17. Oodes (Oodes) gracilis A. Villa & G.B. Villa, 1833

(Figs 21 A–G, Figs 22 A–G, Table 4)

Oodes gracilis A. Villa & G.B. Villa, 1833: 33 (type locality: ‘Italia’). Later, the locality was more precisely defined: ‘Alle rive dei laghi in Lombardia’ (Villa & Villa, 1868: 61).

= Oodes similis Chaudoir, 1837: 20 (type locality: ‘d’Allemagne’ [Germany]). Synonymy established by Gemminger & Harold (1868: 232).

= Oodes gracilior Lambert, 1853: 199 (type locality: ‘bord de l'étang de Marson’, France). Synonymy established by Gemminger & Harold (1868: 232).

References.

Oodes similis: Chaudoir 1857: 34–35 (comparison with O. helopioides); Motschulsky 1858: 172 (comparisons with O. parallelus Motschulsky and O. parallelogrammus Motschulsky).

Oodes gracilior: Fairmaire & Laboulbène 1854: 60 (re-description).

Oodes gracilis: Gemminger & Harold 1868: 232; Bedel 1879: 54 (identification key); Bedel 1880: 161; Marseul 1880: 190; Chaudoir 1882: 345 (re-description); Marseul 1882: 28; Ganglbauer 1891a: 384; Fiori 1903: 200 (‘fiume Lamato in Calabria’, Italy); Reitter 1908: 186; Porta 1923: 213; Burmeister 1939: 165 (distribution and ecology); Jeannel 1942: 982; Focarile 1959: 75 (taxonomic notes and comparison with O. helopioides); Fontolan 1959: 120–121 (re-description and comparison with O. helopioides); Magistretti 1965: 257; Allen 1973: 32 (Arkansas Insect Collection); Bousquet 1996: 449– 450 (various data, incl. bibliography), 472 (relationships with O. amaroides); Ortuño 1998: 5–6 (female genitalia); Lorenz 1998: 305; Bousquet 2003: 445; Lorenz 2005: 325; Elderkhanova 2012: 495; Nakhibasheva et al. 2012: 305; Belousov et al. 2014: 96; Ibáñez Orrico 2014: 83 (distribution in Iberian Peninsula); Bousquet 2017: 636.

Oodes (Oodes) gracilis: Ganglbauer 1891b: 51; Csiki 1906: 57; Jakobson 1906: 310 (distribution); Csiki 1931: 1007 (‘Mitteleuropa, Mittelmeer–gebiet’); Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995: 158 (distribution in ex-USSR).

Type material. Oodes gracilis A. Villa & G.B. Villa: neotype ♂, ‘Oasi Torbiere diAlbate—Bassone (CO) 31.VI.1978 Leg. Sciaky—Pavesi [w, h] // Neotypus Oodes gracilis Villa Det. Sciaky e Pavesi [r, h]’ (MSNM) (Figs 21A, B, 22A, B).

Focarile (1959: 75) considered that the description of Villa & Villa (1833) refers to O. helopioides var. fiorii, and not to O. gracilis (sensu Lindroth, 1943). M. Pavesi (pers. comm.) wrote us: “ Several specialists (including me), having not checked carefully enough the collection materials, suspected that the original description of O. gracilis (type locality “rive dei laghi lombardi” = shores of Lombardy lakes) would indeed refer to small, slender individuals of helopioides, since gracilis appeared to be restricted to coastal, brackish biotopes. ”. However, this assumption could not be verified, as the type series of the species together with entire collection of the brothers Villa had been destroyed in the fire of the Museum of Milan in August 1943. In order to maintain the status of O. gracilis, a neotype of this species has been designated (Sciaky & Pavesi 1986).

Type material. Oodes similis Chaudoir: Not examined.

Type material. Oodes gracilior Lambert: Not examined.

Paul Lambert (1853) ascribed the authorship of O. gracilis to Leon Faimaire perhaps because the former author used original notes of the latter author. Soon after, L. Fairmaire (Fairmaire & Laboulbène 1854: 60) gave a second description using the same descriptive terminology. Jeannel (1942: 982) also attributed gracilis to L. Fairmaire. The correct authorship of this form has been indicated by Chaudoir (1882: 345).

Other material examined. FRANCE: A u v e r g n e –R h ô n e–A l p e s: 1♀, ‘Dr Jacquet Lyon’ (NMNHS).

ALBANIA: Shkodër County: 3♂♂, ‘ALB., Shkodra District Mali Tarabosh Mtn [Mali i Tabaroshit] karst terrain, 100 m 24.XI.2000, A. Zhalov leg.’ (NMNHS).

BULGARIA: S i l i s t r a Province: 1♂, ‘BG, Nova Cherna Vill. Ornithological station 19–20.VI.2007, light trap B. Guéorguiev leg.’ (NMNHS); 3♂♂, ‘Srebarna Lake, wharf near the lake, 44.10331, 27.06392, 28–29.V.2017, G. Georgiev, W. Rossi & D. Stoianova’ (NMNHS). Va r n a Province: 1♀, ‘БГ Крапец, Дуранкулашкο блатο; Залив! мοрски брЯГ пοд вοдοр. и камъни [Bulgaria, Krapets, Durankulak Marsh; bay! seashore under algae and stones], 23.7.92 LEG. L. Penev’ (IBER). Sofia Province: 1♂, 1♀, ‘BG, Sofia Distr., Dragomansko blato [Dragoman Marsh], 42.93712, 22.95200, 2.VI.2017 W. Rossi & B. Guéorguiev leg.’ (NMNHS). Burgas Province: 1♀, ‘Страндж еЗерο [Strandza Mt., lake], 2.VI. 9…’ (NMNHS); 1♀, ‘BG: Pomorie bei Burgas SO-Ufer Pomorie–See (6) 09.V.2000 Handfang leg. Wolfg. Beier (Germany)’ (cWB).

ISRAEL: North District: 1♂, ‘Israel: Ne’ot Mordekhay 30.V.2005 L. Zarabi V. Chikatunov’ (SMNH-TAU).

TME: 15 specimens. TGE: 2♂♂, 1♀.

Diagnosis. Distinguished from other Oodes species by features given in the key to species of Oodes . See also “Diagnosis” under “ gracilis ” species group.

Description. Habitus. Specimens of middle size (BL: 7.9–9.8 mm, BW: 3.0– 3.9 mm), with subelongate, not very convex body (Figs 21A, C). Ratios and measurements. See Table 4. Color and luster. Body black, pronotum posterolaterally rufous, appendages piceous to rufopiceous. Integument moderately shiny, without iridescence.

Punctuation. Dorsal surface without punctuation; prosternum and mesoepisternum nearly smooth, proepisternum and abdominal ventrites at sides finely rugose; abdominal ventrite 6 at apex both finely punctate and rugose; sides of metasternum and metepisternum superficially punctate. Head. More than half as wide as pronotum (see Table 4). Mentum tooth with distinct paramedial border (Fig. 21E). Thorax. Pronotum (Fig. 21D) with sides rounded toward posterior angles (PW/PB: 1.06–1.13); maximum width in posterior third; laterobasal impressions indistinct; base moderately sinuate; anterior angles rounded, moderately projected anteriorly. Prosternum with median longitudinal sulcus distinct, deeper than in O. helopioides; prosternal process with rounded apex and nearly complete border, reduced only at sides (Fig. 21F). Metepisternum longer than wide (MA/MM: 0.84–0.90), with lateral margin convex and coadunation with epipleuron very short, located anteriorly (Fig. 21G). Elytra. Apical sinuation weak, poorly defined. Basal margin distinct laterally, forming a small denticle at shoulder, disappearing medially at level of stria 2. Granulation in elytral marginal furrow discontinuous, separated into shorter humeral, and longer apical group (interruption located in second fourth). Parascutellar striola punctate, less impressed than other striae; striae finely punctate anteriorly; stria 7 less impressed than stria 6. Intervals 1–7 somewhat flatter than in O. helopioides, interval 8 more convex than others. Legs. Metacoxal basal sulcus highly reduced, ending at medial fifth. Male mesotibia not modified. Protarsomeres 1–3 of male (Fig. 21B) moderately dilated, with second tarsomere slightly longer than wide (W/Lp2: 0.86–0.93). Male genitalia. Median lobe (Figs 22A, B, C, D, E) with basal bulb large; angle between basal bulb and shaft nearly right; shaft long, slightly swollen compared with basal bulb; apex short, narrow; apical lamella short, bent to left, rounded at tip; ostium not reaching basal bulb. Female genitalia (see also Ortuño 1998). Basal gonocoxite with six to eight lateroapical setae arranged in line. Apical gonocoxite with single, very small dorsolateral ensiform seta and nematiform setae (Fig. 22F). Spermatheca twisted apically (Fig. 22G).

Distribution. Most parts of Europe (except the northernmost regions, but including southern Sweden and the Caucasus Major), Turkey, Transcaucasia (Armenia, Azerbaijan), Israel, Iran, Turkmenistan, western Siberia (Lindroth 1992; Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995; Bousquet 2017). We record it for the first time from Israel.