Brachypeplus binotatus Murray 1864
Creators: name: Kirejtshuk, Alexander G.
name: Kovalev, Alexey V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Nitidulidae
Brachypeplus
Brachypeplus binotatus

description: 16. Brachypeplus binotatus Murray, 1864
Figs 8, A–L; 20, A–C
Brachypeplus (Tasmus) binotatus Murray, 1864: 290; “ Victoria ”;
= Brachypeplus Cowleyi Blackburn, 1902: 304, syn. nov.; QLD: Cairns;
= Brachypeplus Koebelei Blackburn, 1902: 304, syn. nov.; “North Queensland ”;
= Brachypeplus Murrayi Macleay, 1873: 159, syn. nov.; QLD: Gayandah.
Specimens examined. Type specimens: lectotype of Brachypeplus binotatus, male (NHML), here designated— “ binotatus ”, “[18]68.106”; 1 paralectotype of B. binotatus, male (NHML)—“ binotatus ”, “[18]68.106”; lectotype of Brachypeplus Cowlei, male (NHML), here designated—“7161”, “Australia Blackburn Coll. B.M. 1910-236”, “ Brachypeplus Cowleyi Blackb. ”; lectotype of B Kobelei, male (SAM) here designated—“N. Queensland, Blackb’s Coll.”, “ Brachypeplus Kobelei Co-type” (handwritten by Blackburn); 1 paralectotype, female (NHML)—“Australia Blackb. Coll. B.M. 1910-236”, “N.Qu. T.7162”, “ Brachypeplus Koebelei Blackb. ”; lectotype of B. Murrayi, male (AMS), here designated and 5 paralectotypes (AMS, ANIC, CMS) “Gayndah” named by W. Macleay. Other specimens: Australia. QLD: 4 exx (AMS)—“Cairns Distr., J.A. Anderson”, “ Kobelei ”; 6 exx. (SAM, ZIN)— “Cairns, Sunles”, “ kobelei ”; 5 eхx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Cairns, Sunles”; 15 exx (NRS, ZIN)—“Blackal Range”, “ Queensland, Mjöberg”; 3 exx (NHML)—“N Queensland, Karanda, May 1949, J.G. Brooks”; 2 exx (NHML)— “Kuranda, Qld, July 84, F.P. Dodd“, “G. Bryant Coll.1919-147”; 10 exx (SAM, ZIN)—“Kuranda, Queensland ”; 14 exx (SAM, ZIN)—"Maryborough, Queensland, E.W. Fischer"; 6 exx (SAM, ZIN)—“Mt.Tambourine, Q:A.M. Lea”; 22 exx (NRS, ZIN)—“Mt. Tambourine”, “ Queensland, Mjöberg”; 1 ex (NRS)—“Atherton”, “Quensl., Mjöberg”; 4 exx NRS, ZIN)—“Malanda”, “ Queensland, Mjöberg”; 23 exx (TMB, ZIN)—“ Queensland, env. Ingham, 22– 28.III.1965, Exp. Dr. J. Balogh”; 1 ex (ZIN)—“Peeramon, N.Q., 5 mi. ENE of Malanda, 19.xi.68, oil bath trap”; 23 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“ 16.03S — 16.05S 145.28E, Cape Tribulation area, QLD, 21–28 Mar. 1984, A. Calder & T. Weir”; 9 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“ 15.04S 145.07E, Mt. Webb Nat. Pk, QLD, 28–30 Spt. 1980, T. Weir”; 4 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“RoseWood, 18.12.32”, “ basalis Er. ”, “J.G. Brooks Bequest, 1976”; NSW: 10 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“ 31.45S 152.32E, Lansdowne S.F., NSW, 19 Feb 1983, T. Weir & A. Calder”, “under bark”; 9 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Upper Lansdowne escarpment, N of Tarre, Apr. 87, G. Williams, ex wet scleroph. forest”; 2 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Berrigan State Forest, NSW, 7 May 1979, B.B. Lowery”; 1 ex (ZIN)—“ 30.22S, 152.44E, Dorrigo Nat. Park, Dorrigo Camp, 13- 15.11. 1989, A. Kirejtshuk”, “at light” (NSW); 2 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Wahroonga, NS Wales, H.J. Carter”; 8 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“ 10 km ESE of Moruya, NSW, 27 Oct. 1982, Doyen and Lawrence”; 2 ex (NMV)—“Vicinity of Jenovan Caves”, “Nat. Mus. Victoria, C. French’s Coll., 5.11.08”; 1 ex (ANIC)—“Kosciusko, (Hsc–1–37)”, “ Brachypeplus murrayi Macl. ” (NSW); ACT: 1 ex (ZIN)—“ACT, Tidbinbilla Nat.Pk, 6.11.1990, A. Kirejtshuk”, “under bark of fresh cut trunk Eucalypt.”; VIC: 1 ex (NMV)—“Noble Park, V, F.E. Wilson, 6.iv.18”, “F.E. Wilson Collection”; TAS: 1 ex (TMB)—“ Tasmania, Hobart, 15–25.IV.1982, Bornemissza.”
Notes. The identification about 150 specimens of this species by the first author, when he visited to Australian collections in 1989/1990 (AMS, ANIC, CMS, SAM), needs to be checked again because the type series of Brachypeplus blandus was studied by him later as well as estimation of synonymy of B. binotatus. Although, it is very probably that most these specimens belong to Brachypeplus binotatus rather than B. blandus. These specimens with doubtful determination are from QLD, NSW, ACT, SA, VIC, TAS.
Diagnosis. This species seems to be clearly isolated from other species and can be easily diagnosed after the above key to Australian species of Brachypeplus. However, due to its considerable variability in the body coloration, expression of projection of the pronotal posterior angles and also the character of punctation and sculpture of the upper integument it is necessary to be careful in identification of it. The quite characteristic coloration of Brachypeplus binotatus distinguishes it from all Australian species, except Brachypeplus blandus and Brachypeplus wattsensis, although this species differs from the former in the shape of pronotum and particularly strongly projecting posterior angles, shorter antennomere 3, wider abdominal laterosternites V and VI, simple male metatibia, and structure of ultimate abdominal segment and male anal sclerite; and also differs from the latter in the shorter and more narrowing anteriorly pronotum with strongly projecting posterior angles, completely dark to blackish prosternum and abdomen (subunicolorous with other body sclerites), more conspicuous pubescence of dorsum, and markedly wider abdominal laterosternites V and VI. It can be noted that the integument of the proximal abdominal segments of Brachypeplus binotatus are very rarely markedly lighter than other abdominal segments, although they can look like lighter because of the yellowish pubescence (the integument of the basal abdominal segments can be at most only slightly lighter than other segments, athough in few cases the entire abdomen of some specimens is completely yellow with some infuscation along lateral edge and apex), while those of B. blandus have the clearly yellowish coloration of the integument only in some proximal abdominal segments, but the abdominal apex in these cases is dark. The elytral punctation of Brachypeplus binotatus sometimes is more uniform (in strial and interstrial punctures), while the strial rows on elytra of B. blandus, as a rule, consist of larger punctures than those between striae. Nevertheless, the elytral punctation of Brachypeplus binotatus is rather variable in general, including the differences between the strial and interstrial punctures. At the same time, the pronotal punctation in Brachypeplus binotatus demonstrates also the much greater variability than that in B. blandus. The posterior angles of almost all specimens of Brachypeplus binotatus, in contrast to B. blandus, are rather projecting, but variability of this character is so great that in some cases the expression of their projection looks like that in another species. Finally, the apex of the prosternal process in Brachypeplus binotatus is more than 3.0 × as wide as distance between procoxae, while that in B. blandus is less 3.0 ×.
As to genital structures, the aedeagi of Brachypeplus binotatus and B. blandus are very different in all their elements (tegmen, penis trunk and armature of inner sac of the penis). The comparative length of the tegmen and penis trunk in the first species strongly varies and sometimes the penis trunk almost comparable in the length with tegmen, while the aedeagal structures of the second species seem to be more stable. The level sclerotization of the armature of the inner sac of the penis of both species seems also to be rather variable. The ovipositors of both species are rather similar and the essential differences between them mostly concern the proportion of the length of gonocoxites and valvifer, and also the level of sclerotization of the outer lobes of gonocoxites.
Notes on synonymy. The synonymy of the species name “ binotatus ” and “ blandus ” was established by Blackburn (1902: 301). Besides it, Blackburn (1902: 302) argued that the Murray’s “ blandus is a little wider than binotatus (no doubt due to sex—the male Brachypepli are usually narrower than the females), has a more rufous club to its antennae, and has more rufous colouring on its abdomen.” Nevetheless, the recent re-examination of both type series due to analysis of the pictures made by K. Matsumoto (NHML) showed that the lectotypes of the type series used for proposal of both names belong to two separate species. Therefore, one of these names should be regarded as a senior synonym for the species here interpreted as Brachypeplus binotatus and another as alone name for the species here interpreted as B. blandus.
The lectotype of B. cowlei should be different from B. binotatus “by the stronger and sparser punctation of its pronotum and especially of the dorsal segments of its abdomen and by the uniformly flattened interstices of its elytra. The outline of its prothorax is similar to that of B. basalis. Compared with B. Murrayi, Macl., inter alia the abdomen is very much more strongly punctulate” (Blackburn, 1902: 304). However, pronotum of this lectotype has the punctation very comparable with that in the lectotype of B. binotatus and finer than those in most specimens of this species, while the punctation of tergite V in really comparatively coarser and denser than in other type specimens and most representatives of the species examined. With that the elytral punctation and sculpture of the lectotype of B. cowlei indeed has the peculiarities mentioned in the description, which, however, could be a sequence of immaturity of the lectotype specimen with not complete sclerotization and pigmentation. The lectotype of Brachypeplus kobelei is certainly very similar to the specimens in the type series of B. binotatus by all characters. The lectotype of Brachypeplus koebelei is designated in the collection SAM because the specimen deposited in the collection of NHML is female. The type series of Brachypeplus murrayi is represented by the comparatively smaller specimens of B. binotatus with somewhat enlarged elytral yellow spots.
Addition to description. Body entire length 3.0– 4.6 mm. Body dark brown to blackish with more or less lighter (yellowish to rufous) prothoracic sides, subquadrangular and distinctly outlined spot on each elytron reaching its lateral edge but not suture, and also with lighter antennae and legs, upper surface usually with moderately dense and moderately conspicuous brownish to greyish pubescence forming on elytra longitudinal rows with yellowish hairs in light places, pronotal and elytral lateral edges distinctly ciliate.
Head and sides pronotum usually with punctures 1.0–2.5 × as coarse as eye facets or at pronotal sides even coarser; interspaces between punctures somewhat smaller than one puncture diameter on head and pronotum, smooth to obliterately microreticulate, but on pronotal disc punctures becoming finer and sparser. Elytra with strial rows of punctures subequal or somewhat coarser than those on head and pronotum, weakly elevated interstrial spaces with punctures usually finer, interspaces between punctures smaller than one puncture diameter and smooth. Above sclerites of uncovered abdominal segments usually with finer and sparser punctures sometimes dislodged by microtubercles or enlarged punctures, and also with dense microreticulation. Below thoracic sclerites and abdominal ventrite 1 with punctures nearly as those on head and pronotum but markedly sparser, interspaces between punctures on metaventrite completely smooth.
Head without projecting temples, obliquely narrowing to “neck”. Antenna somewhat shorter than head width, antennomere 3 about 2.5 × as long as wide and about 1.7× as long as each of antenomeres 2 and 4, oval antennal club about 1.3 × as long as wide. Pregenal processes moderately narrow and with rounded outer apical angle. Pronotum with shallowly bi-emarginate anterior edge and scarcely projecting anterior angles, moderately widely explanate sides (nearly as widely explanate as scape wide), serrate sides and clearly bi-emarginate base with (usually rather) projecting posterior angles. Abdominal laterosternites V about 2.5 × as wide as long, and laterosternites VI about 3.5 × as wide as long. Prosternal process with subtransverse apex, more than 3.0 × as wide as distance between procoxae.All tibiae triangular, their outer apical angle not projecting and spur moderately developed and moderately thick. Male pygidium with slightly convex integument and subtruncate at apex. Male hypopygidium subflattened and widely subtruncate at apex. Female hypopygidium widely rounded at apex.
Male anal sclerite dorsoventraly compressed, with widely rounded to subtruncate and scarcely to clearly finely serrate apex. Aedeagus moderately sclerotized. Tegmen 2.0–2.5× as long as wide and with widely rounded apex. Penis trunk about 2.0 × as long as wide and subacute at apex. Armature of inner sac of penis with diffuse small sclerotized granules concentrated in unclear formations looking like elongate clots: one paramedian pair of very long clots, one median subtriangular one and H-shaped one at end of inner sac.
Ovipositor moderately sclerotized and moderately narrow; its gonocoxites comprising almost 0.5 of total length of gonocoxites, lateral lobes of gonocoxites somewhat sclerotized and about 0.3 × as long as gonocoxites in general, outer outline of gonocoxites clearly concave before apex; moderately wide apex with moderately long styli located subapically.
Distribution. Australia: QLD (type locality of Brachypeplus cowleyi: Cairns, type locality of B. koebelei: “North Queensland ”, type locality of B. murrayi: Gayandah), NSW, ACT,? SA, VIC (type locality of B. binotatus: VIC), TAS.
Notes on bionomy. This species is rather common under bark and in different decaying substrates of plant origin. Lea (1912: 74) mentioned that “Mr Gibbson took two specimens of this species from a wild nest of the same bee.” (“hive bee”).”
description: Published as part of Kirejtshuk, Alexander G. & Kovalev, Alexey V., 2022, Monograph on the Cillaeinae (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) from the Australian Region with comments on the taxonomy of the subfamily, pp. 1-133 in Zootaxa 5103 (1) on pages 45-48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5103.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6245709