A revision of the Nearctic species of the genus Halobrecta Thomson, 1858 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae) with notes on some Palaearctic species of the genus
Author
Gusarov, Vladimir I.
text
Zootaxa
2004
746
1
25
journal article
10.5281/zenodo.158213
29ea5ab7-fe08-4a63-bc6d-9c189550d1a5
11755326
158213
BC6038C7-C268-461C-A711-FD4EFD3BBE1E
2.
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson, 1861
(
Figs. 37–51
)
Halobrectha flavipes
Thomson, 1861
: 50
.
Homalota maritima
Waterhouse, 1863
: 138
(
nec
Mannerheim, 1843
: 224
) (replacement name for
Homalota flavipes
(
Thomson, 1861
)
,
nec
Homalota flavipes
(Gravenhorst, 1806))
.
Homalota halobrectha
Sharp, 1869
: 139
(replacement name for
Homalota flavipes
(
Thomson, 1861
)
,
nec
Homalota flavipes
(Gravenhorst, 1806))
.
Halobrectha flavipes
: Mulsant &
Rey, 1875
: 45
(as synonym of
Ha. anthracina
(Fairmaire, 1853))
.
Atheta
(
s. str.
)
pocahontas
Casey, 1910
: 19
,
syn. nov.
Atheta
(
s. str.
)
vaticina
Casey, 1910
: 19
,
syn. nov.
Aloconota
(
s. str.
)
incertula
Casey, 1910
: 84
,
syn. nov.
Atheta
(
Halobrecta
)
flavipes
:
Fenyes, 1920
: 185
(as valid species).
Atheta
(
Halobrecta
)
flavipes
:
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926
: 621
(as valid species).
Atheta
(
Halobrecta
)
maritima
(Waterhouse)
:
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926
: 621
(as synonym of
At. flavipes
).
Atheta
(
Halobrecta
)
halobrectha
:
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926
: 621
(as synonym of
At. flavipes
).
Atheta
(
s. str.
)
pocahontas
:
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926
: 648
(as valid species).
Atheta
(
s. str.
)
vaticina
:
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926
: 651
(as valid species).
Atheta
(
s. str.
)
incertula
:
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926
: 644
(as valid species).
Atheta
(
Halobrecta
)
flavipes
: Scheerpeltz, 1934: 1600
(as valid species).
Halobrecta flavipes
:
Benick & Lohse, 1974
: 219
(as valid species).
Halobrecta flavipes
:
Hammond, 2000
: 275
(as valid species).
Halobrecta flavipes
:
Pace, 2000
: 376
(
ex parte
; as valid species).
FIGURES 37–40.
Abdominal segment 8 of
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson
(male (37–38) and female paralectotypes
Atheta pocahontas
Casey
(39–40)). 37 — male tergum 8; 38 — male sternum 8; 39 — female tergum 8; 40 — female sternum 8. Scale bar 0.2 mm.
Type
material.
Lectotype
of
Halobrecta flavipes
(here designated): ɗ, "La [Lomma,
Sweden
]" (
MZLU
(Thomson collection)).
Lectotype
of
Atheta pocahontas
(here designated): ɗ, "Va. [with two black dots under "a", Virginia: Fort Monroe (according to Casey locality code
(FitzGerald 1962))
]", "
pocahontas
3
PARATYPE
USNM
39310" (red label), "
CASEY
bequest 1925".
Paralectotypes
: Ψ, "Va. [with one black dot under "a", Virginia:
Norfolk
(FirzGerald 1962)]", "
Atheta pocahontas
Csy.
", "
TYPE
USNM
39310" (red label), "
CASEY
bequest 1925"; ɗ, with missing head, prothorax and elytra, ɗ, "Va. [with two black dots under "a", Virginia: Fort Monroe]", "
pocahontas
2
PARATYPE
USNM
39310" (red label), "
CASEY
bequest 1925" (
NMNH
).
Lectotype
of
Atheta vaticina
(here designated): Ψ, "L.I. [Long Island, New York]", "
Atheta vaticina
Csy.
", "
TYPE
USNM
39311" (red label), "
CASEY
bequest 1925" (
NMNH
).
Lectotype
of
Aloconota incertula
(here designated): Ψ, "Va. [with two black dots under "a", Virginia: Fort Monroe]", "
incertula
Csy.
", "
TYPE
USNM
39076" (red label), "
CASEY
bequest 1925" (
NMNH
).
Additional material.
CHILE
: Llanquihue Prov.:
2ɗɗ, 2ΨΨ,
6 specimens
(sex undetermined), Puerto Montt, Pilluco, sifting beach drift,
24.xii.1984
(S. & J.Peck); ɗ, Ψ,
1 specimen
(sex undetermined), Lenca,
34 km
SE Puerto Montt, beach drift,
25.xii.1984
(S. & J.Peck) (
FMNH
);
GERMANY
:
Ψ, N Friesen Islands, Spekeroog Island,
20.v– 16.vi.1992
(B.W.Johanning) (
KSEM
);
SWEDEN
:
ɗ, Ψ, Oskarshamn,
10.vi.1941
(H.Bachlund) (
KSEM
);
UNITED KINGDOM
:
ɗ, Aldeburgh,
15.viii.1925
(C.J.Saunders) (
BMNH
).
Diagnosis.
Halobrecta flavipes
is closely related to
Ha. algophila
, but differs in having the body size smaller on average; and the spatuliform apex of the median lobe larger (in parameral view), the apex is 1.4–1.5 times as wide as the median lobe measured subapically at its narrowest point (1.1 times in
Ha. algophila
) (
Figs. 41–44
; 22–23, 26–27).
FIGURES 41–44.
Aedeagus of
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson
(male from Oskarshamn, Sweden (41–42), and male paralectotype of
Atheta pocahontas
Casey
(43–44)). 41, 43 — median lobe, parameral view; 42, 44 — apex of median lobe, parameral view. Scale bar 0.1 mm (42, 44), 0.2 mm (41, 43).
Halobrecta flavipes
differs from the Mediterranean species tentatively identified as
Ha. halensis
(see Discussion for
Halobrecta
) in having the median lobe of the aedeagus narrower (in parameral view) (
Figs. 41–44
; 64).
Halobrecta flavipes
differs from the Palaearctic
Ha. algae
and
Ha. princeps
by having the posterior margin of the male tergum 8 rounded and not crenulate (
Fig. 37
) (in
Ha. algae
and
Ha. princeps
the posterior margin is straight and may be slightly crenulate (
Fig. 52
)), and by the apex of the median lobe broader (
Figs. 41–44
; 56–57).
FIGURES 45–48.
Aedeagus of
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson
(males, from Oskarshamn, Sweden (45–46), and lectotype of
Atheta pocahontas
Casey
(47–48)). 45, 47 — median lobe, lateral view; 46, 48 — apex of median lobe, lateral view. Scale bar 0.1 mm (46, 48), 0.2 mm (45, 47).
Halobrecta flavipes
differs from the Oriental
Ha. cingulata
in having a different shape of the median lobe (in lateral view) (
Figs.
45–48
in this paper;
Fig. 9
, G in
Sawada 1985
).
Halobrecta flavipes
differs from the Neotropical
Ha. discipula
in having a different shape of the median lobe (in parameral view) (
Figs. 41–44
: this paper;
Fig. 3
:
Pace 1999
).
Description.
Length
2.9–3.2 mm
. Pronotal width
0.53–0.61 mm
, length
0.43–0.51 mm
. Elytra 1.3–1.5 times as long as pronotum.
In all character states very similar to
Ha. algophila
, but differs in the shape of the median lobe as described in the diagnosis.
Aedeagus as in
Figs. 41–50
. Spermatheca as in
Fig. 51
.
FIGURES 49–51.
Genitalia of
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson
(male (49–50) and female paralectotypes of
Atheta pocahontas
(51)). 49 — details of retracted internal sac, lateral view; 50 — apex of left paramere, marginal view; 51 — spermatheca. Scale bar 0.1 mm (50–51), 0.2 mm (49).
Discussion.
The male
types
of
At. pocahontas
are similar in external characters to the
lectotype
of
Ha. flavipes
, as well as in the shape of the aedeagus. These names are deemed to be synonyms.
The only existing
type
of
Al. incertula
is a female but it was collected in the same locality as the male
lectotype
of
At. pocahontas
. Since the
type
of
Al. incertula
is similar to examined specimens of
Ha. flavipes
, the first name is placed in synonymy with the second.
The single existing
type
of
At. vaticina
is a female but it is similar in external characters to the examined specimens of
Ha. flavipes
. Considering that all examined males from the East Coast belonged to
Ha. flavipes
, I synonymize
At. vaticina
with that species.
It seems appropriate to discuss the status of the names listed as synonyms of
Ha. flavipes
by
Fenyes (1920)
and
Bernhauer and Scheerpeltz (1926)
. Unfortunately, these authors sometimes did not distinguish between newly proposed names and subsequent usage of these names. This practice, followed by some recent authors (
e. g.
,
Klimaszewski
et al.
2002
), is very confusing. The entries for "
elongatula
Stephens, 1832
", "
atricilla
Scriba, 1866
" and "
puncticeps
Mulsant &
Rey, 1875
" (see
Fenyes 1920
, p. 185;
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz 1926
, p. 621;
Klimaszewski
et al.
2002
, p. 483) in fact refer to subsequent citations of the names proposed by
Gravenhorst (1802, as
Aleochara elongatula
)
;
Erichson, (1839
, as
Homalota atricilla
) and
Thomson (1852, as
Homalota puncticeps
)
.
Stephens (1832, p. 127)
,
Scriba (1866, p. 290)
and Mulsant and
Rey (1875
, p. 38) clearly did not intend to describe new species and referred to original papers of Gravenhorst, Erichson and Thomson. Even if Stephens, Scriba and Mulsant and Rey applied the same species names in a different sense, their usage did not create new nominal taxa but instead represents misidentifications.
Despite the fact that Thomson described
Ha. flavipes
as a member of the genus
Halobrecta
, this taxon was not accepted as a genus separate from
Atheta
by some of his colleagues (
e.g.
,
Waterhouse 1863
;
Sharp 1869
;
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz 1926
). Since
Waterhouse (1863)
placed
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson
in
Homalota
, together with
Aleochara flavipes
Gravenhorst, 1806
(now considered a member of
Notothecta
Thomson, 1858
), he had to introduce (
Waterhouse 1863, p. 138
) a new name (
Homalota maritima
) to replace the resulting secondary junior homonym
Homalota flavipes
(Thomson)
. Unfortunately, the name proposed by Waterhouse is preoccupied and
Sharp (1869)
had to propose a different replacement name for
Homalota flavipes
(Thomson)
. Now that
Halobrecta flavipes
Thomson, 1861
is a member of the genus
Halobrecta
and
Aleochara flavipes
Gravenhorst, 1806
is a member of
Notothecta
, the replacement names
Homalota maritima
Waterhouse
and
Ho. halobrectha
Sharp
are unnecessary and become objective synonyms of
Ha. flavipes
.
Homalota atricilla
Erichson, 1839
, described from Sardinia, is usually considered a member of
Halobrecta
(
e.g.
,
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz 1926
). If this is true then
Ho. atricilla
is the oldest name in the genus
Halobrecta
. However the description of this species, particularly the shape of the antennal segments 4–10 does not fit any of the five species of
Halobrecta
examined by me. According to
Kraatz (1857)
and
Scriba (1866)
the single
type
of
Ho. atricilla
(deposited in the museum of Turin) is an immature poorly pigmented specimen.
Scriba (1866)
considered
Ho. atricilla
to be conspecific with
Ha. flavipes
but
Sharp (1869)
did not agree with this opinion because Erichson's description did not fit Sharp's specimens of
Ha. flavipes
(which he referred to as
Ho. halobrectha
). In my opinion,
Ho. atricilla
may not even belong to
Halobrecta
. Reexamination of the
type
of this species is necessary to clarify the status of this name.
Two species of
Halobrecta
were described from the Channel coasts of northern
France
:
Ha. pubes
(Mulsant &
Rey, 1873
)
from Normandy and
Ha. anthracina
Fairmaire, 1853
) from the embouchure of the River Somme. One species,
Halobrecta halensis
Mulsant &
Rey, 1873
, was described from the Mediterranean coasts of
France
(Languedoc) and may be conspecific with the specimen from
Italy
illustrated in
Figs. 64–65
(See Discussion in
Halobrecta
). Examination of
types
is necessary to clarify the status of these three species.
The examined specimens from Chaiten,
Chile
, listed by
Pace (2000)
as
Ha. flavipes
belong in fact to
Ha. algophila
.
Distribution.
Halobrecta flavipes
is known from the Atlantic coast of North
America
(Virginia and New York), from
Chile
and Europe.
Natural History.
Halobrecta flavipes
is a marine littoral species.