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

description: Paulipalpina dispar (Portevin, 1903)
(Figs. 238–244)
Catops dispar Portevin, 1903: 167 [and Fig. 9].
Pseudonemadus dispar; Portevin, 1914: 193.
Adelopsis dispar; Jeannel, 1936: 66 [and Figs. 80–82] (as junior synonym of Adelopsis exiguus; combination not stated as taxonomic change) (types seen).
Paulipalpina dispar; Gnaspini, 1996: 538 (combination and resurrection from synonymy) (types seen); Salgado, 2010: 210 (reaffirmed as synonym of Paulipalpina exigua based on Jeannel, 1936, and citing Peck et al., 1998, but not the explanation in Gnaspini, 1996—but see Taxonomic Note).
Type material examined: 1 “ type ” male and 1 “ type ” female in MNHN (Gnaspini, 1996: 541); assumed as syn-types—several specimens, sex not given in original description. Labels: Male: “ Colombie // Ptomaphagus dispar Prt. // Catops dispar Prt ”; Female: “ Colombie / G. Portevin 1902”. Note: the male specimen was previously dissected, and the aedeagus and genital segment were missing [see Note under MNHN, in ‘Methods and Materials’]. Specimens here illustrated.
For taxonomic reasons, the male “type” here examined is here designated as lectotype; and the other specimens (including the ones not examined here) as paralectotypes.
Length: 1.5 mm (original description); 1.8 mm (Jeannel, 1936, referring to the species as Adelopsis exiguus, but probably referring to the specimens he recognized as Adelopsis dispar [see Taxonomic Note]); 1.6 mm (male) and 1.75 mm (female) (our measurement).
Type locality: “ Colombie ”.
Taxonomic Note. Gnaspini (1996) preferred to resurrect P. dispar and maintain P. exigua as a nominal species based on the facts that [1] Jeannel proposed the synonymy based only on the description of P. exigua, which type is apparently not available, [2] the difference in size is big- 1,5 and 1,0 mm, respectively -, and [3] the species of this genus are mostly externally similar to each other, leading to misidentification without dissection of genitalia. Salgado (2010: 210) agreed with the synonymy of Jeannel, apparently without analyzing specimens either, based on his statement that both species are from Bogotá, which is not true—the type locality of P. exigua is Bogotá, but the type label of P. dispar simply reads “ Colombie ”; Jeannel, 1936: 66 listed “several specimens” from “region of Bogotá ”, but he was probably referring to additional specimens examined, and not to types because the type label of P. dispar reads “ Colombie ” and because he apparently did not have acces to the type of P. exigua (our interpretation of his “Obs.” and of the fact that he did not mention the type depository, which he did when he examined types). Moreover, we understand that P. dispar can be related to a specimen (and, therefore, examined and described) whereas P. exigua can not (because the type is apparently unavailable). Therefore, we decided to keep them as separate species until a proper study solves the question.
Short Redescription. Eyes slightly reduced (Fig. 238). (Seemingly) Wingless. Aedeagus and genital segment missing. Male mesotibia slightly curved internally (Fig. 240). Spermatheca with 3-turns placed close to the spermatheca base, followed by additional 3-turns transversal to the spermatheca body, followed by a thick, curved body, ending in an elongate apical bulb (Fig. 242). Proportion spermatheca/elytron = 0.25.
Distribution. “ Colombia ”: known only from “ type locality” (original description; Jeannel, 1936; here).
Note: Doubtfull record: Jeannel (1936: 66) included a record for “ Brazil ” (a male), which may either refer to P. exigua or P. dispar, considering that he thought these species as synonyms; and which may be in error, considering that species ranges in the tribe are generally not large and that the record in Brazil is not precise, and considering that the aedeagus of species of Paulipalpina seem similar to each other at first glance.
Taxonomic Remarks. Considering the illustration in Jeannel (1936: Fig. 82), the aedeagus seems a diagnostic feature of this species, by having a dorsal opening very long when compared to other species of the genus, taking about 1/3 of the aedeagus length. However, this feature should be taken with caution because Jeannel’s illustration might be related to the ventral opening (since the opening illustrated starts exactly where the ventral ligula is placed) instead of the dorsal opening.
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 51-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4696.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3542765