Aenictosoma C. Schaufuss

Paweł Jałoszyński, 2018, World genera of Mastigitae: review of morphological structures and new ecological data (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Scydmaeninae), Zootaxa 4453 (1), pp. 1-119 : 50

† Aenictosoma C. Schaufuss

Aenictosoma C. Schaufuss, 1891: 58 . Type species: Aenictosoma doenitzi C. Schaufuss, 1891 (monotypy). Originally treated as possibly belonging in Cerambycidae , transferred to Scydmaenidae : Clidicini by Vitali (2006).

This genus is known from Upper Eocene Baltic amber, and its sole species, Aenictosoma doenitzi C. Schaufuss, 1891 , was described based on a specimen from the Holm Collection, preserved at the Westpreussisches Provinzial Museum, Gdańsk (The Free City of Danzig, at that time occupied by the Kingdom of Prussia). The museum ceased to exist in 1945, and most of its collections were lost during World War II.

Camillo Schaufuss (1891) placed Aenictosoma as possibly related with Cerambycidae , and over a century later Vitaly (2006) re-examined the original description and placed this taxon in Scydmaenidae : Clidicini. Indeed, all structures described by Schaufuss agree with those of Clidicus . However, Schaufuss later described another fossil, from the same source, as Clidicus balticus C. Schaufuss (1896) . It is not entirely impossible that in 1891 C. Schaufuss was not familiar with Clidicus , and only later learnt about it and then another, apparently similar fossil, placed not in Aenictosoma , but in Clidicus , without any reference to his previous work. However, Clidicus is one of the most remarkable Scydmaeninae genera, and Camillo's father, Ludwig Wilhelm Schaufuss, published several important papers on Scydmaenidae between 1867 and 1890, including a description of Clidicus formicarius var. doriae L.W. Schaufuss, 1884 . It seems unlikely that Camillo Schaufuss, when describing Aenictosoma , was not familiar with his father's works. As the type specimen of Aenictosoma doenitzi has not resurfaced after World War II (it might have been lost or destroyed), it is currently not possible to verify the placement of Aenictosoma within Scydmaeninae , even though its synonymy with Clidicus seems possible. Aenictosoma is maintained as a member of Clidicini, but its true status remains unclear.