Adelopsis benardi ( Portevin, 1923 ), 1963

Gnaspini, Pedro & Peck, Stewart B., 2019, Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens, Zootaxa 4696 (1), pp. 1-62 : 27-30

Adelopsis benardi ( Portevin, 1923)

( Figs. 114–127 )

Ptomaphagus benardi Portevin, 1923: 380 [as 1823 in Jeannel, 1936: 65].

Adelopsis benardi ; Jeannel, 1936: 65 [and Figs. 92–93 ] (combination not stated as taxonomic change, because he did not mention the species was not described under Adelopsis ) (type seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen); Salgado, 2010: 213 (assignment to group).

Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.

Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Brésil, Theresopolis? / Coll. A. Grouvelle 1917” // “ Ptomaphagus benardi / det. G. Portevin ”.

One additional female also labeled “ type ” in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Brasilien / S. Paulo: / Alto da Serra / 10.1926. F. Chaus leg. / Eing. Nr.27, 1928”. Notes: (1) this female is not listed in the original description, and it is listed in Jeannel (1936), but not as a type, and it is listed as from “Mus. Hambourg” [ ZMUH]; (2) because this female is from a different locality, it is not possible to be sure that it belongs in the same species, and this should be considered a doubtful record. Both specimens here illustrated.

Length: 2.5 mm (original description); 3.0 mm ( Jeannel, 1936); 2.6 mm (male) and 2.55 mm (female, doubtful record) (our measurement).

Type locality: “? Teresópolis”, [Rio de Janeiro State], Brazil. Note: Jeannel, 1936: 66 listed the locality either with or without the “?”, but the type label indeed reads “Theresopolis?” (see above) .

Additional material examined (misidentification): 1 male (Szymczakowski det., 1963: 670 [and Figs. 8–9 ], as “ bernardi ” [sic], with a redescription—Brazil: São Paulo: São Paulo) in NMPC (Gnaspini, 1996: 541)—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Adelopsis szymczakowskii sp. n.

Taxonomic Notes.

1) A Szymczakowski (1963: 670) record from São Paulo State is here recognized as a different species ( A. szymczakowskii sp. n., see above), and it is not possible to recognize which part of the redescription given could be used as description of A. benardi .

2) Salgado (2005: 969 [and Figs. 16–17 ]) examined several specimens from Santa Catarina, Brazil (from MHNG and CPMG) and one male from Paraguay (from MHNG), which are far from the type locality, and identified them as belonging to this species. Comparing his figure 16 with the type male genital segment illustrated here, we interpret his identification as a misidentification. Unfortunately, he did not mention if this illustration refers to Santa Catarina or Paraguay specimens; but, because his figure 17 certainly refers to Santa Catarina (because he had females only from that locality), we may interpret (with no certainty) that figure 16 refers to a male of the same locality. Therefore, the female record may also be in error, and it is at least a doubtful record. Moreover, both Salgado (2005: 969) and Salgado (2015: 33, where he added more records from Santa Catarina) did not include Paraguay in the Distribution of this species (although he clearly stated, in 2005, that Santa Catarina was a new record). Therefore, the Paraguay record should be treated with caution at all. Yet, A. guarani Salgado, 2010 was described from Paraguay, unfortunately based only on a female, and therefore here considered a nominal species, but should be checked against this record to verify if they might belong into the same species. Therefore, we preferred not to include Salgado (2005, 2015) as references for this species in the synonymic list above.

Moreover, the species of the subgroup grouvellei nov. (which have the genital segment as that illustrated in Salgado, 2005 in his Fig. 16 ) recorded in Santa Catarina are A. grouvellei (type from Bahia), A. asperoides (type from São Paulo), and A. luculenta (type from São Paulo), all three recorded for the first time in Santa Catarina also by Salgado (2005), and here considered doubtful records (see Taxonomic Note at each species). A fourth species of a similar case is A. aspera (type from São Paulo), which was recorded in Santa Catarina by Jeannel (1936) based on a female.

On the other hand, A. triangulifer is indeed recorded in both Santa Catarina and São Paulo States, based on the similarities of the aedeagus and genital segments based on illustrations, reinforcing the need for illustrating these features from several views, which was not done for the species cited in the previous paragraph.

3) We reinforce the statement that, because ptomaphagines (mainly the Neotropical ones) are very similar to each other based on external characters (with some exceptions, of course), it is difficult to relate female specimens to a given species without the presence of males in the same collection (and, even in this case, it may be difficult). Therefore, the female records in both Jeannel (1936) and Salgado (2005) should be considered doubtful records (and the latter may be in error—see Note 2, above). Yet, we examined the female cited in Jeannel (1936) (see our Fig. 127 ) and its spermatheca differs from that illustrated in Salgado (2005); therefore, at least one of those records (if not both) is in error.

Short Redescription. Eyes normal ( Fig. 120 ). Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to Jeannel, 1936 (key couplet)]. Male ventrites with a pair of posterior projections ( Figs. 125, 126 ). Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus subtriangular ( Fig. 116 ) with the apical margin deeply emarginated ( Fig. 117 ), with a sinuate margin ending almost pointy, in lateral view ( Fig. 114 ). Flagellum shorter (about 3/ 4 in length) than aedeagus, strongly curved, almost forming a 1-turn coil ( Figs. 114, 115 ). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.34. Spiculum gastrale of the genital segment with a very short and wide base, with a curved margin, and divided at apex, with long branches ( Fig. 119 ). Male mesotibia regularly curved internally ( Fig. 123 ). Male metatibia with a long, shallow emargination internally ( Fig. 124 ).

The doubtful record female has a spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a short and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb ( Fig. 127 ). Proportion spermatheca/ elytron = 0.10.

Distribution. Brazil: Rio de Janeiro State (original description; Jeannel, 1936, type seen; here).

Note: Doubtfull and Erroneous records (see Taxonomic Notes above): Brazil: Santa Catarina ( Salgado, 2005, 2015) and São Paulo ( Jeannel, 1936; Szymczakowski, 1963) States; Paraguay: Alto Paraná Department ( Salgado, 2005).

Taxonomic Remarks. The male metatibia, with a medial emargination internally, seems to be an external diagnostic character of this species, in addition to the tip of the right lobe of the aedeagus, which is deeply emarginated in frontal view ( Fig. 117 ). The lateral view of the aedeagus ( Fig. 114 ) also seems to help in the recognition of this species.

Figures

FIGURES 114–127. Adelopsis benardi (Portevin, 1923).114–126, holotype male in MNHN, from ‘? Teresópolis’. 114–117, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 118, last ventrite; 119, genital segment; 120, head, lateral view; 121, antenna, dorsal view; 122, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen); 123, mesotibia; 124, metatibia; 125–126, ventrites with paired projections, in frontal and lateral views. Figure 127, female in MNHN, from São Paulo (doubtful record), spermatheca. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 114–119, 127; b for figs. 120–126.

FIGURES 89–98. Adelopsis ruficollis (Portevin, 1903). 89–96, lectotype male in MNHN, from Cochabamba. 89–93, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 94, last ventrite; 95, genital segment; 96, apex of elytra; 97–98, paralectotype male in MHNH (same data), 97, head, lateral view; 98, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen). Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 89–95; b for figs. 96–98.

FIGURES 4–16. Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856). 4-15, lectotype male in BMNH, from Caracas. 4, habitus; 5–9, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 10, last ventrite; 11, genital segment; 12, head, lateral view; 13, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen) [as = anapleural suture; cc = coxal cavity; mc = metastemal carina; msep = mesepimeron; mset = mesepisternum; mte = metasternum; mtet = metepisternum]; 14, mesotarsus and mesotibia; 15, metatarsus and metatibia; 16, paralectotype female in BMNH (same data), spermatheca. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 5–11, 16; b for figs. 4, 12–15.