Molurina Solier

Gearner, Olivia M., Kamiński, Aaron D. Smith Marcin J., Kanda, Kojun & Swichtenberg, Kali, 2021, Discovery of New Genera Challenges the Subtribal Classification of Tok-Tok Beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Sepidiini), Insect Systematics and Diversity (AIFB) 5 (2), pp. 1-10 : 7-8

Subtribe Molurina Solier sens. nov.

= Phanerotomeina Koch, 1958 syn. nov.

Diagnosis. In addition to the characters listed above, this subtribe can be differentiated from other Sepidiini as follows (see Koch 1955, Louw 1979, and Penrith 1986).

From Sepidiina, it can be differentiated by the mesocoxal trochantin, which is absent or punctiform in Sepidiina, but large in most Molurina . From Oxurina, it can be differentiated by the metanepisternal suture, which is deep and broad (extending from the mes- to metepimeron) in Oxurina but is posteriorly abbreviated in Molurina . Trachynotina are diurnal and have heliotactic eyes with fine, flat corneal facets, and a prosternal apophysis which is narrower than the mentum; Molurina are more often nocturnal with heliophobic eyes which are convex and with larger acinose corneal facets, and with a prosternal apophysis which is rarely narrower than the mentum. Finally, Hypomelina can be differentiated by the pronotum, which is often emarginate basally and often with posterior angles, metanepisterna are dull and densely sculptured, males lack a setal patch on the abdomen but often have conglomerate scales, and elytra often with prominent humeri; in Molurina , the pronotum is not emarginate basally and does not possess posterior angles, metanepisterna are shiny and punctured, males usually have a setal patch on the abdomen, and the elytra never have prominent humeri.

Genera Included (24 Genera, 571 Species and Subspecies). Amiantus Fåhreus, 1870 , Arturium Koch, 1951 , Brachyphrynus Fairmaire, 1882 , Chiliarchum Koch, 1954 , Dichtha Haag-Rutenberg, 1871 , Distretus Haag-Rutenberg, 1871 , Euphrynus Fairmaire, 1897 , Glyptophrynus Fairmaire, 1899 , Huilamus Koch, 1953 , Melanolophus Fairmaire, 1882 , Moluris Latreille, 1802 , Ocnodes Fåhreus, 1870 , Phrynocolus Lacordaire, 1859 , Phrynophanes Koch, 1951 , Physophrynus Fairmaire, 1882 , Psammodes Kirby, 1819 , Psammophanes Lesne, 1922 , Psammorhyssus Kolby, 1886, Psammotyria Koch, 1953 , Stridulomus Koch, 1955 , Tarsocnodes Gebien, 1920 , Toktokkus Kamiński & Gearner, 2021 , Tibiocnodes gen. nov., and Tuberocnodes gen. nov.

Genus Tuberocnodes Gearner & Kamiński gen. nov. Type Species. Psammodes humeralis Haag-Rutenberg, 1871 ; here designated.

Diagnosis. Modified from Koch (1953) for the ‘ humeralis -group’: base of pronotum either with duplicated margination or its edge forming a transverse, narrow, shiny, horizontal to slightly oblique marginal edge, more or less grown together with the foraminal carina, and without perpendicular and below concave articulation face. Prosternal apophysis inermous, simply bent towards foramen. This genus shares the following characters with related genera like Ocnodes : margination of the fifth ventrite and underside of the profemora in males with a tomentose patch. Tuberocnodes can be also differentiated from other related genera by the presence of microtubercles on the laterally exposed epipleuron as well as the presence of tubercles on the elytra, slender and elongate antennae and tarsomeres, and the meso- and metatarsomeres, in which the first and last tarsomeres are around two to three times longer than the other tarsomeres. Further diagnosis is provided below.

Etymology. Name refers to the most prominent diagnostic character of the newly described genus. Gender masculine.

Species Included (11). Tuberocnodes argenteofasciatus ( Koch, 1953) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes distinctus (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes heydeni (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes humeralis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes lanceolatus ( Koch, 1953) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes miles (Péringuey, 1908) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes procursus (Péringuey, 1899) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes synhimboides Gearner & Kamiński sp. nov., Tuberocnodes tibialis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871) comb. nov., Tuberocnodes vaticinus (Péringuey, 1899) comb. nov., and Tuberocnodes warmeloi ( Koch, 1953) comb. nov.

Tuberocnodes synhimboides Gearner and Kamiński

sp. nov.

Figs 2B , 3G , and 6E–G

Type Material. Holotype ( PERC): male, ‘ NAMIBIA: Khomas Region / Eagle Rock Lodge, ~ 32 km W Windhoek, −22.58, 16.761/ El. 1,808 m, Nam 2019#02/31.XII.2018, ADSmith’ ; Paratypes: 15 specimens (7 PERC, 4 British Museum, and 4 MIZ PAS), same data as holotype ; 9 specimens (Kanda, private collection), ‘ NAMIBIA: Khomas Region, Eagle Rock Lodge, 25 km W. of Windhoek −22.5799, 16.7617, 1,800 m, 31.xii.2018 – 1.i.2019, KK19_001, CCW19 _001, Nam 2019 #02 ’; one female ( USNM), same data but with ‘ Tenebrionid Base / Aaron D. Smith / Catalog # 22644’ (DNA voucher specimen) ; one specimen ( IADIZA) ‘ NAMIBIA: Khomas Eagle Rock / Guest Farm 40 Km NW / Windhaek 1,814 m / 22.57988S 16.7610E / 01-I-2019 Coll. G. Flores’ .

Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from most other species in the genus ( T. distinctus , T. heydeni , T. humeralis , T. lanceolatus , T. miles , T. procursus , T. tibialis , T. vaticinus ) by punctation on the pronotal disc, which is dense and coarse in T. synhimboides , but fine and scattered in the other species listed ( Fig. 3E–G ). Two species which also have dense, coarse punctation on the pronotum are T. argenteofasciatus and T. warmeloi ( Fig. 2A ); T. argenteofasciatus can be easily recognized by the presence of ‘stripes’ of white setae on the elytra (three dorsally and one laterally on each elytron). Tuberocnodes warmeloi can be differentiated from T. synhimboides by the punctures on the pronotum; in T. synhimboides , these punctures are very confluent and appear to look like microsculpturing, while in T. warmeloi , the punctures are only minorly confluent and are generally more separate and distinct ( Figs 2 and 3G ).

Description. Length 11.0–13.0 mm, width of pronotum 3.0– 4.0 mm and elytra 4.0–5.0 mm. Head: Prognathous. Frons with microsculpturing and scattered microtubercles; frontoclypeal suture shallow; clypeus with microsculpturing and scattered punctures, extending well beyond the epistomal ridges; labrum with scattered punctures, margin densely covered with yellowish, acuminate setae. Eyes comma-shaped, with reduced ventral part, strongly emarginate around epistomal base. Mentum trapezoidal, not fully filling buccal cavity. Antenna slender, moderately covered in recumbent acuminate goldish setae; antennomere 2 short, equal to approximately one-fourth of antennomere 3 length; antenna slightly longer than pronotum. Prothorax: Pronotal lateral margin rounded, barely visible in dorsal view. Pronotum widest at middle. Disc with microsculpturing and micropunctures; anterior and basal pronotal margins complete, anterior apices not strongly produced. Hypomeron glabrous, convex, without submarginal groove, with scattered punctures. Prosternal process rounded in lateral view, slightly convex. Pterothorax: Scutellum densely covered with microtubercles. Elytra elongate; widest in basal third; covered in microtubercles. Elytra extending slightly laterally at epipleura, such that margin is visible dorsally. Epipleura with scattered microtubercles; concave and angled laterally. Mesoventrite depressed at anterior half. Metanepisternal suture fairly distinct, abbreviated posteriorly. Legs: with scattered microtubercles. Procoxa exposed basally. Tibiae with scattered goldish setae, apex of protibia with prominent denticle on outer margin, lateral carina present on apical three-fourth of protibia; median spur reduced, reaching half to three-fourth length of outer lateral spur. Spurs on meso- and metatibiae of equal length. Abdomen: Ventrites 1–3 medially densely covered with goldish setae (males). Terminalia: Ovipositor as in Fig. 6E and F , spiculum ventrale with short, reflexed arms ( Fig. 6G ), apex of proctiger with three evenly sized lobes, as in Fig. 6D .

Etymology. Name is highlighting the superficial resemblance of this new species to the representatives of the genus Synhimba Koch, 1952 ( Sepidiini : Oxurina Koch, 1955).

Tapping Behavior. The observed male produced sound in a series of four to five taps.

Figures

Fig.2. Morphology of the genus Tuberocnodes: (A) paratype of Tuberocnodes warmeloi (Koch, 1953) comb. nov. (from TMNH); (B) laterally exposed and covered with microtubercles epipleuron of Tuberocnodes synhimboides. es, elytral slope; pn, pronotum.

Fig. 3. Dorsal habitus and morphological features of specimens representing the following species: (A) Tibiocnodes tristis (Fåhraeus, 1870); (B) Tibiocnodes lucidus (Fåhraeus,1870);(C) Tibiocnodes spinosus (Haag-Rutenberg,1871);(D) Ocnodes similis (Péringuey,1899);(E) Tuberocnodes humeralis (Haag-Rutenberg, 1871); (F) Tuberocnodes procursus (Péringuey, 1899); (G) Tuberocnodes synhimboides sp. nov.—paratype. es, elytral slope; mt, metatarsi; pn, pronotum; pt, protibia; r, protibial ridge.

Fig. 6. Female terminalia of species representing newly established genera. (A–D) Tibiocnodes lucidus; (E–G) Tuberocnodes synhimboides. (A, B) Ovipositor; (C, G) spiculum ventrale; (D) proctiger. c, coxites; c2–c4, coxite plates 2–4;ip, inner plate of paraproct;op,outer plate of paraproct;v,valvifer.