Bull. Natn. Sci. Mus., Tokyo, Ser. A, 30(4), pp. 155–171, December 22, 2004

Revision of Stenichnus Thomson (Insecta, Coleoptera, Scydmaenidae)
of Japan and Taiwan
Pawel Jaloszyński⁄⁄

Os. Wichrowe Wzgórze 22/13, 61–678 Poznań, Poland

Abstract Ant-like stone beetles of the genus Stenichnus Thomson of Japan and Taiwan are revised. Stenichnus klapperichi Franz, S. taiwanicus Franz, S. taiwanensis (Franz) from Taiwan and
S. pollens (Sharp) from Kyushu are redescribed. Three new species are described: S. bellulus sp.
nov. from Taiwan and the Yaeyama Islands, S. totoro sp. nov. from the Yaeyama Islands and S.
minipollens sp. nov. from Hokkaido. Important morphological details (including aedeagi and spermathecae) are illustrated and a key to all treated species is provided.
Key words : Coleoptera, Scydmaenidae, Stenichnus, taxonomy, new species, Japan, Taiwan.

Introduction
Stenichnus Thomson (Scydmaeninae, Cyrtoscydmini) is distributed worldwide and comprises nearly two hundred species, being thefourth largest genus in the Scydmaenidae, afterEuconnus Thomson, Scydmaenus Latreille and
Sciacharis Broun (Newton & Franz, 1998). In
South and East Asia, Stenichnus is represented
only by a few species: Stenichnus wailimae
Lhoste from Sumatra (Lhoste, 1939; Franz,1970); S. klapperichi Franz, S. taiwanicus Franzand S. taiwanensis (Franz) from Taiwan (Franz,
1985; Jal oszyński, 2003); S. pollens (Sharp)
from Japan (Sharp, 1886); S. aemulator, S. dividus and S. saltuarius recently described by
Kurbatov (1993) from the Russian Far East. Also
the occurrence of two common European species
has been reported from East Siberia: S. bicolor
Denny, and S. collaris Müller et Kunze (Denny
1825; Jakobson, 1910; Franz, 1970; Kurbatov,1993). Additionally, Csiki (1910) in his catalogueof the Scydmaenidae automatically placed in
Stenichnus two species from the Philippines,
originally described in the genus Cyrtoscydmus
Motschulsky (now treated as a subgenus ofStenichnus): C. fundaebraccatus C. Schaufuss
and C. manillae C. Schaufuss. These species infact do not belong to Stenichnus but to the enormously large Euconnus complex (Jal oszyński,⁄⁄

unpublished observations) and their systematic
position will be clarified elsewhere.
The present paper is a continuation of mystudy on the Scydmaenidae of Japan, and a resultof examination of specimens deposited in various
museums, as well as materials collected during
my two trips to the Yaeyama Islands, in the winter 2002/2003 and summer 2003. One of species
collected in Ishigaki-jima and Iriomote-jima appeared to occur also in Taiwan. Therefore, the revision is not limited only to Japan; also all Taiwanese species are included.
The studied material is deposited in the following collections: The Natural History Museum, London, U.K. (BMNH), Hungarian Natural
History Museum, Budapest, Hungary (HNHM),
National Science Museum, Tokyo, Japan(NSMT), Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria (NMW), and the private collection of the author, Poznań, Poland (PCPJ).
Taxonomy
Genus Stenichnus Thomson
Stenichnus Thomson, 1859: 61. Type species: Scydmaenus exilis Erichson, 1837 (des. orig.).

Stenichnus is poorly defined, and even the author of the revision of European species, HerbertFranz, has erroneously placed one species in Horaeomorphus Schaufuss (Franz, 1985). The mor-

156

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄

phology of Horaeomorphus and Stenichnus wascompared very recently and some useful diagnostic characters of the latter genus were indicated (Jal oszyński, 2003). Presently Stenichnus isdivided into five subgenera; status of each ofthem seems to be unclear. Minor subgenera Austrostenichnus Franz, Scydmaenichnus Reitter and
Scydmaenilla King comprise three, five andseven species, respectively; their placement in
Stenichnus needs to be verified. Subgenera
Stenichnus s. str. and Cyrtoscydmus Motschulsky
include a majority of species. Their diagnoses areunclear, and on the basis of the existing literature
the subgenera cannot be unambiguously distinguished and seem to be synonymous (discussed
below). In the present paper, they are treated collectively as the Stenichnus/Cyrtoscydmus complex. All species from Japan and Taiwan are
members of this large group.
Before a comprehensive revision of the genus
is undertaken, the following set of characters canbe used to distinguish members of Stenichnus s.
str. and Cyrtoscydmus from all other genera of
the Cyrtoscydmini: mandibles sickle-like, long,
curved and slender, often with finely serrated internal margin; maxillary palpus with very small
palpomere I, elongate, pipe-like palpomere II,
enlarged, elongate palpomere III and relatively
small and narrow, subconical palpomere IV;
clypeus separated from frons by transverse
groove; vertex without foveae; neck broad, only
slightly narrower than vertex; antenna gradually
thickening toward apex; pronotum widest nearanterior third, often heart-shaped with straight or
arcuate base, with row of ante-basal pits or punctures, lateral margins rounded, without sharpedges or lateral carinae; elytra oval, elongate,with variously developed basal foveae; scutellum
small but well visible; procoxae contiguous;
mesocoxae separated by very narrow mesosternal
process; metacoxae nearly contiguous; mesosternal carina low, not projecting ventrally beyond
coxae; metasternum relatively short, usuallyshorter than visible abdominal sternites.
Diagnostic characters of Stenichnus s. str. andCyrtoscydmus were discussed by Franz (1960).
⁄⁄

In his paper some problems with definitions of
the two subgenera were indicated, but diagnoses
proposed therein are not entirely clear. According
to that paper, Stenichnus s. str. comprises species
having small and slender body, heart-shaped andvery convex pronotum without distinct ante-basal
foveae, elongate elytra, each with single, sometimes indistinct basal fovea and without a character called the “Humeralfalte” (see below). Also,
the protibiae of males are more broadly clavate,
but dorsal margin of the distal, clavate part offemur is never expanded to form a distinct angle.
The aedeagus elongate, apical part of the median
lobe not considerably shorter than the basal capsule, with a plate-like structure projecting fromthe apical opening, surrounded at each side by anadditional structure of internal sac. The subgenus
Cyrtoscydmus, in turn, has been defined by thepresence of six ante-basal foveae on the pronotum, median four pits in some cases connectedby a groove, each elytron with two basal foveae,
sometimes indistinctly separated, and the“Humeralfalte” always present (Franz, 1960).
The type species of the subgenus Cyrtoscydmus,
S. collaris Müller et Kunze, 1822 (and also manyother species of Cyrtoscydmus known to the author of the present paper) has each elytron withmoderately prominent humeral callus delimited
by a short and relatively shallow impression.
Therefore, the structure called by Franz and other
German-speaking authors the “Humeralfalte”(“humeral fold” of Vit, 1999) can be interpreted
as the border between the internal humeral impression and the humeral callus; its shape partially depends on the development of the latter structure (which, in turn, may correlate to the degreeof development of hind wings). In the present
paper the term “internal humeral impression” isused consequently to replace the German“Humeralfalte”.
Diagnoses of the two largest subgenera of
Stenichnus given by Franz in his revision cited
above are ambiguous, and in the very same paper
he described or redescribed species of Cyrtoscydmus, which do not have six foveae on the pronotum: S. godarti Latreille, S. besucheti Franz andStenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

S. foveola Ray. They all have a transverse antebasal row of numerous, small to very small pits
or rather punctures. In the key to the Scydmaenidae of Central Europe, Franz and Besuchet(1971) gave characteristics of the two subgenera
very similar to those adopted earlier in Franz,
1960. The main modification was that Stenichnus
s. str. (represented in the area covered by the key
by a single species) may have four small foveae
on the pronotum, and species of Cyrtoscydmus,
in some cases, may have a transverse groove or arow of small punctures instead of six ante-basal
pits on the pronotum. This alteration was madeapparently in order to adjust the definition of
Cyrtoscydmus to fit better to S. godarti and S.
foveola (S. besucheti does not occur in Central
Europe). Later, Franz described or redescribedseveral species, which have characteristics that
disagree with earlier diagnoses, without providing any particular reasons for their subgenericplacement. The examples are: S. (Cyrtoscydmus)
picipennis Reitter, which has the pronotum without basal foveae or groove and the elytra without
humeral calli and without “Humeralfalte”, S.
(Cyrtoscydmus) amplithorax Reitter, also without
typical for Cyrtoscydmus structures in the base of
the elytra, or S. (s. str.) emgei Reitter, redescribedas having two basal foveae on the pronotum anda short “Humeralfalte” (Franz, 1975, 1982). The
appearance of the base of the pronotum and elytra has not been described in the case of certain
number of species, mostly placed in Cyrtoscydmus, and reasons for their subgeneric position
have not been explained (e.g., S. (Cyrtoscydmus)
tenerifae Franz (1971)).
Relationships between the nominotypical subgenus and Cyrtoscydmus are additionally complicated by the fact that the type species of thegenus Stenichnus is Scydmaenus exilis Erichson,
1837Stenichnus bicolor Denny, 1825, which
was treated as a member of the subgenus Cyrtoscydmus by Franz (1960) and Franz & Besuchet (1971). The type species of Cyrtoscydmus(S. collaris) has been designated only recently(by Franz, in Newton & Franz, 1998). Two
species of Stenichnus examined during the pre-157

sent work, S. klapperichi and S. taiwanicus, havebeen published as incertae sedis (Franz, 1985),
despite labeling the type material as belonging to
Stenichnus s. str. (see label data and remarks in
the redescriptions of both species in the further
parts of the present paper). Moreover, three
species recently described by Kurbatov (1993)
from the Russian Far East also have not beenplaced in any subgenus.
The size and number of ante-basal pronotal
foveae or punctures is variable within some genera of the Cyrtoscydmini (e.g., Horaeomorphus),
and it seems to be a rather weak diagnostic character. The lack or presence of humeral calli andinternal humeral impressions may be related tothe development of hind wings, as mentioned
above. Such a correlation was observed in Syndicus Motschulsky (Jal oszyński, 2004). In order toclarify the systematics of the Stenichnus/Cyrtoscydmus complex and to provide ground forunambiguous subgeneric division of Stenichnus,
a comprehensive study of all species of the genus
is necessary. Especially diagnostic value of theabove mentioned characters, as well as the number and degree of fusion of basal elytral foveae,
must be analyzed.
All species treated in the present paper might
be placed in Cyrtoscydmus, on the basis of theirhigh similarity to European species belonging tothis subgenus. However, the purpose of this revision is to provide descriptions and redescriptionsof species of Stenichnus inhabiting a relatively
small area, and the taxonomical problems briefly
indicated in previous paragraphs will require amore comprehensive approach. Therefore, allJapanese and Taiwanese species of Stenichnus
are herein treated as incertae sedis, belonging to
the informal Stenichnus/Cyrtoscydmus complex.
Species of Stenichnus of Japan and Taiwan canbe identified by means of the following key:⁄

Key to Species of Stenichnus of Japanand Taiwan
1. Body length2 mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2— Body length1.8 mm.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

158

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄

2. Antennomere VII distinctly elongate, nearly
twice as long as wide. . . . . . S. totoro sp. nov.
— Antennomere VII as long as wide or minimally longer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Pronotum slightly longer than wide; antennomere XI about twice as long as wide. Taiwan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. taiwanensis (Franz)— Pronotum as long as wide; antennomere XI
shorter, about 1.5 as long as wide. Kyushu.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. pollens (Sharp)
4. Elytral punctation fine and sparse. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. taiwanicus Franz— Elytral punctation very distinct, relatively
dense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Antennomere VII as long as wide; dorsal margin of clavate part of profemur in males ex-⁄

panded dorsally near middle. Hokkaido. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. minipollens sp. nov.
— Antennomere VII distinctly elongate; dorsal
margin of clavate part of profemur in males
expanded dorsally near apical fourth. Taiwan
and Yaeyama Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Body more slender and larger, 1.6–1.75 mm inlength.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. klapperichi Franz— Body more stout and smaller, 1.49–1.6 mm.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. bellulus sp. nov.
Stenichnus bellulus sp. nov.
(Figs. 1A–D, 2A, 3A–D, 7A, 8A–B)

Diagnosis. This new species is the smallest
Japanese Stenichnus, with relatively stout body.

Fig. 1. Stenichnus bellulus sp. nov.; labrum in dorsal view (A), left mandible in dorsal view (B), left maxilla inventral view (C), labium in ventral view (D). Scale: 0.05 mm.

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

Examination of aedeagus is necessary to confirm
identification.
Description. Body small, relatively stout,
moderately light brown, legs and palpi slightly
lighter; setation light brown.
Male. Body length: 1.49–1.6 mm (mean:
1.55 mm). Head broader than long, widest atlarge, finely faceted eyes, length: 0.25 mm,
width: 0.31 mm. Tempora moderately long,strongly narrowing posteriorly, only slightly, regularly rounded; vertex broad, convex; frons relatively small, trapezoidal, slightly convex;
supraantennal tubercles indistinct. Punctation
sparse and fine; setation sparse, long, suberect toerect. Antenna (Fig. 2A) slender, length: 0.70–
0.72 mm (mean: 0.71 mm), antennomeres I–II
and V over twice as long as wide, III–IV twice aslong as wide, VI slightly less than twice as longas wide, VII slightly longer than wide, VIII–IX
distinctly transverse, XI short, slightly less than
1.5 as long as wide at base, subconical, distinctly asymmetrical.
Mouthparts (Fig. 1A–D): Labrum (Fig. 1A)
over twice as broad as long, with rounded anterior and lateral margins, with symmetrically distributed short setae in middle of anterior margin,
dorsal surface with very long and very shortsetae. Mandible (Fig. 1B) elongate, slender, sickle-like, base broadened, with three setae, apicalpart strongly curved, internal edge very finely
serrated, prostheca rudimentary. Maxilla (Fig.
1C) with elongate, triangular stipes; elongate
palpifer with long setae in distal part; elongate
lacinia divided into broad basal part with setanear internal margin and distal part bearing row
of thick and dense setae along internal margin;and elongate galea with three long setae on external lateral margin and row of dense, thick setae
along apical margin; palpomere I small, elongate,
about twice as long as wide, with single seta;
palpomere II elongate, with broadened distal
half, over 5 as long as wide at apex, with several moderately long setae in distal half; palpomere
III large, widest slightly distally to middle, about3 as long as wide, with relatively sparse andshort setation; palpomere IV small, conical, 2.5159

Fig. 2. Right antenna in dorsal view; S. bellulus
sp. nov. (A), S. totoro sp. nov. (B), S. taiwanensis (Franz) (C), S. klapperichi Franz (D), S.
taiwanicus Franz (E), S. pollens (Sharp) (F), S.
minipollens sp. nov. (G). Scale: 0.5 mm.

as long as wide at base, with sparse, short setae.
Labrum (Fig. 1D) with large, strongly transverse,
subtrapezoidal mentum with distinct median tubercle in distal part, pair of long setae and several very short setae on ventral surface, hypopharynx moderately large, palpus labialis relatively
short, palpomere I cylindrical, slightly longer
than wide, with (possibly) setiferous puncturenear base, palpomere II larger than I, twice aslong as wide, widest near middle, with three apical setae, palpomere III long and slender, about
5 as long as wide at base, asetose.
Pronotum as long as wide, widest near anterior
fourth, length: 0.39–0.41 mm (mean: 0.4 mm),maximum width: 0.39–0.4 mm (mean: 0.4 mm),width at base: 0.29–0.30 mm (mean: 0.30 mm).
Sides strongly narrowing from widest place toposterior third, then only slightly convergent;base arcuate, with four very small, in some specimens very indistinct foveae, all separated by similar distances. Punctation sparse and fine; seta-

160

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄tion sparse, long, erect.
Elytra relatively stout, moderately convex,
widest clearly before middle, length: 0.85–0.94
mm (mean: 0.90 mm), width: 0.62–0.66 mm(mean: 0.65 mm), EI: 1.37–1.42. Humeral calli
and internal humeral impressions indistinct, very
faint; single basal fovea on each elytron relatively⁄

small, circular, located closer to scutellum thanto humerus; apices of elytra separately rounded.
Scutellum small, triangular, with rounded apex
and hardly visible, circular median impression.
Punctation of elytra moderately dense, distinct,
composed of relatively well delimited, moderately large punctures; setation relatively sparse,

Fig. 3. Aedeagus in dorsal (A, D), ventral (B, E) and lateral (C, F) views, pigmentation indicated only in dorsal
aspect; S. bellulus sp. nov. (A–C), S. totoro sp. nov. (D–F). Scale: 0.2 mm.

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

long, erect. Hind wings well developed, about
twice as long as elytra.
Profemur (Fig. 8A) in apical part with slightly
expanded dorsal margin, in lateral view finely
serrated.
Aedeagus (Fig. 3A–C) moderately elongate,
0.24 mm in length, relatively lightly sclerotized,with shallow and short median longitudinalgroove on dorsal wall; hymenous part of internal
sac large; apical part of median lobe with dark161

subtrapezoidal plate-like structure; in lateral view
apex distinctly curved ventrally; parameres relatively short, with several moderately long apicalsetae.
Female. Very similar to male, differs only in
profemora, which are slender, not expanded (Fig.
8B). Body length: 1.53–1.58 mm (mean: 1.56mm), length of head: 0.25 mm, width of head:
0.30–0.31 mm (mean: 0.31 mm), length of antenna: 0.67–0.70 mm (mean: 0.68 mm), length ofFig. 4. Aedeagus in dorsal (A, D), ventral (B, E) and lateral (C, F) views, pigmentation indicated only in dorsal
aspect; S. klapperichi Franz (A–C), S. taiwanicus Franz (D–F). Scale: 0.2 mm.

162

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄

pronotum: 0.37–0.41 mm (mean: 0.4 mm), maximum width of pronotum: 0.4–0.42 mm (mean:
0.41 mm), width of pronotum at base: 0.30–0.31
mm (mean: 0.30 mm), length of elytra: 0.91–0.92
mm (mean: 0.91 mm), width of elytra: 0.62–0.67
mm (mean: 0.66 mm), EI: 1.37–1.47.
Spermatheca (Fig. 7A) small, diameter: 0.07mm, nearly spherical, with sharply delimited insertion of ductus spermathecae approximate tobroad insertion of very weakly sclerotized andbarely noticeable accessory gland.
Distribution. Japan: Yaeyama Islands (Sakishima Archipelago), Iriomote-jima and Ishigakijima; Taiwan.
Holotype, ?, Japan, Okinawa Pref., Yaeyama
Islands, Ishigaki Is., Mt. Omoto-dake, ca. 100 m,
2. i. 2003, P. Jal oszyński leg. (NSMT).
Paratypes: 2??, 2// , same data as holotype, except for 17. ix. 2003 (PCPJ); ?, same data except
for 28. iv. 1999, T. Shimada leg. (NSMT); 2??,same locality, 100 m, 15.–21. iii. 2004, flight intercept trap, S. Nomura leg. (NSMT); 2// , Ishigaki Is., Mt. Banna-dake, ca. 200 m, 31. xii.
2002, P. Jal oszyński leg. (PCPJ); 2??, Ishigaki
Is., Ura-Banna, 100 m, 16.–21. iii. 2004, flightintercept trap, S. Nomura leg. (NSMT); ?, Ishigaki Is., Mt. Buzama, 14.–19. v. 2002, flight intercept trap, S. Hori leg. (NSMT); /, Ishigaki Is.,
Mt. Nosoko-dake, 200 m, 12. vi. 2003, H.
Mizushima leg. (NSMT); /, Ishigaki Is., Takedarindô, 6. vi. 2003, S. Nagashima leg. (NSMT); /,Yaeyama Isls., Iriomote Is., Ôhara env., 13. ix.
2003, P. Jal oszyński leg. (PCPJ); ?, same data
but 19. ix. 2003 (PCPJ); ?, Iriomote Is., Kanpiree, 12 . iv. 1986, S. Nomura leg. (NSMT); /,same data except for 13. iv. 1986 (NSMT); ?,Taiwan, Taipei Hsien, Fu-Shan, “lake shore,meadow, swept”, 25. iii. 2003, L. Papp & M.
Foldvari leg. (HNHM).
Etymology. The specific epithet “bellulus” in
Latin means “pretty, fine, beautiful”.
⁄⁄⁄

Stenichnus totoro sp. nov.
(Figs. 2B, 3D–F, 5, 7B, 8C–D)

Diagnosis.

This species has large body,⁄pronotum about as long as wide or slightly wider
than long, antennomeres IX–X nearly as long as
wide, relatively long antennomere XI and uniqueaedeagus.
Description. Body large, relatively stout,
moderately light brown, palpi and tarsi slightly
lighter; setation light brown.
Male (Fig. 5). Body length: 2.15–2.19 mm(mean: 2.16 mm). Head broader than long,widest at large, finely faceted eyes, length: 0.37–
0.40 mm (mean: 0.38 mm), width: 0.45–0.47 mm(mean: 0.46 mm). Tempora long, strongly narrowing posteriorly, only slightly rounded; vertex
broad, convex; frons relatively small, trapezoidal,
slightly convex; supraantennal tubercles indistinct. Punctation sparse, composed of distinct,
but small punctures; setation sparse, long,
suberect to erect. Antenna (Fig. 2B) slender,
length: 1.05–1.07 mm (mean: 1.06 mm), antennomeres I–V over twice as long as wide, VI–VII
about twice as long as wide, VIII–X about aslong as wide, XI subconical, elongate, distinctly
asymmetrical, twice as long as wide.
Pronotum about as long as wide, widest nearanterior fourth, length: 0.56–0.57 mm (mean:
0.565 mm), maximum width: 0.57 mm, width atbase: 0.43–0.45 mm (mean: 0.44 mm). Sides
strongly narrowing from widest place to posterior third, then only slightly convergent; base arcuate, with 10–12 small, nearly circular pits, somefused one to another, located in indistinct transverse impression. Punctation sparse, composedof relatively small but distinct punctures; setation
sparse, long, suberect to erect.
Elytra broad and very convex, widest slightly
anterior to middle, length: 1.22 mm, width: 0.94–
0.97 mm (mean: 0.95 mm), EI: 1.26–1.3. Humeral calli distinct; internal humeral impression very
faint; single basal fovea on each elytron relatively
small, circular, located closer to scutellum thanto humerus; apices of elytra separately rounded.
Scutellum small, triangular, with rounded apex
and distinct circular median impression. Punctation of elytra relatively sparse but distinct, composed of slightly diffused, moderately large punctures; setation relatively sparse, long, erect. Hind

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

Fig. 5.

Stenichnus totoro sp. nov., male habitus. Scale: 1 mm.

163

164

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄⁄

Fig. 6. Aedeagus in dorsal (A, D), ventral (B, E) and lateral (C, F) views, pigmentation indicated only in dorsal
aspect; S. pollens (Sharp) (A–C), S. minipollens sp. nov. (D–F). Scale: 0.2 mm.

wings well developed, about twice as long as
elytra.
Profemur (Fig. 8C) in apical part with relatively strongly expanded, round dorsal margin, in
dorsal view apex of femur with distinct, slightly
coarse punctation.
Aedeagus (Fig. 3D–F) large, 0.40 mm inlength, relatively lightly sclerotized, in lateralview with strongly curved apex, in dorso-ventral

view median lobe bears pair of triangular lateralexpansions above lightly sclerotized, oval hymenous area; internal armature composed of relatively lightly sclerotized V- or short Y-shapedsclerite and pair of elongate lateral sclerites protruding from apical opening; parameres long,
slender, not exceeding apex of aedeagus, withnumerous apical and subapical setae of various
lengths.

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

Female. Externally similar to male, except
for having slender profemora (Fig. 8D), pronotum slightly broader than long and higher elytral
index. Body length: 2.12–2.21 mm (mean: 2.15mm), length of head: 0.37–0.39 mm (mean: 0.37mm), width of head: 0.42–0.46 mm (mean: 0.44mm), length of antenna: 1.05–1.07 mm (mean:
1.06 mm), length of pronotum: 0.5–0.56 mm(mean: 0.53 mm), maximum width of pronotum:
0.57–0.59 mm (mean: 0.58 mm), width of pronotum at base: 0.42–0.45 mm (mean: 0.43 mm),length of elytra: 1.25–1.26 mm (mean: 1.25 mm),width of elytra: 0.92–0.97 mm (mean: 0.95 mm),
EI: 1.3–1.36.
Spermatheca (Fig. 7B) relatively small, 0.08
mm in diameter, with ovoid, only slightly elongate capsule with conical, long and broad insertion of ductus spermathecae approximate to insertion of accessory gland.
Distribution. Japan: Ryukyus, Yaeyama Islands (Sakishima Archipelago), Iriomote-jimaand Ishigaki-jimaHolotype, ?, Japan, Ryukyus, Okinawa Pref.,165

Yaeyama Isls., Iriomote Is., Ohtomi, 28. iv. 2003,
pine wood, Hiroki Satô leg. (NSMT). Paratypes:
2// , same data (NSMT); /, Iriomote Is., Ôhara

Fig. 7. Spermatheca; S. bellulus sp. nov. (A), S.
totoro sp. nov. (B), S. taiwanensis (Franz) (C),S. klapperichi Franz (D), S. taiwanicus Franz(E). Scale: 0.05 mm.

Fig. 8. Distal part of right profemur in antero-lateral view; S. bellulus sp. nov., male (A), female (B), S. totoro
sp. nov., male (C), female (D), S. taiwanensis (Franz), female (E), S. klapperichi Franz, males (F, G), female(H), S. taiwanicus Franz, males (I–K), female (L), S. pollens (Sharp), male (M), S. minipollens sp. nov., male
(N). Scale: 0.1 mm.

166

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄env., 3. i. 2003, leaf litter, P. Jal oszyński leg.
(PCPJ); ?, /, same data except for 13. ix. 2003
(PCPJ); /, same data but 16. ix. 2003 (PCPJ); /,same data but 19. ix. 2003, rotten wood (PCPJ);/, Iriomote Is., Komi, 2. iii. 2002, T. Ishikawa
leg. (PCPJ); ?, Ishigaki Is., Ura-Banna, 100 m,
16.–21. iii. 2004, flight intercept trap, S. Nomura
leg. (NSMT); ?, Ishigaki Is., Mt. Omoto-dake,
100 m, 15.–21. iii. 2004, flight intercept trap, S.
Nomura leg. (NSMT).
Etymology. This species is named after alarge, cat-like creature featured in the Japanese
cartoon “Tonari no Totoro” by Hayao Miyazaki.
Remarks. This species is most similar to the
only known female of S. taiwanensis (Franz), but
can be distinguished by different proportions ofantennomeres and distinctly broader pronotum.
⁄

Stenichnus taiwanensis (Franz)(Figs. 2C, 7C, 8E)
Horaeomorphus (s. str.) taiwanensis Franz, 1985: 95;
O’Keefe & Li, 1998:159.
Stenichnus(Cyrtoscydmus)
taiwanensis(Franz):Jaloszyński, 2003: 115, figs. 2C, D, J.
⁄

Diagnosis. This species can be identified on
the basis of its large body, pronotum slightly
longer than wide, distinctly transverse antennomeres VIII–X and relatively long antennomere
XI.
Redescription. Body large, relatively stout,
moderately light brown, setation minimallylighter than body.
Male. Unknown.
Female. Body length: 2.11 mm. Head broader than long, widest at large, finely faceted eyes,
length: 0.37 mm, width: 0.45 mm. Tempora long,strongly narrowing posteriorly, only slightly
rounded; vertex broad, convex; frons relatively
small, trapezoidal, slightly convex; supraantennal
tubercles indistinct. Punctation sparse, composedof distinct, but small punctures; setation sparse,
long, suberect to erect. Antenna (Fig. 2C) slender, length: 0.97 mm, antennomeres I–II over
twice as long as wide, III–VI about as long as
wide, VII only minimally longer than wide,⁄

VIII–X wider than long, XI subconical, distinctly
asymmetrical, twice as long as wide.
Pronotum slightly longer than wide, widest
near anterior fourth, length: 0.54 mm, maximum
width: 0.52 mm, width at base: 0.41 mm. Sides
strongly narrowing from widest place to posterior third, then only slightly convergent toward
minimally arcuate base; ante-basal pits numerous(about ten), small, from circular to slightly irregular in shape, located in indistinct transverse
groove. Punctation sparse, composed of relatively small but distinct punctures; setation sparse,
long, suberect to erect.
Elytra broad and very convex, widest slightly
anterior to middle, length: 1.20 mm, width: 0.91mm, EI: 1.32. Humeri distinct; internal humeral
impression very faint; single basal fovea on each
elytron relatively small, circular, located closer toscutellum than to humerus; apices of elytra separately rounded. Scutellum small, triangular, withrounded apex and distinct, circular median impression. Punctation of elytra relatively sparse
but distinct, composed of slightly diffused, moderately large punctures; setation relatively sparse,
long, erect. Hind wings well developed.
Profemur (Fig. 8E) similar to that of femalesof S. totoro, slender.
Spermatheca (Fig. 7C) relatively small, 0.09
mm in diameter, with ovoid, distinctly elongate
capsule with conical, short and broad insertion of
ductus spermathecae near insertion of accessory
gland.
Distribution. Taiwan.
Holotype, /, two white labels with black
handwritten “Taiwan, 1400 m, Fenchihu, 12.4.77,
lg. Klapperich”, “Horaeomorphus taiwanensis
m.” and printed “det. H. Franz”; small label witha female symbol; red label with handwritten“Holotypus”, white printed label “Stenichnus(Cyrtoscydmus) taiwanensis (Franz), det. P.
Jal oszyński, 2003” (NMW).
Remarks. The only known female of thisspecies is extremely similar to S. totoro (see remarks under the latter species).
⁄

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

Stenichnus klapperichi Franz(Figs. 2D, 4A–C, 7D, 8F–G)
Stenichnus klapperichi Franz, 1985: 94, fig. 4; O’Keefe &Li, 1998:159.

Diagnosis. This species is small, has rather
slender body and distinct elytral punctation. Examination of aedeagus is necessary for certain
identification.
Redescription. Body small, relatively slender, light to moderately dark brown, legs, palpi
and antennae minimally lighter; setation yellowish.
Male. Body length: 1.68–1.75 mm (mean:
1.71 mm). Head wider than long, widest at large,
finely faceted eyes, length: 0.24–0.26 mm (mean:
0.25 mm), width: 0.31 mm. Tempora moderately
long, strongly convergent, only slightly rounded;vertex broad, convex; frons subtrapezoidal,
slightly convex; supraantennal tubercles indistinct. Punctation sparse and fine, unevenly distributed; setation sparse, relatively long, suberect
to erect. Antenna (Fig. 2D) slender, 0.74 mm inlength, antennomeres I–II over twice as long as
wide, III twice as long as wide, IV–V slightly
more, VI slightly less than twice as long as wide,
VII as long as wide, VIII–IX distinctly transverse, XI subconical, asymmetrical, twice as longas wide.
Pronotum as long as wide or minimally longer,
widest near anterior fourth, length: 0.44–0.47
mm (mean: 0.455 mm), maximum width: 0.44–
0.45 mm (mean: 0.445), width at base: 0.29–0.30
mm (mean: 0.295 mm). Sides strongly narrowing
from widest place to posterior fourth, then only
slightly convergent; base arcuate, with six very
faint foveae (median pair and two lateral pairs),
not connected by groove or impression. Punctation very faint, sparse; setation sparse, long,erect.
Elytra oval, elongate, moderately convex,
widest just anterior to middle, length: 1.00–1.02
mm (mean: 1.01 mm), width: 0.74 mm, EI: 1.38–
1.45. Humeri relatively indistinct; internal
humeral impression very faint, barely noticeable;
single basal fovea on each elytron small, circular,

167

located very close to scutellum; apices of elytra
separately rounded. Scutellum small, triangularwith rounded apex and faint median circular impression. Punctation of elytra distinct, composedof moderately dense, small, relatively well delimited punctures; setation long, moderately dense
and erect. Wings well developed, about twice aslong as wide.
Profemur (Fig. 8F, G) variable in shape, withslightly or distinctly expanded and very finely
serrated apical part of dorsal margin.
Aedeagus (Fig. 4A–C) relatively stout, 0.25
mm in length, moderately darkly sclerotized,with pair of darker, elongate structures in apicalpart of median lobe surrounding similarly dark
median plate; in lateral view apex slightly curved
ventrally, in dorso-lateral view apex subtriangular, rounded; parameres relatively short, with several moderately long apical setae.
Female. Externally very similar to male, differing in slender profemora (Fig. 8H), higher elytral index and development of hind wings, which
are only slightly longer than elytra, very narrow,apparently non-functional. Body length: 1.60–
1.71 mm (mean: 1.65 mm), length of head: 0.24–
0.25 mm (mean: 0.25 mm), width of head: 0.29–
0.31 mm (mean: 0.30 mm), length of antenna:
0.70–0.80 mm (mean: 0.75 mm), length of pronotum: 0.41–0.45 mm (mean: 0.43 mm), maximum
width of pronotum: 0.41–0.45 mm (mean: 0.43mm), width of pronotum at base: 0.29–0.31 mm(mean: 0.30 mm), length of elytra: 0.95–1.01 mm(mean: 0.97 mm), width of elytra: 0.61–0.71 mm(mean: 0.68 mm), EI: 1.42–1.56.
Spermatheca (Fig. 7D) nearly spherical, verysmall, 0.06 mm in diameter, with very narrow insertion of ductus spermathecae and well marked,
broad insertion of accessory gland.
Distribution. Taiwan.
Holotype, ?, white handwritten label “Taiwan,
1400 m, Fenchihu, 12.4.77, lg. Klapperich”,
white handwritten label “Stenichnus (s. str.) klapperichi m.” and printed “det. H. Franz”, smalllabel with male symbol, and red handwritten“Holotypus” (NMW). Allotype, /, same data as
holotype, except for “13.4.77”, small label with

168

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄

female symbol, and red handwritten “Allotypus”(NMW). Paratypes: 1?, 3/, same data as holotype, except for yellow identification label withprinted “PARATYPUS” (NMW), 1/, same dataas allotype, except for yellow identification label
as above (NMW).
Remarks. This species is externally hardly
distinguishable from S. taiwanicus Franz; it differs in having more distinct punctation on theelytra and in the shape of the aedeagus. Spermathecae of both species are very similar andidentification of females may be possible only
when they have been collected together withmales.
Stenichnus taiwanicus Franz(Figs. 2E, 4D–F, 7E, 8I–L)
Stenichnus taiwanicus Franz, 1985: 94, fig. 5a, b;
O’Keefe & Li, 1998:159.

Diagnosis. This species has small and slender body and relatively finely punctate elytra. Examination of aedeagus is necessary for certain
identification.
Redescription. Body small, relatively slender, light to relatively dark reddish-brown, legs
and palpi minimally lighter; setation yellowish.
Male. Body length: 1.64–1.73 mm (mean:
1.68 mm). Head wider than long, widest at large,
finely faceted eyes, length: 0.25–0.26 mm (mean:
0.26 mm), width: 0.30–0.31 mm (mean: 0.31mm). Tempora moderately long, strongly convergent, only slightly rounded; vertex broad, convex;
frons subtrapezoidal, slightly convex; supraantennal tubercles indistinct. Punctation sparse andfine, unevenly distributed; setation sparse, relatively long, suberect to erect. Antenna (Fig. 2E)
slender, length: 0.77–0.8 mm (mean: 0.78 mm),
antennomeres I–II and V distinctly over twice aslong as wide, III and VI twice as long as wide,
IV twice or slightly more than twice as long as
wide, VIII as long as wide, IX–X nearly as longas wide (minimally transverse), XI subconical,
asymmetrical, twice as long as wide.
Pronotum as long as wide, widest near anterior
fourth, length: 0.4–0.45 mm (mean: 0.42 mm),⁄maximum width: 0.4–0.45 mm (mean: 0.41),
width at base: 0.30–0.31 mm (mean: 0.30 mm).
Sides strongly narrowing from widest place toposterior fourth, then only slightly convergent;base arcuate, with six variably distinct, rather
faint foveae; in holotype and some other males
distances between pits are subequal, in otherspecimens pits are grouped in three pairs, usually
not connected by groove, but in a few specimens
foveae are located in indistinct transverse impression. Punctation very faint, sparse; setation
sparse, long, erect.
Elytra oval, elongate, moderately convex,
widest just anterior to middle, length: 0.99–1.02
mm (mean: 1.00 mm), width: 0.66–0.67 mm(mean: 0.66 mm), EI: 1.50–1.52. Humeri relatively indistinct; internal humeral impression
very faint, barely noticeable; single basal fovea
on each elytron small, circular, located closer toscutellum than to humerus; apices of elytra separately rounded. Scutellum small, triangular withrounded apex and faint median circular impression. Punctation of elytra relatively fine, moderately sparse; setation long, moderately dense
erect. Hind wings well developed.
Profemur (Fig. 8I–K) shows some degree ofinter-individual variability, dorsal margin expanded, with very finely serrated apical part.
Aedeagus (Fig. 4D–F) elongate, relatively
slender, 0.25 mm in length, relatively lightly sclerotized, with distinct longitudinal median groove
in dorsal wall surrounded at each side by distinctly darker structures; internal sac hymenous,
barely visible; apical part of median lobe withdarker subtrapezoidal plate-like structure; in lateral view apex not curved; parameres not exceeding apex of aedeagus, with several moderately
long apical setae.
Female externally very similar to male, but has
slender, non-modified profemora (Fig. 8L) andreduced wings, which are distinctly shorter thanelytra and non-functional. Body length: 1.73 mm,
length of head: 0.27 mm, width of head: 0.30–
0.31 mm (mean: 0.305 mm), length of antenna:
0.76–0.79 mm (mean: 0.77 mm), length of pronotum: 0.45 mm, maximum width of pronotum:

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

0.43–0.45 mm (mean: 0.44 mm), width of pronotum at base: 0.30 mm, length of elytra: 1.01 mm,
width of elytra: 0.66–0.67 mm (mean: 0.665mm), EI: 1.51–1.53.
Spermatheca (Fig. 7E) large, 0.13 mm in diameter, slightly asymmetrical, with narrow insertionof ductus spermathecae and indistinctly marked,
broad insertion of duct of accessory gland.
Distribution. Taiwan.
Holotype, ?, white handwritten label “Taiwan,
Alishan, 2400, 10.6.77, lg. Klapperich”, whitehandwritten “Stenichnus taiwanicus m.” andprinted “det. H. Franz”, and red handwrittenlabel “Holotypus” (NMW). Paratypes: 2??, data
as holotype, except for yellow handwritten label“Stenichnus taiwanicus m.” and printed“PARATYPUS” (NMW). Additional material
studied: /, M. Taiwan, Tsi Feng, 2300 m, 15. iii.
1989, “Coll. K. Baba”; 2??, 2// , M. Taiwan,
Mei Feng, Nan Tou Hsien, 28. vii. 1989, “Coll.
K. Baba”; ?, N. Taiwan, Chu Ton, Shin Chu
Hsin, 28. vii. 1989, “Coll. K. Baba” (NSMT,PCPJ).
Remarks. This species is externally extremely similar to S. taiwanicus Franz, see remarks
under description of that species.
Stenichnus pollens (Sharp)(Figs. 2F, 6A–C, 8M)
Scydmaenus pollens Sharp, 1886: 49.
Stenichnus (Cyrtoscydmus) pollens (Sharp): Franz, 1976:
59; Jakobson, 1910: 593.
Stenichnus pollens (Sharp): O’Keefe & Li, 1998: 160.

Diagnosis. Stenichnus pollens can be distinguished from similar, large species by relatively
short antennomere XI and unique aedeagus.
Redescription. Body large, reddish-brown,legs and antennae minimally lighter, palpi yellowish, setation light brown.
Male. Body length: 2.02 mm. Head broader
than long, widest at large, finely faceted eyes,
length: 0.34 mm, width: 0.4 mm. Tempora long,strongly narrowing posteriorly, rounded, rapidly
bent inwards just before occiput; vertex broad,convex; frons relatively small, trapezoidal, slight-

169

ly convex; supraantennal tubercles indistinct.
Punctation sparse and relatively fine but distinct;
setation sparse, long, suberect to erect. Antenna(Fig. 2F) slender, length: 1.02 mm, antennomeres
I–IV each over twice as long as wide, V–VI
about twice as long as wide, VII 1.5 times aslong as wide, VIII–X about as long as wide, XI
slightly asymmetrical, rather short, minimallylonger than 1.5 width.
Pronotum as long as wide, widest near anterior
third, length: 0.51, maximum width: 0.51 mm,
width at base: 0.42. Sides strongly narrowing
from widest place to about posterior fourth, then
only slightly convergent; base arcuate, with numerous small pits slightly irregular in shape andpartly fused one to another, pits located in distinctly impressed groove. Punctation very sparseand fine; setation sparse, long, suberect to erect.
Elytra broad and very convex, widest distinctly
anterior to middle, length: 1.17 mm, width: 0.90mm, EI: 1.30. Humeral calli moderately distinct;
internal humeral impression very faint, barely
noticeable; single basal fovea on each elytron relatively small and shallow, circular, located closer
to scutellum than to humerus; apices of elytra
separately rounded. Scutellum small, triangular,
with rounded apex. Punctation of elytra in anterior 2/3 very distinct, punctures large, dense andwith well delimited margins, in posterior thirdpunctures reducing in diameter and depth, gradually becoming less distinct and with diffused
margins; setation moderately dense, long, erect.
Hind wings about twice as long as elytra.
Dorsal margin of clavate part of profemur(Fig. 8M) expanded in middle and finely serrated
in distal part.
Aedeagus (Fig. 6A–C) large, 0.37 mm inlength, darkly sclerotized, with broad base of median lobe, narrowing toward rounded apex, in lateral view apex not curved; dorsal wall with large
and dark projection with slightly broadened apical part; endophallus composed of nearly symmetrical, inversely Y-shaped sclerite surroundedat base by hymenous structures of internal sac;parameres long, slender, not exceeding apex of
aedeagus, with three apical setae of various

170

Pawel Jaloszyński⁄

lengths.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution. Japan: Kyushu.
Holotype, ?, mounted on large rectangle ofthick cardboard with faded handwritten “Scydmaenus pollens Type D.S., Oyayama, 26. 4. 91[i.e. 1891], Lewis” (the last word barely legible);the specimen bears small, circular white labelwith broad red margin and printed “Type H.T.”,and small rectangular white label with yellow
line and printed above it “Japan.”, beneath theline “G. Lewis., 1910-320.” (BMNH).
Remarks. The type locality specified in thelabel as “Oyayama” is situated on the southwestern slope of the Aso Mts., Kumamoto Pref.
Stenichnus minipollens sp. nov.
(Figs. 2G, 6D–F, 8N)

Diagnosis. This Stenichnus can be easily
identified on the basis of its relatively small body,dorsal margin of profemur in male expanded in
middle, antennomeres VI–X as long as wide or
wider, very dense punctation of anterior half of
elytra and unique aedeagus.
Description. Body small, relatively stout,
moderately dark brown, legs, palpi and antennaslightly lighter; setation yellowish.
Male. Body length: 1.59 mm. Head wider
than long, widest at large, finely faceted eyes,
length: 0.25 mm, width: 0.31 mm. Tempora moderately long, strongly convergent, regularly,
slightly rounded; vertex broad and convex; frons
subtrapezoidal, nearly flat; supraantennal tubercles indistinct. Punctation sparse and fine, sides
of vertex with a few larger punctures; setation
sparse, long, suberect to erect. Antenna (Fig. 2G)
slender, length: 0.75 mm, antennomeres I–II over
twice as long as wide, III–V about 1.5 as longas wide, VI–VIII about as long as wide, IX minimally, X distinctly wider than long, XI short, lessthan 1.5 as long as wide at base, subconical,
distinctly asymmetrical.
Pronotum as long as wide, widest near anterior
third, length: 0.39 mm, maximum width: 0.39mm, width at base: 0.31 mm. Sides strongly nar-⁄rowing from widest place to posterior 1/5, then
only slightly convergent; base arcuate, with minimally impressed transverse row of about twelve
small pits of similar, but variable diameters, unevenly distributed, some pits fused one to another. Punctation very sparse and fine; setation
sparse, moderately long, erect.
Elytra oval, moderately convex, rather stout,
widest just anterior to middle, length: 0.95 mm,
width: 0.71 mm, EI: 1.34. Humeral calli and internal humeral impressions very indistinct; single
basal fovea on each elytron small, circular, located closer to scutellum than to humerus; apices of
elytra separately rounded. Scutellum triangularwith rounded apex, median impression not visible. Punctation of elytra in anterior half relatively
dense, composed of moderately large and deep,
slightly diffused punctures, in posterior half
punctures reducing in depth and in hind third
they are very diffused and indistinct; setation
moderately dense and long, suberect. Hind wings
well developed, about twice as long as elytra.
Profemur (Fig. 8N) similar to that of S.
pollens, with dorsal margin of clavate part expanded in middle, its distal part not serrated.
Aedeagus (Fig. 6D–F) darkly sclerotized,
stout, 0.24 mm in length, with long subtriangularprojection over dorsal circular hymenous areaand elongate, relatively lightly sclerotized internal armature; parameres not reaching apex ofmedian lobe, with several short apical setae.
Female. Unknown.
Distribution. Japan: Hokkaido.
Holotype, ?, Japan, Hokkaido, Ebetsu central,
Nopporo Forest Park, 64414432 Chuosen-S.,
21.–30. v. 2002, flight intercept trap, S. Hori leg.
(NSMT).
Etymology. This species is named “minipollens” because it is very similar to S. pollens, except for having much smaller body than its congener described earlier.
Acknowledgments
I express my thanks to museum curators whoarranged loans of the material used in my study:

Stenichnus from Japan and Taiwan

Dr. Shûhei Nomura (NSMT), Dr. Harald Schillhammer (NMW), Dr. Otto Merkl (HNHM), andDr. Martin Brendell (BMNH). I am also greatly
indebted to Japanese entomologists, who deposited interesting specimens in NSMT or offered me
valuable materials for study: Mr. Shigehisa Hori,
Mr. Seidai Nagashima, and Mrs. Shiho Arai.
References
Csiki, E., 1919. Scydmaenidae. In Schenkling, S. (ed.),Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 70 [pp. 1–106]. W.
Junk, Berlin.
Denny, H. 1825. Monographia Pselaphidarum et Scydmaenidarum Britanniae: or an essay on the British
species of the genera Pselaphus, of Herbst, and Scydmaenus, of Latreille: in which those genera are subdivided, and all the species hitherto discovered in GreatBritain are accurately described and arranged, with anindication of the situations in which they are usuallyfound. S. Wilkin. Norwich. vi74 pp., 14 pls.
Franz, H. 1960. Revision der Stenichnus-Arten des westlichen Mediterrangebietes sowie Mittel- und Nordwesteuropas (Col. Scydmaenidae). Eos, Revista Española
de Entomologia, 36: 277–371.
Franz H., 1970. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Scydmaenidenfauna Asiens. Koleopter. Rdsch., 48: 27–29
Franz H., 1975. Zur Kenntnis der Scydmaenidenfauna desKaukasus und Palästinas. Kol. Rundsch., 52: 15–34.
Franz, H., 1976. Neue Scydmaeniden aus Japan, sowie
Bemerkungen zu bekannten Arten. Ent. Bl., 72: 51–60.
Franz H., 1982, Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Scydmaeniden
des Mediterrangebietes und des Kaukasus. Ent. Bl., 78:
151–182.
Franz, H., 1985. Neue und ungenugend bekannte Scyd-

171

maeniden (Coleoptera) aus Taiwan, Fukien und Thailand. Mitt. Munch. ent. Ges., 74: 91–128.
Franz, H., & C. Besuchet., 1971. Familie: Scydmaenidae.
In Freude, H., K. W. Harde and G.A., Lohse (eds.), Die
Käfer Mitteleuropas. Vol. 3, Adephaga 2, Palpicornia,
Histeroidea, Staphylinoidea 1, pp. 271–303. Goecke &Evers, Krefeld.
Jakobson, G. G., 1910. Zhuki Rosii i zapadnoy Evropy.
Scydmaenidae pp. 588–596. Part 8: 561–640. A. F.
Davriena, St. Peteresburg.
Jaloszyński, P., 2003. Taxonomical notes on Southeast
Asiatic species of Horaeomorphus Schaufuss(Coleoptera, Scydmaenidae), with description of a new
species from Taiwan. Bull. nat. Sci. Mus., Tokyo, (A),
29: 107–117.
Jaloszyński P., 2004. Revision of scydmaenid beetles of
the genus Syndicus Motschulsky (Coleoptera, Scydmaenidae). Nat. Sci. Mus. Mon., (25), 108 pp. National
Science Museum, Tokyo.
Kurbatov, S. A., 1993. Scydmaenid beetles of the genera
Stenichnus Thoms. and Euconnus Thoms. (Coleoptera,
Scydmaenidae) of Russian Far East. Ent. Obozr., 72:
591–596. (In Russian.)
Newton, H. F., & H. Franz, 1998. World catalog of thegenera of Scydmaenidae (Coleoptera). Koleopt. Rdsch.,
68: 137–165.
O’Keefe, S. T., & J. K. Li, 1998. Review of the Scydmaenidae (Coleoptera) of eastern Asia, with particularreference to Scydmaenus, and description of the first
scydmaenid from Hainan Island, China. J. N. Y. ent.
Soc., 106: 150–162.
Sharp, D., 1886. The Scydmaenidae of Japan. Ent. month.
Mag., 23: 46–51.
Thomson, C. G., 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, Vol. 1. 290 pp. Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund.
⁄⁄