Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936

Gnaspini, Pedro & Peck, Stewart B., 2019, Redescription of the ‘ older Adelopsis’ species (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Ptomaphagini) based on the analysis of type specimens, Zootaxa 4696 (1), pp. 1-62 : 13-14

Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936

( Figs. 17–25 )

Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936: 65 [and Figs. 77–78 ]; Gnaspini, 1996: 539 (type seen); Gnaspini and Peck, 2001: 429 (assignment to group ascutellaris); Salgado, 2010: 215 (assignment to group peruviensis). Here returned to group ascutellaris.

Type material examined: Holotype male [a single specimen in original description, assumed as holotype] in MNHN ( Gnaspini , 1996: 541). Labels : “ Venezuela ”. Note: the specimen was previously dissected, and the genital segment was missing. Specimen here illustrated.

Length: 2.5 mm (original description); 2.3 mm (our measurement).

Type locality: “ Venezuela ” .

Short Redescription. Eyes normal, but slightly less than the usual height ( Fig. 21 ). Data on wings not observed [apterous, according to original description (key couplet)]. No posterior projections on male ventrites. Apex of the right lobe of the aedeagus is an upside-down trapezoid with the apical margin curved outward, with a pronounced curve to its left end ( Figs. 18, 20 ). Flagellum shorter (about half the length) than aedeagus, with apex bent at 90º ( Fig. 17 ). Proportion aedeagus/elytron = 0.31. Genital segment missing. Male mesotibia with a sharp curve medially on the internal margin, being slightly bent medially ( Fig. 24 ). Female unknown.

Distribution. Venezuela: known only from “ type locality” (original description; here).

Taxonomic Remarks.

1) See Taxonomic Remarks under Adelopsis ascutellaris , above.

2) Szymczakowski (1975: 14) stated that it is very probable that A. ovalis is a synonym of A. brunnea ; and he proposed to use the latter as the valid name [but the former has page precedence] if this synonymy is proved right. However, this ‘potential synonymy’ has never been used in the literature afterwards. We here presently consider both as valid species, and do not propose a revalidation because we understand that Szymczakowski´s statement is not a valid taxonomic act.

3) This species is tentatively assigned to subgroup, since the genital segment (which is here considered important for subgroup assignment) is unknown.

Figures

FIGURES 17–25. Adelopsis ovalis Jeannel, 1936, holotype male in MNHN, from ‘Venezuela’. 17–20, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, and right lateral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 21, head, lateral view; 22, antenna, dorsal view; 23, protarsus and protibia; 24, mesotibia; 25, metatibia. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 17–20; b for figs. 21–25.

FIGURES 76–88. Adelopsis pteromoria Szymczakowski, 1975 new status, (probable) holotype male. 76–80, aedeagus, left lateral, dorsal, right lateral, and ventral views, and frontal view of aedeagus apex; 81, last ventrite; 82, genital segment; 83, head, lateral view; 84, antenna, dorsal view; 85, meso and metathorax, ventro-lateral view (of left side of specimen); 86, protarsus and protibia; 87, mesotarsus and mesotibia; 88, metatarsus and metatibia. Scale lines = 0.5 mm; a for figs. 76–82; b for figs. 83–88.