Orchidophilus epidendri Murray, comb. n.
Creators: name: Prena, Jens
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2008
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Orchidophilus
Orchidophilus epidendri

description: Orchidophilus epidendri (Murray), comb. n.
Centrinus epidendri Murray, 1869: 1279. Neotype male, here designated, labelled “Pascoe Coll./ B. M. 1893-60.”, “ NEOTYPUS / Centrinus / epidendri / Murray 1869 / Prena design. 2007” (BMNH). Barber (1917), Schlechter (1927; synonymy with Acythopeus aterrimus suspected), Swezey (1945), Voss (1961).
Acythopeus genuinus Pascoe, 1887: 359. Lectotype female, here designated, labelled [on underside of card] “Conservatory/ Tunbridge Wells”, “SYN-/ TYPE ”, “DATA/ under card”, handwritten “ genuinus ”, “ Malaisia ”, “Pascoe Coll./ B.M. 1893-60.”, handwritten “ aterrimus / C. W.” (BMNH). Paralectotypes: 2 females, labelled [on underside of card] “Conservatory/ Tunbridge Wells”, “SYN-/ TYPE ”, “DATA/ under card”, “ Malaisia ”, “Pascoe Coll./ B.M. 1893-60.” (BMNH); “SYN-/ TYPE ”, “Conservatory/ Tunbridge”, “Pascoe/ Coll./ 93–60.” (BMNH). Morimoto (1994). syn. n.
Acythopeus geminus. Hustache (1938; lapsus).
Baris orchivora Blackburn, 1900: 61. Lectotype male, here designated, on card in red ink “6714”, Maiden’s [?] handwriting “ Dendrobium pest/ Bot. Gardens/ Maiden, 17.6.99 ”, Blackburn’s [?] handwriting “ Baris / orchivora Blackb / cotype”, Lea’s handwriting “9.10534/ Baris / orchivora / N. S. Wales / Syn. of Acythopeus / aterrimus Wath / [in red] Cotype” (SAM). Paralectotypes: 2 females, same data as holotype without Lea’s label (SAM); on card in red ink “6714” and below in black ink “1st”, “ Type ”, printed “Blackburn/ coll./ 1910–236.”, Blackburn’s [?] handwriting “ Baridius / orchivora, Blackb ” (BMNH). Froggatt (1904), Meyer (1905), Lea (1906; synonymy with Acythopeus aterrimus), Quanjer (1906), Champion (1913; resurrection as valid species, generic assignment not explicitly stated); [epithet here considered a noun as first used by Champion (1916); the Latin adjective is ‘ vorax ’]. syn. n.
Acythopeus orchivora. Champion (1916), Barber (1917), Weiss (1917), Weigel & Sasscer (1923), Blatchley (1925), Schlechter (1927), Hustache (1938; synonymy with B. aterrimus), Heller (1940).
Orchidophilus orchivora. Buchanan (1935), Swezey (1945), Pritchard (1959), Voss (1961), Zimmerman (1992), Morimoto (1994; synonymy with O. aterrimus).
Apotomorhinus orchidearum Kolbe, 1906: 4. Lectotype male, here designated, labelled “Java oder/ Sumatra an/ Phalaenopsis rymestadiana/ K. Klitzing.”, “ Apotomorhinus / orchidearum / n. sp. Kolbe”, prothorax partially damaged (MNHUB). Paralectotypes: 2 males, 1 female, labelled “ Apotomorhinus / orchidearum / n. sp. Kolbe” (MNHUB); “Java/ Sumatra/ (Orchid.)”, “1683” (MNHUB); “Malay. Archipel” (MNHUB). Barber (1917), Buchanan (1935), Schlechter (1927; synonymy with Acythopeus aterrimus), Hustache (1938), Swezey (1945), Voss (1961), Morimoto (1994). syn. n.
Distribution. Native to Indonesia; adventive but not established in Australia, Germany, Great Britain, South Africa and the United States.
Plant associations. Orchidaceae, Epidendroideae: Dendrobium canaliculatum, Dendrobium sp., Paphiopedilum sp., Phalaenopsis amabilis.
Records. Australia: Sydney, botanical garden, 1899 (SAM, 3; BMNH, 1); Queensland (SAM, 1). Germany: Berlin, 1906, 1912, greenhouse (ZMHB, 6; DEIC, 1). Great Britain: Torquay (BMNH 1); Tunbridge Wells (BMNH, 3). Indonesia: Buitenzorg [Bogor], 1932 (BMNH, 1), ditto, 1934 (BMNH, 1); Raha, Moena [Muna], 1936 (BMNH, 1); Ambon Island, 1937 (USNM, 7). South Africa: Durban (ANIC, 1). United States: Rutherford, NJ, 1915, 1916, greenhouse (AMNH, 21; ANIC, 1; BMNH, 2; USNM, 2); Kensington, MD, 1971, greenhouse (USNM, 9). Without locality data: (BMNH, 3).
Notes. The existence of a sibling species of O. aterrimus has been debated in the literature for more than a century. Lea (1906) compared a (now legless) male syntype of O. aterrimus with specimens of O. orchivora that Froggatt received from the director of the Sydney Botanical Garden (Froggatt 1904). The synonymy proposed by Lea (1906) was contested by Champion (1913) on grounds that are puzzling. The supposed holotype 1 of O. orchivora studied by Champion is a female and does not provide sufficient evidence for such a conclusion. The three specimens from Tunbridge Wells cited by him under O. aterrimus actually are syntypes of O. genuinus and agree with O. orchivora. The supposed O. aterrimus collected from Dendrobium in Torquay also is O. orchivora. Finally, the type series of O. aterrimus includes four males rather than one. I found no evidence that Champion recognized any O. orchivora before 1916 (except for the BMNH syntype), when he received two males collected by Weiss in a greenhouse in Rutherford, New Jersey (Champion 1916). Orchidophilus aterrimus and O. orchivora were synonymized again by Hustache (1938) without comment. Swezey (1945), Prichard (1959) and Voss (1961) treated both species as valid. Zimmerman (1992; unpubl. manuscript) recognized O. orchivora as a distinct species based on two syntypes in the Lea Collection and a representative number of other specimens. Morimoto (1994) re-established the synonymy based on the female “ type ” at the BMNH.
A ventral projection on the male middle tibia occurs predominantly in large specimens; its size and presence is related to body size. Edentate males usually have the outer striae and interstria less modified than dentate males. Other frequently occurring differences, such as the transversely impressed scutellum, the distally slightly more projecting margin of the fifth ventrite (Fig. 7) and the longer aedeagal flagellum in edentate males, are less conspicuous when similar-sized specimens are compared. I was unable to recognize any differences in the female genitalia or in the mouth parts. Based on comparison of specimens in the upper size range and absence of transitional forms in the large series from Singapore, Hawaii and New Jersey [H. B. Weiss material], I consider O. orchivora as distinct from O. aterrimus. Representative material from a variety of natural habitats is needed to verify this conclusion.
Baris orchivora is a junior subjective synonym of Acythopeus genuinus Pascoe and a senior subjective synonym of Apotomorhinus orchidearum Kolbe (both syn. n.). An even older available name is Centrinus epidendri Murray. Subsequent to a presentation of an infested exotic orchid at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society in March 1869, two anonymous notes appeared in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, one by I. O. W[estwood] describing the chalcidid wasp Isosoma orchidearum, the other by A. M[urray] describing Centrinus epidendri. Murray seems to have invested considerable effort in the identification of this weevil and made a reasonable comparison with the North American C. scutellumalbum in the description. Even though generally ignored in catalogs, the name cannot be suppressed as a nomen oblitum because it was cited as valid by Barber (1917), Schlechter (1927) and Swezey (1945). The Murray Collection was auctioned by Stevens in 1878; the fate of the weevils apparently is unknown. Because (1) the specimen was reared from an orchid, (2) the description clearly fits Orchidophilus and (3) the name was used as valid in the 20th century and cannot therefore be suppressed as a nomen oblitum, I here designate a neotype for C. epidendri and place it in Orchidophilus Buchanan. Two black Orchidophilus species, i.e., O. aterrimus and O. genuinus, have been introduced to England. I apply the name epidendri to the latter because aterrimus is an established name and orchivora is also junior to genuinus and thus will be invalid in any case. A male specimen without collecting data from the Pascoe Collection is designated here as neotype of epidendri and will be deposited in the BMNH. This designation clarifies the nomenclature of an economically important pest species and promotes nomenclatural stability of the name aterrimus. To accomplish nomenclatural stability of epidendri, I also here designate lectotypes for its subjective junior synonyms genuinus, orchivora and orchidearum, with the data given above.
1. Blackburn referred in the description to nonnuli exempli, hence there must have been at least three syntypes. The acquisition of Blackburn types by the BMNH in 1909 does not constitute a lectotype designation.
Orchidophilus insidiosus Prena, sp. n.
Description. Habitus (Fig. 5): Total length (without rostrum) 2.6–2.7 mm, standard length (without head) 2.4–2.6 mm; integument dark reddish brown, matt, elytral interstriae with glabrous, incrassate, orange sections forming two irregular fasciae near base and near declivity, punctures with inconspicuous setae. Head: Spherical, with microsculpture, frons coarsely punctate, frontal fovea elongate and slightly larger than punctures, eyes oval, flat, rostrum 1.08x longer than pronotum, moderately thick, strongly curved at base, punctures coarse, longitudinally confluent, almost striate dorsally, mandibles decussate, with large secondary tooth, length of anteantennal portion 0.38x length of rostrum; scrobe with upper margin not reaching ventral edge of rostrum, antenna moderately thick, first funicular segment 2x larger than second, 2–7 gradually increasing in width, basal joint of club continuous with funicle, assuming approximately two-thirds of entire length of club, glabrous, with same type of setae as funicle. Pronotum: 1.17x wider than long, widest in middle, gradually narrowed to base, rounded to front and constricted there, lateral and ventral portions of constriction deeply punctate, punctures coarse and regularly spaced on disk, intervals narrow, postocular lobes inconspicuous. Scutellum: Free, square to pentagonal. Elytra: Humeri prominent, 1.17x wider than prothorax, sides gradually narrowed in basal two-thirds, apices rounded conjointly, subapical callosity indistinct, striae deep cut, with punctures barely affecting edge of interstriae, interstriae flat except near apex and in orange sections, sutural interstria with regular row of punctures, two irregular fasciae near base and declivity formed by incrassate, glabrous, orange sections on intervals 3–8 (5–8 at base), interstriae narrowed here. Underside: Coarsely but evenly punctate throughout, antecoxal portion of prosternum unmodified, prosternum and mesosternum not in same plane, exposed distal portion of pygidium abruptly curved ventrad and separated by transverse carina, metepisternum with single row of punctures at middle. Legs: Robust, of subequal size, venter of femora and tibiae unmodified, procoxae separated by half their width, claws short, separate at base.
Material examined. Holotype female, labelled “ AUSTRALIA:/ at San Francisco/ 43982 III-24-1969 / R. T. Wion”, “on Sarcochilus var./ Hartmanii root/ 69-18782”, “ Baridinae / Genus? sp.?/ Det: R. E. Warner”, “ HOLOTYPE / Orchidophilus / insidiosus Prena ” (deposited in USNM). Paratype female, same data as holotype (ANIC).
Specific epithet. A regular Latin adjective; denoting an ‘insidious orchid friend’.
Plant association. Orchidaceae, Epidendroideae: Sarcochilus hartmannii.
Notes. This is the smallest and most slender of all known Orchidophilus species and can be recognized easily by its distinctive color pattern. The two specimens were intercepted in association with an orchid endemic to eastern Australia. Further evidence is necessary to prove that this weevil species is native to Australia.
description: Published as part of Prena, Jens, 2008, A synopsis of the orchid weevil genus Orchidophilus Buchanan (Curculionidae, Baridinae), with taxonomic rectifications and description of one new species, pp. 18-30 in Zootaxa 1783 on pages 23-27, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.182379