Eurygeniini LeConte, 1862

Telnov, Dmitry, 2024, On the taxonomy of some South American and Australo-Pacific Anthicidae Latreille, 1819 (Coleoptera) with new subfamily and tribe-rank synonymies, Zootaxa 5501 (3), pp. 401-424 : 410-412

Eurygeniini LeConte, 1862

LeConte (1862: 264) as ‘Eurygenii’, type genus Eurygenius La Ferté-Sénectère, 1849 [subsequent informal designation by Abdullah (1967)].

= Ictistygnini Borchmann, 1936 syn. nov.

Borchmann (1936: 6, 12‒13, 534), type genus Ictistygna Pascoe, 1866 [subsequent designation by Abdullah (1969)].

Ictistygnini (in the present sense as defined by Abdullah (1969)) was originally erected by Borchmann (1936) as a subfamily (‘Ictistygninae’) in what is now Lagriinae Latreille, 1825 , a subfamily of Tenebrionidae Latreille, 1802 . Abdullah (1969) redefined Ictistygnini as follows (in part translated from German, adapted in accordance with the contemporary coleopterological terminology, author’s additions provided in square brackets): ‘procoxa subconically projected’, ‘pronotum with anterior flange’, ‘compound eye prominent’ [in dorsal and lateral aspect], ‘antenna generally filiform’, ‘body elongate and slender’ ( Borchmann 1936: 13), ‘compound ‘neck’ narrow, ‘procoxal cavity closed [externally]’ ( Borchmann 1936: 534). The following four genera (in alphabetical order), Diacallina Champion, 1916 (equatorial Africa), Egestriomima Champion, 1916 ( Australia), Ictistygna Pascoe, 1866 ( Australia), Ictistygnina Champion, 1916 (South America ), were originally attributed to Ictistygnini by Borchmann (1936).

It was Crowson (1955) who first pointed on the fact that Ictistygnini (in the present sense) is a subgroup of Anthicidae (sensu Crowson (1955)) rather than Lagriinae . Abdullah (1969) confirmed this hypothesis and placed Ictistygnini as a tribe in Eurygeniinae based exclusively of what this author considered ‘front coxal cavity externally closed’ ( Abdullah 1969: 340).

Based on the study of the type specimens of both known Ictistygnina species (see new combination below) it became obvious that procoxal cavities ( Figs 4 , 6B , 8A‒B ) are narrowly open externally behind (the extensions of the proventrite and hypomeron (propleura) narrowly separated or come in contact or even slightly overlap depending on the condition of the specimen but are never fused together in the sense used in contemporary morphological terminology of Tenebrionoidea), closed internally. Also other phylogenetically important genus-rank features in Ictistygnina appear be same as those in ‘typical’ Eurygeniini . Consequently, a new synonym is introduced.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Eurygeniini LeConte, 1862 species, venter. A—Ictistygnina filicornis Champion, 1916 syntype ♂, ventral view; B—ditto, latero-ventral view; C—Ictistygna adusta Pascoe, 1866 ♀, ventral view; D—ditto, ♀, ventral pterothorax; E—ditto, syntype ♂, ventral view; F—Retocomus duboisi Abdullah, 1965 paratype ♂, ventral view [not to scale].

FIGURE 6. Setosicornia argentina Pic, 1911, syntype ♂. A—Habitus, dorsal view; B—ditto, ventral view: C—ditto, lateral view; D—ditto, head, antero-dorsal view; D—ditto, antenna, antennomeres 2‒11 [not to scale]. Image courtesyAntoine Mantilleri and Christophe Rivier (MNHN).

FIGURE 8. Setosicornia curacaoae (Gilmour, 1968) comb. nov., holotype ♂, forebody.A—Head, pro- and mesothorax, ventral view; B—ditto, latero-ventral view; B—Pronotum and mesothorax, lateral view [not to scale].