Anthelephila maindroni ( Pic, 1903 )

Kejval, Zbyněk, Mz, Leica & Ch-, Olympus, 2018, Review of the Anthelephila maindroni complex, and description of four new species from the Indian subcontinent (Coleoptera: Anthicidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 58 (1), pp. 1-10 : 2-4

Anthelephila maindroni ( Pic, 1903)

( Figs 1–7 , 34, 38 )

Formicomus maindroni Pic, 1903: 349 .

Formicomus maindroni: KREKICH- STRASSOLDO (1931): 7, Fig. 10 (male characters, rec. Sri Lanka); HEBERDEY (1934):2 (rec. India); BONADONA (1986): 70 (rec. Sri Lanka).

Anthelephila maindroni : KEJVAL (2002): 244 (rec. India, Sri Lanka); KEJVAL (2010): 190 (rec. India).

Formicomus argutus Krekich-Strassoldo, 1928: 78, Fig. 12 , syn. nov.

Formicomus maindroni argutus: HEBERDEY (1934): 7 (subspecies status).

Type localities. Formicomus maindroni: India, Pondicherry. Formicomus argutus: India, Uttar Pradesh, Faizabad (= Fyzabad).

Type material. Formicomus maindroni (see Remarks). SYNTYPES: 2

4 ♀♀, bearing locality labels: ‘ PONDICHÉRY Aoūt 1901 [or Juin 1901; p] // COROMANDEL M. Maindron [p; yellowish label]’ ( MNHN).

Formicomus argutus. SYNTYPES: 1, ‘Fyzabad, Unit. Prov., India, R. W. G. Hingston. B.M.1923–293. [p; yellow line] // male sex-mark [p] // TYPE [p; red label] // F. argutus Kr. det. v.Krekich [p+h]’ ( BMNH) ; 2, same data ( NHMW).

Additional material. INDIA: 1, ‘Nilgiri Hills’ [no date and collector] ( NHMW). PUDUCHERRY: 1, ‘PONDICHÉRY Juin 1901 [p] // COROMANDEL M. Maindron [p; yellowish label] // coll. Heberdey [p] // Maindroni Pic [h]’ ( NHMW). KARNATAKA: 1 ♀, Bangalore, 1936, P. S. Nathan lgt. ( MNHN) . RAJASTHAN: 9 14 ♀♀, Udaipur, Sajjan Niwas Gardens, 24°34′N 73°41′E, 600 m, 3.–8.vii.2006, Z. Kejval lgt. ( ZKDC) . TAMIL NADU: 1 2 ♀♀, Coimbatore [no date], P. S. Nathan lgt. ( MNHN) ; 1 3 ♀♀, Nedungadu, 1936, P. S. Nathan lgt. ( MNHN) ; 2, Ayur, North Salem, 10. and 29.iii.1930 [no collector; Forest Research Institut, Sandal Insect Survey] ( NHMW) ; 1 1 ♀, Shembaganur, 1904–1905, P. du Breuil lgt. ( BMNH) ; 1 ♀, Vilupparam district, Auroville, Discipline Farm, 12°0.7′N 79°47.97′E, 1.vii.–31. viii.2013 [local collector] ( ZKDC) . SRI LANKA: NORTH CENTRAL PROVINCE: 2, Anuradhapura env., iii.1953, G. Frey lgt. ( ZKDC) ; 1, Hunuwilagama, near Wilpattu, 28.x.–3.xi.1976, G. F. Hevel et al. lgt. ( ZKDC) . SOUTHERN PROVINCE: 8 3 ♀♀, Hambantota env., 26.–30. vi.2003, O. Mehl lgt. ( ZKDC) . UVA PROVINCE: 1, Kataragama env., 1.–3.vii.2003, O. Mehl lgt. ( ZKDC) .

Redescription. Male ( Pondicherry, NHMW). Body length 3.4 mm. Head and pronotum reddish; elytra largely brownish, except for reddish base and vaguely outlined, transverse, yellowish posthumeral spots, narrowly separated medially on suture; legs reddish, antennae reddish, slightly darkened in terminal part.

Head 1.2 times as long as wide, oval, its base clearly differentiated from short neck; tempora distinctly narrowing posteriad, posterior angles absent. Eyes medium sized, rather convex and protruding. Dorsal surface glossy, distinctly punctate and largely corrugated; punctures distinctly separated, at places somewhat concealed by corrugation; slight indication of smooth and impunctate median line posteriorly. Setation short, subdecumbent; few more raised tactile setae. Antennae moderately enlarged in terminal third; antennomere X 1.4 times, XI about twice as long as wide, simple, longitudinally oval.

Pronotum 1.5 times as long as wide, distinctly narrower than head including eyes, somewhat unevenly rounded anteriorly, narrowed and strongly impressed (constricted) postero-laterally in dorsal view; pronotal disc convex, somewhat flattened posteriorly in lateral view (slight indication of posterior bulge). Dorsal surface distinctly, longitudinally corrugated in median strip, with some vague transverse wrinkles before smooth and glossy antebasal area; antero-lateral convex sides rather glossy, minutely and sparsely punctate, impunctate near procoxal cavities; postero-lateral impression finely wrinkled and adjacent basal area rugose dorso-laterally; dorsal median punctation concealed by corrugation. Setation as on head.

Mesoventrite with slight indication of rounded median longitudinal bulge. Metaventrite simple.

Elytra elongate, 1.9 times as long as wide, conjointly rounded apically; humeri distinct; postscutellar impression moderate but distinct. Surface glossy, distinctly punctate; punctation double, setiferous punctures rather widely spaced. Setation evenly developed, sparse, distinctly longer and more raised than on head, decumbent; scattered tactile setae.

Metathoracic wings fully developed.

Fore legs modified ( Fig.1 ); profemora with rather strong, bluntly pointed process, with slight setose fringe along its outer margin and apically; protibiae moderately widened and with small lobule on inner side distally; mesotibiae slightly sinuous; penultimate tarsomere widened/flattened distally, with terminal tarsomere articulated dorsally near base in all tarsi. Meso- and metatibiae with numerous longer setae on inner side; basal mesotarsomere with dense, long, stiff setae on median margin.

Abdominal sternum VII ( Fig. 2 ) rather deeply emarginate posteriorly, with conspicuous median process projecting from its dorsal (inner) side, denticulate on apical margin ( Fig. 3 ). Tergum VII produced and distinctly emarginate apically ( Fig. 4 ). Sternite VIII with simple paired prongs ( Fig. 5 ). Tergite VIII ( Fig. 6 ); paired sclerites narrowly connected medially, with conspicuous, postero-lateral projections. Aedeagus ( Fig. 7 ); apical portion of tegmen nearly as long as basal-piece, elongate and trilobed apically.

Female. Externally identical with male except as follows: legs simple; setation of meso- and metatibiae generally shorter; basal mesotarsomere shortly setose medially; abdominal sternum VII simple, tergum VII simple, subtriangular, rounded apically.

Variation. Body length (♀) 3.4–5 mm. Moderately variable in colouration; elytra brown to brownish-black, including base; posthumeral spots more or less prominent/ contrasting, separated or fused medially. Pronotum in some specimens with indication of median longitudinal impression/groove.

Differential diagnosis. Anthelephila maindroni is nearly identical with A. strigosa , differing only in details of male characters: the profemoral process lacks a conspicuous setose fringe; the protibiae are straight and more robust distally, with the lobule somewhat less prominent; the median process of sternum VII is longer, projecting from near the base of sternum, and is narrower in ventral view, with its apical margin being distinctly denticulate; tergum VII is distinctly emarginate apically; the paired prong of the sternum is somewhat narrower, being nearly straight in lateral view, with a laterobasal bunch of setae and a subapical denticle.

Distribution. India (Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh), Sri Lanka.

Remarks. PIC (1903) described Formicomus maindroni from seven specimens collected by Maurice Maindron in southern India ( Pondicherry) and deposited in the MNHN. Searching through Pic’s collection I found the relevant box of anthicid specimens collected by M. Maindron, including six syntypes of F. maindroni, and made brief notes on its male characters and label data. An additional male specimen from Pondicherry in the NHMW bears the same locality labels, and may represent the seventh syntype or at least a topotype (identification label displays Pic’s handwriting). It was therefore used as the basis for the species redescription.

KREKICH- STRASSOLDO (1928) described Formicomus argutus from an unstated number of specimens collected at the locality Fyzabad, and deposited them in his collection (presently in NHMW) and in the BMNH. It was treated by HEBERDEY (1934) as F. maindroni argutus, differing from the nominotypical subspecies only by the evenly rounded head base and smaller eyes. Having examined types of both taxa, I failed to find any differences in male characters, and F. argutus is thus regarded as a junior synonym of Anthelephila maindroni .

The additional specimens of Anthelephila maindroni from Udaipur were collected by beating foliage at the forest edge in a city garden. They were found to be concentrated on a single tree sustaining a population of scale insects ( KEJVAL 2010).

Figures

Figs 1–7. Anthelephila maindroni (Pic, 1903), male, Pondicherry (NHMW): 1 – front leg; 2 – sternum VII; 3 – median process of sternum VII, laterally; 4 – tergum VII; 5 – prong of sternite VIII; 6 – tergite VIII; 7 – apical portion of tegmen. Scale (0.5 mm): A – Figs 1, 4; B – Fig. 6; C – Figs 2, 3. (0.2 mm): A – Figs 5, 7.

Figs 33–38. 33–36 – habitus: 33 – Anthelephila feminea sp. nov. (holotype); 34 – A. maindroni (Pic, 1903), Pondicherry (NHMW); 35 – A. sahyadrica sp. nov. (holotype); 36 – A. semistrigosa sp. nov. (holotype). 37–38 – antenna of females: 37 – A. feminea sp. nov. (holotype); 38 – A. maindroni, Hambantota (ZKDC). Scale (0.5 mm): Figs 37, 38.

Figs 8–13. Anthelephila nandi sp. nov., male, holotype: 8 – front leg; 9 – sternum VII; 10 – tergum VII; 11 – prong of sternite VIII; 12 – tergite VIII; 13 – apical portion of tegmen. Scale (0.5 mm): A – Fig. 10; B – Fig. 12; C – Fig. 8; D – Figs 9, 13. (0.2 mm): C – Fig. 11.