Revision of the Bark Beetle Genera Within the Former Cryphalini (Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Author
Johnson, Andrew J.
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611,
andrewjavanjohnson@gmail.com
Author
Hulcr, Jiri
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611,
Author
Knížek, Miloš
Department of Forest Protection Service, Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Strnady, Jíloviště, Praha 5, Zbraslav CZ- 15600, Czechia,
Author
Atkinson, Thomas H.
Texas Natural History Collections, Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712,
Author
Mandelshtam, Michail Yu.
Department of Forest Protection, Wood Science and Game Management, Saint-Petersburg State Forest Technical University named after S. M. Kirov, Institutskii per., 5, 194021 Saint-Petersburg, Russia,
Author
Smith, Sarah M.
Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824,
Author
Cognato, Anthony I.
Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824,
Author
Park, Sangwook
Research Institute of Forest Insect Diversity, Namyangju 12113, South Korea,
Author
Li, You
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611,
Author
Jordal, Bjarte H.
University Museum of Bergen, University of Bergen, P. O. 7800, 5020 Bergen, and
text
Insect Systematics and Diversity
2020
2020-05-31
4
3
1
1
81
journal article
22148
10.1093/isd/ixaa002
be792f86-9e77-414c-9e2f-767704ff704e
2399-3421
3826789
Ernoporus
Thomson, 1859: 147
(
Figs. 27–29
)
Synonymy
=
Cryphalops
Reitter, 1889: 94
.
=
Stephanorhopalus
Hopkins, 1915: 35
.
=
Euptilius
Schedl, 1940c: 589
.
=
Ernocladius
Wood, 1980: 93
syn. nov.
=
Allothenemus
Bright and Torres, 2006: 400
syn. nov.
Type of genus
Apate tiliae
Panzer, 1793
.
Diagnosis
This genus can be diagnosed by the combination of the entire eye, by the pronotum with concentric rows of asperities, by the distinct summit, and by the proventriculus which has anteriorly pointing spines posterior to the masticatory brush.
Female
Robust body shape, less than 2.1 times as long as wide. Eye oval shaped. Antennae with three or four funicle segments. Antennal club in most species with sutures straight to profoundly procurved. Pronotum with two or more marginal asperities. Asperities on the pronotum always arranged in concentric rows, leading to a distinct summit. Sides of pronotum rounded, sometimes with a weakly visible carina extending slightly from the posterior edge. Elytra with scale-like interstrial bristles. Apex of elytra vertical. Proventriculus with a simple, short apical plate. Crop spines hair-like. An area of anteriorly pointing spine-shaped or spatula-shaped setae is present beyond the masticatory brush.
Male
Similar to females, except for a more produced anterior margin of the pronotum, typically with feather-like setae on the protarsi and two or more spines on the posteroventral margin of the seventh tergite. Penis apodemes much shorter than penis body, fused at apex. Tegmen open dorsally, much narrower than penis apodemes. Tegminal apodemes absent. Spiculum gastrale thicker than penis apodemes, with a fork. Basal sclerites sometimes visible. Sometimes large hook-like end plates are present.
Distribution
Asia, Europe, Africa, Caribbean (likely introduced),
Australia
(introduced).
Remarks
Nineteen species known.
Ernoporus
are most easily recognized by the stout appearance with concentric asperities on the pronotum, though a few members of
Eidophelus
also share this feature, as well as
Acorthylus
and
Neocryphus
. The tuft of setae posterior to the proventriculus has not been observed in any other Ernoporini, but is present in other genera such as
Acorthylus
and at least some
Stegomerus
species.
Several species were previously placed in the genus
Euptilius
, presented separately in
Fig. 25
. These are characterized by antennal club with profoundly procurved sutures and extensive split setae on the hypomeron. No fresh specimens were available for study and no genetic information exists. However, based on the external morphology as well as a dissection of the proventriculus, there was no justification for resurrecting this genus based on the information available (
Wood 1980
). All the characters which are distinctive are present in other
Ernoporus
species (procurved antennal sutures, split setae on the pronotum), although to a much lesser extent. Members of this species group have a very similar appearance to
Neocryphus
, but differ in the antennal club and the eye shape.
The genera
Ernocladius
and
Allothenemus
closely match the characters for this genus.
Ernocladius
was described as distinct from
Ernoporus
based on the interstrial ground vestiture being absent on the elytral disc and sparse or absent on the declivity, by the antennal funicle with only two segments, and by the procurved sutures of the antennal club (
Wood 1980
). This combination of characters is not consistent within the groups, and is not stable across other genera.
Allothenemus
was described based on the unique morphology compared to former
Cryphalini
from the Americas, but also matches the diagnostic characters of
Ernocladius
and closely matches some Asian species. It is likely that the species represent non-native species based on the distribution and the close similarity to
Margadillius minor
Schedl, 1942
.
Erioschidias imitatrix
Schedl, 1977
is transferred from
Cosmoderes
, supported by internal and external morphology and molecular phylogenetics. Several species formerly in the genus
Margadillius
have been moved here. The previous misclassification is unsurprising, since a specimen in Schedl’s collection (NHMW) labeled as a homeotype (which is usually specimen that was directly compared to and that matches the primary
type
) of
Margadillius margadilaonis
, was in fact a misidentified member of
Ernoporus
.
Type material examined
Holotype
of
Euptilius armatus
Browne, 1981
(
BMNH
)
;
holotype
and
paratype
of
Ernoporus concentralis
Eggers, 1936
(
BMNH
)
;
allotypes
(x2) of
Cryphalus corpulentus
Sampson, 1919
(
BMNH
)
;
holotype
of
Erioschidias imitatrix
Schedl, 1977
(
NHMW
)
;
holotype
of
Ernoporus japonicus
Nobuchi, 1966
(
ITLJ
)
;
syntypes
(x2) of
Margadillius minor
Schedl, 1942
(
NHMW
and
BMNH
)
;
holotype
of
Margadillius parvulus
Eggers, 1943
(
NHMW
)
;
paratype
of
Euptilius thailandicus
Schedl, 1967
(
NHMW
)
;
holotype
of
Euptilius tuberculatus
Browne, 1981
(
BMNH
)
.
Included species
Ernoporus acanthopanaxi
(
Niisima, 1913: 4
)
(
Cryphalus
)
.
Ernoporus armatus
(
Browne, 1981: 129
)
(
Euptilius
)
.
Ernoporus concentralis
Eggers, 1936c: 629
.
Ernoporus corpulentus
(
Sampson, 1919: 113
)
(
Cryphalus
)
comb. nov.
[
Ernocladius
].
=
Margadillius corpulentus sundri
Schedl, 1969: 48
(syn:
Wood, 1989
).
Ernoporus dispar
(
Schedl, 1972f: 49
)
(
Cryphalops
)
.
Ernoporus exquisitus
(
Bright, 2019: 105
)
(
Allothenemus
)
comb. nov.
[
Allothenemus
].
Ernoporus guiboutiae
(
Schedl, 1957b: 53
)
(
Miocryphalus
)
comb. nov.
[
Ernocladius
].
Ernoporus imitatrix
(
Schedl, 1977c: 499
)
(
Erioschidias
)
comb. nov.
[
Cosmoderes
].
Ernoporus inermis
(
Schedl, 1939b: 343
)
(
Stephanorhopalus
)
.
Ernoporus japonicus
Nobuchi, 1966b: 52
.
Ernoporus melodori
(
Hopkins, 1915: 36
)
(
Stephanorhopalus
)
.
Ernoporus minor
(
Schedl, 1942a: 176
)
(
Margadillius
)
comb. nov.
[
Margadillius
].
Ernoporus minutus
(
Bright and Torres, 2006: 400
)
(
Allothenemus
)
comb. nov.
[
Allothenemus
].
Ernoporus parvulus
(
Eggers, 1943b: 75
)
(
Margadillius
)
comb. nov.
[
Margadillius
].
Ernoporus quadridens
(
Schedl, 1971a: 284
)
(
Cryphalops
)
.
Ernoporus shimanensis
Murayama, 1953: 36
.
Ernoporus thailandicus
(
Schedl, 1967a: 127
)
(
Euptilius
)
.
Ernoporus tiliae
(
Panzer, 1793: 14
)
(
Apate
)
.
=
Cryphalus ratzeburgi
Ferrari, 1867: 11
.
=
Cryphalus lederi
Reitter, 1889: 93
.
=
Ernoporus eggersi
Kurentsov, 1941: 155
(syn:
Sokanovskiy, 1954
).
=
Ernoporus starki
Eggers, 1942: 31
(syn:
Schedl, 1952e
).
Ernoporus tuberculatus
(
Browne, 1981: 128
)
(
Euptilius
)
.