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

description: Parapaulipalpina filicornis (Jeannel, 1936)
(Figs. 223–227)
Adelopsis filicornis Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 83–85].
Ptomaphagus ascutellaris [species today in Adelopsis]; Jeannel, 1922: 21, 25, 42 (misidentification—see Taxonomic Note).
Parapaulipalpina filicornis; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen).
Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541). Labels: “Nov. Gren. [Nova Grenada, a former name for Colombia] // Magd…” [not possible to read properly, but probably referring to Magdalena Department]. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus and genital segment were missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. Specimen here illustrated.
Length: 2.0 mm (original description); 1.75 mm (our measurement).
Type locality: “ Colombia ”.
Additional material examined (misidentification): 1 additional female labeled “ type ” in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541) which actually belongs in the genus Paulipalpina (Gnaspini, 1996: 540), here referred to as Paulipalpina sp. at the end of the section on Paulipalpina.
Taxonomic Note (misidentification): When describing “ Adelopsis filicornis ”, Jeannel 1936 added in the synonymic list “ ascutellaris Jeannel, 1922, Arch. Zool. exp., t. 61, p. 21 et 42, fig. 26 (not Murray)” as if his 1922 “ ascutellaris ” was an homonym, but Jeannel 1922: 21, 35, 42, fig. 26 always referred to the latter species as “ Ptomaphagus ascutellaris Murray ” [1856], never as a “new species”. Therefore, we here understand this was a case of misidentification and not homonym, and “ filicornis ” was not intended to be a “new name”, as wrongly interpreted by Peck et al., 1998: 63.
Short Redescription. Eyes reduced. Antenna slender. Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to original description (key couplet)]. Aedeagus and genital segment missing. Female unknown.
Distribution. Colombia: probably Magdalena Department: known only from “ type locality” (original description [only “ Colombia ”]; here).
Taxonomic Remarks. Because the aedeagus was missing, the generic assignment was based on Fig. 85 in Jeannel (1936) —this species was placed by Gnaspini (1996) in Parapaulipalpina because the last maxillary palpomere is not smaller than the penultimate, and the aedeagus is somewhat S-shaped, with the genital orifice cutting medially and a very long flagellum. However, the antenna is indeed slender, as is the case with species of Paulipalpina.
The strongly reduced eyes have not been recorded so far among species in the genus (and also not in Paulipalpina, although reduced eyes have been recorded), and may be considered a diagnostic feature of the species.
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 47-48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3542765