Catoclastus chevrolatii Solier, 1851

Mondaca, José & Seidel, Matthias, 2019, Taxonomic review of the genus Catoclastus from Peru (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae (Acta. Ent. Mus. Natl. Pragae) 59 (2), pp. 561-567 : 563-565

Catoclastus chevrolatii Solier, 1851

( Figs 1A–J , 2A–I )

Catoclastus chevrolatii Solier, 1851: 96–97 (original description).

Catoclastus chevrolati: HAROLD (1869) : 1226 (incorrect subsequent spelling).

Catoclastus jaumesi Soula, 2010: 6 (original description), syn. nov.

Type material examined. Catoclastus chevrolatii Solier, 1851 : NEOTYPE: J ( MNHN), labeled: a) ‘chevrolati / Chili Solier’ [white label handwritten]; b) ‘ Neotype 2010 / Catoclastus / chevrolati / Solier Soula det.’ [red label typeset and handwritten];c) ‘MNHN / EC7026’ [white label typeset]. Catoclastus jaumesi Soula, 2010 : HOLOTYPE: J ( CCECL), labeled: a) ‘Matucana; Pérou / 2000m; II/2002 ’ [typeset white label]; b) ‘ Holotype / Catoclastus / jaumesi S. / 2010 Soula’ [red label typeset and handwritten]. ALLOTYPE: ♀ ( CCECL), labeled: a) ‘Matucana; Pérou / 2000m; II/2002 ’ [typeset white label]; b) ‘ Allotype / Catoclastus / jaumesi S. / 2010 Soula’ [red label typeset and handwritten].

Additional material examined. PERU: LORETO (1): Yurimarguas, Río Huallaga, III- 1997, 500 m (1 MSPC). LIMA (8): Atocongo (cerca de Lima), IX-1946 (1 MUSM); Callahuanca, IV-1976, R.García (1 MUSM); Chaute (Cocachacra), 2500 msnm, 15-III-1990, P. Hocking (1 MUSM); Surco, Peru (1 BMNH); Matucana (2 VMDC); Ferrogas Canyon, Lima (2 USNM). AYACUCHO (4): Ocaña, 3200 msnm, 7-II-1969 (1 MUSM), 25-III-1969, P. Hocking (3 MUSM). CUSCO (1): Valle Río Apurimac, XI-2011 (1 MSPC).

Non-examined material. PERU: LA LIBERTAD: Pacasmayo ( OHAUS 1918, 1934, 1952). AYACUCHO: Ocaña, 6-IV-1936 ( OHAUS 1952).

Diagnosis. Body dorsally metallic green, venter coppery green; legs reddish-brown ( Figs 2A–C, F–H ); head subtrapezoidal, with clypeal margins not reflexed; frontoclypeal suture not impressed; mandibles with two large, rounded, reflexed teeth ( Figs 1B , 2A, G ); labium hexagonal to semicircular, concave in anterior half ( Fig. 1G ). Pronotum with marginal bead complete. Elytron with weakly impressed striae, interstriae with strong transverse wrinkles; elytral base with dimple lateral of scutellar shield ( Figs 2A, F ). Humeral and apical umbones with prominent tubercles; sides behind humeral umbone narrowed, with margins projected externally. Claws simple on all legs (not toothed). Parameres symmetrical, fused dorsoventrally, with apex split (frontal view) ( Figs 2D–E, I ).

Comments. Catoclastus chevrolatii exhibit a strong intraspecific variation, represented mainly in the form of the parameres and pronotal sculpture. This variation has caused confusion with respect to the species’ identity. Within related ruteline scarabs, HARDY (1975) considered species to be of ‘variable entities’, and he allowed for intraspecific variation in coloration and even the form of male genitalia in some species of Pelidnota . In contrast, Soula’s species concept did not allow for intraspecific variation of species ( MOORE et al. 2017). In Soula’s works, slight differences in color, punctation, or form of male parameres resulted into new species and subspecies without considering the morphological variations and sexual dimorphism. Furthermore, Soula’s ruteline species were often based on a small number of specimens (generally one or two) and often based on one sex only. New species or subspecies were routinely named from the same population and collecting event (e.g., SOULA 2010).

The case of C. chevrolatii and C. jaumesi is one of many in which Soula indiscriminately described new species and subspecies without considering the natural morphological variation of a taxon, thus generating taxonomic and nomenclature problems that persist until today; these were partly resolved by MOORE & JAMESON (2013) and MOORE et al. (2017).

Natural history. Adults specimens have been collected from 400–3200 m. Collecting circumstances are unknown, but specimens are likely collected at light in forested areas. Temporal data of collected specimens are as follows: February (3), March (5), April (2), September (1), November (1).

Distribution. Peru: Ayacucho, Cusco, La Libertad, Lima and Loreto departments ( Fig. 4 ).

Figures

Fig. 1. Detailed morphology of the genus Catoclastus Solier, 1851. A – labrum, frontal view; B–C – left mandible, dorsal and lateral view; D, F – left and right maxilla, lateral view; E – mentum, ventral view; G–H – aedeagus, lateral and caudal view; I – protarsus of male, lateral view; J – antenna.

Fig. 2. Morphology of Catoclastus Solier, 1851. A–C – neotype of C. chevrolatii Solier, 1851 (dorsal, ventral and lateral habitus); D–E – parameres, lateral and dorsal view; F – holotype of C. jaumesi Soula, 2010 (dorsal habitus); G – allotype of C. jaumesi (dorsal habitus); H – female of C. chevrolatii (dorsal habitus); I – parameres, frontal view; J–L – type specimen labels (neotype, holotype, and allotype labels).

Fig. 4. Morphology of Mecopelidnota rabinovichi (Martínez, 1971). A–B – holotype of Catoclastus rabinovichi (dorsal and lateral habitus). C – male specimen (dorsal view). D – parameres (holotype, frontal view). E – holotype labels.