Sciaphobus K. Daniel, 1904

Borovec, Roman & Skuhrovec, Jiří, 2015, A review of Sciaphobus (Neosciaphobus) and descriptions of new species of Sciaphobus s. str. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 55 (2), pp. 745-785 : 748

Genus Sciaphobus K. Daniel, 1904

Heliophilus Faust, 1891: 249 (original description, junior homonym not Heliophilus Meigen, 1803 ).

Sciaphobus K. Daniel, 1904: 86 (new substitute name).

Sciaphobus: REITTER (1913) : 22 (key); APFELBECK (1922): 59 (revision); WINKLER (1932): 1469 (catalogue); DALLA TORRE et al. (1937): 160 (catalogue); SMRECZYŃSKI (1966): 81 (fauna); ANGELOV (1978): 59 (fauna); DIECKMANN (1980): 251 (fauna); PODLUSSÁNY (1996): 200 (check-list); ALONSO- ZARAZAGA & LYAL (1999): 177 (catalogue); BENEDIKT et al. (2010): 107 (check-list); BOROVEC (2013): 385 (catalogue).

Type species. Eusomus scitulus Germar, 1824 (by original designation).

Diagnosis. Body length 3.0– 7.3 mm; entire body densely covered with appressed scales, integument not visible; rostrum with basal half tapered apicad with straight sides and apical half distinctly enlarged apicad with straight or rounded sides, at apex wider than at base; frons large, not distinctly separated posteriorly by conspicuous carina; eyes large, placed near dorsal border of rostrum; head behind eyes without transversal carina; antennal scapes short, not reaching hind borders of eyes when folded, distinctly shorter than funicle; elytra without laterally projecting humeri, but their base is slightly wider than base of pronotum; metatibie with apical surface glabrous, metatibial corbels absent; claws solidly fused in basal half; aedeagus long and slender, well sclerotised, temones about as long as body of aedeagus; tegmen with long parameres, free or fused in basal part; sternite VIII in females with apodeme 2.0–2.5× as long as plate, terminated inside plate which is umbrella-shaped, without basal margin and with narrow but distinct apical margin, bearing short setae.

Remarks. Whereas identification of the genus is, in contrast to the majority of other Entiminae genera, quite easy, recognition of the species of Sciaphobus is a rather difficult matter. The latest available key including almost all species is 90 years old and almost half of the species are impossible to identify without studying their types. Some species are very easy to recognise (e.g. S. vittatus ( Gyllenhal, 1834)) while others are poorly defined (e.g. S. megalopsis Apfelbeck, 1922 ). Species with bright green adherent elytral scales and with long erect setae are particularly difficult and confusing, e.g. S. barbatulus ( Germar, 1824) or S. polydrosinus ( Apfelbeck, 1922) . Unfortunately the situation is not an easy one to be solved as Apfelbeck often did not mention depositories of the type specimens, and his personal collection is housed and the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo. As a consequence, a revision of the nominotypical subgenus, although much needed, is impossible at the moment because many of the types are not available.