Adomerus maculipes ( Mulsant et Rey, 1852 )

Aukema, Berend, Gapon, Dmitry & Heijerman, Theodoor, 2021, To the nomenclature of two species of the genus Adomerus (Heteroptera: Cydnidae), Zootaxa 4969 (2), pp. 392-400 : 393-397

Adomerus maculipes ( Mulsant et Rey, 1852)

( Figs 2 A, B ; 3 A, B ; 4 A , A′, B, B′)

Cydnus maculipes Mulsant & Rey 1852: 78 [syntypes: south of France, lost; neotype: France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Courthézon , designated here].

Canthophorus (Canthophorus) maculipes: Mulsant & Rey, 1866: 65 .

Sehirus maculipes: Horváth, 1899: 83 ; Vidal, 1950: 43.

Sehirus (Tritomegas) maculipes: Stichel, 1961: 676 .

Canthophorus maculipes: Fuente, 1972: 64 .

Sehirus aeneus Walker, 1867: 169 [holotype: Madeira], syn. nov.

Canthophorus aeneus ( Walker, 1867) (= Sehirus fuscipennis non Horváth, 1899): Aukema & Constant, 2016: 42.

Adomerus aeneus ( Walker, 1867) : Gapon, 2018: 222.

Materials examined are mainly listed in Aukema & Constant (2016) and Gapon (2018); some specimens from the first paper were re-identified. Additional materials examined. France: Aveyron, Tayrac, Vallée de Liort, Moulin de Liort, 44.215 N — 2.225 E, 22.VIII.2018, B. Aukema leg. ( BAWN); Var, Toulon, 11.VII.1951, 4 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀, R.H. Cobben leg. ( RMNH). Portugal, Estoril, 28.VII.1957, 1 ♂, R.H. Cobben leg. ( RMNH). Turkey, Kars Prov., Arax valley, 20 km NW of Kaðýzman, 14.VI.1997, M.G. Volkovitsh leg., 1 ♀ ( ZISP).

Distribution ( Fig. 1 ). Algeria, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey ( Aukema & Constant, 2016; Bolívar & Chicote, 1879; Carapezza, 1993; Costa, 1863, 1888; Drosopoulos, 1980; Ferrari, 1888, 1892; Fuente, 1972; Gapon, 2018; Gribodo, 1920; Horváth, 1899, 1907; Josifov, 1986; Lupoli & Dusoulier, 2015; Mancini, 1963; Navás, 1902; Oliveira, 1895; Oshanin, 1906; Protić, 2001, 2003, 2007; Ragusa, 1907; Ramme, 1911; Ramsay, 2019; Reuter, 1881; Ribes & Ribes, 2001; Ribes et al., 2004; Seabra, 1925; Stichel, 1961; Tamanini, 1961, 1981; Vidal, 1950; Wagner, 1951; Walker, 1867; Yazici et al., 2015).

Designation of a neotype. At the time of the Second World War, the type specimens of the species described by Étienne Mulsant were moved from the collection of the L’Institution Sainte-Marie La Grand’Grange de Saint Chamond , Loire to MNHN by Renaud Paulian. He published a list of the species whose types he managed to find in Mulsant’s collection in Saint-Chamond, without explaining the principles by which he distinguished the type specimens (not marked by Mulsant in any way) from non-type ones ( Paulian, 1944). In this list, Canthophorus maculipes is mentioned without specifying the number of syntypes and their sex (it only follows from the text that there were several specimens).

After examining the collection of Mulsant’s type specimens in MNHN, Jerzy Lis found that all these syntypes are absent there ( Lis, 1999); his recent clarifying message is: “in the box of Mulsant’s types there is only a handwritten label with the Latin name of species (same in style and format as those of other Mulsant’s types), but the specimens are absent; only traces of the entomological pins (holes) above the label are present” (pers. comm.). We received a message from Philippe Magnien that these syntypes are still in MNHN. Later, Eric Guilbert found three specimens in the box with Mulsant’s type specimens next to the handwritten label “ Canthophorus maculipes M. R”. Through the efforts of Laurent Bessol, detailed photographs of these specimens in dorsal, ventral, lateral and anterior views were obtained: the female without abdomen, with preserved antennae and partially preserved legs [label “Museum Paris MNHN(EH) 24773”]; the male with only one preserved left femur and three segments of the left antenna [“Museum Paris MNHN(EH) 24774”]; the female with preserved hind legs, right femur and three segments of the right antenna [“Museum Paris MNHN(EH) 24775” and the label “Stal”]. All these specimens marked with the labels “Muséum Paris 1943 coll. E. Mulsant” do not correspond to the original description of Cydnus maculipes , in particular, they have dark brown body colour (vs “ater”), anterolateral margins of the pronotum and lateral margins of the hemelytra without any trace of a light edging (vs “prothorace hemelytrisque margins externo albo”), the tibiae are monochrome reddish brown (vs “tibiis albidis, apice nigris”), the juga being contiguous with the front of clypeus (vs “tête <…> relevée et bifestonnée à sa partie antérieure; ces festons formés par les joues: épistome ou lobe moyen prolongé jusqu’à l’entaille”), and body length 6.80, 7.00 and 5.88 mm (vs 5.60 mm). It is quite obvious that the specimens represented in these photographs belong to some species of the genus Sehirus (reliable identification of the species from these photographs is impossible). Perhaps these specimens are part of the lost syntypes (now paralectotypes) of Sehirus luctuosus Mulsant et Rey, 1866 . Lis (1996) found only one male from these syntypes in MNHN and designated it as a lectotype.

Thus, we have to assume that all syntypes of Cydnus maculipes are lost since they are absent in the collection of MNHN and in Claudius Rey’s collection preserved in the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Lyon (now Musée des Confluences ), according to F. Dusoulier (Ph. Magnien., pers. comm.).

Due to the loss of the type specimens and since the original description of C. maculipes does not allow to match this name with either Sehirus aeneus Walker, 1867 or with Sehirus fuscipennis Horváth, 1899 , the neotype designation is necessary. Insofar as Mulsant & Rey (1852) defined the type locality of C. maculipes as the south of France, the neotype hereby designated is the specimen collected in the west of Provence Alpes-Côte d’Azur, with the following labels: “[green rectangle denoting specimens with inflated aedeagus] // ♂ // Vaucluse: Courthezon / Les Palluds; U.V.; / 20-VI-1989; / J. Coffin leg. // Sehirus fuscipennis Hr ? / maculipes Ms ? / Ph Magnien 93 // Canthophorus maculipes / ( Mulsant & Rey, 1852) / F. Dusoulier det. 2007” ( Fig. 2 B ). The neotype is deposited in the Heteroptera collection of ZISP. Terminalia of the specimen designated here as neotype were depicted by Gapon (2018) ( Fig. 4 B , B′).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Distribution of Adomerus maculipes (Mulsant et Rey, 1852) and A. fuscipennis (Horváth, 1899), stat. resurr. Records of A. maculipes based on the examined material (1) and literature data (2); records of A. fuscipennis based on the examined material (3) and literature data (4); N—neotype of A. maculipes; L, P—lectotype and paralectotypes of A. fuscipennis.

FIGURE 2. Adomerus maculipes (A, B) and A. fuscipennis, stat. resurr. (C), type specimens and labels.A—holotype of Sehirus aeneus Walker, 1867, after Aukema & Constant (2016); B—neotype of Cydnus maculipes Mulsant et Rey 1852; C—lectotype of S. fuscipennis Horváth, 1899.

FIGURE 3. Parameres of Adomerus maculipes (A, B) and A. fuscipennis, stat. resurr. (C, D). A—right paramere in outer view, left paramere in outer-ventral and inner-dorsal views, after Aukema & Constant (2016), Madeira; B—paramere of the neotype of Sehirus maculipes Mulsant et Rey, 1852 designated here, in inner and outer-dorsal views, after Gapon (2018); C— right paramere of lectotype of Sehirus fuscipennis Horváth, 1899, in inner, outer-dorsal and ventral views; D—right paramere in inner and outer-dorsal views, after Gapon (2018), France, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, d’Oisans.

FIGURE 4. Aedeagus of Adomerus maculipes (A–B′) and A. fuscipennis stat. resurr. (C–D′). A, A′, uninflated aedeagus, after Aukema & Constant (2016), Madeira; B, B′, inflated aedeagus of the neotype of Sehirus maculipes Mulsant et Rey, 1852 designated here, after Gapon (2018); C, C′, lectotype of S. fuscipennis Horváth, 1899, uninflated aedeagus; D, D′, inflated aedeagus, after Gapon (2018), France, col de Vars. Dorsal (A, B, C, D) and lateral (A′, B′, C′, D′) views regarding inflated aedeagi. d.l—dorsal lobes of conjunctiva; dl.l—dorsolateral lobes of conjunctiva; vl.l—ventrolateral lobes of conjunctiva; vs—vesica.