Microlia, CASEY, 1910

Hanley, Rodney S., 2003, Generic revision of the staphylinid beetle tribe Hoplandriini (Insecta: Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 138 (1), pp. 83-140 : 122-125

GENUS MICROLIA CASEY, 1910 (FIGS 21,22)

Microlia Casey, 1910:144 . Leng, 1920. Fenyes, 1918 – 21:202. Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926:660. Blackwelder, 1952:202,246,288. Moore & Legner, 1975:456. Seevers, 1978:100. Ashe, 2001:368. Gusarov, 2002:1 .

Type species: Dolosota pernix Casey (1910) by original designation.

Nosora Casey, 1911:145 . Fenyes, 1918 –21:308. Leng, 1920:122. Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926:717. Leng & Mutchler, 1927:23. Blackwelder, 1944:164. Blackwelder, 1952:262. Moore & Legner, 1975:456. Seevers, 1978:142,275. Klimaszewski, 1984:10. Hanley & Ashe, 1998:184. Ashe, 2001:305. Gusarov, 2002:1. Hanley, 2002a:301. Hanley, in press b.

Type species: Nosora azteca Casey, 1911 by original designation.

Tinotoma Cameron, 1923:386 . Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926:714. Blackwelder, 1943:556. Blackwelder, 1944:163. Blackwelder, 1952:319. Hanley & Ashe, 1998:184. Hanley, 2002a:301. Hanley, in press b.

Type species: Tinotoma rufotestacea Cameron (1923) by monotypy.

Diagnosis: This genus is distinguishable from the other genera of Platandriina by the following combination of characters: body very small, 1.2–2.3 mm; eyes average in size, 0.5 times length of head; apex of galea densely covered with rows of short, fine hairs; labial palps with three distinct articles; mesosternum without a medial carina; mesocoxal cavities continuous, only partially separated by meso- and metasternal processes; empodial bristle of hind legs distinctly shorter than tarsal claws; apices of abdominal terga with typical macrosetae, not large, heavy, black setae; and abdominal tergum IX without a distinct crescentshaped setal pattern, without setae anteriorly along midline.

Description: In agreement with Platandria description, except for the following characters. [1] Lengths of adults 1.2–2.3 mm. [2] Body broadly oval to parallelsided; [3] surface moderately glossy, with [4] very fine punctation and microsculturing; [5] pubescence variably dense on head, [7] pronotum, [8] elytra, and [9] abdominal sterna; [6] sparcely distributed on abdominal terga.

Head: [11] With eyes moderate to large in size, about 0.5 times length of head. [13a] Distinct longitudinal carina present at back of head. Antenna with [15] articles 1–3 more or less elongate, 1.3–2.0 times longer than wide; [16] segment 4 as wide as long; [17] articles 5–10 short, 1.1–2.0 times wider than long, [18] coeloconical sensilla present in segment 11.

Mouthparts: Labrum ( Fig. 21A ) with epipharyngeal area ( Fig. 21B ) with [20a] longitudinal sensory field surrounded by very small sensory pores; [21] numerous, moderately large pores present in lateral sclerotized areas; [21a] lateral sclerotized areas composed of anterior, tooth-like ridges and posteriorly elongated ridges. Mandible ( Fig. 21C,D ) [22] asymmetrical with right mandible with distinctive median tooth; [23] apex acute to more or less rounded and curved adorally; [24] condylar molar patch absent or present, if present, small, width less than 1/5 of basal mandibular width, [25] composed of small tooth-like denticles, [26] moderately densely arranged in irregular transverse rows; dorsobasal ‘velvety patch’ [28] present or absent, size up to wider than half of mandibular base, composed of [29] very fine hairs or spinules; [30] ventral aspect with outer basal angle with setae absent. Maxilla ( Fig. 21E ) with [31] lacinia shorter to subequal to length of galea, [32] lacinia more or less truncate apically, [33] teeth on adoral margin moderate in length, about 4–8 times longer than wide, and [34] mostly closely placed, [36] two large spinose setae on dorsal surface; galea [38] membranous in apical 1/5, [39] densely covered with rows of short, fine hairs, giving appearance of elongated stubble; [40] maxillary palpi with 4 articles and a distinct pseudosegment. Labium ( Fig. 21F ) with ligula [47] bilobed apically with fork about 1/3 length of ligula, [48] with numerous very small sensory denticles subapically, setae absent; [49] two moderately long, medial setae of prementum present, distinctly longer than ligula, [50] insertion of setae more or less widely separated; [53] median pseudopore field narrow to moderately wide without pseudopores, [54] lateral pore field typically with a single short setose pore and 2–6 asetose pores; hypoglossal lobes (Fig. G) [56] with short, shorter than width of lobe, comb-like, slightly curved setae along [57] entire length of adoral margin. Labial palpi ( Fig. 21F ) [60] with distal pore field composed of numerous small denticles; [61] segment 1 about 2.0–2.3 times longer than segment 2, [62] segment 3 about 2.0 times longer than segment 2; [63] twin pores and [64] median pore present. Mentum with [66] antero-lateral angles obtusely rounded and slightly extended anteriorly; [67] few, large sensory pores variably distributed more or less along midline in some species, absent along midline in others.

Thorax: Pronotum [70] slightly convex. Setae [72] directed primarily directly posterolaterally. [75] Apicolateral angles only slightly sinuate; [76] elytra together about 1.0–1.2 times longer than wide; [78] microsetae more or less densely and uniformly distributed. Mesosternal process ( Fig. 22A ) [82] significantly longer than metasternal process, extended to1/2 to basal 2/3 of coxal cavities; [83] meso- and metasternal processes separated by very wide isthmus, length 1/3–1/2 total length of coxal cavity; [84] mesosternal process slightly rounded at apex. Metasternum [85] length about 1/4–1/5 width of mesocoxae; [87] metasternal process generally broadly rounded at apex. Macrosetae present [89] on metasternum. Legs with tarsal formula 4-5-5 or 4-4-5; [93] empodial bristle slightly shorter than tarsal claws; [94] segment 1 of hind tarsus subequal to slightly longer segment 2; [95] articles 2–4 subequal in length; [96] segment 5 about 1.3 times longer than segment 4.

Abdomen: ( Fig. 22B ) [97] elongate, more or less parallel-sided, tapering apically; [98] terga III – V with slightly to moderately deep transverse basal depressions on anterior portion. [101] Tergum IX with setae more or less confined to apex, not in crescent-shaped setal pattern ( Fig. 22B ).

Secondary sexual characteristics. Absent in many species; present in others as: [105a] posterior margin of tergum III with lateral triangular lobes or medial knob, [108] terga VII– VIII with longitudinal tubercles, [108a] tergum VIII with posterior margin crenulated, [108b] sternum VIII with posterior margin extended posteriorly as pointed triangular lobe.

Aedeagus: ( Fig. 22C,D ) Bulb of median lobe [111] with distinct, straight, ventral projection; internal sac [112] with numerous fine to large spinules and/or small denticles; parameres with apical lobe of paramerite [114] generally with 2 long and 2 short setae at apex; [115] paramerite ( Fig. 22E ) anterior margin straight to slightly concave; condylite with [116] apex generally not modified, [117] typically slightly shorter than paramerite.

Spermatheca: ( Fig. 22F ) [118] Generally highly bent and coiled; neck [120] with numerous, bends, typically 120–140∞; and tube [122] typically highly coiled.

Habitat: Very little data is available regarding the habits of any species of Microlia . A large series of Microlia meticola was taken from the flowers of Datura in late July in Arizona. It seems likely that most or all species of Microlia are feeding on the nectar or pollen of flowers.

Comments: The above description of Microlia is based on examination of Microlia specimens, study of Gusarov (2002), and direct consultation with Dr Vladimir Gusarov (University of Kansas). In Gusarov (2002), Nosora was placed in synonymy with Microlia and the descriptions of three new species provided brought the total number of species in the genus to six. The publication of this paper followed that of Hanley (2002a) which treated and recognized Nosora as valid. In this work, Tinotoma is placed in synonymy with Microlia (see next paragraph) raising the total number of species in Microlia to seven. Therefore, I have attempted in this work to provide a comprehensive description of Microlia that treats the known morphological diversity of genus.

Gusarov (2002) describes the labial palpi of species of Microlia as possessing a distinct pseudosegment. Based on my examinations of Microlia species however, members of this genus do not possess a pseudosegment with the same structure as other hoplandriines. Rather, species of Microlia possess a band of less sclerotized cuticle near the apex of the third palpal segment often giving the appearance of a pseudosegment.

Cameron (1923) described Tinotoma based on more or less superficial characters that do not distinguish the genus from Microlia , and included the single species, T. rufotestacea , from the West Indies. Therefore, I have synonymized Tinotoma into Microlia , since Microlia has nomenclatoral priority. Microlia is composed of seven species, M. azteca (Casey) , M. meticola (Casey) , M. panamensis Gusarov , M. pentamera Gusarov , M. rufotestacea (Cameron) , M. silacea (Erichson) , and M. tetramera Gusarov.

Distribution: NEARCTIC REGION. United States (Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia). NEOTROPICAL REGION. Costa Rica, Grenada, Mexico, Panama.

Figures

Figure 21. Microlia meticola (Casey). (A) Labrum. (B) Epipharynx. (C) Mandible, dorsal view. (D) Mandible, ventral view. (E) Maxilla. (F) Labium. (G) Hypopharynx.

Figure 22. Microlia meticola (Casey). (A) Meso- and metathorax. (B) Abdominal tergum IX. (C) Aedeagus, external, lateral view. (D) Aedeagus, internal, lateral view. (E) Paramere, lateral view. (F) Spermatheca.