Adota Casey 1910
Creators: name: Gusarov, Vladimir I.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2003
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Staphylinidae
Adota

description: Adota Casey, 1910
(Figs. 1­52)
Atheta (Adota Casey, 1910): 67 (type species: Atheta massettensis Casey, 1910, by original designation).
Atheta (Panalota Casey, 1910): 71 (type species: Atheta setositarsis Casey, 1910, by original designation).
Adota: Fenyes, 1918: 19 (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina Casey, 1910 of tribe Myrmedoniini Thomson, 1867).
Panalota: Fenyes, 1918: 19 (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina Casey, 1910 of tribe Myrmedoniini Thomson, 1867).
Adota: Fenyes, 1920: 175 (as valid genus).
Panalota: Fenyes, 1920: 243 (as valid genus).
Atheta (Adota): Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 659 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Panalota): Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 611 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Panalota): Brundin, 1943: 19 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Halostiba Yosii & Sawada, 1976): 86 (type species: Ischnopoda ushio Sawada, 1971, by original designation), syn. nov.
Atheta (Adota): Moore & Legner, 1975: 347 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Panalota): Moore & Legner, 1975: 351 (as valid subgenus).
Adota: Seevers, 1978: 113 (as synonym of Xenota Mulsant & Rey, 1874).
Panalota: Seevers, 1978: 123 (as valid genus).
Adota: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 282 (as valid genus).
Panalota: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 282 (as synonym of Adota).
Adota: Ashe in Newton, Thayer, Ashe & Chandler, 2000: 368 (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina of tribe Athetini).
Panalota: Ashe in Newton, Thayer, Ashe & Chandler, 2000: 368 (as synonym of Adota).
Diagnosis. Adota can be distinguished from other athetine genera by the combination of the following characters: body parallel­sided, flat, and with dense isodiametric microsculpture; anterior margin of labrum concave; antennal article 2 slightly longer than article 3, articles 8­10 slightly transverse (Figs. 17­18); ligula short, with broad base and split apically (Fig. 10); labial palpus with setae,, and present (Fig. 10); pronotum subquadrate or slightly transverse, 1.1­1.4 times as wide as long, with microsetae directed anteriorly along the midline; in lateral portions of the disc microsetae directed laterally (Type I, Benick & Lohse 1974) (Fig. 14); pronotal macrosetae short; pronotal hypomera fully visible in lateral view; medial macroseta of mesotibia weak and inconspicuous, as long as tibial width; tarsal formula 4­5­5; metatarsal segment 1 as long as segment 2; tarsal segments ventrally with long setae; one long empodial seta; abdominal terga 3­6 with transverse basal impression; medial lamellae of internal sac absent; copulatory piece with pointed apex (Fig. 27); proximal portion of spermatheca with one coil (Figs. 29­30, 51).
Adota can be distinguished from Atheta by isodiametric microsculpture of the entire body, by the concave anterior margin of the labrum; by basal impression on the tergum 6, and by lacking the medial lamellae of internal sac.
Adota differs from Psammostiba in having antennal article 2 longer than article 3; and tarsi with single empodial seta and equally long claws (Figs. 16; 66).
Description. Length 2.2­3.2 mm, pronotal width 0.43­0.61 mm. Body parallel­sided and flat. Body color brown to black, elytra dark brown to reddish brown, antennae black to brown, legs brown to yellowish brown. Entire body with strong and dense isodiametric microsculpture.
Head as long as wide; eyes large, temple length to eye length ratio 0.8­1.2; infraorbital carina very short, ends in posterior portion of temples, by far not reaching posterior margin of eye. Antennal article 2 slightly longer than article 3, articles 8­10 slightly transverse, terminal article without coeloconic sensilla, as long as articles 9 and 10 combined (Figs. 17­18). Labrum (Fig. 1) transverse, with concave anterior margin. Adoral surface of labrum (epipharynx) as in Fig. 2. Mandibles (Figs. 3­5) broad, right mandible with a small medial tooth; dorsal molar area with velvety patch consisting of very small denticles (invisible at 400x). Maxilla (Figs. 6­9) with galea projecting slightly beyond apex of lacinia; apical lobe of galea covered with numerous fine and short setae; internal margin of galea with long subapical setae (Figs. 6­7); apical 1/3 of lacinia with row of closely spaced spines, middle portion produced medially and covered with numerous setae (Figs. 6, 8­9). Labium as in Figs. 10­12; ligula short, with broad base and split apically; medial area of prementum with 2 pores and with 8­23 pseudopores, lateral areas each with two asetose pores, single setose pore and 7­12 pseudopores (Fig. 10). Hypopharyngeal lobes as in Fig. 11. Labial palpus with setae,, and present (Fig. 10). Mentum (Fig. 12) with concave anterior margin.
Pronotum (Fig. 14) slightly transverse or subquadrate, with microsetae directed anteriorly in midline; in lateral portions of disc microsetae directed laterally (Type I, Benick & Lohse 1974); macrosetae short; hypomera fully visible in lateral view. Meso­ and metasternum as in Fig. 13, mesosternal process narrow, extending about 3/5 length of mesocoxal cavities, metasternal process short, mesosternum and mesosternal process not carinate medially; relative lengths of mesosternal process: isthmus: metasternal process in ratio of about 3:1:1; mesocoxal cavities margined posteriorly; mesocoxae narrowly separated. Medial macroseta of mesotibia inconspicuous, shorter than tibial width. Tarsal segmentation 4­5­5, metatarsal segment 1 as long as segment 2. Tarsal segments ventrally with long setae. One empodial seta, as long as claws (Fig. 15). Claws of equal length (Fig. 16). Posterior margin of elytra straight. Wings fully developed.
Abdominal terga 3­6 with moderate basal impressions (impression on tergum 6 weaker). Tergum 7 as long as tergum 6. Punctation on terga 6­7 only slightly sparser than on terga 3­5. Tergum 7 with wide white palisade fringe.
Aedeagus with broad apical process (Figs. 23­24, 46­47); medial lamellae of internal sac absent; copulatory piece with pointed apex (Fig. 27); proximal portion of spermatheca with single coil (Figs. 29­30, 51).
Type species. Atheta massettensis Casey, 1910, by original designation.
Discussion. Atheta massettensis Casey, 1910 (the type species of Adota) and At. setositarsis Casey, 1910 (the type species of Panalota) are conspecific (see below), and therefore the synonymy of Adota and Panalota established by Lohse and Smetana (1985) is confirmed. Both names had been published simultaneously (Casey 1910), but Lohse and Smetana (1985), being the first revisers, established the name Adota as valid.
Originally (Casey, 1910), both Adota and Panalota were introduced as subgenera of Atheta. Fenyes (1918, 1920) was the first to raise the rank of both names to generic level because of the absence of infraorbital carina (the carina is indeed very short). Pending revision of the genus Atheta I prefer to keep Adota as a separate genus, based on the concave anterior margin of the labrum, dense isodiametric microsculpture of the entire body, relatively dense punctation of abdominal terga 6­7, the presence of the basal impressions on abdominal terga 3­6, and the absence of median lamellae of internal sac. The dense microsculpture and punctation is probably an adaptation to seashore habitats, as it is displayed by other aleocharines that occur in similar situations (e. g., Pontomalota Casey, 1885, Tarphiota Casey, 1894, Oreuryalea Assing & Maruyama, 2002).
According to the detailed description and illustrations (Sawada 1971), Ischnopoda ushio, the type species of the subgenus Halostiba, is similar to Adota maritima in all details of mouthparts, tarsi, dense microsculpture, and in general shape of the aedeagus and spermatheca. Based on this similarity I synonymize Halostiba with Adota. Adota ushio is a littoral species.
Three species described by Casey (1911) in Atheta (Adota) do not possess the diagnostic characters of Adota and, in my opinion, do not belong to that genus. These three species are placed in Atheta pending a revision of the genus: Atheta finita Moore & Legner, 1975 (replacement name for Atheta definita Casey, 1911, nec 1910), At. pavidula Casey, 1911 and At. irrita Casey, 1911.
Atheta finita, known to me by females only, was described (as Atheta definita Casey, 1911) from Santa Rosa and from near Napa Junction, California (two syntypes in Casey collection). I examined an additional female from the Waterton National Park, Alberta (CNCI). Although the specimens of Ad. finita have densely punctated abdominal terga 6­ 7, they differ from Adota by small and thin L­shaped spermatheca and concave posterior margin of female tergum 8. Atheta finita is clearly not restricted to seashore.
Atheta irrita was described from Nevada (Casey, 1911) and is not a littoral species.
Atheta pavidula was described from Booneville, California (Casey, 1911), about 30 km from the coast, and it is not a seashore species.
description: Published as part of Gusarov, Vladimir I., 2003, A revision of Nearctic species of the genera Adota Casey, 1910 and Psammostiba Yosii & Sawada, 1976 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae), pp. 1-35 in Zootaxa 185 on pages 3-8, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156388