Paraphloeostiba coprophila, Shavrin, 2024
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5424.3.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DE26201A-252D-40D3-A5CF-FCCC6B3C2D01 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10834901 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A15C878D-FFF9-6D4C-D6DD-DF3BBF12045A |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Paraphloeostiba coprophila |
status |
sp. nov. |
Paraphloeostiba coprophila sp. n.
( Figs 46–52 View FIGURES 46–52 )
Type material. Holotype ♂ (disseced; left antennomeres 3–11 missing): ‘ NEW GUINEA | Okasa 20.IV.1965 | wild sinses fruit’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed>, ‘ HOLOTYPE | Paraphloeostiba | coprophila sp. n. | Shavrin A. V. des. 2024’ <red, printed> ( BMNH).
Paratypes: 1 ♂ (dissected): ‘ NEW GUINEA | Okapa, | 23. V.1965, cow | dung and beating’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed> ( BMNH); 1 ♂ (antennomeres missing), 2 ♀♀ (one specimen without right antenna; underside of the card with handwritten number ‘H13’): ‘ NEW GUINEA | Okapa, 23. V.1965, | cow dung’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed> ( BMNH); 8 ♀♀ (one specimen without left elytron; underside of the card with handwritten number ‘71H’): ‘ NEW GUINEA Okapa | 24. V.1965, small white | mould on Kamata stump’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed> ( BMNH); 1 unsexed specimen (apical part of the abdomen missing; underside of the card with handwritten number ‘H62’): ‘ NEW GUINEA | Okapa, 22. V.1965, | dead leaves’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed> ( BMNH); 1 ♀ (underside of the card with handwritten number ‘117H’): ‘ NEW GUINEA In-| dona, | 17.XI.1965 ’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed> ( BMNH); 1 ♀ (underside of the card with handwritten number ‘H41’): ‘ NEW GUINEA Pu- | rosa, 21.VII.1965, | wet leaves etc.’ <printed>, ‘ R. Hornabrook | BM 1970-232.’ <printed> ( BMNH). All paratypes with additional red printed label: ‘ PARATYPE | Paraphloeostiba | coprophila sp. n. | Shavrin A. V. des. 2024’.
Description. Measurements (n=17): HW: 0.25–0.37; HL: 0.20–0.27; OL: 0.11–0.12; TL: 0.02; AL (holotype): 0.57; PL: 0.26–0.30; PWmax: 0.46–0.52; PWmin: 0.41–0.47; ESL: 0.55–0.62; EW: 0.62–0.70; MTbL (holotype): 0.30; MTrL (holotype): 0.14 (MTrL 1–4: 0.04; MTrL 5: 0.10); AW: 0.57–0.60; AedL: 0.32; BL: 1.47–2.07 (holotype).
Body yellow-brown to brown, with slightly paler elytra and slightly darkened apical portions of each elytron; antennomeres 7–11 brown; mouthparts, antennomeres 1–6 and legs yellow. Head without visible punctation; middle portion of neck without or with several very fine punctures; pronotum with very fine and moderately dense punctation, indistinct or absent in middle; elytra with fine and dense punctation, slightly larger than that in pronotum, distinctly finer and sparser around scutellum and along suture. Head with dense and coarse microsculpture; pronotum with dense and coarse microreticulation, transverse in apical portion and isodiametric in middle; abdominal tergites with dense transverse or isodiametric microreticulation.
Head 1.2–1.3 times as broad as long, with narrow and moderately deep anteocellar foveae reaching level of basal third of eyes; postocular carina absent. Ocelli moderately large, located at level of posterior margins of eyes; distance between ocelli slightly larger than distance between ocellus and posterior margin of eyes. Antennomere 4 slightly longer than wide and about twice shorter than 3, 5 slightly shorter than 4, 6 disitnctly broader than 5, 7–9 slightly broader than 6, 10 slightly longer than 9, apical antennomere slightly more than twice as long as 10.
Pronotum 1.7 times as broad as long, 1.4–1.8 times as broad as head, widest in middle, distinctly more narrowed posteriad than anteriad; hind angles obtuse or subacute; disc without or with traces of very shallow and indistinct wide impressions in middle, broadened posteriad.
Elytra twice as long as pronotum.
Abdomen slightly narrower than elytra.
Male. Posterior margin of abdominal tergite VIII truncate ( Fig. 48 View FIGURES 46–52 ). Posterior margin of abdominal sternite VIII concave ( Fig. 49 View FIGURES 46–52 ). Aedeagus with very wide basal portion, significantly narrowed toward very narrow median lobe with small rounded apex; parameres moderately wide, slightly not reaching apex of median lobe, with three long apical and several relatively short setae on inner margin of each paramere; internal sac moderately short and witde, without strongly sclerotized structures ( Fig. 46 View FIGURES 46–52 ). Lateral aspect of the aedeagus as in Fig. 47 View FIGURES 46–52 .
Female. Posterior margin of abdominal tergite VIII truncate ( Fig. 50 View FIGURES 46–52 ). Posterior margin of abdominal sternite VIII widely rounded ( Fig. 51 View FIGURES 46–52 ). Female accessory sclerite as in Fig. 52 View FIGURES 46–52 .
Comparative notes. Based on the very narrow median lobe and the parameres, P. coprophila sp. n. is similar to P. atramentaria sp. n., P. barclayi sp. n., P. betlephila sp. n. and P. steeli sp. n. It can be distinguished from all these species by the following morphological features:
from P. atramentaria sp. n. by the smaller and paler body, the absence of the punctation on the head, the finer punctation on the pronotum, slightly more transverse pronotum, slightly longer elytra and slightly shorter parameres;
from P. barclayi sp. n. by the darker elytra, the absence of the punctation on the head, the finer punctation on the pronotum, the longer elytra and the shorter parameres;
from P. betlephila sp. n. by the longer body and the elytra, and slightly narrower parameres;
from P. steeli sp. n. by the paler body, the absence of the punctation on the head and elevations between punctures on the longer elytra, the finer punctation of the pronotum, and the shorter parameres with narrower apical portions.
From all these species, P. betlephila sp. n. can be distinguished by the the details of the external and internal morphology of the aedeagus.
Distribution. Paraphloeostiba coprophila sp. n. is known from several localities in Papua New Guinea.
Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from two Greek words “κόπρος” (dung) and φίλος (loving). It alludes to the fact that some paratypes were collected in cow dung.
Bionomics. Specimens were collected by sifting leaves or were found in decaying organic material (fruits, cow dung, etc.).
NEW |
University of Newcastle |
R |
Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Chile |
V |
Royal British Columbia Museum - Herbarium |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
SubFamily |
Omaliinae |
Tribe |
Omaliini |
Genus |