Philonthus neoniger Solodovnikov, 2009

Solodovnikov, Alexey, 2009, Xanthopygoides niger Cameron, 1951 (Xanthopygina) belongs to the genus Philonthus Stephens, 1829 (Philonthina): systematic and nomenclatural changes for the African Staphylinini (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Staphylininae, Staphylinini), ZooKeys 5 (5), pp. 75-80 : 77-80

Philonthus neoniger Solodovnikov , nom. nov.

= Philonthus niger (Cameron, 1948) , comb. nov. for Xanthopygoides niger ( Cameron, 1951) , secondary homonym of Philonthus niger (O. Müller, 1764) ; the latter is a nonvalid senior synonym of Philonthus splendens (Fabricius, 1793) .

Type material examined. Male: Holotype: “[red margined circle]/ Emali Range Sultan Hamud 4900-5900 ft. 3-40/ Heterogaster niger Type Cam. [handwritten label]/ Pres. by Com. Inst. Ent. BM 1952-575 ” ( Natural History Museum in London ).

Redescription. Body dark blackish brown (piceous). Mouthparts, tarsi, two basal segments of antennae paler, variously brownish. Bases of elytra from shoulder to base of scutellum (part mostly hidden under base of pronotum) yellowish. Head and pronotum smooth and glossy, elytra and abdomen dull, with rugose punctation. Body length 12 mm. Habitus as in Fig. 1 .

Head slightly transverse (width to length ratio 1.14), parallel-sided behind eyes, with broadly rounded but still distinct posterior angles. Eyes slightly shorter than temporae which, measured from posterior margin of eye to neck constriction, 1.32 times as long as eye. Surface of head glossy; transverse wavy microsculpture very distinct on frons only, hardly visible elsewhere. Temporae covered by numerous smaller and few large setiferous punctures. Two setiferous punctures on frons between eyes. Antennae (not entirely preserved in the holotype): antennomere I slightly longer than antenno-mere II, antennomeres II and III about the same length; antennomeres IV-VII about as long as wide; antennomeres I-III with setae only, IV-VII (and presumably IV-XI) – with setae and dense pubescence.

Pronotum slightly longer than wide (length to width ratio 1.08) and slightly wider than head (pronotum width to head width ratio 1.08), with very distinct anterior angles and distinct but more rounded posterior angles, widest in the anterior third of its length; pronotal sides slightly converging and feebly sinuate in front and behind the maximal width of pronotum. Surface of pronotum smooth and glossy with hardly visible irregular miscrosculpture and micropunctation. Disk of pronotum with only one puncture in each dorsal “row”.

Scutellum closely, moderately roughly punctate.

Elytra longer and distinctly wider than pronotum, diverging posteriad (elytral width to length ratio 1.05). Their surface closely, strongly and coarsely punctate; interstices very narrow with visible irregular microsculpture. Pubescence of elytra short, close, brownish.

Abdomen very closely, evenly and rather finely punctate, its pubescence as on elytra. Abdominal tergites III-V with two (basal and subbasal) straight carinae; tergites VI-VII only with one (basal) straight carina. Apical margin of tergite VII with whitish seam.

Legs with tibiae pubescent and spinose. Anterior tarsi of male dilated (female unknown), dorsally setose, ventrally with dense cover of whitish adhesive setae. Middle and posterior tarsi simple, as long as middle and posterior tibiae, respectively.

Aedeagus robust, short and wide, with broad blunt apex, with pair of slcerotized lobes of characteristic shape dorso-laterally; paramere deeply divided into two pointed branches which converge apico-medially, each of them apically with irregular group of sensory peg setae on the underside. Internal sac weakly sclerotized, bulb-like when everted ( Figs 3, 4 ).

Female unknown.

Comparison. Among the seven other species belonging to the subgenus Raucalius ( Hromádka 2008) Philonthus neoniger Solodovnikov , nom. nov. is most similar with P. peripateticus Tottenham, 1949 . Both species however can be very easily distinguished by shape of the aedeagi (cf. with Figs 14, 15 in Tottenham (1949), Figs 29-32 in Hromádka (2008), and with Figs 3, 4 here). The aedeagus of P. neoniger is more robust (relatively shorter and wider) than in P. peripateticus . Also the peg setae on the paramere are arranged differently in both species: they are irregularly grouped near the apex of each parameral branch in P. neoniger , but arranged in two longitudinal rows at the apex of each parameral branch in P. peripateticus .

Distribution and bionomics. The species is known only from the holotype, from the type locality in Kenya, Eastern Africa. It was collected at an elevation of 1500-1800 m.

Etymology. The new name is derived from the original name “ Philonthus niger ” by adding the prefix “neo” [new] which refers to its new name. It is an adjective of masculine gender.

Figures

Fig. 1. Philonthus neoniger Solodovnikov, nom. nov. Holotype. Habitus. Scale bar 1 mm.

Figs 2-4. Philonthus neoniger Solodovnikov, nom. nov. Details of structure: 2, prothorax (in vertral view, only left side illustrated, anterior leg removed); 3, aedeagus in dorsal (parameral) view (internal sac evert- ed); 4, aedeagus in lateral view (internal sac everted). Scale bar 1 mm.