Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) pleuralis Faimaire 1883
Creators: name: Baiocchi, Daniele
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2015
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Buprestidae
Anthaxia
Anthaxia pleuralis

description: Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) pleuralis Faimaire, 1883
(Figs. 13-15)
Anthaxia pleuralis Fairmaire, 1883: clvii. Type locality: [Algeria] “Batna, Pic des Cèdres”.
Anthaxia pleuralis: Kerremans, 1885: 138 (catalogue); 1892: 125 (catalogue); Abeille, 1893a: 128 (var. of millefolii); 1893b: ccclii (taxonomy); 1894a: 47–48 (taxonomy); 1894b: lxiv (taxonomy); Kerremans, 1903: 174 (syn. of millefolii); Jakobson, 1913: 791 (catalogue); Obenberger, 1913c: 332 (taxonomy, comments); 1914a: 10 (taxonomy); 1914b: 9 (taxonomy); 1917a: 5, 18, 29, 77, 104, table A, Fig. B (monograph); Peyerimhoff, 1919: 195 (biology); Obenberger, 1926: 645 (catalogue); 1930: 515 (catalogue); Théry, 1930: 353 –354 (taxonomy, comments); Kocher, 1956: 133 (faunistics).
Anthaxia (Chrysanthaxia) pleuralis: Richter, 1949: 63, 66 (monograph).
Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) pleuralis: Cobos, 1956: 220, 222, Figs. 15–16 (taxonomy); Bílý, 1997: 32, 104, 150 (catalogue); 2006: 59, 377 (catalogue); Bellamy, 2008: 1344, 1449 (catalogue).
Anthaxia parapleuralis Obenberger, 1929: 61, syn. nov. Type locality: “ Anatolia: Ak-Chéhir“ [patria falsa].
Anthaxia parapleuralis: Obenberger, 1930: 514 (catalogue); 1938: 180 (taxonomy); Niehuis, 1989: 103 (taxonomy).
Anthaxia (Chrysanthaxia) parapleuralis: Richter, 1949: 5, 48, 66 (monograph).
Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) parapleuralis: Bílý, 1997: 31, 101, 162 (catalogue); Ulay & Tezcan, 1998: 116, 119 (faunistics); Bílý, 2006: 377 (catalogue); Bellamy, 2008: 1445 (catalogue).
Subspecies. Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) pleuralis aida Cobos, 1956: 220 –221, Figs. 13–14, 17–18. Type locality: [Morocco] Rif.
Anthaxia (Haplanthaxia) pleuralis aida: Cobos, 1970: 9 (faunistics, comments); Bílý, 1997: 32, 43, 138 (catalogue); 2006: 377 (catalogue); Bellamy, 2008: 1344 (wrong listing as syn. of pleuralis), 1449.
Unavailable name. Anthaxia anthemidis auct.: Obenberger, 1917a: 104, nom. nud. (monograph).
Misidentification. Anthaxia pleuralis ssp. robustior Obenberger, 1913b: 63 (in fact syn. of A. (H.) umbellatarum ssp. domina Abeille, 1900); 1913c: 332 (taxonomy, comments); 1914a: 10 (taxonomy); 1914b: 9 (taxonomy); 1917a: 18, 29, 104 (monograph); 1924: 26 (A. robustior, taxonomy); 1926: 645 (A. robustior, catalogue); 1930: 481 (syn. of domina); Théry, 1930: 367–368 (syn. of cichorii); Levey, 1985: 304 (taxonomy, comments); Bily, 1997: 38, 109 (var. of umbellatarum ssp. domina, catalogue); Bellamy, 2008: 1461, 1489 (catalogue);
Misidentification. Anthaxia thais Normand, 1935 (in fact syn. of A. (H.) vejdovskyi ssp. vejdovskyi Obenberger, 1914): Cobos, 1956: 220–221, Figs. 11, 12, 19 (ssp. of pleuralis); Bily, 1997: 32, 121, 153, 164 (catalogue); 2006: 59 (syn. of vejdovskyi).
Type specimens studied. Anthaxia (H.) parapleuralis: lectoype by present designation (♂, NMPC inv. 22617 - Fig. 13, original labelling: Fig. 14); paralectotypes: (6 ♂♂, NMPC inv. 22618–22623), same data as lectotype.
Remarks. Obenberger (1929) described Anthaxia (H.) parapleuralis from material supposedly collected in Turkey by M. Korb.
Due to the lack of finds of further specimens since its original description, I wanted to examine the type series of this species, which turned out to be composed exclusively of specimens of A. (H.) pleuralis ssp. pleuralis Faimaire, 1883. The type series is composed of seven syntypes, all males bearing a red " typus " label, together with a handwritten identification label stating “ Anthaxia parapleuralis ”. In order to establish a single name-bearing type for this species, among these syntypes I designate the specimen with inventory number 22617 as the lectotype (Figs. 13–14), and the remaining six males (inv. 22618–22623) as paralectotypes.
However, the specimens actually studied by Obenberger were more numerous, all from the same locality, and among them, I have found a few specimens of A. (H.) protractipennis Obenberger, 1914, one of which is herein illustrated (Fig. 16). Both A. (H.) pleuralis and A. (H.) protractipennis are typical elements of the Maghreb, and in my opinion, there exists the possibility that this material might have been wrongly labelled.
A confirmation of this is found in a paper by Mary De La Beche Nicholl (1902: 278, 280), an English specialist in Lepidoptera, where she reports of her collecting trip to Algeria in 1902. In the article, the authoress writes of her encounter with Korb, on March 20th, in the area of Biskra, and further on in the same article, she presumes that Korb would stay in Algeria until the month of June. This shows that Korb actually travelled to Algeria in a period antecedent to the description of A. (H.) parapleuralis, and that he might have collected his specimens during his stay there. The area of Biskra, in fact, is a place where both A. (H.) pleuralis and A. (H.) protractipennis are commonly found. In addition, the type locality of A. (H.) parapleuralis reported in the original description, "Akchéhir" (the present Turkish city of Akşehir), has always been an easily accessible area, and it seems strange that in nearly a century from the description, these species have never been collected again, despite the great number of entomologists who visited the area since.
Actually, A. (H.) pleuralis and A. (H.) protractipennis cannot be confused with any Turkish species, since they are both well differentiated from their most similar species, at least by their genitalia. It was probably the lack of examination of the aedeagus that deceived Obenberger in the study of this material. Still, it seems strange that despite his great experience with this genus, Obenberger may have been misled by the wrong data of this material, especially considering the fact that not long before, he had himself described the same A. (H.) protractipennis, a species close to A. (H.) millefolii (Fabricius, 1801). Indeed, in his description of A. (H.) parapleuralis, Obenberger constantly refers to A. (H.) millefolii and A. (H.) pleuralis, but the peculiarities that he seems to attribute to A. (H.) parapleuralis, are instead related to the actual differences between the other two species, which moreover, are themselves quite variable.
A series of specimens of A. (H.) pleuralis (Fig. 15), collected some years ago in northern Algeria by G. Sama and G. Magnani, and already compared with the holotype (MNHN) by Magnani, have been compared with the lectotype of A. (H.) parapleuralis. This allowed me to verify the absence of any substantial difference between the two species. Hence, given the current biogeographical knowledge about A. (H.) pleuralis and A. (H.) protractipennis, I consider extremely unlikely that the material studied by Obenberger was actually collected in Turkey, and without any subsequent discovery of similar material from Turkey, I consider A. (H.) parapleuralis Obenberger, 1929 conspecific and a junior synonym of A. (H.) pleuralis Fairmaire, 1883.
Both A. (H.) pleuralis and A. (H.) protractipennis belong to the A. (H.) millefolii species-group.
description: Published as part of Baiocchi, Daniele, 2015, Taxonomic notes on the genus Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae: Anthaxiini) 1., pp. 339-357 in Zootaxa 3941 (3) on pages 346-348, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3941.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/243172