Amphicerus bimaculatus (A.G. Olivier, 1790)

Nardi, Gianluca & Mifsud, David, 2015, The Bostrichidae of the Maltese Islands (Coleoptera), ZooKeys 481, pp. 69-108: 76-77

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.481.8294

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4AB90367-FE56-41C0-8825-16E953E46CEC

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/8D4F4C93-8D94-A04F-8F0B-FE6B21AC0242

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Amphicerus bimaculatus (A.G. Olivier, 1790)
status

 

Taxon classification Animalia Coleoptera Bostrichidae

Amphicerus bimaculatus (A.G. Olivier, 1790) 

Material examined.

Malta: Girgenti, 9.XII.2002, DM, 3 ♂♂ 4 ♀♀ (CMM; CNI); Zabbar, 29.IX.1995, DM, 1 ♀ (CMM); Zejtun, 29.V.1991, DM, 1 ♂ (CMM).

Other material examined.

[Azerbaijan:] Caucase, Elisabetpol [= Ganja], [no date], Babadjanides [leg.], 1 ♂ 1 ♀ (MCSVD).

Chorotype.

Turanic-Mediterranean except for Libya and Egypt, with extension into Portugal, Hungary, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (cf. Borowski 2007, as Amphicerus (Caenophrada) bimaculata  [sic!]). The occurrence of this species in Azerbaijan ( Lesne 1899, 1905, Clermont 1909, Khalilov 1972, in all cases as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Ciampolini et al. 1989) is here confirmed. In fact, the distributional record of this species by Borowski (2007: 321), as "E [= Europe]: AF [= Afghanistan]") is incorrect and should be "E: AB [=Azerbaijan]" (cf. Borowski and Węgrzynowicz 2007, as Amphicerus (Caenophrada) bimaculatus  ). A record from Iraq ( Derwesh 1965, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  ) was later overlooked, while those from Germany (cf. Soro 1964, Zocchi 1971, in both cases as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Ciampolini et al. 1989, Pollini 1998) were never confirmed (cf. Lucht 1987, Köhler and Klausnitzer 1998, Geis 2002, Nardi 2004b, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Borowski 2007, Borowski and Węgrzynowicz 2007). Amphicerus bimaculatus  was intercepted at US ports, but it is not an established species in North America ( Fisher 1950, as Amphicerus (Schistoceros) bimaculatus  , Ivie 2002, Borowski and Węgrzynowicz 2007), while its establishment in Uruguay (cf. Soro 1964, Zocchi 1971, Pollini 1998), was not reported in recent publications ( Borowski 2007, Borowski and Węgrzynowicz 2007, Barriga and Cepeda 2009).

Ecology.

Larval development of this species takes place mainly in dead wood of Vitis  spp. and Tamarix  spp., but other host plants are also recorded including: Acacia  sp., Annona cherimola  , Cerasus  sp., Citrus  sp., Delonix regia  , Ficus carica  , Lycium  sp., Malus communis  , Olea europea  , Prunus amygdalus  , Punica granatum  , Pyrus malus  and Tamarindus indica  (cf. Lesne 1901b, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Fisher 1950, Novak 1952, Caillol 1954, in both cases as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Español 1955, Kocher 1956, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Soro 1964, Zocchi 1971, Halperin and Damoiseau 1980, Lundberg et al. 1987, in both cases as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Moleas 1988, Ciampolini et al. 1989, Ragusa and Russo 1989, fig. 8, as [sic!] Apate monachus  , Pollini 1998, Akşit et al. 2005, Liberto and Audisio 2005, in both cases as Schistoceros bimaculatus  , Bahillo de la Puebla et al. 2007, as Amphicerus (Caenophrada) bimaculata  [sic!], Tezcan 2008, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  ).

Notes. First record for Malta. Amphicerus bimaculatus  is not recorded from the neigbouring Sicilian islands (Tab. 1), but is known from mainland Sicily (cf. Audisio et al. 1995, Sparacio 1997, Nardi 2004b, in all cases as Schistoceros bimaculatus  ) and Tunisia ( Borowski 2007). It is recorded also from two circumsardinian islands ( Piras and Pisano 1972, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  ). Its aedeagus was figured by Iablokoff-Khnzorian (1976: 232, fig. 5, as Schistoceros bimaculatus  ).

The above specimens collected during 2002 are almost entirely black, probably for a post mortem colouration.

The correct grammatical gender for the specific name of this taxon is bimaculatus, since it was described as Bostrichus bimaculatus  from “Provence” (southern France) ( Olivier 1790: 109) and the above mentioned usage of bimaculata ( Bahillo de la Puebla et al. 2007, Borowski 2007) is a subsequent incorrect spelling of this taxon (cf. Borowski 2013: 3).

The nomenclatorial problems for Schistoceros  Lesne, 1899 were discussed by Ivie (2010).