Revision of Eccoptolonthus Bernhauer (Coleoptera: Staphylininae: Philonthina) with descriptions of four new species from China
Author
Fei, Xu-Dong
0000-0003-0386-5918
Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Rd., Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, P. R. China. & University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 A Yuquan Rd., Shijingshan District, Beijing 100049, P. R. China. & feixudong @ ioz. ac. cn; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0003 - 0386 - 5918
feixudong@ioz.ac.cn
Author
Zhou, Hong-Zhang
Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Rd., Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, P. R. China. & University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 A Yuquan Rd., Shijingshan District, Beijing 100049, P. R. China.
text
Zootaxa
2021
2021-03-26
4949
3
473
498
journal article
7571
10.11646/zootaxa.4949.3.3
39300142-6cea-4253-80bb-00856fdd5f95
1175-5326
4640469
C22ACA1A-4856-4979-BD7A-DFE37949C2D4
The Genus
Eccoptolonthus
Bernhauer, 1912
Type
species:
Philonthus (Eccoptolonthus) conradti
Bernhauer, 1912
.
Bernhauer, 1912: 206
(subgenus of
Philonthus
, species included:
conradti
);
Bernhauer & Schubert, 1914: 326
(synonym of
Philonthus
);
Cameron, 1932: 62
(subgenus of
Philonthus
);
Blackwelder, 1943: 399
(subgenus of
Philonthus
,
type
species:
conradti
);
Blackwelder, 1952: 138
(subgenus of
Philonthus
,
type
species:
conradti
);
Herman, 2001a: 2733
(subgenus of
Philonthus
);
Newton, 2015: 13
(as valid genus, not subgenus or synonym of
Philonthus
Curtis
, catalog);
Schillhammer, 2015: 23
, 24 (new synonyms and new combinations of
Eccoptolonthus
);
Schülke & Smetana, 2015: 1021
(
Eccoptolonthus
, catalog); Chani-Posse,
et al
. 2018: 34 (two species of
Hesperus
transferred to
Eccoptolonthus
);
Li, 2019: 424
(
Eccoptolonthus
, catalog of Chinese);
Mikátová, 2020: 386
(catalogue of
type
specimens of
Eccoptolonthus
in
Czech Republic
);
Hayashi, 2020: 135
(a new subgenus of
Eccoptolonthus
).
Syn.:
Pseudohesperus
Hayashi, 2008: 146
(new genus,
type
species:
Philonthus rutiliventris
Sharp, 1874
);
Hromádka, 2010: 495
(revised the Afrotropical fauna of
Pseudohesperus
);
Li & Zhou, 2011: 679
(revised
China
fauna of
Pseudohesperus
);
Schillhammer, 2011: 147
(a new species of
Pseudohesperus
);
Newton, 2015: 12
(synonym of
Eccoptolonthus
);
Hromádka, 2016: 376
(a new species of
Pseudohesperus
);
Mikátová, 2020: 386
(catalogue of
type
specimens of
Eccoptolonthus
in
Czech Republic
)
Subgenus:
Eumorimotous
Hayashi, 2020: 136
(
type
species:
Eccoptolonthus
(
Eumorimotous
)
laevigatus
(
Fauvel, 1895
))
.
Diagnosis
: The genus
Eccoptolonthus
was characterized in great detail by
Hayashi (2008)
,
Hromádka (2010)
and
Li & Zhou (2011)
: the genus is closely allied to
Bisnius
Stephens, 1829
and
Gabrius
Stephens, 1829
, because of the similar structure of protarsi, but is easily distinguishable from them by the following characters: (1) maxillary and labial palpi with fourth segment rod-like; (2) gular sutures gradually convergent posteriad to the neck constriction, not parallel in posterior (basal) half; (3) chaetotaxy of the pronotum composed of only a pair of anterolateral macrosetae, basolateral setae absent; (4) mesoventrite with apical portion distinctly and abruptly convex ventrad, without transverse carina; (5) sternite IX of males in most species with a pair of long appendages and without any long erect bristles; only a few with short appendages.
Taxonomic history:
the name
Eccoptolonthus
Bernhauer, 1912
was treated as a subgenus of the genus
Philonthus
Stephens, 1829
(
Bernhauer & Schubert, 1914
;
Cameron, 1932
;
Blackwelder, 1943
;
Blackwelder, 1952
;
Tottenham, 1962
;
Herman, 2001a
) and included only a few species:
Philonthus
(
Eccoptolonthus
)
conradti
Bernhauer, 1912
as the
type
species,
Philonthus
(
Eccoptolonthus
)
eccoptomus
Tottenham, 1962
, and another un-named one mentioned by
Tottenham (1962)
.
In contrast, the genus
Pseudohesperus
Hayashi, 2008
was established as a separate genus and it was treated as valid for a long time after its description. In the original paper,
Hayashi (2008)
transferred the
type
species,
Philonthus rutiliventris
Sharp, 1874
and
Philonthus eustilbus
Kraatz, 1859
from the genus
Philonthus
to
Pseudohesperus
.
Hromádka (2010)
revised the Afrotropical fauna, namely,
P. apsilus
Hromádka, 2010
,
P. tauraco
Hromádka, 2010
,
P. tyto
Hromádka, 2010
,
P. varanus
Hromádka, 2010
,
P. conradti
(
Bernhauer, 1912
)
,
P. eccoptomus
(
Tottenham, 1962
)
,
P. proselytus
(
Bernhauer, 1912
)
,
P. bafutensis
(
Levasseur, 1967
)
, and
P. natalensis
(
Scheerpeltz, 1956
)
. At the same time
Hesperus longicornis
Cameron, 1950
was synonymized with
Pseudohesperus conradti
(
Bernhauer, 1912
) (
Hromádka, 2010
)
.
Schillhammer (2011)
described another species,
Pseudohesperus ernsti
Schillhammer, 2011
. In the same year,
Li & Zhou (2011)
revised the Chinese fauna with a phylogenetic analysis of
Philonthina
and reported six Chinese species, of which four were described as new:
Pseudohesperus luteus
Li & Zhou, 2011
;
P. pedatiformis
Li & Zhou, 2011
;
P. sparsipunctatus
Li & Zhou, 2011
and
P. tripartitus
Li & Zhou, 2011
.
The taxonomy of
Pseudohesperus
was maintained as above until
Newton (2015)
, following the concept of
Hromádka (2010)
, recognized that
Pseudohesperus
Hayashi, 2008
should be as a synonym of
Eccoptolonthus
Bernhauer, 1912
. As a result, all the species included previously in
Pseudohesperus
were transferred to
Eccoptolonthus
Bernhauer, 1912
(
Newton 2015
)
. In the same year,
Schillhammer (2015)
confirmed this generic synonymy and transferred
Philonthus gastralis
Sharp, 1874
,
Philonthus hongkongensis
Bernhauer, 1931
and
Philonthus lassallei
Coiffait, 1981
to
Eccoptolonthus
. In the same paper,
Philonthus insignitus
Fauvel, 1875
and
Philonthus longipalpis
Kashcheev, 1999
were synonymized with
Eccoptolonthus rutiliventris
(
Sharp, 1874
) (
Schillhammer, 2015
)
.
Hromádka (2016)
described another species but under
Pseudohesperus
:
Pseudohesperus terezae
Hromádka, 2016
. The correct combination under
Eccoptolonthus
was given by
Mikátová
et al
. (2020)
.
Chani-Posse
et al
. (2018)
reported the results of phylogenetic analyses, which supported the transfer of two
Hesperus
species to this genus:
Eccoptolonthus laevigatus
(
Fauvel, 1895
)
and
Eccoptolonthus roepkei
(
Bernhauer, 1911
)
.
Hayashi (2020)
reported the newest findings and erected the subgenus
Eumorimotous
Hayashi,
2020
in the genus
Eccoptolonthus
, with one species and one subspecies described:
Eccoptolonthus
(
Eumorimotous
)
morimotoi
Hayashi, 2020
and
Eccoptolonthus
(
Eumorimotous
)
laevigatus tiomanensis
Hayashi, 2020
.
Eccoptolonthus
(
Eumorimotous
)
wasmanni
(
Fauvel, 1895
)
was also transferred from
Hesperus
to this genus.
In conclusion, there were 24 species and one subspecies included in the genus
Eccoptolonthus
Bernhauer, 1912
before this study (
Bernhauer, 1912
;
Bernhauer & Schubert, 1914
;
Cameron, 1932
;
Blackwelder, 1943
;
Blackwelder, 1952
;
Tottenham, 1962
;
Herman, 2001a
;
Hayashi, 2008
;
Hromádka, 2010
;
Li & Zhou, 2011
;
Schillhammer, 2011
;
Newton, 2015
;
Schillhammer, 2015
;
Hromádka, 2016
;
Chani-Posse, 2018
;
Newton, 2019
;
Hayashi, 2020
). Our study contributed new findings after revising the above-mentioned studies.
Key to the Chinese species of the genus
Eccoptolonthus
1. Male sternite VIII with a pair of long appendages (Figs. 7D, 9H, 11D)........................................... 2
- Male sternite VIII without a pair of long appendages (Figs. 1D, 3E, 5D).......................................... 8
2. Head with distinct microsculpture........................................................................ 3
- Head without microsculpture............................................................................ 5
3. Paramere weakly constricted at midlength in ventral view: paramere at narrowest part more than half the corresponding width of median lobe (
Fig. 11B
)............................................................................... 4
- Paramere strongly constricted at midlength in ventral view: paramere at narrowest part less than half the corresponding width of median lobe (
Fig. 7B
).....................................................
E. fuyuensis
Fei & Zhou
,
sp. nov.
4. Male tergite X with arcuate medioapical emargination..................................
E. rutiliventris
(
Sharp, 1874
)
- Male tergite X with acute triangular medioapical emargination................
E. xiaolongmenensis
Fei & Zhou
,
sp. nov.
5. Antennae black, with apical three or four antennomeres yellowish white; abdomen black with reddish yellow posterior margins in 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th ventrites; 5th and 6th brownish red; inner face of paramere sparingly scattered with about 16 peg-setae along margins in apical third................................
E.
(
Eumorimotous
)
laevigatus laevigatus
(
Fauvel, 1895
)
- Antennae black, with antennomeres I–III to various extent reddish-brown, antennomere XI or antennomeres X–XI dark brown; abdomen black; paramere with more than 16 peg-setae....................................................... 6
6. Eyes very large, 1.75–2.33 times as long as tempora; pronotum with sparse punctures; paramere much wider and underside of paramere with larger number of peg setae.....................................
E. sparsipunctatus
(
Li & Zhou, 2011
)
- Eyes flat, 1.3 times as long as tempora; pronotum with dense punctures.......................................... 7
7. Pronotum longer than broad; apex of abdomen dark..................................................................................................................................
E. hongkongensis
(
Bernhauer, 1931
)
- Pronotum about as long as broad; apex of abdomen reddish-yellow..........................
E. eustilbus
(
Kraatz, 1859
)
8. Paramere trilobed..................................................................................... 9
- Paramere with single lobe............................................................................. 11
9. Eyes longer than tempora....................................................
E. pedatiformis
(
Li & Zhou, 2011
)
- Eyes shorter than tempora............................................................................. 10
10. Middle lobe of paramere distinctly exceeding median lobe, apex of median lobe with discernible terminal angles in ventral view.......................................................................
E. ernsti
(
Schillhammer, 2011
)
- Middle lobe of paramere not exceeding median lobe, median lobe distinctly narrowed into subacute apex in ventral view..............................................................................
E. tripartitus
(
Li & Zhou, 2011
)
11. Sensory peg setae form two circular groups in ventral view (
Fig. 3C
)..................
E. dafoensis
Fei & Zhou
,
sp. nov.
- Sensory peg setae uniformly distributed in the apex......................................................... 12
12. Pronotum as long as elytra; elytra obscure-brownish......................................
E. gastralis
(
Sharp, 1874
)
- Pronotum shorter than elytra, elytra black-brown with suture and posterior margin markedly reddish-brown............ 13
13. Eyes about 1.25–1.67 times as long as tempora; paramere conical, weakly, gradually broadening towards base; male tergite X broadly emarginate at apex; male sternite IX with basal portion weakly deflexed laterad........
E. luteus
(
Li & Zhou, 2011
)
- Eyes about 0.8 times as long as tempora; paramere cylindrical, strongly broadened from the middle to base; male tergite X with smaller, triangular medioapical emargination; male sternite IX with basal portion sharply deflexed laterad (
Figs. 1
F-G)..............................................................................
E. conaensis
Fei & Zhou
sp. nov.