Oodes (Lachnocrepis) desertus Motschulsky 1858
Creators: name: Guéorguiev, Borislav
name: Liang, Hongbin
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Oodes
Oodes desertus

description: 18. Oodes (Lachnocrepis) desertus Motschulsky, 1858
(Figs 23 A–F, Figs 24 A–G, Table 4)
Oodes desertus Motschulsky, 1858: 173 (type locality: ‘Steppes des Kirguises’).
= Oödes prolixus Bates, 1873: 254 (type locality: ‘Hiogo’), syn. n.
= Oodes hahni Reitter, 1908: 186 (type locality: ‘aus Taschkend u. der Buchara’). Synonymy established by Csiki (1931: 1007).
References.
Oodes desertus: Motschulsky 1850: 63; Gemminger & Harold 1868: 232; Marseul 1880: 191; Chaudoir 1882: 346; Marseul 1882: 28; Semenov-Tian-Shanskij 1909: 25 (morphology); Lorenz 1998: 305; Bousquet 2003: 445; Lorenz 2005: 325; Elderkhanova 2012: 495; Bousquet 2017: 636.
Lachnocrepis prolixa: Chaudoir 1882: 378; Lafer 1973: 847–849 (distribution, diagnostic features and identification key); Kim et al. 1994: 130; Bousquet 1996: 450, 467–468; Lorenz 1998: 304; Bousquet 2003: 445; Lorenz 2005: 325; Nakhibasheva et al. 2012: 305; Sundukov 2013: 190; Belousov et al. 2014: 96; Hasegawa et al. 2015: 23 (Japan, Aichi Prefecture); Bousquet 2017: 635.
Oodes (Oodes) gracilis? var. desertus: Jakobson 1906: 310.
Oodes hahni: Semenov-Tian-Shanskij 1909: 26 (taxonomic notes and distribution).
Lachnocrepis prolixus: Andrewes 1930: 188 (‘Japan’).
Oodes (Oodes) desertus: Csiki 1931: 1007 (‘Kirgisen–steppe’); Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995: 158 (distribution in ex-USSR).
Oodes (Oodes) desertus var. hahni: Csiki 1931: 1007 (‘Turkestan’); Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995: 158.
Oodes (Oodes) prolixus: Csiki 1931: 1010 (‘ Japan, Ussuri, China’); Wu 1937: 148.
Lachnocrepis (Eulachnocrepis) prolixa: Habu 1956: 79–80 (identification keys), 96–98 (re-description and comparisons); Habu 1958: 194 (distribution in Japan).
Oodes (Lachnocrepis) prolixus: Ishkov & Kabak 1995: 85; Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995: 158 (distribution in ex-USSR).
Oodes prolixus: Elderkhanova 2012: 495.
Type material. Oodes desertus Motschulsky: lectotype ♀, rather damaged (see also Kelejnikova 1976: 195), with missing head and its appendages, pronotum, prothorax, fore legs, tarsomere 5 of right middle leg, tarsomeres 4–5 of left hind leg and whole right hind leg (Figs 23A, B, C, D), with labels: ‘Des. Kirg. Mer. [r, h] // Oodes desertus Motsch. Des. Kirg. M. [w, h] // Zool. Mus. Mosc. Univ. (Moscow, RUSSIA) ex coll. V.I. Motschulsky [w, p] // [red label without data]’ (ZMMU).
Chaudoir (1882: 346) suggested that O. desertus may be identical to O. gracilis without having seen the type material of first taxon. This view was later followed only by Jakobson (1906) who placed the former as a questionable synonym of the latter. All other authors (see ‘References’) cited O. desertus as a separate species.
No data exist for number of studied specimens in the description of O. desertus. Kelejnikova (1976) noted that the specimen kept in ZMMU is a syntype. Therefore, we followed the Recommendation 73F of the Code (ICZN 1999) and designated the available specimen as lectotype.
Type material. Oodes prolixus Bates: two syntypes, labelled as follows: 1♀, ‘Hiogo [w, h] // Ex-Musaeo H.W. Bates 1892 [w, p]’ (MNHN, box ‘Collection Generale R. Oberthur H.W. Bates Dercylus ... Macroproctus ’); 1♀, relatively well-preserved, labelled: ‘Hiogo [w, h] // Oodes prolixus Bates [w, h] // 59579 [w, p] // Type [r, p] // prolixus Bates * Japonia [y, h]’ (MNHUB, box nr. Oodini II). Both specimens are conspecific.
The specimen in MNHN has been compared with the lectotype of O. desertus and showed that the two specimens are conspecific. Therefore, we propose the following synonymy: Oodes prolixus Bates, 1873, syn. n. of Oodes desertus Motschulsky, 1858.
Type material. Oodes hahni Reitter: lectotype ♀, relatively well-preserved individual, with left maxillary palpus, right labial palpus, antennomeres 2–11 of left antenna and tarsomeres 1–5 of right hind leg missing (Figs 23E, F), with labels: ‘ Oodes Hahni m 1907. [w, h] // Turkestan Taschkend [w, p] // coll. Reitter [w, p] // Holotypus Oodes Hahni Reitter 1908. [white label with red margins, h/p]’ (HNHM).
Oodes hahni was described as separate species (Reitter 1908: 186). Its status was discussed by Semenov-Tian-Shanskij (1909: 26) who concluded that O. hahni may be a subspecies or synonym of O. desertus. It has been treated as a variation (Csiki 1931; Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995) or synonym of O. desertus (Lorenz 1998, 2005; Bousquet 2003, 2017). The single type specimen was found in HNHM and borrowed for examination. Its study revealed that the specimen is conspecific with the lectotype of O. desertus Motschulsky and the syntypes of O. prolixus Bates, thus the synonymy of Oodes hahni Reitter, 1908 with O. desertus Motschulsky, 1858 is confirmed. Since Reitter (1908) did not specify the number of specimen he had at hands, the sole specimen present in HNHM is designated as lectotype.
Incorrectly designated type material. Oodes prolixus Bates: 1♂ designated as holotype, ‘Type H. T. [white rounded label with red band, p] // Japan. G Lewis. 1910–320. [w, p] // Oödes prolixus Bates [w, h]’ (BMNH).
There are two male specimens in BMNH labelled as holotype and paratype of Oodes prolixus. This designation was made by mistake because the data present on their labels show they are not true types. See Andrewes (1919) ’ notes under Pseudoodes vicarius (“Incorrectly designated type material”).
Other material examined. ROMANIA: Tulcea County: 1♂, ‘Rom. Jurilovca 7.VI. 1990 J. Bašta’ (cDW). RUSSIA: K h a b a ro v s k K r a i: 2♀♀, ‘ХАБАРОВСКИЙ КРАИ [Khabarovsk Krai] 1.8.’82 οкр. р. БИКИН луГа, на свет̕ [environs of river Bikin, meadows, at light]’ (cSF). Primorsky Krai: 1♂, ‘USSR PRIMORSKI KR. ARSENEV ENV. O. SAUSA LGT. VI.1991 ’ (cSF); 1♂, ‘Russia, Primorsky Krai, Lake Utinoye ca. 4.5 km NE of Zarubino N42.679° / E131.109° 2009/VI/16, leg. F. Walther’ (NME).
JAPAN: Niigata Prefecture: 3♂♂, ‘Katamachi NIIGATA. 3.IX.1976 S. Morita’ (NMNHS). Ibaraki Prefecture: 1♀, ‘ JAPAN, IBARAKI Pref. TSUKUBA City env. 1–2 XI 2003, ad luc. leg. P. JAŁOSZYŃSKI’ (cPJ); 1♂, 1♀, ‘ JAPAN, IBARAKI Pref. TSUKUBA City env. 27 VII 2006, ad luc. leg. P. JAŁOSZYŃSKI’ (cPJ); 2♂♂, 2♀♀, ‘ JAPAN, IBARAKI Pref. TSUKUBA City env. 4 VIII 2006, ad luc. leg. P. JAŁOSZYŃSKI’ (NMNHS; cPJ); 1♀, ‘ JAPAN, IBARAKI Pref. TSUKUBA City env. 12 VI 2007, ad luc. leg. P. JAŁOSZYŃSKI’ (cPJ); 1♂, 1♀, ‘ JAPAN, IBARAKI Pref. TSUKUBA City env. 26–28 VI 2007, ad luc. leg. P. JAŁOSZYŃSKI’ (cPJ); 4♂♂, 1♀, ‘ JAPAN, IBARAKI Pref. TSUKUBA City env. 20–26 VII 2007, ad luc. leg. P. JAŁOSZYŃSKI’ (NMNHS; cPJ).
CHINA: Imprecise localities: 3♂♂, 3♀♀, China, 94.4 (IZAS); 1♂, 1♀, NE China (IZAS); 2♀♀, NE China // 1943.VIII.5. (IZAS). Heilongjiang Province: 1♂, ‘Charbin [Harbin] VIII.1928 // Oodes prolixus Bates V. Lutshnik det.’ (MIZ); 2♀♀, Heilongjiang, Sanjiangpingyuan, d29, 2007–6–13, Bao Xiao leg., in soybean field, Inst. of Zoology, CAS (IZAS); 1♂, Heilongjiang, Mudanjiang, Jingpohu, N: 43.98742, E: 129.05235 // 2009. V.14 D, 402m, Liu Ye leg., Inst. of Zoology, CAS (IZAS); 2♂♂, Heilongjiang, Hulin, Hutou, bank of Usuri, 45.977920°, 133.670339°, 2009.5.20 –24, Liu Ye (IZAS); 1♂, 2♀♀, China, Heilongjiang, Mishan, Dangbi, Liang Hongbin leg. 2010 VIII 20, Inst. of Zoology, CAS (IZAS); 1♂, 1♀, Heilongjiang, Tongjiang, Sanjiangkou, 2015.VII.22, Liang Hongbin (IZAS). J i l i n Province: 1♂, Jilin, Qian-an, 14–VI–1980 (IZAS). L i a o n i n g Province: 2♀♀, Liaoning, Zhanggutai, 1956.V.15 (IZAS). Hebei Province: 1♀, Hebei, Tanghai // 1989.VI.10. (IZAS). Beijing Municipality: 2♂♂, 1♀ ‘Fan Inst. Biol. Peiping T.P. Chang, 5/2 1937 ’ (IZAS); 2♂♂, 1♀, Peiping [= Beijing], light trap // 1948.VI.25 (IZAS); 1♂, Beijing, Yuanmingyuan // 1950.VII.8 (IZAS); 1♀, Beijing, Beijing Physical University, 2000.4.23, Liang Hongbin (IZAS); 1♂, Beijing, Cuihu Wetland Park, 2007.V.6, Su Zhimin (IZAS); 1♂, ‘CHINA, Beijing, Shunyi District, Hanshiqiao Wetland Park, N40.1138, E116.7928, 29 m, 13.V.2018, Shi Hongliang & Borislav Guéorguiev leg.’ (NMNHS). Taiwan: 2♂♂, 2♀♀, ‘Taiwan, Taoyuan County, Guishan town, Dakeng village 1995.4.29 ’ (IZAS).
TME: 60 specimens. TGE: 4♂♂, 2♀♀.
Diagnosis. Oodes desertus can be separated from O. japonicus in its much darker (dark brown to black) antennae, palpomeres, tibiae and tarsomeres, prosternal process completely bordered, male mesotibia modified, and lateral end of metacoxal basal sulcus longer and less oblique (for additional differences between the two species see “Key to species of Oodes, Pseudoodes gen. n., Sundaoodes gen. n., and Nothoodes gen. n. in Palaearctic and Oriental regions”).
Description. Habitus. Specimens of middle size (BL: 9.6–11.8 mm, BW: 3.3–4.3 mm), with elongate, rather convex body (Fig. 23E). Ratios and measurements. See Table 4. Color and luster. Body black; antennae, palpi and legs piceous. Integument moderately shiny, without iridescence. Punctuation. Dorsal surface without punctuation, pro- and mesoepisternum superficially punctate; sides of pro- and metasternum as well as metepisternum more markedly punctate; abdominal ventrites 1–5 at sides rugose and punctate, ventrite 6 punctate at apex.
Head. More than half as wide as pronotum (Table 4). Mentum tooth with distinct paramedial border (Fig. 24A).
Thorax. Pronotum with sides rounded toward posterior angles (PW/PB: 1.03–1.10); maximum width in posterior third; disc with weak, poorly defined laterobasal impressions; base slightly sinuate; anterior angles widely rounded, well-projected anteriorly. Prosternum with median longitudinal sulcus shallow; prosternal process bordered throughout, widely rounded at apex (Fig. 24B). Metepisternum longer than wide (MA/MM: 0.73–0.90), with lateral margin convex and coadunation with epipleuron long, located anteriorly (Fig. 23B). Elytra. Apical sinuation weak. Basal margin distinct laterally, forming a small denticle at shoulder, disappearing medially at level between striae 2 and 3. Granulation in marginal furrow continuous. Parascutellar striola impressed as much as other striae; striola and striae anteriorly punctate; stria 7 as distinct as stria 6. Intervals 1–7 nearly flat, interval 8 slightly more convex than others. Legs. Metacoxal basal sulcus long, extending to lateral fourth. Male mesotibia moderately modified, with a swelling in apical two-thirds. Protarsomeres 1–3 of male moderately dilated, with second segment nearly as long as wide (W/Lp2: 1.02–1.03). Male genitalia. Median lobe (Figs 24C, D) with basal bulb short and wide; angle between basal bulb and shaft acute; shaft long, approximately as swollen as basal bulb; apex short, tapered and curved ventrally; apical lamella short, rounded; ostium elongate, not reaching basal bulb. Female genitalia. Basal gonocoxite with six lateroapical setae arranged in line.Apical gonocoxite with two small dorsolateral ensiform setae (Fig. 24E). Distal lobe of bursa copulatrix quite large; spermatheca coiled apically (Figs 24F, G).
Distribution. Palaearctic Region: Romania, Russia (Southern European Territory, the Russian Far East), Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,? Kyrgyzstan,? Tajikistan, Japan (Ishkov & Kabak 1995; Kryzhanovskij et al. 1995; Sundukov 2013; Bousquet 2017), Korea (Kim et al. 1994), China (Wu 1937). According to Nakhibasheva et al. (2012: 305, as L. prolixa), O. desertus is a rare species, whose range is disjunct: the western part extending along steppe and semi-desert zones from south–east Europe to Balkhash Lake and the eastern part covering the Far East of Russia, Korea, the Japanese Islands, and north–eastern China. First records for Romania. The records for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan need verification.
description: Published as part of Guéorguiev, Borislav & Liang, Hongbin, 2020, Revision of the Palaearctic and Oriental representatives of Lachnocrepis LeConte and Oodes Bonelli (Coleoptera: Carabidae), with special account on Chinese species, pp. 1-89 in Zootaxa 4850 (1) on pages 59-63, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4850.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4407072