Thinodromus capensis ( Bernhauer, 1934 )

Makranczy, György, 2013, Review of the southern African species of Thinodromus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (1), pp. 177-208 : 203-204

Thinodromus capensis ( Bernhauer, 1934)

( Figs 4 , 7–9 , 70–74 , 79 )

Trogophloeus (Carpalimus) capensis Bernhauer, 1934: 486 .

Thinodromus capensis: GILDENKOV (2000: 54) .

Trogophloeus (Carpalimus) montiumdraconis Scheerpeltz, 1974a: 57 , syn. n.

Thinodromus montiumdraconis: GILDENKOV (2000: 51) .

Type material examined. Trogophloeus (Carpalimus) capensis Bernhauer – LECTOTYPE (here designated): ♀, “ Port St. John[s] [31°37′S, 29°32′E],; Pondoland.; Aug.7-13.1923 \ S. Africa.; R.E.Turner; Brit. Mus.; 1923-422. \ capensis; Brh. Typus; Carpalimus \ capensis Brnh. ; Cotyp. \ Chicago NHMus; M. Bernhauer; Collection \ Lectotypus; Trogophloeus ; capensis Bernhauer ; des. Makranczy, 2013 \ Thinodromus ; capensis (Bernhauer) ; det. Makranczy, 2013” ( FMNH). Trogophloeus (Carpalimus) montiumdraconis Scheerpeltz – HOLOTYPE: ♂, “S. Afr. [Eastern] Cape Prov.; Drakensbergen 5 miles ; ENE Rhodes [30°45′28″S, 28°02′25″E, 1970 m]; 10.III.[19]51. No. 222 \ Swedish South Africa; Expedition; 1950-1951; [P.] Brinck - [G.] Rudebeck \ Trogophloeus ; (Carpalimus); montiumdraconis; n.sp. \ Holotypus \ Typus; Trogophloeus ; montium-; draconis; O. Scheerpeltz \ Trogophloeus ; (Carpalimus); montiumdraconis; n.sp.; det. Scheerpeltz. 1968 \ Zool. Mus. Lund Sweden; Staphylinidae ; Type No.; 590:1 \ ZML 2002 ; 121” ( ZMLU).

Other material examined. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA: [Western] Cape, Swartberg, Meiringspoort , cent., 33°25′S, 22°33′E 1.xi.1993, leg. S. Endrődy-Younga (E-Y 2925), shorewashing (1 ♂, TMSA; 1 ♀, BMNH) ; Eastern Cape (Transkei), Dwesa Nat. Res. [= Dwesa-Cwebe Wildlife Reserve] ( The Haven ), 4-6.xii.2003, leg. W. Schawaller (1 ♀, SMNS) ; Natal, Cathedral Peak , 28°57′S, 29°12′E 18.iii.1976, leg. S. Endrődy-Younga (E-Y 1101), air plankton (1 ♀, TMSA) .

Redescription. Measurements (in mm, n = 5): HW = 0.56 (0.545 –0.595); TW = 0.50 (0.475–0.53); PW = 0.62 (0.60–0.65); SW = 0.78 (0.76–0.81); AW = 0.86 (0.83–0.90); HL = 0.36 (0.33–0.39); EL = 0.19 (0.18–0.20); TL = 0.06 (0.055 –0.065); PL = 0.46 (0.44–0.47); SL = 0.76 (0.74–0.80); SC = 0.70 (0.67–0.74); FB = 1.60 (1.54–1.68); BL = 3.02 (2.78–3.25). Lustre and colour: Body ( Fig. 4 ) rather shining because of large unsculptured interspaces of punctures, but loosely covered by long pubescence. Head and abdomen blackish dark brown with a reddish tint, apices of abdominal segments seem lighter, reddish-yellowish. Pronotum reddish dark brown, deflexed side margin and centre of disc appear darker. Elytra medium to dark brown, with strong reddish tint, shoulders, scutellar area and a stripe from 2/3 suture length to the outer posterior corner appear darker; a conspicuously brighter, more narrow stripe extends along posterior edge from sutural corner till almost the outer posterior corner). Mouthparts and antennae medium to light brown, first (and partly second) antennomere lighter; legs almost unicolorous medium to light brown. Shape and sculpture: Head ( Fig. 7 ) rather small (appearing less transverse than in other species), eyes less prominent but still occupy most of sides. Temples well discernible, marked by an unusually broad, smooth rim around posterior edge of eyes, not shaded by setation. This rim meets the rest of temple in a sharp, curved edge. Pronotum transverse, but less so as in most species, first half of sides and anterior corners broadly rounded, side margin slightly concave in the hind half, posterior corners rounded but still discernible for the angle being less obtuse. Horseshoe-shaped impression deep and rather broad but does not continue anteriorly along sides nor approaches the side margin much, therefore appears as a broad transversal groove across hind part of disc. Deflexed margin most apparent at posterior corners but discernible anteriorly in posterior 3/5 of pronotal length; posterior margin well visible but not too broad. Elytra ( Fig. 9 ) combined somewhat broader than long, slightly dilated posteriorly. Posterior elytral margin with an unusually broad membranous lobe all along the outer 2/5. Abdomen seems to be a little bit constricted at base and unusually parallel-sided as opposed to other species where strongly narrowing behind middle. Apex of tergite VII with palisade fringe (widest medially). Punctation and microsculpture: Head punctation deep with punctures of very uneven sizes and interspaces, but latter occupies at least half of the surface and free of microsculpture, very shiny. Pronotum with similar punctation, only a tiny patch in posterior corner with some scabrous microsculpture. Elytra with even larger and deeper punctures, yet with ample shiny interspaces. Abdominal terga very roughly but sparsely punctured, puncture sizes decrease towards apical margin. Almost no traces of microsculpture in groove behind basal ridges of terga (punctation very dense here). Pubescence: Forebody with lighter coloured setae of varying size, rather sparse but predominantly long, erect setae; short interommatidial setae present without longer setae. Abdomen with sparse but long setae, with a few exceptionally long ones at apices of terga. On head, pronotal disc and abdominal tergum bases some shorter and finer setae noticeable. Primary and secondary sexual features: Male antennae ( Fig. 8 ) rather elongate, middle antennomeres (articles 4–5) almost twice as long as broad, penultimate antennomeres (articles 9–10) about as long as broad. Female antenna (on Fig. 4 ) with middle antennomeres (articles 4–5) less than a half longer than broad, penultimate antennomeres (articles 9–10) just imperceptably broader than long. Male: MA of aedeagal internal sac elongate, outward curved at proximal end, ML transverse, BM very elongate and pin-like, BA long, slender with slight curve, proximal part tuberculate, distal end with foot-like formation, AC reverse V-shaped with arms in acute angle ( Figs 72–74 ), sternite VIII ( Fig. 70 ), tergite X ( Fig. 71 ); female: ringstructure ( Fig. 79 ).

Differential diagnosis. Thinodromus capensis appears to be allied to T. nigerius . Besides the obviously similar apices of the female ringstructures, the most important similarity that unites these species is the formation of the subapical edge of median lobe body that contains a single sclerotized plate with an apical incision/desclerotization along the midline. For comparision with T. nigerius the sclerotized subapical plate of median lobe ( Fig. 75 ) and the apical copulatory sclerite ( Fig. 76 ) of the latter species are provided here, these are drawn from a South African specimen. Other shared character states include male sternite VIII with a more or less truncate apex, without much trace of any modification in the middle as regards sclerotization (most species have there either a projection or incision, and almost all with an inwards pulled border of the stronger sclerotized part of the plate). AC similar, but its arms a little incrassate at the base in T. gabonicus , most other internal sclerites rather thread-like in both species. The examined material markedly varies in the form of the temples, but are consistent in the lighter marked sutural corner that distinguishes the taxon from all other described southern African species.

Distribution. This species is still only known from the Republic of South Africa.

Remarks. The identity of Thinodromus capensis has long been controversial. The description does not state how many specimens were at hand, but gives “Pondoland: Port St. Johns (7th- 13th August 1923) (R. E.Turner)” as the specimen data. Of the two specimens marked as types by previous curators (one female in FMNH and another female in BMNH), only the FMNH specimen bears the locality data corresponding to the original description and is considered to be the only syntype. This specimen is designated here as the lectotype. The BMNH specimen bears different collecting dates which indicates it comes from a collecting event not referred to in the original description. Moreover, this specimen doubtlessly represents a different species described below as T. meridionalis sp. nov. SCHEERPELTZ’ s (1974) use of the name T. capensis agrees with the identity of the BMNH specimen and therefore refers to T. meridionalis sp. nov. Bernhauer later identified one more specimen from Angola as T. capensis , which W. O. Steel found not to be conspecific with the BMNH specimen considered as type of T. capensis . This specimen is identified here as T. facilis (see below).

Figures

Figs 4–6. 4 – Thinodromus capensis (Bernhauer, 1934), female; 5–6 – T. dasys Gildenkov, 2000, female (5 – head and pronotum; 6 – elytron and abdominal base). Scale bar: 0.5 mm for 5–6, 1.0 mm for 4.

Figs 7–12. 7–9 – Thinodromus capensis (Bernhauer, 1934), male (7 – head and pronotum; 8 – antenna; 9 – elytron and abdominal base); 10–12 – T. rhodesianus (Scheerpeltz, 1974), male (10 – head and pronotum; 11 – antenna; 12 – elytron and abdominal base). Scale bar: 0.44 mm for 7, 9–12, and 0.50 mm for 8.

Figs 70–76. 70–74 – Thinodromus capensis (Bernhauer, 1934), male (70 – sternite VIII; 71 – tergite X; 72–73 – aedeagus; 74 – paramere); 75–76 – T. nigerius Gildenkov, 2000, male (75 – sclerotized subapical plate of aedeagus; 76 – apical copulatory sclerite).Abbreviations:AC – apical copulatory sclerite; BA – basal sclerites, BM – basomedial sclerites, MA – medioapical sclerites ML – medial lamellae. Scale bar: 0.05 mm for 76, 0.08 mm for 75, 0.11 mm for 72–74, 0.12 mm for 71, 0.14 mm for 70.

Figs 77–80. 77–78 – Thinodromus sudanensis (Scheerpeltz, 1974), female (77 – tergite X; 78 – ringstructure and spermatheca); 79 – T. capensis (Bernhauer, 1934), female ringstructure; 80 – T. meridionalis sp. nov., female ringstructure with spermatheca. Scale bar: 0.09 mm for 79–80, 0.11 mm for 78, 0.14 mm for 77.