Adota Casey, 1910
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.156388 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6276767 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038787D8-EF3D-7364-4330-F911713E1946 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Adota Casey, 1910 |
status |
|
( Figs. 152 View FIGURES 1 5 View FIGURES 6 12 View FIGURES 13 18 View FIGURES 19 22 View FIGURES 23 30 View FIGURES 31 34 View FIGURES 35 41 View FIGURES 42 45 View FIGURES 46 51 View FIGURE 52 )
Atheta View in CoL ( Adota Casey, 1910 View in CoL ): 67 (type species: Atheta massettensis Casey, 1910 , by original designation).
Atheta View in CoL ( Panalota Casey, 1910 ): 71 (type species: Atheta setositarsis Casey, 1910 , by original designation).
Adota: Fenyes, 1918: 19 View in CoL (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina Casey, 1910 of tribe Myrmedoniini Thomson, 1867 ).
Panalota: Fenyes, 1918: 19 (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina Casey, 1910 of tribe Myrmedoniini Thomson, 1867 ).
Adota: Fenyes, 1920: 175 View in CoL (as valid genus).
Panalota: Fenyes, 1920: 243 (as valid genus).
Atheta (Adota) View in CoL : Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 659 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Panalota) View in CoL : Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 611 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Panalota) View in CoL : Brundin, 1943: 19 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta View in CoL ( Halostiba Yosii & Sawada, 1976 ): 86 (type species: Ischnopoda ushio Sawada, 1971 , by original designation), syn. nov.
Atheta (Adota) View in CoL : Moore & Legner, 1975: 347 (as valid subgenus).
Atheta (Panalota) View in CoL : Moore & Legner, 1975: 351 (as valid subgenus).
Adota: Seevers, 1978: 113 View in CoL (as synonym of Xenota Mulsant & Rey, 1874 ).
Panalota: Seevers, 1978: 123 (as valid genus).
Adota: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 282 View in CoL (as valid genus).
Panalota: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 282 (as synonym of Adota View in CoL ).
Adota: Ashe View in CoL in Newton, Thayer, Ashe & Chandler, 2000: 368 (as valid genus in subtribe Athetina of tribe Athetini).
Panalota: Ashe in Newton, Thayer, Ashe & Chandler, 2000: 368 (as synonym of Adota ).
Diagnosis. Adota can be distinguished from other athetine genera by the combination of the following characters: body parallelsided, flat, and with dense isodiametric microsculpture; anterior margin of labrum concave; antennal article 2 slightly longer than article 3, articles 810 slightly transverse ( Figs. 1718 View FIGURES 13 18 ); ligula short, with broad base and split apically ( Fig. 10 View FIGURES 6 12 ); labial palpus with setae,, and present ( Fig. 10 View FIGURES 6 12 ); pronotum subquadrate or slightly transverse, 1.11.4 times as wide as long, with microsetae directed anteriorly along the midline; in lateral portions of the disc microsetae directed laterally (Type I, Benick & Lohse 1974) ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 13 18 ); pronotal macrosetae short; pronotal hypomera fully visible in lateral view; medial macroseta of mesotibia weak and inconspicuous, as long as tibial width; tarsal formula 455; metatarsal segment 1 as long as segment 2; tarsal segments ventrally with long setae; one long empodial seta; abdominal terga 36 with transverse basal impression; medial lamellae of internal sac absent; copulatory piece with pointed apex ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 23 30 ); proximal portion of spermatheca with one coil ( Figs. 2930 View FIGURES 23 30 , 51 View FIGURES 46 51 ).
Adota can be distinguished from Atheta by isodiametric microsculpture of the entire body, by the concave anterior margin of the labrum; by basal impression on the tergum 6, and by lacking the medial lamellae of internal sac.
Adota differs from Psammostiba in having antennal article 2 longer than article 3; and tarsi with single empodial seta and equally long claws ( Figs. 16 View FIGURES 13 18 ; 66).
Description. Length 2.23.2 mm, pronotal width 0.430.61 mm. Body parallelsided and flat. Body color brown to black, elytra dark brown to reddish brown, antennae black to brown, legs brown to yellowish brown. Entire body with strong and dense isodiametric microsculpture.
Head as long as wide; eyes large, temple length to eye length ratio 0.81.2; infraorbital carina very short, ends in posterior portion of temples, by far not reaching posterior margin of eye. Antennal article 2 slightly longer than article 3, articles 810 slightly transverse, terminal article without coeloconic sensilla, as long as articles 9 and 10 combined ( Figs. 1718 View FIGURES 13 18 ). Labrum ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1 5 ) transverse, with concave anterior margin. Adoral surface of labrum (epipharynx) as in Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1 5 . Mandibles ( Figs. 35 View FIGURES 1 5 ) broad, right mandible with a small medial tooth; dorsal molar area with velvety patch consisting of very small denticles (invisible at 400x). Maxilla ( Figs. 69 View FIGURES 6 12 ) with galea projecting slightly beyond apex of lacinia; apical lobe of galea covered with numerous fine and short setae; internal margin of galea with long subapical setae ( Figs. 67 View FIGURES 6 12 ); apical 1/3 of lacinia with row of closely spaced spines, middle portion produced medially and covered with numerous setae ( Figs. 6, 89 View FIGURES 6 12 ). Labium as in Figs. 1012 View FIGURES 6 12 ; ligula short, with broad base and split apically; medial area of prementum with 2 pores and with 823 pseudopores, lateral areas each with two asetose pores, single setose pore and 712 pseudopores ( Fig. 10 View FIGURES 6 12 ). Hypopharyngeal lobes as in Fig. 11 View FIGURES 6 12 . Labial palpus with setae,, and present ( Fig. 10 View FIGURES 6 12 ). Mentum ( Fig. 12 View FIGURES 6 12 ) with concave anterior margin.
Pronotum ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 13 18 ) slightly transverse or subquadrate, with microsetae directed anteriorly in midline; in lateral portions of disc microsetae directed laterally (Type I, Benick & Lohse 1974); macrosetae short; hypomera fully visible in lateral view. Meso and metasternum as in Fig. 13 View FIGURES 13 18 , mesosternal process narrow, extending about 3/5 length of mesocoxal cavities, metasternal process short, mesosternum and mesosternal process not carinate medially; relative lengths of mesosternal process: isthmus: metasternal process in ratio of about 3:1:1; mesocoxal cavities margined posteriorly; mesocoxae narrowly separated. Medial macroseta of mesotibia inconspicuous, shorter than tibial width. Tarsal segmentation 455, metatarsal segment 1 as long as segment 2. Tarsal segments ventrally with long setae. One empodial seta, as long as claws ( Fig. 15 View FIGURES 13 18 ). Claws of equal length ( Fig. 16 View FIGURES 13 18 ). Posterior margin of elytra straight. Wings fully developed.
Abdominal terga 36 with moderate basal impressions (impression on tergum 6 weaker). Tergum 7 as long as tergum 6. Punctation on terga 67 only slightly sparser than on terga 35. Tergum 7 with wide white palisade fringe.
Aedeagus with broad apical process ( Figs. 2324 View FIGURES 23 30 , 4647 View FIGURES 46 51 ); medial lamellae of internal sac absent; copulatory piece with pointed apex ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 23 30 ); proximal portion of spermatheca with single coil ( Figs. 2930 View FIGURES 23 30 , 51 View FIGURES 46 51 ).
Type species. Atheta massettensis Casey, 1910 , by original designation.
Discussion. Atheta massettensis Casey, 1910 (the type species of Adota ) and At. setositarsis Casey, 1910 (the type species of Panalota ) are conspecific (see below), and therefore the synonymy of Adota and Panalota established by Lohse and Smetana (1985) is confirmed. Both names had been published simultaneously ( Casey 1910), but Lohse and Smetana (1985), being the first revisers, established the name Adota as valid.
Originally ( Casey, 1910), both Adota and Panalota were introduced as subgenera of Atheta . Fenyes (1918, 1920) was the first to raise the rank of both names to generic level because of the absence of infraorbital carina (the carina is indeed very short). Pending revision of the genus Atheta I prefer to keep Adota as a separate genus, based on the concave anterior margin of the labrum, dense isodiametric microsculpture of the entire body, relatively dense punctation of abdominal terga 67, the presence of the basal impressions on abdominal terga 36, and the absence of median lamellae of internal sac. The dense microsculpture and punctation is probably an adaptation to seashore habitats, as it is displayed by other aleocharines that occur in similar situations (e. g., Pontomalota Casey, 1885 , Tarphiota Casey, 1894 , Oreuryalea Assing & Maruyama, 2002 ).
According to the detailed description and illustrations ( Sawada 1971), Ischnopoda ushio , the type species of the subgenus Halostiba , is similar to Adota maritima in all details of mouthparts, tarsi, dense microsculpture, and in general shape of the aedeagus and spermatheca. Based on this similarity I synonymize Halostiba with Adota . Adota ushio is a littoral species.
Three species described by Casey (1911) in Atheta (Adota) do not possess the diagnostic characters of Adota and, in my opinion, do not belong to that genus. These three species are placed in Atheta pending a revision of the genus: Atheta finita Moore & Legner, 1975 (replacement name for Atheta definita Casey, 1911 , nec 1910), At. pavidula Casey, 1911 and At. irrita Casey, 1911 .
Atheta finita View in CoL , known to me by females only, was described (as Atheta definita Casey, 1911 ) from Santa Rosa and from near Napa Junction, California (two syntypes in Casey collection). I examined an additional female from the Waterton National Park, Alberta (CNCI). Although the specimens of Ad. finita View in CoL have densely punctated abdominal terga 6 7, they differ from Adota View in CoL by small and thin Lshaped spermatheca and concave posterior margin of female tergum 8. Atheta finita View in CoL is clearly not restricted to seashore.
Atheta irrita was described from Nevada ( Casey, 1911) and is not a littoral species.
Atheta pavidula was described from Booneville, California ( Casey, 1911), about 30 km from the coast, and it is not a seashore species.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Adota Casey, 1910
Gusarov, Vladimir I. 2003 |
Adota:
Newton 2000: 368 |
Panalota:
Newton 2000: 368 |
Adota:
Lohse 1985: 282 |
Panalota:
Lohse 1985: 282 |
Adota:
Seevers 1978: 113 |
Panalota:
Seevers 1978: 123 |
Atheta (Adota)
Moore 1975: 347 |
Atheta (Panalota)
Moore 1975: 351 |
Atheta (Panalota)
Brundin 1943: 19 |
Atheta (Adota)
Bernhauer 1926: 659 |
Atheta (Panalota)
Bernhauer 1926: 611 |
Adota:
Fenyes 1920: 175 |
Panalota:
Fenyes 1920: 243 |
Adota:
Fenyes 1918: 19 |
Panalota:
Fenyes 1918: 19 |