Protandroconnus fimbriatulus Jałoszyński 2020, comb. n.
Creators: name: Jałoszyński, Paweł
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Staphylinidae
Protandroconnus
Protandroconnus fimbriatulus

description: Protandroconnus fimbriatulus (Reitter), comb. n.
Euconnus fimbriatulus Reitter, 1882: 151. Also as Euconnus in Reitter & Croissandeau (1890): 219, and Franz (1967): 660; redescribed and maintained in Euconnus by Franz (1993): 221.
Euconnus (Microscydmus) fimbriatulus Reitter; Csiki (1919): 55.
(Figs 23–29)
Type material. Syntype: BRAZIL (São Paulo State): ♀, seven historical labels (Fig. 24): “ Euconnus / fimbriatu- lus / Rttr Brasil ” [originally white, now darkened, handwritten], “ 80 Aug. / Brasil / Sao Paulo / 2600 [last ‘0’ filled in black] Fss [i.e., Fuss = feet] / L. Müller ” [originally white, now darkened, handwritten, text in square frame], “ fimbriatulus Rttr ” [green, handwritten], small golden circle; “ Euconnus / fimbriatulus Rtt. / det. H.Franz ” [white, handwritten and printed], “ Syntypus ” [red, printed], “ Lectotypus / des. Franz ” [red, handwritten]; during the present study a new label was added: “ PROTANDROCONNUS / fimbriatulus (Reitter, 1882) / det. P. Jałoszyński, 2020” [white, printed] (SDEI).
Diagnosis. BL> 1.10 mm; EI> 1.35; PL/PW> 1.00; PL/EL <0.50.
Redescription. Body of female (Fig. 23) moderately slender and moderately convex, brown, setae and bristles slightly lighter than cuticle; BL 1.13 mm.
Head (Figs 25–26) broadest at moderately large, strongly convex eyes, HL 0.18 mm, HW 0.23 mm; frons indistinctly impressed behind weakly elevated supraantennal tubercles; tempora about as long as eyes in dorsal view, moderately convergent posteromesad and evenly rounded. Vertex and frons with inconspicuous, small and shallow punctures; setae moderately long and suberect, sparse. Antennae (Fig. 25) slender, AnL 0.55 mm; antennomeres I and II each elongate, III–VII each about as long as broad; VIII indistinctly transverse; IX and X each distinctly transverse; XI indistinctly shorter than IX and X combined, about 1.6 × as long as broad.
Pronotum (Fig. 25) broadest slightly behind middle; PL 0.30 mm, PW 0.28 mm. All margins rounded. Punctures on pronotal disc fine, inconspicuous; most setae on dorsal region in the only available specimen broken off, on sides replaced by long erect bristles.
Elytra (Fig. 23) together oval, broadest near middle; EL 0.65 mm, EW 0.48 mm, EI 1.37; basal impressions short and shallow, humeral calli distinct, elongate, elytral apices separately rounded. Punctures inconspicuous, fine; setae sparse, suberect, short.
Hind wings not studied.
Legs long and slender; unmodified.
Male. Unknown.
Distribution. Southern Brazil.
Remarks. This species cannot be included in Euconnus because of entirely obliterated notosternal sutures (present and complete in Euconnus), and the metaventral intercoxal process composed of a pair of long spines that do not separate metacoxae (metacoxae variously broadly separated by a process without spines in Euconnus). All characters of the studied specimen agree with those of Protandroconnus Franz, 1989 (recently reviewed by Jałoszyński 2019). The hypomeral ridges (Fig. 27; hyr) are more diffuse than those in the type species of Protandroconnus, but this is the only, and rather minor, difference.
Reitter (1882) did not specify the number of specimens included in the type series, and consequently the only known type specimen, preserved at SDEI, is a syntype. However, this specimen is problematic. Franz (1993) examined this specimen and redescribed it. However, although the label data agree with the information given by Reitter (“ Brasil, Sao Paulo, 2600 F. ü. d. M. [i.e., feet above sea-level]”, morphological characters given by Franz (1993) do not agree with the specimen. Franz described eyes as being so large that the tempora are absent, the pronotum with a pair of antebasal pits, and the elytra subequal in length to the head and prothorax combined. The specimen, however, has distinct and relatively long tempora, the pronotum lacking antebasal pits, and the elytra clearly longer than the head and pronotum together. The description by Reitter (1882) is too short and superficial to verify Franz’s redescription. Either Franz could not see well morphological details of tiny (1.13 mm) specimen mounted in such a way that it was hardly possible to assess its general shape (Fig. 23 shows a re-mounted specimen), or he accidentally switched specimens or labels. In the latter case, the specimen labeled as E. fimbriatulus does not belong in this species. The first explanation seems more plausible; the 1993 paper was published when Franz was in the middle of his eighties, and even though he continued to be astonishingly productive into his nineties (O’Keefe 1998), the quality of his descriptions and illustrations during the last 20 years of his work was poor and it is not uncommon to find serious misinterpretations in his papers, especially for very small beetles (Jałoszyński, pers. obs.). The same observation refers to his specimens―those mounted and dissected during his eighties and nineties are frequently partly damaged, disarticulated or completely covered with glue, and the handwriting on labels becomes less legible (Jałoszyński, pers. obs.). However, if the specimens and labels have been misplaced, it may not be possible to clarify this problem, as the characters described both in Reitter (1882) and Franz (1993) match those of many species in various genera of Glandulariini. The label “ Lectotypus des. Franz” has been added later, as it is clearly not in Franz’s hand; Franz did not mention any lectotype designation in his 1993 paper.
description: Published as part of Jałoszyński, Paweł, 2020, Corrections to the classification of the Neotropical ant-like stone beetles misplaced in Euconnus Thomson (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Scydmaeninae). Part 1., pp. 251-270 in Zootaxa 4755 (2) on pages 261-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4755.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/3731581