Tentyria sublaevis ssp. sublaevis Kraatz, 1865

Bujalance, José L., Ferrer, Julio & Cárdenas, Ana M., 2023, A taxonomic revision of the genus Tentyria Latreille, 1802 in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Zootaxa 5320 (1), pp. 1-88 : 37-38

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5320.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3528C88E-8802-416D-8C47-1FEE65CEF751
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8211706
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8F6B0B50-FFA8-5E64-F9A3-F9EBD590FA7C
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Tentyria sublaevis ssp. sublaevis Kraatz, 1865
status

Treatment

Tentyria sublaevis ssp. sublaevis Kraatz, 1865 ( Figs. 20 View FIGURES 1–35 , 54 View FIGURES 36–69 , 88 View FIGURES 88–105 , 125 View FIGURES 106–140 , 172 View FIGURES 172–185 , 206 View FIGURES 204–209 , 255 View FIGURES 252–257 )

Tentyria sublaevis Kraatz, 1865: 144 ; Reitter 1900: 171, Fuente 1934: 30, Gebien 1937: 629.

Tentyria laevis Solier sensu Koch 1944a: 229 , Español 1960: 406, Viñolas 1986: 104, Viñolas & Cartagena, 2005: 82, 276 (specimens from Murcia, Alicante and Albacete?), Grimm & Aistleitner 2009:71 (part.).

Tentyria levis Solier sensu L̂bl & Smetana 2008: 206, Martínez 2018: 58.

Types examined: Syntype: sublaevis Kr. / sublaevis mi. Andalus. Frend/ sublaevis Kr. Type det. Schuster / Syntypus / coll. DEI Müncheberg / SDEI Coleoptera # 300632.

This specimen of T. sublaevis Kraatz ( Fig. 255 View FIGURES 252–257 ), catalogued syntype ( Gaedike 1986) cannot been considered as such because Kraatz (1865) only mentioned three syntypes from “Carthagena (Handschuch u. A.)” which hitherto have not been found. However, this specimen, labelled as type, belonging to the Kraatz collection, fits his description ( Kraatz 1865), and does not present substantial differences with respect to the specimens from Cartagena and neighbouring areas.

Additional material: Historical material: One specimen bearing the following labels: handwritten label “ Carthagena ” / sublaevis Kraatz det. Schuster (1♁, NRMS); two specimens with one handwritten old label “ Hispania ” (1♁ and 1♀, NRMS) .

Alicante : Los Arenales del Sol - El Alted, 20.VIII.1996, nov. de Ferrer leg. (1♀, CJdeF in CJLB); Guardamar, 15.V.2000, A.C. Luque leg. (4♁♁ and 5♀♀, CACL); idem, VI.1997, idem (1♁, idem) ; Rojales , 15.VI.2001, idem (2 exx, idem) ; Laguna Bonmati , 13.6.1996, M.C. Cartagena leg. (1 ex, idem) ; Isla de Tabarca , 27.5.2001, A. C. Luque leg. (1 ex, idem); Benidorm , 5.V.1982, J. Ferrer leg. (2♁♁ and 1♀, CJF); Torrevieja , G. Schramm leg., (1♁, NRMS); La Encina – Albacete (Alicante, not Albacete), sublaevis , (1♁, NRMS) . Murcia : VIII.1972, Mª Luisa Mariné leg. (1 ex, CJF); Sª Carrasco, 25.III.1957, Tentyria laevis, Español det., Palau leg. (2 exx, CJF); La Manga del Mar Menor , V.1980 (1 ex, CJF); Águilas, 13.IV.2008, J.C. Martínez leg. (ex, CJCM); idem, 30. X.2010, idem (3♁♁ and 1♀, idem) ; Albanilla , 9.VII.2006, idem (1♁ and 4♀♀, idem) ; Alcantarilla , 26.I.2002, idem (2♁♁ and 3♀♀, idem) ; Casas Nuevas , 6.IV.2011, idem (3♁♁ and 2♀♀, idem) ; Fortuna , 15.VII.2006, idem (1♁ and 2♀♀, idem) ; Garres , 2.III.2001, idem (1♀, idem) ; Jumilla, La Alquería , 20.III.2007, J. C. Martínez leg. (idem); idem, 24.VI.2002, idem (2♀♀, idem) ; Mazarrón , 17. X.2010, idem (3♁♁ and 5♀♀, idem) ; idem, 25.VI.2011, idem (4♀♀, idem) .

Diagnosis: Black body, slight bright, oblong, smooth tegument, slightly convex, weakly punctate ( Fig. 206 View FIGURES 204–209 ); small head ( Fig. 20 View FIGURES 1–35 ), somewhat convex eyes, slightly backward converging temples, sub-rounded epistome, with the sides sinuate, provided with a tooth hardly perceptible, gular groove ( Fig. 54 View FIGURES 36–69 ) consisting in a depression in the middle, and often two lateral notch poorly bounded; moderately convex and slightly transverse pronotum ( Fig. 88 View FIGURES 88–105 ), more in females, finely punctured, the sides curved and commonly narrowed towards the base, obtuse and not well noticeable rear angles, particularly in males; nearly straight base.

The prosternal apophyses ( Fig. 125 View FIGURES 106–140 ) non-exceeding the procoxae and rounded at the end; graceful protibiae and with the inner margin sinuate in males; those of the females hardly different and relatively graceful compared with those the congeners; usually smooth elytra, exceptionally with marks of stria or roughness, variably oval elongated, barely narrowed towards the humeri that are rounded, the base straight and completely margined, almost imperceptible punctures, generally flattened or even somewhat depressed in the suture; smooth abdominal sternites, brighter like the ventral surface of the body, and with the imperceptible punctures, the last sternite truncated at the end; aedeagus ( Fig. 172 View FIGURES 172–185 ) with slightly fusiform parameres, almost as wide and barely longer than the phallobase.

Comments: T. sublaevis Kraatz , described from Cartagena, is a valid species, and not a synonym of T. levis Solier (= T. peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier stat. nov.). Koch (1944a) established this synonymy supported on the identical provenance of the types of both species (see comments of T. peiroleri ssp. incerta Solier ).

Geographical distribution: species described from Cartagena, spread by the Levantine region, known in the coast as in the inland of the provinces of Alicante and Murcia. All existing records since Koch (1944a), referred to “ T. laevis ”, included in the distribution area above indicated, must refer to T. sublaevis . The remaining records should be disregarded until verified, due to the historical confusion with other taxa already argued.