A revision of the Palaearctic Pimeliini (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): a comparative analysis and systematic position of Eastern European and Asian taxa with dorso-lateral eyes Author Chigray, Svetlana N. 5097C803-AA1A-4856-95D7-F11DB747EB74 St. Petersburg State University, 16 line of Vasilevskiy Island, 29, St. Petersburg 199178 Russia. s.chigray@mail.ru Author Nabozhenko, Maxim V. A339C181-A65D-4F68-AA3E-01D07DFF25AD Precaspian Institute of Biological Resources of the Daghestan Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, M. Gadzhiev str., 45, Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan 367000 Russia. & Dagestan State University, M. Gadzhiev str., 43 a, Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan 367000 Russia. & Severtsov Institute of ecology and evolution of the Russian Academy of sciences, Leninsky Prospect, 33, Moscow 119071 Russia. nalassus@mail.ru Author Chigray, Ivan A. 4CDA2EFB-5C20-4E11-870E-BDFD7DBB78F7 Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Emb. 1, St. Petersburg 199034 Russia. chigray93@bk.ru Author Abakumov, Evgeny V. 6E455A28-CEB1-419D-933D-98C9E9C2FED4 St. Petersburg State University, 16 line of Vasilevskiy Island, 29, St. Petersburg 199178 Russia. e.abakumov@spb.ru text European Journal of Taxonomy 2022 2022-04-05 809 1 71 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2022.809.1719 journal article 56065 10.5852/ejt.2022.809.1719 f76de735-01e3-454c-a7f1-bbafd26686f5 2118-9773 6419425 A754493E-5466-4479-B515-AABEDDE09D93 Genus Mantichorula Reitter, 1889 Figs 4C–D , 11E–F , 12A–B , 19 , 23E , 24C , 26D , 27F–G Mantichorula Reitter, 1889: 695 . Mantichorula – Reitter 1893: 246 . — Semenov 1893: 263 . — Semenov-Tjan-Shansky 1907: 179 . — Schuster 1935: 27 . — Medvedev 1990: 125 . — Ren & Yu 1999: 67 , 74, 76–78, figs 23, 30– 31. — Ren & Dong 2001: 297 . Type species Mantichorula semenowi Reitter, 1889 , by monotypy. Species included M. semenowi Reitter, 1889 ; М. grandis Semenov, 1893 ; M. mongolica Schuster, 1940 . Diagnosis Body black, wide, dorsoventrally flattened, disc-shaped, without dense pubescence dorsally, only some parts of pronotum and head with setae, elytra dorsally and laterally with very short, fine, sparse spines ( Fig. 4C–D ) and sometimes with small area of setation along apical part of suture. Body length 10– 20 mm . Eyes large, circular, moderately convex dorsally. Pronotum strongly transverse (more than 2 × as wide as long). Anterolateral angles weakly projecting. Base of pronotum strongly widely emarginated, and posterolateral angles deeply protruding and impressed into elytral base ( Figs 4C , 11E ). Disc of pronotum with one medial and two lateral longitudinal stripes of recumbent, moderately dense, short setae and coarse, semispherical tubercles on lateral sides ( Fig. 11E–F ); base widely, sharply depressed and flattened. Prosternum before procoxae near 2× shorter than longitudinal diameter of one procoxa. Prosternal process very large and broad, raised between procoxae, strongly protruding beyond procoxae, extending to mesoventrite ( Fig. 4D ). Scutellar shield not concealed by base of pronotum, triangular. Elytra short, oval, with ( Fig. 11E ) or without depressions around scutellar shield, apical part abducted. Elytra with double humeral rib. Ventral side of body covered with short, dense setae. Metaventrite much shorter, than mesoventrite. Intercoxal process 1.2–1.24 × as wide as one metacoxa ( Fig. 4D ). Protrochanters and inner side of profemora covered with very long, dense setae. Femora robust, weakly curved outward. All tibiae weakly curved outward. Protibiae strongly gradually widened to apex, triangular, flattened, without projecting process at apex of outer margin, with dense, short, strong spines, but with longer and finer spines and dense, long setae along lateral margins (more recumbent on inner side) ( Figs 26D , 27F–G ); strong spines denser at apex of outer margin. Meso- and metatibiae with similar structures, but not dorsoventrally flattened and widened, often additionally covered with cream coloured scales. Protibial terminal spurs large and widened, not lanceolate ( Fig. 27F–G ), subequal in length, extending to base of protarsomere 5. Meso- and metatibial terminal spurs different in length, inner tibial terminal spurs longer than outer ones, extending to protarsomere 3 and half length of metatarsomere 1 subsequently. Protarsi with long, recumbent spines dorsally and ventrally and short setae laterally; meso- and metatarsi flattened from sides, with very dense, long setae on dorsal side. Male genitalia ( Fig. 19A, H ) Inner sternite VIII ( Fig. 19H ) sclerotized on margins and membranous in middle, densely pubescent; posterior margin deeply emarginated medially; gland absent (at least, not observed). Spiculum gastrale ( Fig. 19G ) with roundly connected rods and rounded derivatives of inner sternite IX with short pubescence terminally. Tegmen of aedeagus ( Fig. 19A–C ) elongate, slender, with subequal basal and apical pieces. Basal piece weakly wider than apical piece, both fusiform.Apical piece glabrous, weakly curved, ventral aphophyses not expressed, dorsal apophyses short, merged in triangular plate. Basal piece with sub-acutely angulate apex. Median lobe acutely angulate apically, with narrow baculi and wide, membranous area at middle, slightly bifurcated at base ( Fig. 19D–F ). Female genitalia Spiculum ventrale with elongate common stem and narrow rods ( Fig. 19I ). Sternite VIII narrow, strongly transverse, with moderately short apophyses. Ovipositor ( Fig. 19J–L ) is very similar to that in Przewalskia , but differs in the absence of sclerotization on vulva, apical lobes turned to dorsal side and widely weakly rounded proctiger. Female genital ducts ( Fig. 23E ) Vagina elongated, tube-shaped, not widened, with short primary bursa copulatrix at apex. Spermatheca absent. Accessory gland of spermatheca very short, tube-shaped, not modified, without constrictions. Distribution Mongolia , China ( Inner Mongolia , Ningxia , Gansu , Shanxi provinces). Notes Schuster (1940) believed that all three species of Mantichorula should be regarded as valid, and that M. grandis distinctly differs from M. semenowi and M. mongolica because of their short antennae, which do not extend far beyond the base of the pronotum. Medvedev (1990) interpreted the genus Mantichorula as monotypic. We studied the type series of M. grandis and discovered that this species and some specimens standing as M. semenowi in the ZIN collection do indeed have shorter antennomeres. Studies of the type specimens of M. semenowi and M. mongolica , as well as a detailed examination of male and female genitalia, are necessary to revise this genus.