Gymnetis bruchi Moser, 1910

Iorio, Osvaldo Di, 2013, A review of the Cetoniinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from Argentina and adjacent countries: systematics and geographic distributions, Zootaxa 3668 (1), pp. 1-87 : 20-22

Gymnetis bruchi Moser, 1910 , new status

Figs. 1 (distribution), 6 (aspect), 11 (parameres), 12 (anatomy)

“new species that corresponds to the group of G. marmorea ” (translated from Spanish): Burmeister 1861, 1943: 171 (distribution).

Gymnetis schistacea , not Burmeister, 1842, in part: Burmeister 1866: 575 (distribution): misidentification.

Gymnetis bruchi Moser, 1910: 294–295 (description; distribution); Bruch 1911a: 214 (catalog; distribution); Schenkling 1921: 91 (catalog; distribution; references); Birabén 1944: 116 (list).

Paragymnetis chalcipes subsp. bruchi Mos. : Schürhoff 1937: 67 (distribution); Blackwelder 1944: 263 (catalog; distribution).

Gymnetis chalcipes ssp. bruchi Moser, 1910 : Krajčík 1998: 76 (catalog; distribution).

Aemilius wagneri Le Moult, 1939: 79–80 (description; distribution); Krajčík 1998: 73 (catalog; distribution): new synonymy.

Distribution: ARGENTINA: “Argentinien (Gran Chaco)” [type locality] ( Moser 1910), = Gran Chaco ( Schürhoff 1937), = Chaco ( Blackwelder 1944); Santiago del Estero: surroundings of Santiago del Estero city ( Burmeister 1866, 1943); Barrancas, Emilio Wagner leg., holotype, allotype, a small series of paratpes [MNHN] , four paratypes [Le Moult Collection ] ( Le Moult 1939); Santa Fe: “ Chaco santafesino”, Bruch Collection ( Bruch 1911a).

Lectotype (examined)

Lectotypus, here designated: ARGENTINA: Santa Fe: “Rca. Argentina / Prov. Santa Fe / 1 190 6 / C. Bruch ” [printed on white paper, with the date 1 and 6 handwritten by Bruch], “ Chaco ” [handwritten by Bruch on white paper], parameres mounted in hardboard, 1 male syntype [ CBBA], “ Gymnetis / Bruchi / tipo Moser” [handwritten by Bruch on white paper inside a red border], “ Gymnetis / Bruchi / Mos.” [handwritten by Moser on white paper, folded], “MACN-En / 9086” [printed], “ Gymnetis bruchi / Moser, 1910 / Lectotypus / Di Iorio desig. 2013” [handwritten by Di Iorio, red paper].

Material examined: ARGENTINA: Tucumán: 190_, C. Bruch, 1 female [ CBBA] ; Santiago del Estero: “Santiag. / d. Est.” [printed on green paper], 1 male [ HBBA], “ schistacea / Burm. / Sant. d. Est.” [handwritten by Burmeister on white paper inside a black border, pinned to the bottom of the drawer] ( Figs. 11–12 ) ; Santiago del Estero , Richter Collection, 1 ex. [ MLPA] ; “S. del Estero / Col. Wagner ” [printed], 1 ex. [ MLPA] ; La Banda, A. Martínez Collection, 1 ex. [ HAHC] ; Santa Fe: “Rca. Argentina / Prov. Santa Fe / 190_ / C. Bruch ”, 1 female [ CBBA].

Male genitalia: parameres ( Fig. 11 ); armature of the internal sac ( Fig. 12 ).

Note 1: Apparently the description of G. bruchi was based in more than one specimen when Moser (1910) said “Das Halsschild ist nur an den Seiten punktiert, beim ♂ schwach und zerstreut, beim ♀ etwas enger und gröber”. Although the male and female specimens in the Bruch collection do not bear the label of types generally used by Bruch ( Bachmann & Di Iorio 2002). In a letter to Bruch dated 13 October 1908 (Bruch’s archives at the MACN), Moser mentions “other two species are in my believe new. One species with green venter it was not described” [translated from German]. In other letter dated 27 February 1910, Moser said “I send in return the yellow Gymnetis . Some time ago I received a couple of this species from a French merchant with the locality Gran Chaco. I described the species as G. bruchi and probably appears in the third fascicle of the Deutsche Entom. Zeitschr. together with other publications. My specimens are more roughly [sic] colored” [translated from German]. From this it can be seen that the Bruch specimen was seen by Moser before the description of G. bruchi .

Note 2: The exact type locality of the specimen of G. bruchi sent by Bruch to Moser was referred later by Bruch (1911a) as “ Chaco santafecino”, e.g., the north of the province of Santa Fe ( Fig. 1 ). The “ Chaco santafesino” is also referred to as La Gallareta by Bruch (1908, 1911b, 1925, 1926). Neoclytus aulai Bruch, 1908 ( Coleoptera : Cerambycidae ) from La Gallareta was dedicated to Augusto Aula, who “has already enriched my collection with numerous new species” (translated form Spanish), and the same species is later cited by Bruch (1912) as from “ Chaco santafesino”.

Note 3: The illustration of the general aspect of A. wagneri ( Fig. 7 ) leaves no doubt that it is the same species as G. bruchi ( Fig. 6 ). Also the general dorsal color referred by Le Moult (1939) as “jaune lave de gris verdâtre”, as well as the same ventral color and the male parameres, are also coincident with the lectotype of G. bruchi . This lectotype, referred by Moser in his letter to Bruch as the “yellow Gymnetis ”, has a more indefinite yellow color on the dorsal side. Therefore, Aemilius wagneri Le Moult, 1939 = Gymnetis bruchi Moser, 1910 , and Aemilius Le Moult, 1939 = Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819 . Aemilius wagneri was cataloged by Krajčík (1998) but not by Blackwelder (1944).

Note 4: There are two places named Barrancas in Santiago del Estero: 1) one in Deparment Salavina in the western margin of Río Dulce, 20 km NW of Salavina and approximately 63 km W of Icaño ( Di Lullo 1959, Basualdo 1981); 2) the other in Department Quebrachos, also in the western margin of Río Dulce, just below the junction of Río Saladillo and Río Dulce, approximately 60.4 km SW of Icaño and 30.4 km S of Salavina ( Basualdo 1981). Hüdepohl (1979) mentioned some Cerambycidae labeled “Barrancas, 1909, E. Wagner” [MNHN] and “Barrancas, Bañado del Río Dulce, 60 km W Icaño, 1909, E. Wagner” [MNHN] as if they were two different places, but Artigas & Ángulo (1980) and Casari (1998) mentioned “Barrancas (Bañados del Río Dulce)” as located 80 km west of Icaño. Also the second Barrancas of Basualdo (1981) is near Troncal (Department Salavina), situated at 59 km SW from Icaño ( Basualdo 1981), where Émile Wagner was also collecting other insects in 1909 (Bradley 1944, Hüdepohl 1979, Artigas & Ángulo 1980).

Note 5: According to Vane-Wright (1974), Le Moult was an insect dealer. Therefore, it is probable that the “French merchant” mentioned by Moser was Le Moult, who sent the two specimens vaguely labeled “Gran Chaco ” to Moser for identification. Until recently, most insect dealers give vague localities for their specimens, not revealing exact localities and/or suppliers in order to maintain the exclusivity on rare and/or interesting species. A second possibility is that the “French merchant” mentioned by Moser was Émile Wagner (of French origin), who sent specimens of several insects to Europe, some of them labeled “ Argentina, Gran Chaco ” (one Hymenoptera : Andrenidae , one Hymenoptera : Colletidae ), “Gran Chaco, Rio Tapenaga” (eight Coleoptera : Chrysomelidae , one Hymenoptera : Andrenidae ), and “Grand Chaco, Bords du Río Tapenaga, Colonie Florencia” (one Coleoptera : Tenebrionidae ; one Diptera : Asilidae ; one Dyctioptera: Blattelidae ; one Embioptera). Also, it is apparent that É. Wagner sent insects to Le Moult, because De la Torre Bueno & Thomas (1915) received for identification a collection of Hemiptera sent by Le Moult and labeled “Rio Salado”. Other insects in the Le Moult Collection were one species of Coleoptera : Bothrideridae (“Rio Salado”), one Coleoptera : Curculionidae (“Rio Dulce”), one Hymenoptera : Formicidae (“Rio Salado”), and one Embioptera (“Bords du Rio Salado, env. d'Icano”). The collector is not mentioned, but with these labels it can be only É. Wagner. Resuming the anterior points, the locality “Gran Chaco ” given by Moser (1910) may be Barrancas, the same of Le Moult (1939) if the French merchant was Le Moult, or Rio Tapenaga if the French merchant was É. Wagner, but in both cases the collector was the same (É. Wagner).

A third more plausible possibility may be that G. bruchi was found in both places, some specimens in Rio Tapenaga (= Gran Chaco), received by Moser from Le Moult, and the others in Barrancas, received by Le Moult, all collected by É. Wagner. Colonia Florencia and Rio Tapenagá are located in Chaco province, near the border with Santa Fe province, and distant only at 212.5 km NE from La Gallareta (= Chaco santafesino”).

Note 6: Gymnetis bruchi ( Fig. 6 ) is a different species than G. chalcipes ( Figs. 44–45 ). The status of G. bruchi as a good species is here re-established.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Geographic distributions of Gymnetini from Argentina and adjacent countries: Blaesia atra (circles); Gymnetis bruchi (squares); Gymnetis cordobana (stars).

FIGURES 8–12. Male parameres: 8–10, Gymnetis bajula (8, parameres; 9–10, details of the sculpture on the dorsal side in the angle between the parameres); 11–12, Gymnetis bruchi (11, parameres; 12, armature of the internal sac).

FIGURES 3–7. General aspects of Gymnetini: 3–5, Gymnetis bajula (3, darker specimen; 4, specimen from the Burmeister Collection [MACN], likely the holotype of G. perplexa; 5, lighter specimen); 6, Gymnetis bruchi (Bruch Collection); 7, Aemilius wagneri (extracted from Le Moult 1939).

FIGURES 44–51. General aspects of Gymnetini from Argentina: 44–45, Gymnetis chalcipes (44, common phenotype; 45, light phenotype); 46, Gymnetis litigiosa (La Rioja: Los Molinos); 47–48, Gymnetis hepatica (47, paratype, Santiago del Estero: Sachayoj; 48, paratype, Chaco: Charata); 49, Gymnetis undata (Misiones, Bruch Collection); 50, Gymnetis hebraica; 51, M. insculpta.