, J. Klapperich, Oase Azrak, 500 m, 16.5.[19]56, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 2 males, „O. Jordan, J. Klapperich, Oase Azrak, 500 m, 16.5.[19]56, Lacon candezei (Desbr.) det. Németh, 2012“ ( HNHM); 1 male, „O. Jordan, J. Klapperich, Amman, 800 m, 18.4.1958, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 1 male, „O. Jordan., J. Klapperich, Amman, 800 m, 18.4.1958, Lichtfang, Lacon candezei (Desbr.) det. Németh, 2012“ ( HNHM); 2 males, „O. Jordan, J. Klapperich, Amman, 800 m, 13.4.1958, Lichtfang, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 1 male, „O. Jordan, J. Klapperich, Amman, 800 m, 13.4.1958, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 2 males, „O. Jordan, J. Klapperich, Amman, 800 m, 25.3.1958, Lichtfang, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 1 male, „J. Klapperich, Amman, 800 m, 5.4.1958, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 1 male, „J. Klapperich, O-Jordanien, Wadi Sir, 600 m, b. Amman, 10.3.1956, Lacon candezei Desbr. W. Dolin det., 2003“ ( HNHM); 1 male, „As Subhi, Al Balqa‘, Jordan, 16.IV.1996, A. Issa [leg], Lacon candezei (Dsb.) det. Platia 000“ ( PCGP); 1 male, „Jordan: Amman (Abdoun), 3 May 1991, R. D. Ward, Robert D. Ward collection, Lacon candezei Desb. det Platia 2008 “ ( PCGP); 2 males, „Jordan, Amman, 15 km N of Madaba, Hisban vil., circ. 600m, 23.4.2003, I. Pljushtenko leg.“ ( PCJM); 1 male, „Jordan, Zubia env., 872m, 32°42‘N, 35°74[sic!]’E, 5.5.2008, Walter Grosser lgt.” ( PCJM); 3 males, “O Jordan, J. Klapperich [leg.], 500m, 16.5.1956, Lacon candezei (Desb.) det. Platia 2009“ ( HNHM); 2 males „O Jordan, J. Klapperich [leg.], Amman, 800m, 13.4.1958, leg., Lichtfang [only in one specimen], Lacon candezei (Desb.) det. Platia 2009“ ( HNHM); 3 males, „Jordan, Amman reg., 15 km N Madaba, Histor. vili. Circ 600 m, [unreadable data] 4 2009 Plustch leg.“ ( PCVD); 1 female, „Jordan NW, SW Jarash, Alhuna, 12.4.2009, Snížek leg., Lacon candezei (Desb.) det. Platia 2009“ ( PCGP); 2 females, „NW Jordan, NW of Ajlun, 850m, 32°19.877‘N, 35°43.110‘E, 20.V.2007, Z. Kejval leg.“ ( PCJM); Lebanon, 1 male, „Liban, Museum Paris, Coll. Abeille de Perrin1919; Adelocera candezei male =? lithophila male Desbr.“ ( MNHN); Syria, 1 male, „Syria, Deyrolle, Janson coll., 1903-130., Adelocera lithophila Cdz. , ex. Coll. Crotch, resembles very much typical lithophilus Cdz., C. Wurst 1998 , very small [further text unreadable] delagrangei ,!non lithophilus !,!non delagrangei !, Preiss 2003 “ ( BMNH); 1 male, „Syr., Schwarz coll.“ ( SDEI); 1 female, „Syrien: Golan 2 km ESE Majdel Chams, 1.3.– 25.4.1981, leg. Kollnberger“ ( NHMW)

Comparative remarks. This species is similar to L. ganglbaueri in the body size, body pubescence with a combination of greyish to reddish-brown/dark brown and white setae, antennae in males surpassing pronotal posterior angles, a median lobe of aedeagus distinctly shorter than parameres, and the sclerites of bursa copulatrix similar in females ( Figs 36–64 ). Both species differ only slightly in several morphological characters like the relative length of pronotum in males (1.2–1.3 times as long as wide in L. candezei , 1.1–1.2 times in L. ganglbaueri ), more rounded pronotal sides in females of L. ganglbaueri , the body coloration (specimens of L. ganglbaueri are usually darker), and the shape of parameres (inner sides of apices more divergent and lateral lobes slightly shorter in L. ganglbaueri ) ( Figs 40–46 , 56–59 ). Lacon candezei is distributed mainly in Israel and Jordan, and L. ganglbaueri is known from Lebanon ( Fig. 194 ). Although the typical representatives of both species are quite easily recognizable (see Figs 36–39 , 52–55 ), there are a few specimens from Israel near the border with Lebanon, which are somewhat intermediate in the morphology of pronotum. Taking into consideration the geographic distribution as well as the subtle and almost overlapping diagnostic morphological characters of L. candezei and L. ganglbaueri , we cannot exclude the possibility that they represent a single, rather variable, species. The application of the DNA-based methods would probably help to solve this problem. Until that happens, we provisionally keep L. candezei and L. ganglbaueri as two separate species.

Lacon solai from Turkey shares with L. candezei long antennae and elongate pronotum in males and similar sclerites of bursa copulatrix in females but it differs in having usually larger body size, and a median lobe of aedeagus longer, surpassing the parameral subapical hooks ( Figs 36–42, 44–46 , 70–75, 77 ). Lacon carmelensis from Israel shares with L. candezei long antennae and elongate pronotum in males but it differs in having a darker body, body pubescence with mostly brown setae (sometimes with white tips), and slightly stouter distal part of aedeagus (without phallobase) (less than four times longer than wide in L. carmelensis , more than 4.2 times longer than wide in L. candezei ), and a relatively longer aedeagal median lobe (not reaching parameral lateral tooth of about 0.5 length of the apical parameral lobe in L. carmelensis , and about the length of the apical lobe or more in L. candezei ) ( Figs 36–46 , 65–69 ).

Diagnostic characters. Male ( Figs 36–38, 40, 41, 43–46 ). Body 7.0– 10.7 mm long and 1.7–2.5 mm wide (lectotype: 7.5 mm long, 2.0 mm wide). Body shiny to moderately shiny, reddish brown to dark brown, with antennae, pronotal posterior angles and legs ferruginous; covered with mostly greyish to reddish brown/dark brown setae (some of them tricolorous: greyish, reddish brown, and white) and several white setae, all moderately long and thick. Antenna relatively long, surpassing posterior angles of pronotum usually by about 1.5–2.0 antennomeres (a single small specimen from Jordan: Amman has antennae only reaching posterior angles). Antennomere III 1.1–1.2 times as long as antennomere IV; median antennomeres serrate, 1.0–1.3 times as long as wide. Pronotum about 1.2–1.3 times as long as wide, sides almost subparallel, with posterior angles slightly divergent, disk moderately densely to densely covered with deep punctures, usually separated by about diameter of puncture (but in some cases by about 0.5–1 or 1–2 times of their diameter). Scutellar shield about 1.5 times as long as wide, with anterior margin slightly concave. Elytra about 2.5–2.7 times as long as wide, and 2.3–2.6 times as long as pronotum, with punctures of two sizes; smaller punctures of about 2/3 of size of larger punctures. Aedeagus (without phallobase) slender, more than 4.2 times longer than wide; median lobe short, not reaching lateral tooth of paramere of about the length of the apical parameral lobe; paramere subparallel-sided along most of their length, apically with inner sides diverging; apical parameral lobe long, narrow, with outer margin more or less straight, apically subacute.

Female ( Figs 39, 42, 47–51 ). Body 7.8–9.8 mm long and 2.1–2.8 mm wide. Body usually more robust than in male. Antenna shorter, not reaching 2/3 of pronotal length. Antennomere III 1.15–1.30 times as long as antennomere IV; median antennomeres serrate, about as long as wide or slightly longer than wide. Pronotum relatively shorter and wider, sides almost subparallel to widely rounded, 1.05–1.15 times as long as wide, sides widely rounded, posterior angles slightly convergent. Elytra combined about 2.3 times as long as wide, 2.05–2.10 times as long as pronotum. Pregenital segments, ovipositor and sclerites of bursa copulatrix as in Figs 47–51 , respectively.

Immature stages unknown.

Distribution. Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria ( Fig. 194 ). This species was reported from Turkey by Cate (2007: 100) wihout any further details, and this information was repeated by Mertlik & Platia (2008), Gülperçin & Tezcan (2010) and Tarnawski et al. (2018). We have not seen any specimen of L. candezei from Turkey. This species is superficially very similar to L. solai , which occurs in Turkey, and therefore we think that the Turkish record of L. candezei in Cate (2007) and later studies is in fact misidentified L. solai .

Literature. Desbrochers des Loges (1875: 37): original description of A. candezei ; Schwarz (1893: 192): original description of A. kraatzi ; Schwarz (1894: 145): systematic remarks [as Adelocera ]; Schwarz (1906: 11): catalogue [as Adelocera ]; Schenkling (1925: 9): catalogue [as Adelocera ]; Fleutiaux (1926: 93): catalogue, nomenclatural note, Hayek (1973: 59): revision; Platia & Gudenzi (2000: 67): distributional note; Finkel et al. (2002: 102): catalogue; Cate (2007: 100): catalogue; Mertlik & Platia (2008: 3): catalogue; Gülperçin & Tezcan (2010: 3): catalogue; Tarnawski et al. (2018: 15): catalogue.

Remark. The male lectotype of L. candezei ( Figs 36, 37, 40, 43, 44 ) is quite an unusual representative of this species and might be in fact a badly developed specimen. It is quite small, elongate, shiny, with only sparse body punctation, with elongate antennae which surpass the pronotal posterior angles by about three antennomeres, and with the median antennomeres not typically triangular but with somewhat rounded margins.

Figures

FIGURE 194. Distribution of Lacon spp. in the mainland Levant. Dots representing L. candezei in Lebanon and Syria are only approximate since there are no exact data for these countries.

FIGURES 36–51. Morphology of Lacon candezei. Habitus: 36–37, lectotype, male, dorsal and lateral view, respectively; 38, male from Jordan, dorsal view; 39, female from Jordan, dorsal view. Pronotum, dorsal view: 40, lectotype, male; 41, male from Jordan; 42, female from Jordan. 43, lectotype, male, detail of elytral surface. Male genitalia: 44, lectotype; 45, specimen from Jordan; 46, specimen from Israel. Female pregenital segments and genitalia of specimen from Jordan: 47, tergite VIII; 48, sternite VIII; 49, ovipositor; 50, sclerites of bursa copulatrix. 51, female from Israel, sclerites of bursa copulatrix. Scale bars = 2.0 mm (Figs 36–39), 1.0 mm (Figs 40–42, 48–49), 1.5 mm (Figs 44–47), 0.2 mm (Figs 50–51); Fig. 43 not to scale.

FIGURES 52–64. Morphology of Lacon ganglbaueri. Habitus: 52–53, lectotype, male, dorsal and lateral view, respectively; 54, male from Lebanon, dorsal view; 55, female from Lebanon, dorsal view. Pronotum, dorsal view: 56, male lectotype; 57, female paralectotype. Lectotype, male: 58, detail of elytral surface; 59, aedeagus. Female paralectotype, pregenital segments and genitalia: 60, tergite VIII; 61, sternite VIII; 62, ovipositor; 63, large sclerite of bursa copulatrix. 64, female from Lebanon, large sclerite of bursa copulatrix. Scale bars = 2.0 mm (Figs 52–55), 1.0 mm (Figs 56–57), 0.5 mm (Figs 59–62), 0.2 mm (Figs 63–64); Fig. 58 not to scale.

FIGURES 70–79. Morphology of Lacon solai. Habitus: 70–71, holotype, male, dorsal and lateral view, respectively; 72–73, female, dorsal and lateral view, respectively. Pronotum, dorsal view: 74, holotype, male; 75, female. 76, holotype, male, detail of elytral surface. 77, holotype, male genitalia. 78, female, ovipositor. 79, female, sclerites of bursa copulatrix. Scale bars = 2.0 mm (Figs 70–73, 78), 1.0 mm (Figs 74–75), 0.5 mm (Figs 77, 79); Fig. 76 not to scale.

FIGURES 65–69. Morphology of Lacon carmelensis, holotype, male. 65, habitus, dorsal view; 66, habitus, lateral view; 67, pronotum, dorsal view; 68, detail of elytral surface; 69, aedeagus. Scale bars = 2.0 mm (Figs 65–66), 1.0 mm (Fig. 67), 0.5 mm (Fig. 69); Fig. 68 not to scale.