Adelopsis ascutellaris
Creators: name: Gnaspini, Pedro
name: Peck, Stewart B.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Leiodidae
Adelopsis
Adelopsis ascutellaris

description: Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856)
(Figs. 4–16)
Catops ascutellaris Murray, 1856: 460 [and Fig. 55].
Ptomaphagus ascutellaris; Portevin, 1921: 536.
Adelopsis ascutellaris; Jeannel, 1936: 65 [and Figs. 88–89] (combination not stated as taxonomic change); Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 (type seen); Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (types seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group).
Note: see Taxonomic Notes for erroneous/doubtfull citations of this species.
Type material examined: 1 “ type ” male and 1 “ type ” female in BMNH (Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syn-types—sex and number of specimens not given in original description. Note: the original description did not state number and sex of specimens and gave locality just as “Caraccas”. Szymczakowski (1961) stated he examined a specimen labeled “Caracas, Catops ascutellaris Murray (Type) ”. Labels (both specimens): “ Mon. Cati Caracas / Caracas 1819 / 9010”. Both are here illustrated. Note: Cati is a barrio (neighborhood) in Caracas (situated in a mountain-ringed valley) and probably a forested collecting locality in 1819.
For taxonomic reasons, the male “type” is here designated as lectotype; and the female as paralectotype.
Length: 7/8 lin. (= 2.2 mm) (original description); 1.8 mm (Jeannel, 1936, probably referring to the MNHN specimen [which is the one listed as examined], which we measured 1.9 mm); 2.0 mm (male) and 1.9 mm (female) (our measurements).
Type locality: Caracas, [Distrito Capital, Venezuela].
Additional material examined: 1 male in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “ Env. de Caracas / Sallé 1848 // [?] 9 48 // 55 // G. Portevin det., 1902”. Note: The specimen size, aedeagus and genital segment agree with those of the BMNH lectotype, leading us to admit they belong to the same species.
Additional material examined (misidentification): 1 additional male in MNHN (“det. G. Portevin 1902”) (Gnaspini, 1996: 541) [head and pronotum missing]—it belongs in a different species (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here described as Adelopsis portevini sp. n.
Taxonomic Notes.
1) Murray (1856: 461) explained that he received the species from Deyrolle “under the manuscript name of aequinoctialis ”, but decided to use a different name. Therefore, this is not a case of a synonym, as it seems to be in Hatch (1928: 168) and Jeannel (1936: 65 —as “ aequinoctialis Deyrolle (in litt.)”).
2) The record of this species in Jeannel (1922: 21, 35, 42, fig. 26) seems to be a misidentification of “ Adelopsis filicornis ” Jeannel, 1936 [species presently placed in the genus Parapaulipalpina] (Jeannel, 1936: 66)—see Taxonomic Note under Parapaulipalpina filicornis.
3) Jeannel (1936: 65) examined five specimens in MNHN from the same locality, referring to them as “probable cotypes” (one of them with label “ aequinoctialis Deyr.”—therefore, this might actually have been a syntype examined by Murray) [two of them, males, available for study for Gnaspini, 1996—see Additional material]; Szymczakowski, 1961: 142 stated that Jeannel did not know the type of this species (and based his description on five probable cotypes from MNHN) and he (Szymczakowski) could analyze a male specimen labeled “ Catops ascutellaris Murray (Type) ” (but did not mention the depository). He also stated that that type is identical to the specimens in MNHN, so he corroborated Jeannel (1936) interpretation. However, see “Additional material examined (misidentification)”.
Yet, because both Portevin (1921) and Jeannel (1936) referred to the specimen examined as “Sallé”, we understand that Portevin did not examine the types either.
4) Salgado (2005: 968 [and Fig. 13]) examined 2 females from MHNG (from a different and distant locality) and identified them as belonging to this species. Comparing his figure with the type female spermatheca illustrated here, we interpret his identification as a misidentification. We reinforce the statement that, because ptomaphagines (mainly the Neotropical ones) are very similar to each other based on external characters (with some exceptions, of course), it is difficult to relate female specimens to a given species without the presence of males in the same collection (and, even in this case, it may be difficult).
Short Redescription. Eyes normal, but slightly shorter than the usual height (Fig. 12). Winged. No posterior projections on male ventrites (used hereafter as abdominal morphological sternite VI). Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus as an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin curved outward, with a pronounced curve to its left end (Figs. 6, 8, 9). Flagellum shorter (about 2/ 3 in length) than aedeagus, with apex bent at 90º (Fig. 6). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.27–0.29. Anterior sides of spiculum gastrale of the genital segment widening towards the apex, resulting in a pawn-shaped spiculum gastrale, with the apical width slightly wider than the rounded base (Fig. 11). Male mesotibia with a sharp curve medially on the internal margin, being slightly bent medially (Fig. 14). Spermatheca with 2-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by a long and curved body ending in a sharp curve before the elongate apical bulb (Fig. 16). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.14.
Distribution. Venezuela: Distrito Capital: known only from type locality (original description; Portevin, 1921; Jeannel, 1936; Szymczakowski, 1961; here).
Note: Erroneous records: (1) Hatch (1928: 168) also gave Colombia, in error(?); (2) the “Bolívar State” record in Salgado (2005), based on females, is in error (see Taxonomic Note 4, above).
Taxonomic Remarks. Adelopsis ascutellaris (Murray, 1856) and A. ovalis Jeannel, 1936 are very similar to each other. The male mesotibia is bent medially (Figs. 14, 24) and the eyes seem to be slightly reduced in both species (Figs. 12, 21). The aedeagus is very similar (Figs. 5–9, 17–20), with some differences that should be addressed more carefully in the future. The illustrations in Jeannel (1936: Figs. 89, 78) differ, but they are considered not to be precise enough (for instance, the ‘diagonal strip’ illustrated by Jeannel in the aedeagus of A. ascutellaris could not be observed on the specimens here analyzed). Unfortunately, the genital segment of the specimen of A. ovalis is missing, and cannot be used to separate the species. Adelopsis ascutellaris is from Caracas, Venezuela and A. ovalis is from ‘Venezuela’, making it impossible to use this information as a reference. The latter species is slightly larger (around 20–30%) than the former, but only one specimen was available.
In addition, Szymczakowski (1975: 14), when discussing identity of A. brunnea Jeannel 1936 and describing and assigning subspecies to that species, commented that it is probable that A. ovalis would also be synonym of A. brunneus. This has never been used in the literature. We did not have access to specimens of A. brunnea, but based on the illustrations in both Jeannel (1936: Fig. 86) and Szymczakowski (1975: Fig. 2), the arm of the right lobe of the aedeagus seems to be slightly narrower, but, again, the illustrations may not be precise. Adelopsis brunnea is from ‘Colombia’, and, since both species have been described in the same work and had their aedeagus dissected, we understand that Jeannel indeed considered them as separate species, although he might have been mistaken. Its length is intermediate between that of A. ascutellaris and of A. ovalis.
Yet, A. sanlorenzo Gnaspini and Peck, 2001, also from Colombia, also has a similar aedeagus, but the genital segment and spermatheca seem to differ from those of A. ascutellaris.
Usually just the analysis of the genital segment and male mesotibia are needed for species recognition. For instance, the aedeagus of A. azzalii Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. brevicollis Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. (Figs. 31–35, 41–45) are similar to those of the species cited above, but the male mesotibia is curved, and the antenna and the spermatheca also seem to be different. Yet, A. orcina Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat. and A. pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 n. stat., previously assigned as subspecies of A. brunnea, have completely different spiculum gastrale in the genital segment when compared to all species cited above.
In summary, we here prefer to keep the species cited above as a separate species, but we intend to make a more careful examination, including the analysis of the types of all species in the group.
description: Published as part of Gnaspini, Pedro & Peck, Stewart B., 2019, Redescription of the ' older Adelopsis' species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens, pp. 1-62 in Zootaxa 4696 (1) on pages 10-13, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3542765