Craspedophorus ruficroides ruficroides,

Häckel, Martin, 2017, A contribution to the knowledge of the subfamily Panagaeinae Hope, 1838 from Africa. Part 3. Revision of the Craspedophorus strachani and C. brevicollis groups (Coleoptera: Carabidae), Zootaxa 4330 (1), pp. 1-67: 21-22

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4330.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:Bf4D6091-5346-42Fd-8F64-D8E5Ca407415

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/BD7387D9-FFDA-5118-FF07-FF45FE5AFBD3

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Craspedophorus ruficroides ruficroides
status

n. sp.

14a. Craspedophorus ruficroides ruficroides  n. sp.

( Plate 6View PLATE 6, Figs 44–45, Plate 8View PLATE 8, Fig. 71, Plate 13View PLATE 13, Fig. 106)

Isotarsus ruficrus Laferté-Sénectere, 1851: 221  (type locality “ Guinea ”). Eudema ruficrum Gemminger and Harold 1868: 209  . Craspedophorus ruficrus Alluaud 1930: 2  (nec. Chaudoir). Basilewsky 1963: 383, Lorenz 2005: 321, Häckel and Farkač 2012: 83.

Type locality. “ Nimba ( Guinée)”. 

Type material. Holotype (♂): “Comp. typ. / Basilewsky [printed in black on red circumscribed label]// Camp des / Cyathea  [handwritten in black on white label]// Nimba (Guinée) / Lamotte / 23–28–II –1957 [printed in black on blue label]// Mus. Roy. Afr. Centr. / (don M. Lamotte) / Coll. P. Basilewsky [printed in black on white label]// Crasp. / ruficrus Chaud.  [handwritten in black]/ P. Basilewsky det., 19 [printed on white label]” ( Plate 6View PLATE 6, Fig. 44, Plate 8View PLATE 8, Fig. 71, Plate 13View PLATE 13, Fig. 106, NMPC). Paratypes. 1♂,2♀ same labeled as holotype except: “Nimba, 1000m ”, 1♀ same labeled except: “Nimba, Camp des Cyathea  , 1000 m, 1♂,1♀ same labeled except: “Nimba”, 1 ♀ same labeled except: “Nimba, Yalanzou”, 1♀: same labeled except “Nimba, Kéoulenta” ( Plate 6View PLATE 6, Fig. 45, MRAC, cMH).

Note. Laferté-Sénectere (1851) described C. ruficrus  very briefly, in a manner applicable to the entire species group (“Première division”). Description (in part, see key to species in LaFerté-Sénectere 1851: 220): “Grande taille (de 10 à 28 millimètres). Antennes plus longues que la moitié du corps, atténuées vers ľextrémité; le troisième article plus que du double du deuxième. Les pattes entièrement noires”. Its sections (1851: 220 a-bbb) are devoted to differential diagnosis and the shape of the pronotum, and characterize C. ruficrus  as follows: “(aa) pronotum not convex, margins more-or-less elevated, (bb) transverse, not too annular, with sinuate margins, (cc) without constriction at base (peduncle)” [from French]. As the country of origin is given “ Guinea ” (1851: 221). However, the MNHN lectotype selected by Chaudoir (1861: 340) in my opinion belongs to a species different from that inhabiting Guinea (see discussion). The valid name therefore becomes C. ruficrus ( Chaudoir, 1861)  with the type locality “ Gabon “. Laferté’s name and description cannot be applied to any taxon and must be treated as a nomen dubium (Article 11.5.2 of the Code)]. The Guinea species (although it may comply with Laferté’s vague description) must be redescribed under a new name and holotype designation. I have selected a specimen in Basilewsky’s collection that agrees with both the original Laferté’s description and Basilewsky’s opinion. A suitable candidate for holotype of the new species is Basilewsky’s male specimen from Mt. Nimba (comparated with the type, Basilewsky 1963: 383).

Description of holotype. Length 19.4 mm, width 8.1 mm. Proportions: Pronotum 1.44x wider than long, 2.01x wider than head with eyes, elytra 1.21x wider than pronotum, 1.50x longer than wide.

Colouration. Body throughout piceous black, opaque, densely covered with black setae. Femora black, genae, tarsi, antennae and mandibles brownish. Each elytron with two yellow-red maculae, humeral macula slightly transverse, semicircular, reaching from V to IX interval, overlapping to IV., elytral margin black. Preapical macula quadrate, reaching from V to VIII interval.

Head subquadrate, labrum and mandibles smooth, glossy, terminal labial palpomere prolonged, kidney-shaped (male). Eyes weakly convex. Frons flat, only a small glossy protuberance behind labium weakly elevated. Surface softly, densely punctured without grooves, in front of eyes with two longitudinal depressions, lateral in the form of a deep and wide ridge running from the clypeus to eyes mid-length (supra-antennary ridge), wider than in other species, medial wider, shallow, almost indistinct, running from clypeus base to the anterior margin of eye, softly and densely punctured as the frontal center. Vertex punctured somewhat more sparsely without furrows, occiput and neck punctured as well, without strangulation. Antennae whip-shaped, distally not widening nor flattening, reaching almost up to the half of elytral length. The basal antennomere (scapus) twice longer than the second, the third twice longer than the first, the fourth one only weakly shorter than the first, surface densely covered with short setae, longer setae cumulated at the distal end of the antennomere.

Pronotum not too tranverse 1.44x wider than long, cordiform; anterior margin straight, as long as head with eyes is wide, parallel to base in its middle, straight part as long as neck is wide, laterally changing to anterior angles, weakly rounded and distinctly protruded forward, lateral margins widely curved, narrowing towards base with a distinct sinuosity, maximum width behind mid-length, in front of posterior angles mild incisure, posterior angles rectangular, posteriorly weakly protruded to elytral base. Base straight at the center, at the margins up to one fourth indistinctly angled towards elytral humeri without any peduncle. Pronotal disc convex, separated by a shallow depression from wide lateral rims which are distinct already from the anterior pronotal margin, the rim posteriorly distinctly widening, elevated upwards along the entire length, the greatest elevation in its basal fourth, then the rim flattening, thus posterior angles jutting out weakly upwards, neither backwards nor to the sides, without being keel-like. Disc and basal impressions grossly, densely and regularly punctured, as the frons, elevated lateral pronotal margins distinctly more glabrous than disc, sparsely and softly punctured, almost smooth posteriorly. Dorsal surface covered with long black setae.

Elytra fused, moderately convex, less ovoid, almost parallel-sided, weakly widening to midlength, then narrowing, maximum width in midlength. Disc moderately symmetrically convex with indistinct collar-like basal depression. Humeri distinct, weakly rounded without bevelling, elytral base with distinct rim separating elytral base from striae between scutellum and VI interval, laterally disappearing. Elytra margined with a narrow rim, regularly and softly punctured longwise, without widening. Striae deep, strial punctuation very soft and regular. Intervals convex, densely punctured in four to five lines. Intervals with soft distinct isodiametric microsculpure among punctuation. Elytra sparsely covered with dark setae which are shorter than those covering the pronotum ( Plate 6View PLATE 6, Figs 44, 45).

Underside covered with short setae, finely punctured medially, coarsely punctured near margins; metepisterna rhombic, as long as wide. Legs moderately covered with black setae.

Aedeagus ( Plate 13View PLATE 13, Fig. 106) is similar to that in C. phenax Basilewsky, 1987  and C. congoanus Kolbe, 1883  ( Plate 13View PLATE 13, Figs 108, 109).

Differential diagnosis. The species mostly resembles C. congoanus Kolbe, 1889  in its size, in the shape of its body and its pronotum, differing from it in its elytra, especially in elytral shape and sculpure. In C. ruficroides  n. sp. elytra wider and less widening posteriorly, head punctuated more densely, neck distinctly punctuated (in C. congoanus  neck is smooth), elytral intervals more densely punctuated as well ( in C. ruficroides  punctuation in four to six lines, in C. congoanus  in three to four lines). The species also resembles C. phenax Basilewsky, 1987  , differing from it in the same characters and in the elytral colouration as well.

Etymology. The name refers to Laferte's original taxon with insufficient description ( C. ruficrus  ) here considered nomen dubium.

Distribution. Guinea, Ivory Coast.

MNHN

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Coleoptera

Family

Carabidae

Genus

Craspedophorus

Loc

Craspedophorus ruficroides ruficroides

Häckel, Martin 2017
2017
Loc

Isotarsus ruficrus Laferté-Sénectere, 1851: 221

Hackel 2012: 83
Lorenz 2005: 321
Basilewsky 1963: 383
Alluaud 1930: 2
Gemminger 1868: 209
1963