Aphanerostethus bifidus Kojima & Lewis, 2024

Lewis, Jake H., Kojima, Hiroaki, Suenaga, Miyuki, Petsopoulos, Dimitrios, Fujisawa, Yusuke, Truong, Xuan Lam & Warren, Dan L., 2024, The era of cybertaxonomy: X-ray microtomography reveals cryptic diversity and concealed cuticular sculpture in Aphanerostethus Voss, 1957 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), ZooKeys 1217, pp. 1-45 : 1-45

Aphanerostethus bifidus Kojima & Lewis sp. nov.

Figs 1 A – D , 3 , 4 B – D , 10 A , 11 A , 14 A, B , 15 A, B

Specimens examined.

Holotype: Vietnam: • Lam Dong Province, Mount Lang Biang , 12°02'N, 108°26'E, elevation 1700 m, 18. II. 2011, H. Kojima, male deposited in TUA, JHLHY_DAR_092 . Paratypes: • Lam Dong Province, Mount Lang Biang , 12°02'N, 108°26'E, elevation 1700 m, 18. II. 2011, H. Kojima, (1, TUA; 1, OIST), JHLHY_DAR_101 (EGP 0160 C 09), JHLHY_DAR_102 ; • same locality, 26. II. 2013, H. Kojima, (1, TUA), JHLHY_DAR_103 (EGP 0160 C 10) .

Diagnosis.

Body length 2.7–2.9 mm. Cuticle covered in dark to pale brown scales, with distinct dark, V-shaped band across anterior part of elytra. Funicle with six articles. Prosternal cavity prominent and with steep lateral ridges. Procoxae slightly separated. Second and odd-numbered elytral intervals with erect scales. Erect elytral scales concentrated in bundle on first, third, and fifth interval along V-shaped band. Scutellum prominent. Femora with large ventral tooth at midpoint. Metaventrite with a distinct elevated transverse ridge separating the meta- and mesocoxae. Metatibial uncus bifid in male (Fig. 1 A – D ). Aedeagus with distinctly long apodemes, and subquadrate in apical half (Fig. 15 A, B ).

Distribution.

This species is currently only known from Mount Lang Biang, Vietnam.

Etymology.

The specific name bifidus is a Latin adjective in reference to the bifid metatibial uncus observed in males (Fig. 1 A – D ).

Figures

Figure 1. Metatibial unci in Aphanerostethus (males) A – D A. bifidus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 102) E – H A. distinctus (Morimoto & Miyakawa, 1985) (OKENT 0087658) I – L A. falcatus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 099) M – P A. incurvatus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 100).

Figure 3. Maximum likelihood tree of Aphanerostethus species based on an 872 base-pair long concatenated DNA matrix (CO 1, Cytb, 16 S) with gene-wise partition modelling (CO 1 / Cytb: GTR + F + I + G 4; 16 S: GTR + F + G 4) constructed in IQ-TREE v. 1.6. 12. Branch support values represent standard nonparametric bootstraps (1000 replicates) and posterior probabilities. The symbol “ – ” indicates a posterior probability less than 50 (i. e., collapsed nodes in the Bayesian Inference tree). EGP codes represent DNA extraction codes and serve also as unique specimen identifiers. Associated Aphanerostethus weevil figures on the right of the tree are not to scale. Note that, except for A. distinctus and A. taiwanus (see Comments under the A. taiwanus species profile), the monophyly of all Aphanerostethus species is strongly supported (BS: 100, PP: 1).

Figure 4. X-ray microtomography generated 3 D models of Aphanerostethus pronota with scales removed, revealing otherwise hidden differences in underlying puncture morphology A Aphanerostethus armatus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 078) B – D Aphanerostethus bifidus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 092, 101, and 103, respectively) E Aphanerostethus decoratus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 079) F Aphanerostethus spinosus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 077).

Figure 10. X-ray microtomography generated 3 D models of Aphanerostethus elytra with scales removed, revealing differences in the length of the 10 th elytral stria. The yellow and red arrows indicate the base and apex of the 10 th elytral stria, respectively A Aphanerostethus bifidus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 092) B A. falcatus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 172) C A. morimotoi sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 115) D A. decoratus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 079) E A. distinctus (Morimotoi & Miyakawa, 1985) (OKENT 0089414) F A. taiwanus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 070).

Figure 11. X-ray microtomography generated 3 D models of Aphanerostethus with the right elytron removed, revealing differences in the length, width, and venation of the hindwing (as shown here, the hindwing is affixed to the inner surface of the elytron in most specimens). A lateral view of the full body is shown below each close-up for reference. The red, blue, and yellow arrows indicate the base, midpoint, and apex of the hindwing, respectively A Aphanerostethus bifidus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 092) B A. decoratus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 079) C A. japonicus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 041) D A. magnus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 032).

Figure 14. Lateral and dorsal photographs of Aphanerostethus species A, B Aphanerostethus bifidus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 092) C, D Aphanerostethus decoratus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 079). Scale bars: 0.5 mm.

Figure 15. Aedeagi of Aphanerostethus species A, B A. bifidus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 102) C, D A. distinctus (Morimoto & Miyakawa, 1985) (OKENT 87658) E, F A. falcatus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 099) G, H A. incurvatus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 100) I, J A. japonicus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 052) K, L A. magnus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 022) M, N A. morimotoi sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 113) O, P A. nudus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 012) Q, R A. spinosus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 077) S, T A. taiwanus sp. nov. (JHLHY _ DAR _ 016) U, V A. vannideki Voss, 1957 (JHLHY _ DAR _ 082).