Craspedophorus ruficrus ( Chaudoir, 1861 ), 2017

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 : 22-23

15. Craspedophorus ruficrus ( Chaudoir, 1861)

( Plate 7 , Fig. 59a, b, Plate 8 , Fig. 67a, Plate 9 , Fig. 67b)

Epicosmus ruficrus Chaudoir 1861: 340 (nec. Laferté-Sénectere 1851) (type locality “Gabon”). Craspedophorus ruficrus Chaudoir 1879: 94 . Alluaud 1930: 2.

Type material. Lectotype (♀) of Craspedophorus ruficrus established by Chaudoir 1861: 342): “♀ [handwritten in black on white upper pinned label]// Ex Musaeo / Chaudoir [printed in red on white second upper pinned label]// Type [printed in black on red lowest pinned label]”/// pinned in the series labelled: “ ruficrus / Laferté / Gabon / Coll. Laferté [handwritten in black on white box label in Chaudoir's Collection]” ( Plate 7 , Fig. 59a, MNHN). Paratypes 1♀: “Biafra [=Guinea Equatorial, Litoral Province]/ Cabo S. Juan / VII-1901 Escalera [printed in black on white label]// Muséum Paris / Coll. Ch. Alluaud [printed in black on blue label]// Cr. ruficrus Laf. [handwritten in black]/ P. Basilewsky det., 19[printed in black]54[handwritten in black on white label]” ( Plate 7 , Fig.59b, MNHN). 1♀: “Gabon français”; 1♀: “Batanga Cameroun [Cameroon, South, Grand Batanga]” (MRAC).

Note. The lectotype of this species was originally established by Chaudoir (1861) for Laferte's insufficiently described species from Guinea (Laferté-Sénectere 1851: 220). But Chaudoir´s lectotype was not collected in Guinea. It is labeled “Gabon” and hitherto no other record of this species is known from Far West Africa. Including Chaudoir's lectotype all records of this species are known from territories near Gabon (Equatorial Guinea). Laferte's taxon remains nomen dubium, Basilewsky´s series of specimens collected in Guinea needs new name and description ( C. ruficroides n. sp.), as well as its new holotype. Chaudoir surely described another new species using Laferte's name. He dedicated it to Gabon and redescribed the species (1861: 340). “This species differs in ferruginous colouration of the mouthparts, palpi, antennae and legs except femora, which are brownish, similarly as [C.] grossus [ Hope, 1842], but differs from it in its distinctly lesser body, its frons more grossly punctured and in its pronotum, which is punctured less densely, with anterior angles less protruded anteriorly and more rounded, lateral margins more angulated and more sinuated posteriorly, in its elytra which are less convex and more glossily with intervals less convex and less punctuated. Later Chaudoir enlarged his description (1879: 94). “Length 17 mm, width 7.75 mm. Head equal as in [C.] grossus ( Hope, 1842) , slightly more punctured. Pronotum longer than in C. tetrastigma , although less longer than wide, weakly resembles that in C. grossus [( Hope, 1842)], but more markedly sinuate at midlength and more narrowing towards base; posterior angles similar to those in C. grossus , base somewhat more excavated; surface not more strongly punctured, punctuation less dense on lateral rims. Elytra similarly shaped and sized as in C. grossus , but less convex, striae equally impressed; intervals similarly convex, but less punctured and more shiny. Antennae also slender; legs fine, somewhat less long. Elytral coloration similar, except elytral fasciae, which yellowish-orange, darker, as in C. tetrastigma ( Chaudoir, 1850) ; humeral macula reaching from V stria [=VI interval] to IX stria, almost as long as wide and prolonged towards humerus; preapical macula, compounds of three macular spots, the intermediate spot markedly longer than two others, internal spot very small; labrum and mandibles red, labrum brownish posteriorly in the middle, mandibles near base; palps, antennae, genae, crura, and tarsi ferruginous, basal antennal articles darker, femora brownish. Venter smooth in the middle of fourth terminal segments, more grossly punctured near margins; epipleura smooth and glossy, crenulation of central segments anteriorly finer, but distinct. I suppose it belongs to the group, described by Mr. de Laferté, deposed in my collection” [from French]. The female specimen collected in Equatorial Guinea (Biafra, Cabo San Juan), deposed in MNHN and labeled by Basilewsky as “ C. ruficrus Laf. ” in 1954 seems to be also conspecific with Chaudoir´s C. ruficrus ( Plate 7 , Fig. 59b). I have found other specimens of this species in Basilewsky´s Collection in MRAC. They were labeled miscellaneously, mostly erroneously as C. glaber Bates, 1886 . At first sight C. ruficrus differs from C. glaber in its larger, more elongated statue and its elytral colouration with reduced humeral macula, twice shorter anteroposteriorly ( Plate 7 , Figs 61, 62). There were other specimens of the same species found in Basilewsky´s Collection, differently labeled as “ C. gabonicus? Thomson ”, i. e. with the name here considered nomen dubium. C. ruficrus distinctly differs from sympatrically living C. ruficroides thomsoni n. ssp. in its elytral colouration, in its size and its body shape. Most similar to C. ruficrus seems to be sympatrically living C. lemariei n. sp. ( Plate 7 , Fig. 58) differing from Chaudoir´s species in distinctly different elytral sculpture ( Plate 9 , Fig. 68b), in C. ruficrus elytra are glabrous as in C. glaber ( Plate 9 , Fig. 61c).

Distribution. South-western Cameroon, Gabon, Guinea Equatorial.

Figures

PLATE 7. Habitus of Craspedophorus strachani group VI (Scale bar: 10 mm). 56. C. phenacoides n. sp., HT (male); 57. C. phenacoides n. sp., PT female, Cameroon, Centre; 58. C. lemariei n. sp., HT (male); 59 a. C. ruficrus (Chaudoir, 1861) HT (female); b. C. ruficrus (Chaudoir, 1861), female, Guinea Equatorial; 60. C. dicranulothorax n. sp., HT (female); 61 a. C. glaber Bates, 1886, male, Cameroon, Southwest; b. C. glaber Bates, 1886, male, Cameroon, Centre (comparative type Basilewsky 1954); 62 a. C. glaber Bates, 1886, HT (female); b. C. glaber Bates, 1886, female, “ Old Calabar ” (labeled as C. lafertei, MNHN); 63. C. lafertei Murray, 1857, lectotype female, established by Basilewsky 1960; 64. C. lafertei Murray, 1857, female, “ W Africa ” (paralectotype established by Chaudoir 1879, MNHN); 65. C. dicranothorax (Alluaud, 1915), HT (male); 66. C. dicranothorax (Alluaud, 1915), female, Central Africa.

PLATE 8. Craspedophorus strachani group, C. ruficrus complex, head and pronotum. 67 a. C. ruficrus (Chaudoir, 1861), female Guinea Equatorial. 68 a. C. lemariei n. sp., HT (male). 69 a. C. dicranulothorax, HT (female). 70. C. phenacoides n. sp., HT (male). 71. C. r. ruficroides n. sp., HT (male).

PLATE 9. Craspedophorus strachani group, C. ruficrus complex. Elytra (left humerus from oblique view): Fig. 61 c. C. glaber Bates, 1886, male, Cameroon; Fig. 67 b. C. ruficrus (Chaudoir, 1861) female Guinea Equatorial. Fig. 68 b. C. lemariei n. sp. HT (male); Fig. 69 b; C. dicranulothorax n. sp., HT (female). Fig. 72. Pronotum in different species of the C. strachani group (design), a-c. C. strachani s. str. subgroup, d, e) C. muata subgroup.