Harpalus asemus Basilewsky, 1947

Kataev, Boris M., 2021, On some Afrotropical Harpalus, with description of two new species, and remarks on Hypharpax australis (Coleoptera: Carabidae): misidentification, mislabeling and introduction to the Australian region, Zootaxa 5020 (1), pp. 31-56 : 36-39

Harpalus asemus Basilewsky, 1947

( Figs 10–19 )

Harpalus asemus Basilewsky, 1947 (January 30): 181.

Harpalus hamasiensis G. Müller, 1947 (September 30): 81, syn. n.

Harpalus impressus: Basilewsky, 1951 (pars); Kataev et al., 2020.

Type material examined. Holotype [?] of H. asemus : ♀ [but with aedeagus attached to this female], labeled “ Afr. Or. Angl. (Rift-Valley), Naivasha, Alluaud et Jeannel, Dec. 1911 1900 m, St. 14”, “Mus. Paris, coll. Ch. Alluaud ”, “TYPE”, and “ Harpalus asemus n. sp. Holotype, P. Basilewsky det.” ( MNHN) (see section “Remarks” below) . Paratypes: 1 ♀, same data as holotype ( ZSM) ; 1 ♂, “ Afrique or. anglaise Mt. Kenya Vers’t Ouest zone inferieure Alluaud & Jeannel”, “ Prairies découv. 1900–2200 Entre Riv. Amboni et Riv. Naremuru Janv.– Fev. 1912 —St. … et 50”, “ Harpalus asemus n. sp. P. Basilewsky det.”, “ Museum Paris Coll. Ch. Alluaud ” ( MNHN) .

Additional material examined. Yemen: 1 ♂, “Yemen-Harras-Gebirge, Umg. Manaka: Al Hotayp, 2410 m, un- ter Steinen 7.IV.1996, Erber leg.” (cWR); 2 ♂♂, “Yemen-Maswar-Gebirge, Umb. Bayt Faiz , 2800 m, unter Steinen 3.IV.1996, D. Erber leg.” (cWR) ; 3 ♂♂, “ Yemen, Sanaa: Mujamma Zone, nahe Algier-str. , Garten , 15°20’17.2”N 44°11’25.32”E, 2268 m NN., 01–30. April 2010, legit. Ingo Brunk—Gesiebe” (cWR, ZIN) ; 1 ♀, same data but: 20.April 2010, Bodenfallen (cBR) . 1 ♂, 4 ♀ ♀, same data but: 01.–15. Mai 2010, Bodenfallen (cBR, cWR, ZIN) ; 5 ♂♂, 1 ♀ “ Yemen, Sanaa env. Wadi Haml, schmales kleines Seitenwadi , 15°13’39.47”N 44°10’42.32”E, 30.April.2010, Handaufs., Gesiebe, legit. Ingo Brunk” (cBR, cWR) ; 4 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀, “YEMEN, Sanaa, Bayt Baus 15°16’28.95” N 44°11’42.42” O Stauseeufer, feucht. Sand 2360 m NN, 03.Juni 2010 Handaufsammlung legit. I. Brunk ” (cBR, cWR, ZIN) ; 4 ♀♀, “ Yemen, Wadi Darr, NW of Sanaa, Ortslage , stinkende Abwässer [means: stink- ing sewages!], Uferbereiche , ~ 406578 O /1707321 N 2250 m NN, 03. März 2008 legit. Ingo Brunk ” (cBR, cWR) ; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, “YEMEN: Bayt Baus bei Sanaa, Stausee und Umgebung , 1.III.2008 Brunk legit.” (cBR); 1 ♀, “ Yemen , Sanaa: Campus of New University of Sanaa, rural place, scarce vegetation, temporarily wet, stones, 05.May 2010 15°22’6.09” N 44°10’45.67” O 2271 m NN, legit. Ingo Brunk” (cBR); 1 ♂, “YEMEN, Wadi Hadoor ~ 15°30’40.40” N 43°56’ 27.91” O 2500 m. 15. April 2010 legit. Ingo Brunk-- Handaufs. ” (cBR) .

Ethiopia: see material of “ H. impressus ” in Kataev et al. (2020).

Eritrea: 1 ♀, “Eritrea, Asmara” ( TMB) .

Djibouti: 1 ♀, “ Coll. Mus. Congo, Abyssinie: Lac Dakka, Col. P. Basilewsky ”, “ H. impressus Roth, P. Basilews- ky det., 19” ( ZIN) .

Tanzania: 1 ♀, Serengeti Nat. Park , 1800 m, 12.XI.2000, T. Vereschagina leg. ( ZIN) .

Re-description (5 ♂♂ and 6 ♀♀ measured). Body length 4.9–7.2 mm. Habitus as in Figs 10 and 11 . Dorsum dark brown to black, shiny, in many specimens with light green or copper luster; ventral side black; palpomeres at least apically and two or three basal antennomeres brownish yellow; palpomeres partly and antennomeres 3–11 or 4–11 distinctly infuscate, blackish brown. Legs brown, with femora, apical portion of tibiae and occasionally also tarsi in most specimens more or less infuscate, usually blackish brown.

Head moderately sized (HWmax/PWmax 0.63–0.67, HWmin/PWmax 0.50–0.55), impunctate, with large and convex eyes (HWmax/HWmin 1.19–1.27). Tempora oblique, short, flat or slightly convex. Frontal foveae punctiform. Supraorbital seta situated near supraorbital furrow at level of posterior margin of eye or slightly before it. Genae about as wide as antennomere 1. Labrum almost straight or slightly concave anteriorly. Labium ( Fig. 12 ) similar to that of H. impressus ; paraglossae each with one or two marginal setae. Dorsal microsculpture very fine, consisting of isodiametric meshes.

Pronotum transverse (PWmax/PL 1.33–1.44), almost equally narrowed apically and basally, widest in or slightly before the middle (PWmax/PWmin 1.14–1.28). Sides evenly rounded along entire length, occasionally almost straight in basal half. One pair of lateral setae in widest point of pronotum. Apical margin rather shallowly emarginate, almost straight in middle portion, bordered only laterally. Apical angles rounded, not or only slightly prominent. Basal angles obtuse, narrowly rounded at apices. Basal margin completely bordered, glabrous, more or less straight in middle portion, oblique laterally, slightly longer than apical margin and slightly shorter than elytral base. Surface moderately convex, without lateral depressions; basal foveae small, oval or elongate, slightly deepened or rather shallow, finely punctate or almost smooth, in some specimens with very fine wrinkles within and around foveae; occasionally base of pronotum almost throughout very finely wrinkled. Microsculpture fine, consisting of distinct (occasionally very slightly obliterate) weakly transverse and more or less isodiametric meshes.

Elytra elongate, comparatively long (in male, EL/EW 1.47–1.53, EL/PL 2.43–2.53, EW/PWmax 1.16–1.21; in female, these indices 1.45–1.57, 2.35–2.60, and 1.13–1.24, respectively), widest about the middle; sides almost rectilinearly diverging in basal half and rounded in apical half; preapical sinuation shallow, but distinct. Shoulders slightly prominent, angularly rounded, each in most specimens with very small acute denticle recognizable from behind. Basal border glabrous, forming an obtuse angle with lateral elytral margin. Sutural angle not projecting posteriorly, slightly less than 90°, blunted at tip. Striae impunctate, superficial almost along entire length, only slightly impressed apically. Parascutellar setigerous pore present. Parascutellar (abbreviate) striole somewhat short, connected basally with parascutellar pore, free at apex. Intervals impunctate and glabrous, flat on disc, slightly convex at apex. Interval 3 with one discal setigerous pore at stria 2 in apical fifth; intervals 5 and 7 without discal pores. Marginal umbilicate series in most specimens more or less continuing though much more sparse at middle, occasionally forming there more or less wide gap. Microsculpture very distinct, consisting of isodiametric meshes.

Hind wings either fully developed or shortened, 0.70–0.75 times as long as the elytra.

Prosternum with very fine and short setae along anterior margin and laterally. Metepisternum noticeably longer than wide, strongly narrowed posteriorly.

Legs as described above for H. impressus . Metacoxa as in Fig. 13 .

Abdominal sternites without additional long setae, only medial portions of sternites III and IV finely pubescent. Last visible abdominal sternite ( VII) without pronounced sexual dimorphism, in both sexes rounded at apex (more widely in female) and with two pairs of marginal setae.

Female genitalia ( Figs 14, 15 ): gonocoxite moderately wide, with long setae on dorsal edge and in scrobe of outer side.

Median lobe of aedeagus ( Figs 16–19 ) bent ventrally before the middle, with apical portion slightly curved dorsally and more strongly curved to the right; its apex protruding ventrally; terminal lamella in dorsal view moderately wide, with sides roundly converging apically. Apical orifice shifted to the left. Internal sac with two short spines: distal spine in middle portion of median lobe and proximal spine (usually smaller than distal one) in its basal portion near basal bulb.

Comparison. In body size and general habitus, this species is similar to H. impressus . Both species also share many other characters including distinctly infuscate antennae, glabrous (not ciliate) pronotal basal edge, isodiametric microsculpture on elytra, narrow metepisternum and metacoxa without posteromedial setigerous pore. Harpalus asemus is distinguished from H. impressus by having less bright coloration of dorsum, femora and apical portion of tibiae more or less markedly infuscate, elytra in relation to pronotum shorter (EL/PL 2.35–2.60 versus 2.67–2.77), with slightly deeper preapical sinuation and with shallower apical portions of striae; in addition, the median lobe of H. asemus is bent ventrally before the middle and more evenly, with apical portion almost not curved dorsally and less strongly curved to the right; its terminal lamella in dorsal view is wider, with sides roundly converging apically, and the proximal spine in the internal sac is situated near the basal bulb.

Distribution. The species is widely distributed in the mountains of Arabia and East Africa. It is described from 27 specimens collected in the recent territories of Kenya and Tanzania (type locality: Naivasha, Kenya) ( Basilewsky 1947), but the type series should be checked since it can also include specimens of H. pseudoasemus sp. n., described below. Some of the subsequent published records ( Basilewsky 1951, 1962) could also be based on this new species. On the other hand, most of the former records of H. impressus should be referred to H. asemus (see above).

Remarks. Though, according to the original description ( Basilewsky 1947: 182), the holotype of H. asemus should be a male, the examination of the specimen labeled as holotype at MNHN has showed that it is a female. This female, however, is supplied by the aedeagus ( Figs 16, 17 ) which is glued on a rectangular piece of paper and pinned under this female specimen. Obviously Basilewsky or one of the subsequent researchers mixed and mislabeled some of the type specimens either during the preparation or examination of genitalia. Since, in my opinion, the female and the attached aedeagus belong to the same species, I consider their characteristics as corresponding to H. asemus . It is very likely that the type series of H. asemus includes more than one species; at least some of the subsequent Basilewsky’s determinations of “ H. asemus ” from Kenya and Tanzania should be referred to H. pseudoasemus sp. n. described below.

Harpalus hamasiensis was described from Eritrea (type locality: Asmara) and northern Ethiopia (Tigray). Müller (1947) considered it as being distinct from the sympatric H. impressus mostly in larger body size (length 7.0– 7.5 mm), less bright coloration, infuscate femora, and more convex pronotum. Although I could not examine the type specimens of H. hamasiensis , these distinctive features as well as other characters listed in the original description clearly indicate that this taxon is conspecific with H. asemus and should be treated as its junior synonym. Both species were described in 1947, but H. asemus several months earlier (January 30) than H. hamasiensis (September 30).

Figures

FIGURES 10, 11. Harpalus asemus Basilewsky, 1947 (10, Yemen; 11, Tanzania), habitus. Scale bars = 1.0 mm.

FIGURES 12–19. Harpalus asemus Basilewsky, 1947 (12–15, Lac Dakka; 16, 17, “holotype” from Naivasha; 18, 19, paratype from Amboni). 12, labium; 13, left metacoxa; 14, gonocoxite; 15, laterotergite, gonosubcoxite, and gonocoxite; 16–19, median lobe of aedeagus. Ventral (12, 13, 15), lateral (14, 16, 18), and dorsal (17, 19) views. Scale bars: A = 0.5 mm (12, 14–19), B = 1.0 mm (13).