Macrodactylini Kirby 1837
Creators: name: Fuhrmann, Juares
name: Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Scarabaeidae

description: Key to genera of Macrodactylini
1. Internal area of metatarsomere V with spine-like setae and/or a proximal tubercle or raised carina (Fig. 4 A–D) …………………………………………………………………………………………2
– Internal area of metatarsomere V unarmed and never with differentiated spine-like setae, a dense setal comb sometimes present ……………………………………………………………………17
2. Metatarsus with one claw and without empodium ………………… Astaenoplia Martínez, 1957
– Metatarsus with two claws and empodium ………………………………………………………3
3. Pronotum–scutellum contact sinuous (Fig. 8 A–E) ………………………………………………4
– Pronotum–scutellum contact straight ……………………………………………………………10
4. Metacoxae subcontiguous ……… Ceraspis LePeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828
– Metacoxae separate …………………………………………………………………………………5
5. Pronotum–scutellum contact shallowly sinuous (Fig. 8 E) ………………………………………6
– Pronotum–scutellum contact deeply sinuous (Fig. 8 A–D) ………………………………………7
6. Prosternal posterior process raised and bifid; protibial internal angle rounded, female protibia with a spur; male ventrite V with medial lobe bearing truncate setae in a transverse palisade (Fig. 14 D–E) …………………………………………………………………………… Pectinosoma Arrow, 1913
– Prosternal posterior process not prominent and rounded; protibial internal angle acute (Fig. 8 F), female protibial spur absent; male ventrite V unarmed ……… Manopus Conte de Castelnau, 1840
7. Male ventrite I with a medial spine (Fig. 14 A); female pygidial anterior margin sinuous (Fig. 14 B–C) ………………………………………………………………………… Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835
– Male ventrite I unarmed; female pygidial anterior margin straight …………………………………8
8. Pronotum–scutellum contact acutely sinuous (Fig. 8 B) …………… Chariodema Blanchard, 1850 – Pronotum–scutellum contact roundly sinuous (Fig. 8 D); scutellum cordate ………………………9
9. Pronotal posterior angle acutely raised (similar to Fig. 8 B); protibia with two external teeth; total length usually less than 20 mm ……………………………… Pseudopectinosoma Katovich, 2011
– Pronotal posterior angle obtuse or rounded; protibia with 3–4 external teeth; total length usually greater than 20 mm …………………………………………… Faula Blanchard, 1850
10. Pronotal lateral margins crenulate or serrate; mesoscutum with a transverse carina (Fig. 6 G); male protarsomere I with an internodistal tooth (Fig. 5 A–B) ………… Barybas Blanchard, 1850
– Pronotal lateral margins straight; mesoscutum without carina; protarsomere I with or without a tooth ………………………………………………………………………………………………11
11. Protibia with three external teeth and with a spur; male metatarsomere I with internal hook-like tooth (Fig. 13 C); metafemur with row of spine-like setae (Fig. 13 H) … Mallotarsus Blanchard, 1850
– Protibia with 1–3 external teeth and with or without a spur; male metatarsomere I unarmed; metafemur without row of spine-like setae ……………………………………………………12
12. Meso- and metatarsal claws simple ………………………………………………………………13
– Meso- and metatarsal claws bifid …………………………………………………………………14
13. Dorsum usually with scale-like setae; meso- and metatibiae with an evident medial enlargement (Fig. 7 E) …………………………………………… Calodactylus Blanchard, 1850
– Dorsum never with scale-like setae; meso- and metatibiae distally parallel ……………………… ……………………………………… Dasyus LePeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828
14. Metatarsomere I as long as II–IV (Fig. 4 A, 4 C–D).……………………………………………15
– Metatarsomere I as long as or shorter than II–III (Fig. 4 B) ……………………………………16
15. Metatarsomere II wider than long (Fig. 4 C–D) …………………… Oedichira Burmeister, 1855
– Metatarsomere II at least twice as long as wide (Fig. 4 A) ………………………………………… ……………………………………… Plectris LePeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828
16. Clypeal anteroventral area large and vertically deflected; elytron rugopunctate, striae indistinct …… …………………………………………………………………………… Anomonyx Saylor, 1940
– Clypeal anteroventral area large and horizontal (Fig. 12 K); elytral striae punctate ………… ………………………………………………………………………… Philochloenia Dejean, 1833
17. Mesoscutum–scutellum limit angulate (similar to Fig. 6 G, detail b) ……………………………18
– Mesoscutum–scutellum limit not evident (Fig. 6 H) ……………………………………………32
18. Protibia lateroproximal margin serrate ………………………………… Pristerophora Harold, 1869
– Protibia lateroproximal margin straight ……………………………………………………………19
19. Pronotal posterior margin medially prominent and with a small tooth (Fig. 2 A–D) ………20
– Pronotal posterior margin unarmed, prominent or not …………………………………………23
20. Protibial spur present …………………………………………………… Hieritis Burmeister, 1855
– Protibial spur absent ………………………………………………………………………………21
21. Tarsus short, protarsomeres II–IV wider than long; male protarsomere I with an internodistal acute angle (Fig. 2 B) ……………………………………………………………… Byrasba Harold, 1869
– Tarsus long, male protarsomeres I–II longer than wide; protarsomere I sometimes ventrally flattened, but without acute angle (Fig. 2 A, 2 C) …………………………………………………22
22. Male metatibia internodistally flattened (Fig. 2 E); female elytron with posterior margin widely beaded (Fig. 1 B) ………………………………………………………… Agaocnemis Moser, 1918
– Male metatibia with an internodistal tooth (Fig. 2 G); female elytron with posterior margin finely beaded ………………………………………………………………… Hamatoplectris Frey, 1967
23 Pronotal lateral margins crenulate (Fig. 10 D–F, 12 A) ……………………………………………24
– Pronotal lateral margins straight …………………………………………………………………25
24. Clypeus semicircular, and narrow; pronotal posterior margin widely prominent (Fig. 12 A) …… ………………………………………………………………………… Euryaspis Blanchard, 1850
– Clypeus trapezoid or rectangular, that of male of some species with large and acute projections; pronotal posterior margin weakly prominent (Fig. 10 D–F) ……………… Rhinaspis Perty, 1833
25. Pronotal posterior margin with two small posterior projections extended over the elytronscutellum contact (Fig. 13 A) ……………………………… Pseudoserica Guérin-Méneville, 1838
– Pronotal posterior margin straight ………………………………………………………………26
26. Male clypeus with two long horns (Fig. 10 B–C); female clypeus deeply emarginate (Fig. 10 A); clypeal posterior angle acute and partially covering the canthus … Ceratolontha Arrow, 1948
– Clypeus semicircular, trapezoid or subrectangular, anterior angle variable, but never forming a long horn; clypeal posterior angle extended or not over the canthus, but never acute …27
27. Clypeus large, anteroventral area large and horizontal (Fig. 3 A), posterior angle partially covering the canthus (Fig. 3 B); metafemur with dense short setae and some sparse long setae (Fig. 3 C) … ………………………………………………………………………… Alvarinus Blanchard, 1850
– Clypeus short and with reduced anteroventral area (similar to Fig. 11 H) OR clypeus large with posterior angle not extended over the canthus and femur with homogeneous thin setae …28
28. Protibia with two external teeth and without spur; metacoxa and metafemur wide, metafemur internal side straight and external side strongly prominent …………………………………29
– Protibia with 1–4 external teeth and with or without spur; metacoxa and metafemur narrow, metafemur external side straight or weakly prominent ………………………………………30
29. Antennae with 8–10 antennomeres, when antennae with eight antennomeres the pronotum and pygidium have small and sparse punctures (punctures separated by more than twice the puncture diameter)…………………………… Dicrania LePeletier de Saint-Fargeau &Audinet-Serville, 1828
– Antenna with eight antennomeres, pronotum and pygidium with large and dense punctures (punctures separated by less than a puncture diameter) …………………… Canestera Saylor, 1938
30. Maxillary palpomere IV distinctly enlarged (Fig. 6 A–B); antennomere VI longer than III (Fig. 6 A) … …………………………………………………………………………… Clavipalpus Laporte, 1832
– Maxilla with palpomere IV not enlarged; antennomere III as long as IV (Fig. 6 C) or longer than IV ……………………………………………………………………………………………………31
31. Maxilla with palpomere IV twice as long as the width of palpomere III (Fig. 6 C–D) ………….………………………………………………………… Paulosawaya Martínez & d’Andretta, 1956
– Maxilla with palpomere IV 1.5 times longer than the width of palpomere III …………………… …………………………………………………………………………… Junkia Dalla Torre, 1913
32. Protibia lateral margins serrate ……………………………………………………………………33
– Protibia lateral margins straight …………………………………………………………………34
33. Total length greater than 9 mm, protibial spur present.…………… Ptyophis Redtenbacher, 1868
– Total length less than 8 mm, protibial spur absent …… Extenuoptyophis Smith & Mondaca, 2015
34. Prosternum with two anterior sulci (Fig. 11 H).…………………………………………………35
– Prosternum anteriorly concave (similar to Fig. 12 K), or with longitudinal carina, or without ornamentation ………………………………………………..……………………………………37
35 Pronotum as long as wide or longer than wide (Fig. 11 C) …………… Macrodactylus Dejean, 1821
– Pronotum wider than long …………………………………………………………………………36
36. Supraocular area strongly angulate; pronotal disc glabrous (Fig. 11 B).… Manodactylus Moser, 1919
– Supraocular area slightly angulate; pronotal disc pubescent (Fig. 11 A) … Chariodactylus Moser, 1919
37. Meso–metaventrite medial contact prominent as a knob between mesocoxae ………………38
– Meso–metaventrite medial contact knob absent or inconspicuous (inconspicuous in Issacaris, Phytholaema, but noted as a 90-degree surface deflection) ………………………………………41
38. Meso–metaventrite knob projecting forward to procoxae … Modialis Fairmaire & Germain, 1860
– Meso–metaventrite knob not anteriorly projecting.………………………………………………39
39. Protibial spur present ……………………………………………… Pseudodicrania Gutiérrez, 1950
– Protibial spur absent ………………………………………………………………………………40
40 Eye large; clypeus broadly parabolic.…………………… Insimuloissacaris Smith & Mondaca, 2015
– Eye small; clypeus quadrate ………………………… Neuquenodactylus Smith & Mondaca, 2015
41. Meso–metaventrite medial contact separating the mesocoxae ………… Issacaris Fairmaire, 1889
– Mesocoxae subcontiguous ………………………………………………………………………42
42. Clypeal anteroventral area broad; mentum as wide as long; prosternal anterior area narrow, and procoxal cavities and head–pronotum foramen subcontiguous … Phytholaema Blanchard, 1851
– Clypeal anteroventral area reduced, and labrum subcontiguous to anterior clypeal margin; mentum evidently longer than wide; prosternal anterior area large, and procoxal cavities distinctly separate from head–pronotum foramen ………………………………………………43
43. Head with spine-like setae ……………………………………… Compsodactylus Fuhrmann, 2012
– Head without spine-like setae ……………………………………………………………………44
44. Protibial spur present; metatibia with two spurs; sometimes dorsal surface covered with scale-like setae ..………………………………………………………………………………………………45
– Protibial spur absent; male metatibia without spur, female metatibia with 1–2 spurs; dorsal surface never with scale-like setae.………………………………………………………………………46
45. Body elongate; male ventrites II–V medially concave (Fig. 16 A–C); female abdomen sinuous in lateral view (Fig. 16 D) ……………………………………………… Schizochelus Blanchard, 1850
– Body somewhat wide and oval; male abdomen without concave area; female abdomen simply curved in lateral view.……………………………………………… Isonychus Mannerheim, 1829
46. Dorsal surface without obvious setal patterns, setae not prominent and evenly distributed ……… ………………………………………………………………………… Pusiodactylus Smith, 2008
– Dorsal surface with obvious setal patterns, setae prominent or not evenly distributed ………… ………………………………………………………………………… Ampliodactylus Smith, 2008
description: Published as part of Fuhrmann, Juares & Vaz-De-Mello, Fernando Z., 2017, Macrodactylini (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Melolonthinae): primary types of type species and taxonomic changes to the generic classification, pp. 1-71 in European Journal of Taxonomy 350 on pages 60-63, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.350, http://zenodo.org/record/3832682