Dendrocellus smaragdinus Chaudoir, 1861

Liang, Hongbin & Kavanaugh, David H., 2007, Review of the Genus Dendrocellus Schmidt-Göbel (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Dryptini), with Descriptions of Seven New Species, The Coleopterists Bulletin (Oxford, England) 61 (1), pp. 1-39 : 1-39

publication ID 10.1649/934.1

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Dendrocellus smaragdinus Chaudoir


Dendrocellus smaragdinus Chaudoir View in CoL

( Fig. 21 View Figs )

Dendrocellus smaragdinus Chaudoir 1861: 545 View in CoL (Melbourne, Australia)

Specimens examined. Australia: 1 female (holotype, MNHN), ‘‘Ex Musaeo, Chaudoir’’/‘‘Museum Paris’’/‘‘ smaragdinus Chaud. View in CoL , Australie, Melbourne, Stevens’’/‘‘ HOLOTYPE Dendrocellus smaragdinus Chaudoir View in CoL labeled by H.B. Liang & D.H. Kavanaugh 2006’’ [red label].

34 Description. Length 10.0 mm, width 3.0 mm. Black with green luster, apical half of Ant 1 and basal two-thirds of Ant 3 black, basal half of Ant 1, apical third of Ant 3, and Ant 4–11 brown; mandibles and palpi brown; apical sixth of femora black, basal two-thirds of femora brown; tibiae and tarsi nearly black (especially hind ones). Head with vertex convex, densely punctate; Ant 1/Ant 3 5 3.60; labrum with medial lobe slightly protruded anteriorly; genae distinctly tumid; eyes large, 2.5 times as long as genae. Pronotum densely punctate, PL/PW 5 1.46, HW/PW 5 1.14, widest slightly before the middle; apical angles round, lateral margins slightly widened from apical angles to widest point, gradually narrowed behind, then strongly sinuate to basal angles; basal angles obtuse, pointed laterally; lateral furrow indistinct; basal foveae shallow; middle line fine. Elytra long, lateral margins slightly widened to apical third, then narrowed to apex; EL/ EW 5 1.87, EW/PW 5 2.35 (2.28–2.50); intervals nearly flat, densely punctate; outer angles slightly dentate. Tarsal claws with 5 long pectinations, length of individual pectination subequal to width of claw base.

Distribution. Australia.

Remarks. The type locality is questionable. Moore et al. (1987: 311) stated the following: ‘‘…Melbourne, Vic., this locality seems to be an error as the species distribution is limited to northern Qld.’’. The actual distribution of D. smaragdinus needs further clarification.

The description of D. smaragdinus was based on a single female specimen. It may be simply a dark variation of D. geniculatus (Klug) , with blackish tibia and tarsi. Comparison of male genitalia is required to resolve the status of this nominal species. Since its original description, D. smaragdinus has been compared only by Sloane (1907: 473, based on his specimen, not the type) and only with his D. elegans . However, we have found that many of Sloane’s comparisons were inaccurate. For example, he claimed that D. elegans members have (1) pronota with lateral margins more deeply sinuate posteriorly and more strongly reflexed laterally toward the base, and (2) elytra wider, more ampliate, and more declivous basally than D. smaragdinus members. This is incorrect, and we suspect that his comparison was based on a D. queenslandicus specimen rather than one of D. smaragdinus .














Dendrocellus smaragdinus Chaudoir

Liang, Hongbin & Kavanaugh, David H. 2007

Dendrocellus smaragdinus

Chaudoir 1861: 545
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF