Brachypeplus blandus 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 blandus

description: 17. Brachypeplus blandus Murray, 1864
Figs 9, A–H; 21, A
Brachypeplus (Tasmus) blandus Murray, 1864: 291; “ South Australia, between Melbourne and the gold-diggings” (Victoria).
Specimens examined. Type specimens: lectotype of B. blandus, male (NHML), here designated—“ blandus ”, “[18]68.100”; 3 paralectotypes of B. blandus (NHML) —“51811”, “ex Mus. Murray”, “Nov. Holl. Vict.”, “Fry Coll., 1905–100”, “ blandus ”; 1 paralectotype of B. blandus (NHML) —“S. Austral.”, “[18]68.100”, “ blandus ”; 2? syntypes (ZMB)—“Port Philipp, Goulou”, “8336”. Other specimens: Australia, QLD: 5 exx (ZIN)—“Brisbane, 10.8.57, C.F. Ashby”; 3 exx (TMB, ZIN)—“ Queensland, env. Ingham, 22–28.III.1965, Exp. Dr. J. Balogh”; NSW: 4 exx (AMS, ZIN)—“Lilyvale, 18.8.1972, D.A. Doolan”, “D.A. Doolan collection” (NSW); 1 ex (NMV)—“vicinity of Janolan Caves”, “Mat. Mus. Victoria, 5.11.08, C. Frencks coll.” (NSW); 5 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Wahroonga, NS Wales, H.J. Carter”; 3 exx (CMS, ZIN)—“NSW, Wahroonga, Sydney, 9 October 1988, Richard Bejsak”, “under bark fallen Eucalyptus”; 8 exx (AMS, ZIN)—“Jindabyne, NSW, 3000 ft, Helms, III.89”; 1 ex (ZIN)—“NSW, Tinderry Mts., 20 km SE of Michelago, 17.10.1990, A. Kirejtshuk”; ACT: 6 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Black Mt., Canberra, ACT, 29 Nov.—31 Dec. 1981, J.F. Lawrence” (“Nov. 19’”), “Eucal. mannifera macilosa, branch fallen, 21 Nov. 1981 ”; SA: 2 exx (ZIN)—“Mt. Softy, S.A., J.G.O. Tepper”; 16 exx (SAM, ZIN)—“Port Lincoln, Blackburn” and “Adelaide, Blackburn.”; VIC: 2 exx (ANIC, ZIN)—“Hastings, Vic., under bark, 20.xii.67, Britton & Misko.”
Notes. The identification about 150 specimens of Brachypeplus binotatus 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. Nevertheless, it is very probably that most these specimens included belong to Brachypeplus binotatus rather than B. blandus. These specimens with doubtful determination are from QLD, NSW, ACT, SA, VIC, TAS.
On species distinctness. The synonymy of the species name “ binotatus ” and “ blandus ”was erroneously established by Blackburn (1902: 301) —see above the Notes on synonymy for Brachypeplus binotatus.
Diagnosis. This species seems to be clearly isolated from other Australian species due to its male metatibia and structure of its male ultimate abdominal segmen and male anal sclerite and adeagus. Brachypeplus blandus can be easily diagnosed after the above key to Australian species of Brachypeplus. It is similar to Brachypeplus binotatus and B. wattsensis, but distinct in the characters listed in the above Diagnosis of B. binotatus.
It is necessary to note that the structure of the male abdominal apex and genitalia of Brachypeplus blandus is somewhat similar to those in B. instriatus sp. nov. However, the posterior edge of male pygidium in the former species is clearly concave, while in the latter one subtruncate; the male anal sclerite of Brachypeplus blandus is not quite but somewhat dorsoventraly compressed, while it in B. instriatus sp. nov. is completely inflated and reminiscent of that in various carpophilines (particularly in the genera Nitops Murray, 1964 and Urophorus Murray, 1864). The aedeagi of the Brachypeplus species under consideration (B. blandus and B. instriatus sp. nov.) are much longer than in other Australian congeners with penis trunk comparable long with tegmen.
Addition to description. Body entire length 3.0– 4.8 mm. Body dark brown to nearly 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, frequently middle of tergite V (to whole tergite) and also part of ventrites 1–4 markedly lighter (to almost complеtely yelow); 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 with punctures 1.5–2.0 × as coarse as eye facets or rarely coarser, interspaces between punctures about one puncture diameter on head and pronotum, smooth to alutaceous or obliterately microreticulate, but on pronotal disc punctures sometimes becoming much coarser and much denser or, oppositely, finer and sparser. Elytra with longitudinal rows of punctures usually slightly to markedly coarser than those on head and pronotum, particularly in very shallow furrows; interspaces between punctures much greater or somewhat smaller than one puncture diameter, smooth or alutaceous. Above uncovered sclerites of abdominal segments with finer and sparser punctation, 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 sharply projecting temples, obliquely narrowing to “neck”. Antennae longer than head width, antennomere 3 at least 4.0 × as long as wide and about 2.5 × as long as each of antenomeres 2 and 4, oval oval antennal club about 1.3–1.5 × 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), clearly bi-emarginate base and posterior angles blunt to very slightly projecting. Abdominal laterosternites V usually less than 2.5 × as wide as long, and laterosternites VI about 3.0 × as wide as long. Prosternal process with transverse apex, about 2.5 × as wide as distance between procoxae. Male pro- and mesotibiae, and female all tibiae triangular, their outer apical angle not projecting and spur moderately developed and moderately thick; male metatibiae strongly triangularly dilated at outer subapical angle. Male pygidium with strongly convex integument and sinuate apex. Male hypopygidium widely truncate at apex. Female pygidium widely rounded at apex.
Male anal sclerite not dorsoventraly compressed, subangular at posterior edge and narrowly rounded at apex. Aedeagus moderately sclerotized. Tegmen rather long, about 3.5 × as long as wide, somewhat narrowed in midlength and with widely rounded apex. Penis trunk rather long, about 4.0 × as long as wide and sharply acuminate at apex. Armature of inner sac of penis with diffuse small sclerotized granules concentrated in unclear longitudinal narrow stripes, four paramedian pairs sclerites and H-shaped one at end of inner sac.
Ovipositor slightly to moderately sclerotized and moderately narrow; its gonocoxites comprising almost 0.4 of entire length, lateral lobes usually without sclerotization and about 0.3 × as long as gonocoxites in general, outer outline of gonocoxites clearly concave at distal end of lateral lobes and subparallel-sided at apex; rather wide apex with rather long styli located subapically.
Distribution. Australia: QLD, NSW, ACT, SA, VIC (type locality is not defined: Murray, 1864: 29: “ South Australia, between Melbourne and the gold-diggings” (VIC).
Notes on bionomy. This species seems to have ecology and bionomy very similar to those in Brachypeplus binotatus.
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 48-51, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5103.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6245709