Euryporus Erichson, 1839

Solodovnikov, Alexey, 2012, Revised concept of the genus Euryporus Erichson (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Staphylininae) and phylogenetic significance of Staphylinini from New Guinea, ZooKeys 213, pp. 51-62 : 53-55

Genus Euryporus Erichson, 1839

Type species.

Oxyporus picipes Paykull, 1800 (fig. 1).

Taxonomic history.

The rove beetle genus Euryporus Erichson, 1839 was described by Nordmann (1837) as Pelecyphorus to include one European species Euryporus picipes (Paykull, 1800) (Fig. 1). Since Pelecyphorus Nordmann, 1837 (nec Pelecyphorus Dejean, 1834) was a preoccupied name, Erichson (1839) replaced it with Euryporus and described the second species in the genus, Euryporus puncticollis from North America ( Erichson 1840). Soon, Euryporus aeneiventris Lucas, 1846 and Euryporus princeps Wollaston, 1864, both from the West Palearctic region were added ( Lucas 1846; Wollaston 1864). Later Fauvel (1881, 1884) described Euryporus argentatus Fauvel, 1881 and Euryporus flavipes Fauvel, 1884, both from Sumatra. On the contrary, two species were removed from the genus: Sharp (1884) transferred Erichson's Euryporus puncticollis to the genus Tympanophorus Nordmann, 1837, while Fauvel (1895) erected a new genus Pammegus (now with twelve species, in the subtribe Anisolinina ) for his own species Euryporus flavipes . Finally, Last (1980, 1987) described two more species in Euryporus : Euryporus multicavus Last, 1980 and Euryporus warisensis Last, 1987, both from Papua New Guinea.

As a result, the genus Euryporus included six species before this study (e.g., Herman 2001). Of them the type species Euryporus picipes and two other West Palearctic species, Euryporus aeneiventris , and Euryporus princeps , are very similar to each other and rather well-known (e.g., Coiffait 1978, Assing and Schülke 2012). Examination of the type material for the “exotic” Euryporus argentatus , Euryporus multicavus and Euryporus warisensis led to their exclusion from Euryporus as explained below.

Updated diagnosis, composition and phylogenetic relationships.

Without the excluded taxa (see below), Euryporus comprises three species very similar to each other: Euryporus picipes (Paykull, 1800) widely distributed in Europe (Fig. 1); the West Mediterranean Euryporus aeneiventris Lucas, 1846; and Euryporus princeps Wollaston, 1864, endemic to the Canary Islands. Male genitalia of all species were illustrated in Coiffait (1978).

Among other genera of the subtribe Quediina , Euryporus can be distinguished by the following combination of characters: fully developed infraorbital ridges; mandibles elongate with broad basal part but narrow and sharp apical portion; last segment of maxillary palps fusiform, slightly setose; last segment of labial palps enlarged, apically obliquely truncated, densely setose; first antennal segment elongate, as long as second and third antennal segments together; anterior tarsi narrow, not enlarged in both sexes; apical margin of abdominal sternite VIII in both sexes concave, in male without median incision. Other recent descriptions and synopses of the genus can be found in Coiffait (1978) and Assing and Schülke (2012).

For phylogenetic purposes adult ( Solodovnikov 2006; Solodovnikov and Schomann 2009) and larval ( Pietrykowska-Tudruj et al. 2011) morphology of Euryporus picipes was scored in those character matrixes. The adult-based analysis ( Solodovnikov and Schomann 2009) placed Euryporus in the subtribe Quediina (in the restricted sense of Chatzimanolis et al. 2010). Within Quediina , it may be related to the lineage formed by the genera Anaquedius Casey, 1915, Hemiquedius Casey, 1915, Anchocerus Fauvel, 1905, Australotarsius Solodovnikov et Newton, 2009, and Acylophorus Nordmann, 1837 ( Solodovnikov and Schomann 2009; but see additional remarks about alternative hypotheses in Solodovnikov and Newton 2009). Although Euryporus was not included in the molecular study of Chatzimanolis et al. (2010) because of unavailable DNA-quality material, the above mentioned lineage was recovered as monophyletic in the Bayesian analysis of that study. The larvae-based analysis ( Pietrykowska-Tudruj et al. 2012) was inconclusive as far as sister relationships of Euryporus is concerned.