Copris (Copris) armeniacus Faldermann 1835
Creators: name: Ziani, Stefano
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Scarabaeidae
Copris
Copris armeniacus

description: Copris (Copris) armeniacus Faldermann, 1835
Copris armeniaca Faldermann 1835: 238; Marseul 1866: 51.
Copris armeniacus: Marseul 1857: 79; Harold 1869: 1014; Reitter 1892: 216 (footnote); Mollandin de Boissy 1905: 113; Reitter 1906: 730; Gillet 1910: 20; Gillet 1911: 72; Olsoufiev 1918: 39 (key); Winkler 1929: 1027; Balthasar 1935: 69 (footnote); Bogachev 1938: 144; Balthasar 1963: 335; Iablokoff-Khnzorian 1967: 124; Baraud 1992: 325; Carpaneto et al. 2000: 230; Tauzin 2001: 115; Kabakov 2006: 95; Löbl et al. 2006: 152; Nádai and Vig 2006: 98; Shokhin 2007: 120; Rozner and Rozner 2009: 80; Marchisio and Zunino 2012: 144 and 155 (footnotes); Shokhin et al. 2012: 67; Ziani and Sama 2013: 461; Král and Bezděk 2016: 168.
Type locality. Probably Armenia (see “Historical Review”).
Type material. Not found (see “Remarks”).
Distribution. Armenia, Turkey, Iran (Král and Bezděk, 2016), Azerbaijan (Kabakov 2006), Georgia (Marchisio and Zunino 2012).
Remarks. I have not been able to trace the type material of Copris armeniacus. It is not in MNHN (teste Antoine Mantilleri), ZIN (teste Andrey Frolov), ZMUM (teste Aleksey Gusakov), or in other important European museums such as Berlin, Budapest, Dresden, Frankfurt, London, Munich, Oxford, Prague and Yerevan. Schaum (1849) claimed to have received all the type specimens of Faldermann’s collection from Choudoir, but he was probably referring to the Cetoniinae species. The location of the types, particularly that of Copris armeniacus, is unknown.
Therefore, all the systematic considerations regarding this species are necessarily deduced only from Faldermann’s original description that follows, and on the assertions of the authors who have dealt with the matter.
Faldermann (1835): “221. Copris Armeniaca MIHI
Subcylindrica, nigra; clypeo antice semicirculariter rotundato, profunde sed anguste emarginato, vertice subcornuto; thorace crebre et rude punctato; elytris profunde crenato-striatis.
Longit. 7 lin. Lat. 4 lin.
Statura Copridi emarginate Fabr. affinis, sed duplo minor, et plerumque magis cylindrica; magnum quidem habet similitudinem cum Copride sulcicolli Dalm. ex Insula Java, paullo tantum minor, elytrisque minus profunde striatis.
Clypeus magnus, semicircularis, anguste tamen profunde emarginatus, obsolete punctatus, in medio cornu brevi, erecto, obtuso; margine praesertim antico admodum reflexus; subtus rufo-pilosus; oculis griseis, antennis rufis. Thorax brevissimus, basi rotundatus, margine incrassatus, reflexus, angulis rotundatis; lateribus nonnihil rotundatis, reflexis; apice profunde et late emarginatus, ibique angulis latis, valde productis, obtusis, rufo-ciliatis; supra convexus, punctis numerosis, profundis; disco longitudinaliter late canaliculatus, antice in medio tuberculo brevi transversaliter parum elevato; foveola profunda, rotundata, latera versus utrinque; apice et lateribus antice rufociliatus. Elytra basi thoracis vix angustiora, in medio nonnihil dilatata, apice obtuse rotundata; supra valde convexa, regulariter profunde crenato-striata, interstitiis laevissimis, parum elevatis. Corpus subtus piceum, rude punctatum, cum pedibus rufo-pilosum.”
[221. Copris armeniaca MIHI. Sub-cylindrical, black. Clypeus round anteriorly, clearly even if finely emarginated, vertex sub-horned; prothorax densely deeply punctate; elytra deeply crenate-striate. [length and width: see below]. Length one-half that of Copris emarginatus Fabr. and, besides, more cylindrical; it is very similar to Copris sulcicollis Dalm. from Java Island, only a bit smaller and with elytra less deeply striate. Clypeus wide, semicircular, with a narrow but deep emargination, shallowly punctate, with a short erect and blunt horn at middle; particularly the edge reflexed anteriorly; ventral pubescence red; eyes yellowish grey, antennae red. Prothorax very short, rounded basally, with edge thicker and reflexed, angles round; sides slightly round and reflexed; apex deep and widely emarginated, and angles broad, very visible, blunt, with red hairs; convex dorsally, densely and deeply punctate; disc usually with a longitudinal furrow, anteriorly with a slightly transverse and elevated tubercle at middle; furrow deep, rounded toward both sides; apically and anteriorly at sides with red hairs. Elytra slightly narrower than pronotal base, broader at middle and rounded apically; very convex, usually deeply crenate-striate, interstriae very smooth, scarcely raised. Black ventrally, roughly punctate, legs with red hairs.”]
As noticed to some extent by Reitter (1892), and explicitly by Balthasar (1935, 1963), the original description of C. armeniacus does not give information on the real identity of the species. In particular, Faldermann failed to specify the number of specimens on which he based the description, its (their) sex, and the most meaningful character, i.e. the presence of only three foretibial teeth.
There are also other uncertain aspects of the description. Faldermann specified that the new species was “7 lines” long and “4 lines” wide. Unfortunately, the line was a unit of length equivalent to 1/10, 1/12, 1/16 or 1/40 of an inch depending on the country; therefore we cannot know the size used by Faldermann. He only specified that his new species was half as long as Copris emarginata Fabricius, 1801 [= Copris emarginatus Olivier, 1789], presently a junior synonym of Copris lunaris (Linnaeus, 1758). According to Baraud (1992), C. lunaris is 15–20 mm long. I know of specimens up to 25 mm in length. Hence, the length of C. armeniacus should be 7,5–12,5 mm, a small size indeed. Faldermann also compared his new species to “ Copride sulcicolle Dalm. ex Insula Java”, but I am not aware of any species described by Dalman as Copris sulcicollis. For all I know, C. sulcicollis Dalman was listed as a synonym of Copris indica Dejean (Dejean 1833, 1836). Both Copris sulcicollis Dalman and Copris indica Dejean are probably nomina nuda. Lansberge (1886) described a Copris sulcicollis, presently a junior synonym of C. sinicus Hope, 1842, from the Sunda Islands and Malay Peninsula, stating that the species was known, probably in litteris and by the same name, for a long time. Hence it could also be the Copris sulcicollis Dalman cited by Faldermann. In any case, from the descriptions of C. sulcicollis by Lansberge (1886), and C. sinicus by Hope (1842), it is not possible to make any possible morphological connection between that species and C. armeniacus.
Reitter (1892), in a footnote on page 95, asserted that, from the original description, Copris armeniacus was definitely different from C. felschei Reitter, 1892. Faldermann’s description of C. armeniacus did not convince Balthasar (1935). He wrote that such a description did not give real information on the species, and later (Balthasar 1963) stated that it was not possible to find a single statement in the description supporting the separation of the specimen from a small Copris lunaris.
Kabakov (2006), although he accepted the synonymy of C. armeniacus and C. felschei, pointed out that he had examined an insufficient number of specimens (3 males) to have a clear taxonomic idea of the species.
Nevertheless, the two species are currently considered synonyms. In my opinion this is a clear case of “copy and paste” synonymy. Iablokov-Khnzorian (1967), on the basis of a justification insignificant from a systematic point of view – the improbability of the presence of two closely related species of the same genus, endemic to Armenia – confirmed the synonymy between C. armeniacus and C. felschei, but without a real nomenclatural act, only citing Olsoufiev (1918). This latter author, without seeing the type material, assumed that C. felschei could perhaps be the species called C. armeniacus by Faldermann, but only if Reitter’s description of C. felschei referred to a damaged specimen. All this is not enough to have a systematic concept of C. armeniacus, and therefore to establish a plausible synonymy. Supposing that the species really belongs to the genus Copris, in my opinion it is not possible to ascertain or even hypothesize whether C. armeniacus is indeed a good species, senior synoynym of C. felschei, or rather a junior synonym of one of the other two species recorded from the Caucasus, i.e. Copris hispanus ssp. cavolini (Petagna, 1792) and Copris lunaris (Linnaeus, 1758).
In summation, this synonymy is objectively impossible to accept for the following reasons:
- The type material of C. armeniacus is untraceable and probably lost.
- No author is known to have examined the type material.
- The original description does not enable an understanding of what species Faldermann had before him, and therefore does not allow for designation of a neotype.
- The original description does not specify the sex, the number and the exact type locality of the specimen(s) described.
- Neither Olsoufiev (1918) nor Iablokov-Khnzorian (1967) ever justified, in a convincing and legiti mate way, the reasons for the synonymy of C. armeniacus and C. felschei.
- Authors such as Balthasar (1935, 1963) have expressed strong doubts about the validity of the species.
Copris armeniacus Faldermann, 1835, a species of doubtful identity and status that requires further investigation, is here deemed a species inquirenda. All the records reported in the literature under this name should be associated with the name of the following species, herein regarded as valid.
description: Published as part of Ziani, Stefano, 2017, Morphological revision of the western Palaearctic species of the genus Copris Geoffroy, 1762 with three foretibial external teeth (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea: Scarabaeidae), pp. 1-26 in Insecta Mundi 2017 (528) on pages 3-5, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4645819