Pogonostoma (Microstenocera) flavomaculatum W. Horn 1892
Creators: name: Moravec, Jiří
name: Vybíra, Jan
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Pogonostoma
Pogonostoma flavomaculatum

description: Pogonostoma (Microstenocera) flavomaculatum W. Horn, 1892
(Figs. 21–44)
Pogonostoma pusillum var. flavomaculatum W. Horn, 1892: 372.
Type locality. “Madagascar” (Annanarivo on the label of the holotype—see “Biology and distribution” below). Pogonostoma flavomaculatum: Horn 1898: 24.
Pogonostoma (Microstenocera) flavomaculatum: Jeannel 1946: 114, 141. Pogonostoma (Microstenocera) flavomaculatum: Rivalier 1970: 327.
Pogonostoma (Microstenocera) flavomaculatum: Moravec 2015: 398, partim.
Type material. Holotype ♂ (by monotypy) in SDEI, labelled: “Sikora[leg.] / Madagascar / Annanarivo” [printed] / / “P. flavomacule” [handwritten] // “ Type! / Dr W. Horn” [printed] // “Coll. W. Horn / DEI Eberswalde” [printed] // “ Holotype hat / sehr durch Essig- / säure / gelitten” [handwritten] // “flavomacula- / tum / mihi” [additionally attached blue-green collection label, handwritten] // “ Holotypus ” [red, printed] // “Revision Jiří Moravec 2003: / Holotype (by monotypy) / Pogonostoma pusillum / flavomaculatum W.Horn,1892 ” [red, printed] // “Pogonostoma / (Microstenocera) / flavomaculatum W. Horn, 1892 / det. Jiří Moravec 2003” [printed].
Note: the aedeagus of the holotype was destroyed, except for its basal portion glued to a separate small papered board.
Other material examined. 1 ♀ in SDEI, 1 ♀ in MRAC: “La Mandraka”. 7 specimens (males and females) in SDEI: “Fôret Anamalazoatra [=Analamazaotra] / -Perinet, Dez. / N. Olsufiew 1930”. 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in MRAC: “ Forêt de Fito / ex coll. Dr. Breuning ”. 1 ♀ in NMPC: “ Madagascar ”. Recent data. 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Madagascar est., 930– 1000 m / Andasibe Perinet / 6–7.II.1993, J. Janák lgt.”. 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Madagascar / Toamasina distr. / Analamazaotra env. / 3–6.XII.1997 / Jan Stolarczyk lgt.”. 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ in JWCW, 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ in HSCA: “ Madagascar / Toamasina prov. / Andasibe Nat. Park, Perinet / 19– 31.12.2001, 950 m / 48°27'E. 19°00'S / V. Dolin & Anreeva leg.”. 10 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀ in CJVB, 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ in CCJM: “ Madagascar Centr. / Andasibe Perinet N. P. / Mantadia, 13.I.2017 / Jan & Ondřej Vybíral leg”. 3 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀ in CJVB, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Madagascar Centr. / Analamazaotra Perinet N. P / Circuit Aduant, 12.I.2017 Jan & Ondřej Vybíral leg”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CJVB: “ Madagascar Centr. / Analamazaotra Perinet N. P. / Maromizaha, 13. 1. 2017 Jan & Ondřej Vybíral leg”. 1 ♀ in CJVB: “ Madagascar Centr. / N. P. c. Indri / 28–30.I. 2015, M. Trýzna leg.”. 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CMTD, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ in CCJM: “ Madagascar / Andasibe – Mantadia N.P. / Analamazaotra forest / 2–14.II.2007 M. Trýzna leg”.
Differential diagnosis. Originally described by Horn (1892) as a variety of P. (M.) pusillum with which it shares similar shape of the aedeagus, but P. (M.) flavomaculatum is immediately distinguished by the testaceous apices of femora, bases of tibiae, and sometimes also variably partly, rarely almost entirely testaceous pronotal posterior lobe, as well as the antennomeres 3–5.
P. (M.) flavomaculatum is externally very similar to P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., but it is clearly distinguished from the new species by its very different shape of its aedeagus in its lateral view (Figs 37–38, 40–43), almost regularly ellipsoid pronotal disc covered with notably more irregular, much denser and finer rugae, in some adults with more distinct notopleural sutures, and female elytra mostly lacking smooth areas. For other diagnostic differences including the inconsistently coloured posterior pronotal lobe, and also from other similar species, see the “Differential diagnosis” under P. (M.) noheli sp. nov. above, and in the “Variability” below.
Redescription. Body (Figs 21–22) small (but generally larger than in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov.), 6.60–8.30 (HT 6.70) mm long, 1.70–2.00 (HT 1.70) mm wide, mostly entirely pitchy black or with the posterior pronotal lobe partly, rarely entirely brownish, or testaceous.
Head (Fig. 31) 1.45–1.60 mm wide, shape and surface of frons, vertex, clypeus and genae as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., but the surface of frons-vertex area with less distinct areolate sculpture.
Labrum shaped and possessing similar variability as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., but entirely black and with central convexity almost keel-like-raised as impressed in ether side (with less distinct or missing rounded outlined impression); male labrum (Figs 34–35) length 0.38–0.40 mm, width 0.65–0.80 mm; female labrum (Fig. 36) generally longer, 0.45–0.50 mm long, 0.75–0.85 mm wide.
Maxillae (Figs 32–33) as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., lacinia up to 0.19 mm wide.
Palpi (Fig. 31) generally as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov.
Mandibles (Fig. 31) as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., but generally darker.
Thorax. Pronotum (Figs 28–30) elongate, length 1.60–2.10 mm, width 0.90–1.20 mm (for that of HT see “Variability” below), anterior lobe narrower than posterior lobe, its surface irregularly rugulose; disc almost regularly ellipsoid, mostly with rather distinctly convex lateral margins and narrow, but distinct notopleural sutures obvious in lateral view along posterior half of the disc; discal surface very finely and irregularly rugulose, rugae short and wavy to vermicular, becoming extremely fine, irregularly anastomosing and fragmented on anterior pronotal third, more transverse only along the median line (sculpture much finer than in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov.); median line mostly indistinct as partly merging with the surface sculpture; discal surface covered with indistinct, extremely short microtrichia obvious only in lateral view; posterior lobe smooth and glabrous, mostly entirely black, rarely partly brownish, reddish brown or brownish-testaceous, very rarely predominantly testaceous; ventral and lateral thoracic sterna as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov, but the proepisterna larger and always smooth.
Elytra (Figs 23–27) elongate, length 4.00– 4.80 mm long, shape and surface impressions and setal vesture as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., as well as the punctation in male, but the punctures generally somewhat smaller, and in females the punctures on posterior juxtasutural area mostly less effaced (see the “Variability” below).
Legs (Figs 21–22) as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., but the yellow to ochre-testaceous areas (“knees”) are sometimes restricted only on the bases of tibiae (Fig. 22) while the apices of femora may be black (either only on meso- and metafemora, or also on profemora).
Abdomen as in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov., but all ventrites mostly black in both sexes.
Aedeagus almost straight, in its left lateral view (Figs 37–38, 40–43) dorsally shallowly excavated above the middle, the apical portion gradually conically attenuated towards apex, mostly ventrally shallowly emarginate towards blunt or nearly pointed apex; in its ventral view (Fig. 39), as well as in dorsal view, the apex is conical and blunt.
Variability. The holotype is rather aberrant specimen and belongs to the smallest specimens of this species. It is in a rather bad shape, now even worse that in the photo (Fig. 21) taken 11 years ago by the first author. Apart from the previously broken aedeagus, now the holotype is missing its right antenna (it is separately glued together with a maxillary palpus on the same papered board with the basal portion of the broken aedeagus), middle right leg and apical portion of left metafemur and missing the metatibia, its abdomen partly crashed and glued together including the right posterior leg. Its pronotum (Fig. 30), has less convex lateral margins of the pronotal disc than in most other specimens, the margins with slightly impressed anterior parts, the shape probably caused during the metamorphoses of the adult. It has black pronotal posterior lobe with only indistinctly reddish-brown narrow area on its posterior margin (as in most other adults including the recently collected specimens), despite the original description by Horn (1892) who mentioned testaceous pronotal base. One of the labels in Fig 44), handwritten by Horn and attached to the holotype says that the holotype is damaged by an action of acetic acid. As noted by the first author (Moravec 2007), the acid barely could have changed the coloration of the pronotum to black, because the legs of the holotype retain their original yellow-testaceous areas (as in other adults).
The shape of the aedeagus somewhat varies, the apical portion is in some aedeagi more distinctly (but always shallowly) emarginated and consequently the apex is subacute or nearly pointed. The shape well corresponds with the schematic drawing of the aedeagus (in its reverse right lateral aspect) by Horn (1934a, pl. 2, fig. 46), particularly comparable with Figs 37, 38, 40, 42 here; while the schematic drawing by Rivalier (1970: 326, fig. 23fl) is comparable to Figs 41 and 43 here. However, despite such slight variability, the aedeagi fundamentally differ from the unique and consistent shape of the aedeagi in P. (M.) noheli sp. nov. Also the other historical male specimens from the collection of Walther Horn (SDEI) have the same shape of the aedeagi within the above mentioned variability.
Some specimens have the notopleural sutures notably more distinct, obvious in dorsal view along the whole margins of the pronotal disc, while all other characters, including the pattern of the sculpture on the pronotal disc and shape of their aedeagi, correspond with this species. The ochre-testaceous areas on legs are in some adults of P. (M.) flavomaculatum restricted only on the bases of tibiae while the apices of femora are partly or entirely black (Fig. 22). The effaced areas on the elytra also are variable.
Biology and distribution. Hitherto rare species missing in most collections including BMNH. The type locality “ Madagascar ” mentioned in the original description by Horn (1892) and “Annanarivo” on the label of the holotype, is ambiguous, because Annanarivo either means an area near Antananarivo, probably including the Angavo massif (Anjozorobe) north-east of the capital, but it also was commonly used by historical insect dealers for a larger area, or as a synonym for Madagascar (see Moravec 2007). Horn (1934b) specified the occurrence as “Analamazaotra”, also mentioned by Jeannel (1946) as the occurrence of P. (M.) flavomaculatum.
Most of the confirmed localities of this species lie in the area of the large Analamazaotra forest (preserved and still partly primary eastern evergreen rainforest) in the central-eastern area of the province of Toamasina (Tamatave). Although the non-protected forest remnants are mostly destroyed, the species has a chance to survive in the protected parts of the Andasibe–Mantadia National Park where this hitherto rare species was recently found in numerous adults. It must be noted here that the individual parts of the large national park (155 square kilometre, elevation 800–1260 m, are inconsistently interpreted and cited on the labels. In fact the Mantadia reserve (18°48´S, 48°25´E) is now rather isolated but well preserved rainforest northward of the Analamazaotra forest of the Andasibe-Perinet special reserve (18°57´S, 48°25´E) and the nearby Maromizaha reserve. The examined specimens labelled “Forêt de Fito / ex coll. Dr. Breuning” (MRAC), possess all characters of P. (M.) flavomaculatum including their aedeagi but the locality is in an area near the lake Lac Alaotra, north-east of Toamasina (approximately 17°30´S, 48°30´E), a long way from the confirmed localities. It must be noted here that some of the specimens from Breuning proved to be evidently mislabelled (see Moravec 2010). Rivalier (1970), apart from the occurrence in the environs of Andasibe (Perinet) adopted from Olsoufieff (1934), also mentioned Antsihanaka (also spelled Antsianaka), a record gained from Perrot brothers who mostly collected in the area of the lake Lac Alaotra which also includes the forest Forêt de Fito mentioned above.
Occurrence in La Mandraka, the forests station along the road between Antananarivo and Moramanga has not been confirmed with certainty as the specimens examined by the first author in SDEI and MRAC are females, and no other specimen was found in MNHN, although recorded from La Mandraka by Rivalier (1970). The forest of the valley is now nearly destroyed.
Remarks. The previous redescription of P. (M.) flavomaculatum by the first author (Moravec 2007) partly included P. (M.) noheli sp. nov. The confusion was primarily caused by the external similarity of these two species which were at the time very rare, and also that the original description by Horn (1892) did not feature the aedeagus. Moreover, the holotype (SDEI) of P. (M.) flavomaculatum is in rather bad state (see “Variability” above) and when at the time examined by the first author, it was found with a broken aedeagus (only a small basal portion remained on the small papered board attached to the holotype). The only illustration of the aedeagus of P. (M.) flavomaculatum was the schematic drawing by Horn (1934a, pl. 2, fig. 46), the same figure adopted by Olsoufieff (1934), and the schematic drawing by Rivalier (1970: 326, fig. 23fl).
A colour picture of the habitus of P. (M.) flavomaculatum, showing a partly testaceous posterior pronotal lobe, is in Horn (1910: pl. 6, fig. 6).
description: Published as part of Moravec, Jiří & Vybíra, Jan, 2018, New or rare Madagascar tiger beetles- 17. Description of Pogonostoma (Microstenocera) noheli sp. nov. and redescription of P. (M.) flavomaculatum W. Horn (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), pp. 76-88 in Zootaxa 4388 (1) on pages 82-87, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4388.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/1187843