Thinodromus nigerius Gildenkov, 2000

Makranczy, György, 2013, Review of the southern African species of Thinodromus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (1), pp. 177-208 : 188

Thinodromus nigerius Gildenkov, 2000

( Figs 13–16, 75–76, 83)

Thinodromus (Thinodromus) nigerius Gildenkov, 2000: 54 . Thinodromus kedougouensis Makranczy, 2009: 44 , syn. nov. Thinodromus nigerius: MAKRANCZY (2009: 53) .

Material examined. CÔTE D’IVOIRE: Kafolo , Comoé (river) [09°35′N, 04°18′W], 28.iv.1988, leg. F.-T. Krell (1 ♀, SMNS) . GHANA: Kumasi [06°41′N, 01°37′W], 6.vii.1967, leg. S. Endrődy-Younga (1 ♀, MHNG) . BÉNIN: Departement Zou, Za-Kpota & Covè, Zou riv., bridge at road Abomey - Covè , 07°12′04.5″N, 02°17′19.8″E, 7.ii.2006, leg. Goergen, Komarek & Hounguè (3 JJ 1 ♀, NHMW) . NIGERIA: Federal Capital Territory, Abuja [09°04′N, 07°29′E], 2 November 1998, R. D. Ward (1 J, CMNH), same but 1-7 October 1998 (1 ♀, CMNH) . REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA: N Transvaal [= Limpopo prov.], Kruger N.P., Skukuza research camp [Sabie river, 270m], 24°59′S, 31°35′E, 7.iii.1996, leg. S. Endrődy-Younga (E-Y 3220), UV light (1 J 2 ♀♀, TMSA; 1 J 1 ♀, SMNS), same but 25°00′S, 31°35′E, 19.ii.1995 (E-Y 3102), UV light & trap (1 J, TMSA), Rep. S. Africa: E. Transvaal, Kruger Pk., Skukuza [24°59′S, 31°36′E], 12–14.xii.1985, FMHD #85-848, leg. S. Peck (P# 85-281), thorn scrub & riverine light traps (1 ♀, FMNH) .

Taxonomic note. In 2009, I attempted to interpret the identity of Thinodromus nigerius Gildenkov, 2000 based on two male specimens from Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria (see redescription in MAKRANCZY 2009: 53). Immediately after the publication of the paper, I received two more Thinodromus specimens from Nigeria, a male ( Figs 13, 15–16) and a female ( Fig. 14, without elytra). These specimens doubtlessly belong to the same taxon that I discussed as T. nigerius . The study of the previously unavailable female ringstructure ( Fig. 83), i.e. the only diagnostic female genitalic feature in this group of species, revealed that it is closely similar to that of T. kedougouensis Makranczy, 2009 described from Senegal. Therefore, it seems that we are dealing with a single externally variable species and the known specimens are just parts of its morphological continuum. Specimens previously mentioned by me as T. nigerius (see Figs 19, 20, 21, 31, 32, 68 in MAKRANCZY (2009) for terminalia and genitalia) and T. kedougouensis ( Figs 47, 48, 49, 55, 56 in MAKRANCZY (2009), and Figs 75–76 and 83 here) seem therefore to be conspecific. This is also supported by the examined specimens from Bénin (all from the same collecting event and likely from the same microhabitat) which contain two conspecific males (based on morphology of the genitalia), with entirely different antennae: one has shorter antenna much similar to that illustrated in the original description of T. nigerius , the other has much more elongate antenna, as that in Fig. 15 in this study.

For the reasons given above, T. kedougouensis Makranczy, 2009 is here conditionally synonymized with T. nigerius Gildenkov, 2000 . The synonymy needs to be confirmed by more material from the type locality of T. nigerius .